Letter from Catholic Charities president and CEO to staff
Monday, March 1, 2010; 6:44 PM

Dear Staff,

I am writing to you to inform you of an important change to our group health care benefit plan that will take effect on March 2, 2010 due to a change in the law of the District of Columbia. It is important to note that the existing health coverage of current employees will not be affected by the change. New employees and current employees requesting revisions in benefit coverage will be affected by this change.

Catholic Charities will continue to honor the health plan coverage that current employees have as of March 1, 2010. As of March 2, a new plan will be in effect that will cover new employees and requests for benefit changes by current employees. The new plan will provide the same level of coverage for employees and their dependents that you now have, with one exception: spouses not in the plan as of March 1 will not be eligible for coverage in the future. If your spouse currently has coverage in our Plan, he/she may continue to be covered by the health benefit plan, even if you later add a dependent or decide to change your option level (e.g., change from low option to high option).

We sincerely regret that we have to make this change, but it is necessary to allow Catholic Charities to continue to provide essential services to the clients we serve in partnership with the District of Columbia while remaining consistent with the tenets of our religious faith.

A summary of the Plan modification has been mailed to you at your home address. If you have any questions on this matter, please e-mail your Human Resources manager or, if you do not have access to email, call. Please remember, this change does not impact your current coverage in any way.

Thank you for your understanding in this matter, and let me again express my appreciation for your support and patience over these past months as we have worked hard to arrive at a decision that allows us to continue to serve others in a manner that is consistent with our religious beliefs.

Edward J. Orzechowski

President & CEO

Oh, how absolutely spiteful. To call this childish and petulant would be an insult to both children and the petulant. This is evil..

... And illogical. If they really do "love the sinner and hate the sin," then they can insure "the sinner" without prejudicing their beliefs. This would be loving to "the sinner." To exclude "the sinner" from health cover is a hateful action. Would Catholic charities refuse shelter to a prostitute or food to a homeless drug addict? Of course, they would not. So are they saying that being gay is an unforgivable sin far greater than selling your body or injecting heroin? Of course, they are. As I said, this is evil, petulant and spiteful.



  1. truly evil. By the way, the word verification for this comment is “perpola”. I find it amusing. Who are the real perps?

    I used to know a young man whose surname was Orzechowski. He sang at my wedding. He was an opera singer. And he was gay. I wonder if he’s related to Edward J., President and CEO. To protect the singer, in case he’s still around, I’m making this anonymous. Clearly Edward J. Orzechowski needs no protection.

  2. As I wrote elsewhere, they must be getting bored. They’ve already abandoned the orphans in DC. That must not give them enough kicks any longer. Now they’re refusing to heal the sick.

  3. What’s the name of this new tv series where panelists have no access to tv, radio, newspapers etc for a week and then go on a show where they have to decide which news items are true and which are so outlandish they are obviously made up?

    This piece has to be this week’s number one entrant – only I’m sure everyone will believe it’s a spoof.

  4. This is also another way to foment anti-gay hatred among straights. Imagine being told “We used to be able to offer your (opposite-sex) spouse health benefits, but the gays forced us to stop.”

    I’m still waiting for them to explain why they can offer health benefits to spouses of second or subsequent marriages, but not same-sex ones…

    Evil is the only word for this.

  5. Doxy
    I wonder whether this won’t backfire. The fact that Catholic agencies have dropped out of the adoption sector has not made them many friends, and this is likely to show their pure prejudice-dressed-up-as-theology up for what it is to many many more people, especially the quietly undecided ones who normally just don’t think much about the subject.

    I hope this letter gets spread far and wide and really impinges on the public radar.

  6. At least the prez let people know before the day their coverage would change. And by ‘before’ I mean ‘at seven the night before’. Is it me, or does that take the cake? Not only are they being slighted, but they haven’t been given the opportunity to seek help elsewhere either.

    And people wonder why I hesitate to identify as Christian.

    wv: shistotr…Reminds me how full of shite the system is.

  7. NO, I think Doxy is right, this is because of Those Selfish Gays.

    MP, is there a link for this letter?

  8. Let me get this straight, they are refusing to cover straight spouses so that they can avoid covering gay spouses. That means that if someone marries whose new spouse no other access to insurance, they have decided to let that person die for their principals.

    These people are confused. They think they are Anglicans! Now their straight spouses get to be in the “crucified place.”



  9. Mark my words, the widows are next on the hit list. The powers will find a way, now that they’ve picked off the orphans, the sick, the lame, and the blind.

  10. Oh, you’re all being too harsh! Certainly this is consistent with the parable of Prodigal Son, in which the father tells the errant son, “When you get your shit together, then we’ll talk about who’s getting healthcare.”

    Or something like that.

  11. There are two ways of dealing with these folks.

    (1) The Christ-like way: This would be like where Jesus sits down with them and says something similar to what he told the rich young man: “Go, sell all that you have and give it to the poor, and come follow me.” Of course the rich young man went away sorrowful, but at least he took responsibility for his own actions. Which is more than we can say for “Catholic” “Charities” in the D.C.

    (2) The Petrine way (yes, that drip-drip-drip sound is irony): Grab a sword and cut off his ear.

    Jesus responded to (2) by saying “Stop that!” and healing the damage. But the rest of us still snickered. Which means we are more like Peter than like Jesus. But I guess we knew that.

  12. Weren’t there some pigs in that story, KJ? I like pigs. Intelligent creatures and very tasty. Although never on a barbecue, of course.

  13. Mmmm….BBQ…HEY..That almost distracted me.

    I guess, if I were working at Catholic Charities, or considering working there for the paltry pay they are dishing out, and I couldn’t cover my spouse, I’d say “Fuck it” I’m not working here. Take your job, and shove it up your santimonious, log in yer own eye arse….

  14. Its only all the more reason why healthcare should not be so intimately connected with employment or employers.

    The yanks seem to have missed a recent oportunity to make this sort of thing a thing of the past. Imagine that! A place where your health no longer depends on your boss.

    You can get some bad boss you know. The Catholic Church is now a prime example.

  15. Of course, MIke. Notice that it is effective today.

    Hope that everyone got their wives and hubbies (divorced or not) signed up by today before EEEvvvvvEEEEEELLLLL homos arrive demanding health care.

  16. I guess they need the funds they have to continue to pay taxes(if it’s closed it’s fair game) on all the empty RC churches and properties rotting away in cities like Detroit, Baltimore, St.Louis, DC, New York, name the city and I’m sure there are at least 5 empty and rotting churches belonging to the RC’s.

  17. Isn’t there an Equal Protection lawsuit there? [That 2 March spouses aren’t equally protected the way that 1 March spouses are? (Natch, the plaintiffs in said case will be an opposite-sex couple)

    I’m finding more and more reasons to refer to the “Roman Church” (soon to be “The Roman Assembly of Human Sacrifice”)

    {{{Fran and other faithful RCs}}}

  18. JCF, I’ve been wondering what the legal strategy will be on this. It’s safe to assume Catholic Charities received expert advice on this move, but I suspect it can be undone. Perhaps they even have set themselves up to be forced into equal coverage (da devil made me do it!)

    Meanwhile, it’s pretty interesting to think about the Catholic heterosexual employee about to marry, who then starts a family – and then can’t get insurance for the children.

  19. The Catholic Charities’ policy change was announced on March 1. Wasn’t the Supreme Court’s decision announced on March 2? Who snitched?

    Proper notice of the change was not given to Catholic Charities employees. What about the heterosexual couple with one spouse recently or about to be laid off and the other planning to add the “recently made redundant” to the policy? The “newly downsized” is out of luck.

    And what about current GLBT employees? Are they to be denied coverage as of March 1, so as not to be out of keeping with the Church’s teaching? And, as someone mentioned in a previous post, what about the divorced and/or remarried outside the Church? Will there be an investigation into marital histories and medical records?

    Prejudice is what this is about, but also greed. There’s no justice here.