In the wake of recent developments, including the legalization of gay marriage in the District of Columbia, and the recent announcement by the Maryland Attorney General to the effect that the State of Maryland (like the State of New York) will recognize gay marriages performed in other jurisdictions where such marriages may be solemnized, the Catholic Church has utterly disgraced itself, behaving with such gross contempt for the very principles to which it claims to aspire as to lead any disinterested observer to conclude that this Church is motivated by the ugliest of anti-gay bigotry, on a scale which is difficult to comprehend.

The expulsion of a four-year old toddler from a Catholic preschool by the Denver Archdiocese merely because the toddler has two same-sex parents (two gay mothers) represents an utterly disgusting act of discrimination, punishing a small child for no reason other than the fact that the child is being raised by two members of the same sex. Beside targeting a completely innocent party (the little boy concerned), this act represents a slap across the face of the gay and lesbian community as a whole – a clear indication to the gay and lesbian community that its members are unwelcome in the eyes of this church, which continues to preach (in its Encyclicals) that homosexuality is “objectively disordered” and that gay persons suffer from a deeply-seated pathology. The writer of this column points out the following statement, located on the web site of the Denver Archdiocese: ““We will continue to anticipate and stimulate support for our services, provide those services, and seek to influence the political, social and cultural environments in which we serve.”” Really? Since when does any church have the right to meddle in affairs of state in a nation premised on the principles enunciated in the First Amendment to the US Constitution, which erects a barrier, or wall of separation, between Church and State?

But this act of naked cruelty pales in comparison to the behaviour of Catholic Charities, in the District of Columbia. Following passage of the gay marriage statute in the District, Catholic Charities announced that it would no longer commit to helping foster children find permanent, adoptive homes – merely because Catholic Charities would have to abide by the requirements of the law, which prohibits child foster placement agencies from discriminating against married gay couples (who must be treated similarly to married heterosexual couples). Rather than comply with the law by placing needy children with married gay foster parents on the same terms as were extended to the placement of needy children with married heterosexual foster parents, the Church decided to abandon its foster placement services entirely. Fortunately, a Baptist-run organization stepped in, seamlessly taking over the placement of children in foster care homes – and proving, in the process, that it is entirely possible for Church and State to co-exist without the former meddling in affairs of the latter (or vice versa).

Now we learn that Catholic Charities has modified its benefit policies so that it no longer offers health insurance benefits to the spouses of any of its married employees, regardless of whether they are in gay marriages or in heterosexual marriages – in response to passage of the gay marriage law, which prohibits agencies which do business with the District from discriminating against gay employees. In other words, in its efforts to prevent itself from having to grant health insurance coverage to the spouses of any of its gay employees, Catholic Charities no longer offers health insurance coverage to the spouses of any of its employees. In its determination to discriminate against gay persons, Catholic Charities has taken the absurd and disgusting step of eliminating health insurance coverage to the spouses of all of its employees.

Of course, it is the prerogative of the Church to refuse to marry gay persons, and nobody is demanding that this Church do so – just as this Church has the right to refuse to marry persons who have been previously divorced and remarried. However, the hypocrisy and selectivity of the Church’s adherence to its theological principles becomes clear when one considers the fact that this Church has never refused to offer health insurance coverage to the spouses of those employees who have previously been divorced and remarried, nor has the Church ever before felt the need to eliminate health insurance coverage to the spouses of all employees so as to avoid extending such coverage to the spouses of employees who have previously been divorced and remarried. Only when it became clear that the Church would have to grant health insurance coverage to the spouses of gay employees (or to rob all employees of spousal health insurance benefits) did the Church act, and act so recklessly and with such brazen cruelty.

If ever proof were needed that the Catholic Church is motivated by anti-gay bigotry of the crudest nature, these acts have demonstrated the totality of this Church’s commitment to such homophobic behaviour and such ugliness.

PHILIP CHANDLER