It may not have seen the light in a religious sense, but an appeals council did the right thing in finding that 21 elderly nuns deserved their full Social Security benefits after finding themselves in a bureaucratic limbo.
Before last Thursday's surprise ruling, the Social Security Administration seemed to have come up with its own version of the Beatitudes: Blessed are the poor, but they shall not have their full benefits in our bureaucratic kingdom.
The folly of the official position was at embarrassing odds with the professed attitude of the Bush administration, which has professed support for faith-based charities. The wonder is that it took so long to bring the administration's words into line with actual Social Security practice.
The nuns, 18 of whom live at Marian Hall Home in Bellevue, are members of the School Sisters of the Third Order of St. Francis. They bought into the Social Security System in 1972, so that they would be provided for in their old age. They were being denied full payments under Social Security's Supplemental Security Income Program -- a cut that amounted to $211.66 each per month.
The rule was formulated in 1978, although the nuns' benefits were not cut until 1995. The Social Security Administration took the position that, being members of a religious community under a vow of poverty, their order had to provide for their support.
There were several problems with the official position. It was unfair to penalize the nuns with a rule formulated after they joined the system, and it smacked of discrimination that their problem was rooted in the fact of their vocations.
Moreover, Marian Hall, a personal care home nominally under the umbrella of the order, actually operates independently and is not exclusively for nuns, who must pay like other residents (hence the importance of the Social Security checks). Finally, in any commonsensical understanding, the nuns' vow of poverty was not violated by receiving the checks, which are hardly a ticket to a life of luxury and ease.
The frustrating thing for the sisters' cause was that an administrative law judge twice agreed. The Appeals Council in Falls Church, Va., decided to oppose Judge David Hatfield's first decision, and then it was found that the audio recording of the hearing was lost. The hearing had to be reheld and Judge Hatfield again decided for the sisters.
Administrative Appeals Judge Peter Dowd wrote a preliminary letter indicating that the Appeals Council would not accept Judge Hatfield's recommendation. As the months dragged on, the nuns could not bring suit against the Social Security Administration until the council issued a final ruling.
Now sanity has prevailed and the nuns will not have benefits cut. While the Appeals Council did not accept Judge's Hatfield's decision in principle, it accepted it in practice -- although it remains to be seen whether the nuns get reimbursed for what they were denied. Rep. Mike Doyle, D-Swissvale, was credited with an assist, but earlier support for the nuns had come from Rep. Bill Coyne, D-Oakland, and Republican Sen. Arlen Specter.
Because some of the nuns are very old and frail, the bureaucracy must move quickly to implement the decision, which makes winners of both church and state.
E-mail this story 
