The Bishops oppose Catholic Universities offering extended benefits to same sex spouses of their employees

21 of 28 Jesuits Universities are already giving same sex partners benefits to their spouses.
see Link below

Very tough questions, there.

I suppose the problem could be approached from a number of ways. For example, imagine a society where health care is generally bought and purchased on the private market. Most people pick their own plans independent from their employer and so forth.

Would it be a moral good in that society for gays and lesbians to be excluded from access to such insurance? Even in a perfectly Christian society, I imagine not: affordable medical treatment is a right for each person, regardless of their own personal failings.

So perhaps it is a simple moral question of providing for the needs of employees and their partners.

On the other hand, we have the very obvious problem that this move could be understood as supporting or legitimizing non-marital sexual relations. Obviously that’s not something we as Catholics should generally support.

So, sticky situation. All in all, I’m on the side of the Jesuits on this one, but I can probably be convinced otherwise.

Your analogy is faulty. Even in a market where most people get their insurance through an employer, no one is saying that homosexuals or people in same-sex partnerships should be excluded from insurance. But employees cannot just add any additional person they want to their policies. Family members, including spouses, are generally the only ones who can be added. It is not wrong for a Catholic institution to be consistent in saying that a same-sex partner is not equivalent to a spouse when it comes to insurance in the same way that the institution makes the same statement in all other contexts.

The situation is not sticky at all.

Suppose an adult child of a Catholic employee of the University routinely engages in premarital sex in the bedroom of the employee’s home.

Should the child be covered by insurance by the Catholic university?

What’s an “adult child”?

Someone’s child over the age of 18…? :shrug:

Actually, actuarially, the situation is exactly equivalent. For health insurance purposes, it is always favorable to provide a beneficial situation for couples willing to formalize their relationship into a permanent relationship. It leads to higher health, and thus lower health costs, over time. As far as insurance is concerned, it is irrelevant whether these commitments to one another are defined as marriages or “caretaker partnerships” or any other random name, and it is also irrelevant whether or not children are involved. The actuarial benefit is obvious. It’s unfortunate we’ve oversexualized caretaking in society and called it “marriage,” but that wasn’t the fault of any gay or lesbian. That happened with the Protestant Reformation.

Ok, now why would said adult still be carried under their parent’s insurance plan instead of their own plan?

Insurance providers must provide coverage for children until they reach the age of, I think, 26?

I’m sorry - is this related to the OP? I don’t want to deviate from the main point of the thread.

Sure, but not the person the adult child is having sex with. :smiley:

This isn’t about punishing sin but in being consistent about not recognizing the legitimacy of certain relationships. An employee’s same sex partner does not have a legitimate familial relationship to the employee not matter what type of behavior they engage or do not engage in. The employee’s child DOES have a legitimate familial relationship to the employee, regardless of what kind of behavior he/she engages in.

Um, you’re the one who brought up adult children. I’m just trying to figure out why?

Yeah, I guess that’s a fair distinction. Are you so sure regarding the status of their relationship? You don’t think it’s possible for two homosexuals to cohabitate and love each other in friendship, but without sexual intercourse? I guess that’s a broader moral question.

Sure they do. They may not have an unbreakable spiritual bond to each other, and their relationship may not be equivalent with regards to children, but no one has ever stated that their commitment to each other is unequivalent to that of a heterosexual married couple. They are just as committed and should thus be provided with the same medical coverage. If one is willing to dedicate themselves for life to the caretaking of another, there should be an actuarial insurance benefit for that. There is no need to consider whether their marriage is valid or not in doing so, nor does providing health insurance claim their marriage is valid. It merely recognizes the commitment inherent in their vows, a commitment much higher than that of a friend or coworker.

I think Corgi addressed the point rather well, see his response.

That’s pretty debatable and I think we can have legitimate differences of opinion on this. I’m not sure coverage or non-coverage in this instance is a moral question per se (obviously the sex is but that’s a different issue).

The Church does not make moral determinations like, “Insurance companies must cover people’s kids under their policies until they’re 26.” Rather the Church makes moral determinations like, “It is a moral obligation to work towards health care for people.” my words

So, really, I don’t think excluding such people from coverage under their parents is a moral issue at all.

Well, you’re definitely on point, here. I think Corgi’s argument was similar.

Still, I feel some discomfort with the idea of denying someone access to a benefit due to their status. What’s the difference between denying a homosexual health insurance and denying him or her health care at all? One is certainly more directly aiding the physical needs of the other, but given the fact that 99.99% of Americans (we are talking about the US, here) require one to obtain the other, how much water can any argument carry if it tries to utterly split the two?

I’m somewhat uncertain.

Heck, why stick to just two? If 2 is fine, three or 10 seems finer. And indeed, polygamy has deep historical roots and lots more human culture backing it than the ludicrous nonsense of “gay marriage”.

I am continually flabbergasted at the absurdity of establishing homosexuals as a “class” with special needs/rights. And how folks who consider themselves Catholics bow to calls to “cherish them”…by Catholic leaders to-boot!



Why not, say, demand special “cherishing” toward those involved in active bestial relationships?


That’s probably next…

Why should society give welfare to these drones? If they want to play house that is their business. Only suckers would pay for them to do it.


Sure, but that doesn’t make them spouses. I could move in with my best friend, who happens to be a homosexual male (I am female), and cohabitate in a deep loving friendship. But he still wouldn’t be my husband.

Again, it’s not about whether the relationship is sinful. It’s about whether the relationship is a legitimate familial one.

Maybe. I don’t know that insurance needs to be inherently connected to “legitimate familial” relationships. The social unit made up of two gay people or two close friends we might call “partners,” who depend and rely on one another for ordering the majority of their life affairs, might benefit from sharing insurance.

It’s a stretch, but, I don’t know. It’s also just health insurance.

:blush: Also i’ve been referring to you as “Corgi,” instead of “Corki,” in this thread. Mea culpa!

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit