Posted on 06/15/2015 3:38:32 AM PDT by markomalley
Today's Washington Post has an article entitled: "Company declines to provide a DJ for a gay man's party." In this (and I will have more on this in another posting, as I have seen his whining, hypocritical email), talks about a birthday party hosted by a gay couple for another gay man, and how the DJ company said that they would not handle the event. Note that the birthday boy, was the "former partner" of the of the person mentioned below.)
In the article, it stated that the party is to be held at the local Knights of Columbus hall. It seems that the only KofC hall, in the area where the gay couple lives, is the Fr. Rosensteel Council.
Now, we would not have known any of this, had it not been that Tom Tsakounis (46) of Silver Spring, had not talked about this with The Washington Post.
So: Is Fr. Rosensteel Council hosting a birthday party for a gay person, sponsored by a gay couple?
They probably did not know about it, when it was booked, but now that they know, what is their answer?
I certainly hope that Fr Rosensteel Council does the right thing...but this is Maryland, so I don't know 100%.
I doubt the council is “hosting” the party. Renting out a building is not the same as hosting. Also, on the application to use the building you can bet there is not a question asking if the requesters etc are queer. Who cares if they use the building. This is the Wapo trying to stir up a controversy to make the KCs the evil party. I personally of tired of all the racebaiting and gaybaiting day after day, endless.
It’s one thing to provide merchandise and goods to an event over the counter, and not attending an event.
It is something else entirely when your attendance is required.
Consider that a DJ was hired to do a pedophile orgy with numerous children in attendance. If it were busted by the cops wouldn’t he go along to jail with the rest of them?
We still have the right of freedom of association.
It’s a birthday party, marriage is a sacrament
Big difference
So it would be OK if the council rented out their hall for a lesbian wedding...or wedding reception?
A birthday party is not celebrating a religious sacrament and there are no religious arguments for denying a birthday celebration to people who may be members of the parish and attending Mass faithfully
Homosexuals may be denied marriage but they are welcome to the other sacraments and certainly to birthday parties- which are secular parties
Unless the council can magically predetermine the nature of an event I cant see how they can turn down an applicant if the hall is available. Catholics would not recognize a lesbian marriage as being legitimate so it really would not be a marriage by definition. If requesters said they were going to hold a dogfight in the hall, then that application can be turned down. It has to be an illegal activity.
You will note that I included a reception on the list. A wedding reception is, the last time I checked the catechism, is not a sacrament, but a secular party.
Is there a reasonable likelihood of unacceptable behavior happening at that birthday party? Not being in the habit of attending "gay birthday parties", I wouldn't know first hand, but I'd suspect a bunch of homosexuals along with alcohol might be an awful temptation.
Homosexuals may be denied marriage but they are welcome to the other sacraments
Really?
Are those in a state of mortal sin welcome to receive Holy Communion?
Are those without true contrition and without a firm resolve to amend their lives allowed to receive absolution?
Everybody was born on a day. Many celebrate the day. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with a birthday party. Sinners, habitual sinners, have birthday parties. Still, the problem is not in the party as such, but in the sinner.
If we will not rent to sinners, to whom shall we rent? Our Lord and our Lady already have space to celebrate.
However, if it is known that grossly wrong and scandalous acts are planned for a birthday celebration, the moral problem is different.
A same sex wedding, on the other hand, is intrinsically wrong. As silverleaf suggests, it is a profanation of a sacrament, at least, certainly, when attempted by people who hold marriage to be a sacrament.
Further, it is as much an absurdity as trying to draw a circle with straight sides, or to weave without a weft. We already know the meaninglessness of the attempt.
So to rent a space for an act which is intrinsically wrong, however legal it may be, is a different act. The latter is supporting an act which is intrinsically unjust. The former is supporting an act which is intrinsically innocent.
So, IMHO, to rent to gays for a birthday party is licit. To rent to gays for a wedding celebration is not.
FWIW, I know a confessor who will grant absolution to a penitent who admits to very weak remorse and contrition but says he desires true remorse and contrition.
I vaguely remember this becoming an issue the last time I was GK, a few years ago. Knights of Columbus halls are usually owned by for-profit corporations that are controlled by their respective councils. The operation of the for-profit corporation is supposed to be kept strictly separate from the operations of the council. This is to preserve the charitable role of the council.
What this means is that the for-profit corporation must be run as a business, and obey all relevant laws, including, in the state of Maryland, any anti-discriminniation laws.
We were told by the State Deputy that this is a fight we cannot win.
If a council wishes to close its facilities to certain groups or sorts of people, it must close its facilities to the public generally, and be made available only to council members and their families. Of course, then the council’s home corporation must forgo rental income, which is usually vital to make keeping a council home viable.
The alternative is councils without halls. Most councils don’t have halls. But most districts include at least one council that has a hall, and that can serve the needs of the district. Thus, eliminating council homes is only a partial solution.
That is actually the most reasonable answer I've heard to date. Thank you.
So since they are for-profit corporations and not part of the Church-aligned nonprofit, they have no rationale for violating public accommodation laws.
Consequently, there is no way for them to not accommodate a lesbian wedding. There is also no way for them to avoid renting the hall to a group of Wiccans wishing to rent the hall for a coven meeting.
Honestly, I understand now better for your post. Thank you. But I would wonder why any council would want to deal with that? Particularly considering that it is known as a "Knights of Columbus Hall" ... not a "Public Hall owned by a corporation owned by the Knights of Columbus."
Sort of sounds like the story of the publishing company Weltbild (owned by the German Bishops)
Just scandal waiting to happen...
“We still have the right of freedom of association”
No we don’t.
It's vexatious. When this first became an issue, I was pretty much ready to wield pitchforks, and tar and feathers. Not sure who I wanted to tar and feather, but I was pretty certain I wanted to tar and feather SOMEONE.
Councils like having their own facilities. Supreme has always encouraged councils to have council homes. Not only do the councils themselves use the facilities, but neighboring councils use them, the parish[es] sponsoring them often use them, and other local civic organizations often use them, organizations in whiwh Knights are often involved as indiviuals. These councils and their facilities grew during a different time, when there was much more social consensus, when there was much more of a feeling and sense of shared community.
The relationships were symbiotic. Maintaining a council home is very expensive. Few councils use all their facilities 24/7 for KofC purposes. If the Boy Scouts use a room twice a month, and kick in a few dollars to defray costs, that's to the good. If parishioners have a nice place to hold their wedding receptions, funeral repasts, other celebrations, that's all to the better. If folks who belong to neighboring congregations kick in a little rent money, and enjoy the hospitality of a Catholic fraternal organization, how is that not a good thing?
But this all developed during an era when there was social consensus about basic morality, and even when that morality wasn't enforced by law, at least the law did not force us to violate it.
I think the Knights will need to think long and hard about the future, about the legitimate scope of our activities and our ability to participate in, and cooperate with civil society. When I look, there don't appear to be any obvious answers, other than to change the culture and thus remake the social consensus generally.
I am a Fourth Degree Knight. The charm of our degree is Patriotism. Fourth Degree Knights take as a solemn duty the protection of the Church and the State. Our Order was established when there was little conflict between Church and State. There are those who desire to sow discord between them. We must make every effort to resist that growing conflict. But we are pledged to operate within the bounds of law, to the degree that our consience will enable us.
sitetest
>>>But this all developed during an era when there was social consensus about basic morality, and even when that morality wasn’t enforced by law, at least the law did not force us to violate it.
Exactly the point. We are being forced, more and more, to choose whether we will be faithful Catholics or whether we will exist in society. More and more those choices are becoming mutually exclusive.
I think there is a difference between renting a hall and hosting a party.
“I think there is a difference between renting a hall and hosting a party.”
To be entirely accurate, usually when one rents a Knights of Columbus hall for an event, catering services appropriate to the event are packaged with it. The catering is often the primary source of profit for the home corporation. I don't remember whether this is how Rosensteel does it, but I'm aware that other councils usually do.
Does that change the equation?
sitetest
I'm not sure how the Club officers would rule on this issue. Maybe they'd better start thinking about it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.