P
Palm_Tree
Guest
The sky is falling for you.
- Status
P
Palm_Tree
Guest
Well, then you’re good under US law. Under US federal law (which we all most follow), it always okay for religious organizations to refuse to hire or to fire somebody because of their religion (only religious organizations get to do this, we are special). If their religion is not Catholic, if they are Muslims or Jews or Buddhists or whatever, the US law allows us to kick them to the curb if they work for the Church. And being that this has been consistently upheld as Constitutional, no state or city can tell us otherwise.
But remember, the Church teaches this:CCC 2358 …men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies…They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. ,
vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm
P
Palm_Tree
Guest
People, go read my legal explanation above. The sky is not falling as bad you as people think with your un-informed hysteria
Also, like I mentioned in brief in my legal analysis: if you are Catholic, remember that the Church teaches that:
CCC 2358 …men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies…They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. ,
vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm
Also, like I mentioned in brief in my legal analysis: if you are Catholic, remember that the Church teaches that:
CCC 2358 …men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies…They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. ,
vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm
E
elts1956
Guest
Your observation regarding Christian dislike of separation of church and state unless it favors them strikes me as narrow minded. Sitting on your star studded fence hasn’t helped you understand the whole picture one whit.Now… I promise this has nothing to do with you, but I am astonished how members of Christianity generally dislike the separation of Church and State unless it favors them… I’m sorry, you just reminded of that.
But to the whole “marriage in the public square” thing… that’s kind of the problem; even people within the Church don’t mind gay marriage.And as the generations go by, gay marriage will be more and more accepted.
Times change and some beliefs do become obsolete.
Ironically Yours.
P.S. As to approval of gay marriage, truth does not change and the Catholic Church has been teaching it for over 2000 years. It will be a long wait for gay marriage to be approved in the Catholic Church.
X
xixxvmcm85
Guest
I’m honestly surprised to see my name in that list. I was one of a few who reminded fellow Americans that this story concerns the UK not us. I pointed out that religious organizations cannot discriminate against suspect classes when a commodity or service is being rendered (in the US at least) and I even agreed with this. The only thing that I stated which could be perceived as sympathetic to the true hysterics in this thread is that “religions should be allowed to discriminate however they see fit when it comes to direct and indirect church polity”. That wasn’t to say that I necessarily believe that’s a good or moral thing to do. Moreover, I was the one who offered a secular source for the story due to the hysterical nature of LifeSiteNews, and I even solicited the two cents of our British counterparts who are arguably more knowledgeable in the dynamics of the British Parliament (for I know that I certainly am not qualified).
What have I said that has been hysterical?
S
Spirithound
Guest
It doesn’t matter if the sex part is visible to the public, the fact remains that this person is open and unrepentant about committing sin behind their doors. And I didn’t say that heresy is the same as personal sin. I said that this situation could lead others into heresy. Employment by a religious organization implies that the organization is in agreement with your beliefs. We are not, thus the confusion and possible descent of others into heresy.
C
Cluny
Guest
I would say, rather the opposite: that such employment would mean the individual is in agreement with the organization’s beliefs.
And the person sin of A does not necessarily lead B into heresy.
S
Spirithound
Guest
Employment in an agency should indicate that the employee is in agreement with the beliefs of the agency, but the very fact that this is an issue shows that this is not the case. However, in addition to an employment showing the employee is in agreement with the employer, it also indicates that the employer recognizes that the employee is in that agreement. This implied agreement is the basis for the possible confusion about the Church’s teachings regarding same-sex relationships, which may cause some to fall into this heresy.
J
Jenny_Z
Guest
Certainly.Well, then you’re good under US law. Under US federal law (which we all most follow), it always okay for religious organizations to refuse to hire or to fire somebody because of their religion (only religious organizations get to do this, we are special). If their religion is not Catholic, if they are Muslims or Jews or Buddhists or whatever, the US law allows us to kick them to the curb if they work for the Church. And being that this has been consistently upheld as Constitutional, no state or city can tell us otherwise.
CCC 2358 …men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies…They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. ,
vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm
However, I think if a person is an open, practicing homosexual (i.e. having sex outside of marriage), they should be barred from these positions just like a person in a cohabitating relationship should be.
(I realize most churches don’t even bother with that these days, but I’d like to think there are still some out there that have these standards.)
S
Sailor_Kenshin
Guest
Read the Establisment Clause. It was designed to protect the church from the state, not vice-versa.
In England, of course, the State became the Church, which is what led to the US Establishment Clause.
This administration is well on its way to dismantling that and many of our other Constitutional protections IF enough of us fall asleep at the switch.
E
Eucharisted
Guest
I’m sorry, OP, for thinking you took God’s Name in vain. 
S
Suzle
Guest
As a British Catholic, I am constantly un-nerved by the lack of authority the Church holds in the UK. It is not seen in the same light as it is in the US sadly, where although there are many more denominations of Christianity there seems to be a universal Christian collective upholding of Christian morals and beliefs, which we do not have in the UK - we are in the absolute minority - it does often seem that we are living in a secular society that gives more concern to so-called “political correctness” and the absolute rights of the individual than it does to ethics and morals where the two do not support such blind faith in the “rightness” of “PC” - hence the very reason that our British society has sunk to the depths it has.
In terms of protecting our Church, we can only hope that the newly appointed Archbishop Vincent Nichols to Head of the CC in England and Wales will be more vocal in his defence of our catholic faith than his predecessor - who although very highly regarded could perhaps have been more vocal on such issues than in the past. I have a hope that we will see more vocal defence of the faith in the mainstream media in the coming months. Perhaps this will lead many non-practising catholics back to the Church.
In terms of the proposed Bill - my knowledge is I am ashamed to say a little sketchy, however, as far as I know, any Bill (proposal to a change in the law) can be heard in the House (of Commons). It has to be read first, then it is followed by periods of consultation, amendment (if required) and further readings. It is debated at length, and finally put to vote. Sometimes, it is a free vote (meaning that MP’s can vote however they wish, regardless of the party line - this happened in the recent Embryology Act) or it may a whip vote (where the members are “whipped” into voting along the party line). Depending on the votes, then a Bill is either passed, or not.
If it passes, then it must then go to the House of Lords - these are the peers of the realm, lords, ladies, sirs etc - they also vote on it (always a free vote!) but they may vote in line with their party affiliations if they wish - it is up to them. A Bill has to be passed by both Houses before it becomes law.
Finally, HM The Queen then has to sign to make it final. Theoretically, I think that she can say no, but it is probably more an exercise in rubber stamping it, as it is the democratic wish of the duly represented people - so it is unlikely she would refuse to sign.
This is probably a real over-simplification of the process, and I may have got some of it wrong - I apologise if so, and perhaps someone with more knowledge will correct me, but since no-one else from the UK has offered some insight, then I have had a stab at it! I don’t think it is as complicated as the US process - but it is rather more archaic - they haven’t seen fit to change for several hundred years!
I have strong doubts that the current labour party will be in power much longer, as a general election has to be called by June next year at the very latest (something to do with the number of parliamentary sessions between elections I think) but I am very sad to say that there are no suitable alternatives that fulfill everything a catholic would want to see in a party. We need to vote for the party, not the candidate in a general election, as it is the governing party that holds the power, and not all MP’s have much say - some more than others.
Please pray for the UK - we need it!!
In terms of protecting our Church, we can only hope that the newly appointed Archbishop Vincent Nichols to Head of the CC in England and Wales will be more vocal in his defence of our catholic faith than his predecessor - who although very highly regarded could perhaps have been more vocal on such issues than in the past. I have a hope that we will see more vocal defence of the faith in the mainstream media in the coming months. Perhaps this will lead many non-practising catholics back to the Church.
In terms of the proposed Bill - my knowledge is I am ashamed to say a little sketchy, however, as far as I know, any Bill (proposal to a change in the law) can be heard in the House (of Commons). It has to be read first, then it is followed by periods of consultation, amendment (if required) and further readings. It is debated at length, and finally put to vote. Sometimes, it is a free vote (meaning that MP’s can vote however they wish, regardless of the party line - this happened in the recent Embryology Act) or it may a whip vote (where the members are “whipped” into voting along the party line). Depending on the votes, then a Bill is either passed, or not.
If it passes, then it must then go to the House of Lords - these are the peers of the realm, lords, ladies, sirs etc - they also vote on it (always a free vote!) but they may vote in line with their party affiliations if they wish - it is up to them. A Bill has to be passed by both Houses before it becomes law.
Finally, HM The Queen then has to sign to make it final. Theoretically, I think that she can say no, but it is probably more an exercise in rubber stamping it, as it is the democratic wish of the duly represented people - so it is unlikely she would refuse to sign.
This is probably a real over-simplification of the process, and I may have got some of it wrong - I apologise if so, and perhaps someone with more knowledge will correct me, but since no-one else from the UK has offered some insight, then I have had a stab at it! I don’t think it is as complicated as the US process - but it is rather more archaic - they haven’t seen fit to change for several hundred years!
I have strong doubts that the current labour party will be in power much longer, as a general election has to be called by June next year at the very latest (something to do with the number of parliamentary sessions between elections I think) but I am very sad to say that there are no suitable alternatives that fulfill everything a catholic would want to see in a party. We need to vote for the party, not the candidate in a general election, as it is the governing party that holds the power, and not all MP’s have much say - some more than others.
Please pray for the UK - we need it!!
X
xixxvmcm85
Guest
Thanks for that mini British civics lesson.As a British Catholic, I am constantly un-nerved by the lack of authority the Church holds in the UK. It is not seen in the same light as it is in the US sadly, where although there are many more denominations of Christianity there seems to be a universal Christian collective upholding of Christian morals and beliefs, which we do not have in the UK - we are in the absolute minority - it does often seem that we are living in a secular society that gives more concern to so-called “political correctness” and the absolute rights of the individual than it does to ethics and morals where the two do not support such blind faith in the “rightness” of “PC” - hence the very reason that our British society has sunk to the depths it has.
In terms of protecting our Church, we can only hope that the newly appointed Archbishop Vincent Nichols to Head of the CC in England and Wales will be more vocal in his defence of our catholic faith than his predecessor - who although very highly regarded could perhaps have been more vocal on such issues than in the past. I have a hope that we will see more vocal defence of the faith in the mainstream media in the coming months. Perhaps this will lead many non-practising catholics back to the Church.
In terms of the proposed Bill - my knowledge is I am ashamed to say a little sketchy, however, as far as I know, any Bill (proposal to a change in the law) can be heard in the House (of Commons). It has to be read first, then it is followed by periods of consultation, amendment (if required) and further readings. It is debated at length, and finally put to vote. Sometimes, it is a free vote (meaning that MP’s can vote however they wish, regardless of the party line - this happened in the recent Embryology Act) or it may a whip vote (where the members are “whipped” into voting along the party line). Depending on the votes, then a Bill is either passed, or not.
If it passes, then it must then go to the House of Lords - these are the peers of the realm, lords, ladies, sirs etc - they also vote on it (always a free vote!) but they may vote in line with their party affiliations if they wish - it is up to them. A Bill has to be passed by both Houses before it becomes law.
Finally, HM The Queen then has to sign to make it final. Theoretically, I think that she can say no, but it is probably more an exercise in rubber stamping it, as it is the democratic wish of the duly represented people - so it is unlikely she would refuse to sign.
This is probably a real over-simplification of the process, and I may have got some of it wrong - I apologise if so, and perhaps someone with more knowledge will correct me, but since no-one else from the UK has offered some insight, then I have had a stab at it! I don’t think it is as complicated as the US process - but it is rather more archaic - they haven’t seen fit to change for several hundred years!
I have strong doubts that the current labour party will be in power much longer, as a general election has to be called by June next year at the very latest (something to do with the number of parliamentary sessions between elections I think) but I am very sad to say that there are no suitable alternatives that fulfill everything a catholic would want to see in a party. We need to vote for the party, not the candidate in a general election, as it is the governing party that holds the power, and not all MP’s have much say - some more than others.
Please pray for the UK - we need it!!
S
Suzle
Guest
Ha ha - like I said, it was asked, and not given - I am sure there is someone out there that will pull it apart for its errors lol!!!Thanks for that mini British civics lesson.
A
Answersplease
Guest
The gates of hell will not prevail against the Church built by Christ himself, however this means that the leaders of the Church can’t corrupt the Church and teach error to the body of Christ, thereby steering people away from the gate of salvation and sending them through the gates of hell.
The Church has been severely persecuted to the point of being driven underground, like in the pagan Roman Empire and in modern communist nations today. You know who these nations are. Do you think the west is becoming more like them?
It took the blood of Catholic martyrs and the conversion of a Roman General to Catholicism (his mother was already Catholic) to save the Church from the early Roman Empire.
What will it take to save us now? The Lord God promised there would be a remnant, but how many of us will live to see the return of the Lord?
The Church has been severely persecuted to the point of being driven underground, like in the pagan Roman Empire and in modern communist nations today. You know who these nations are. Do you think the west is becoming more like them?
It took the blood of Catholic martyrs and the conversion of a Roman General to Catholicism (his mother was already Catholic) to save the Church from the early Roman Empire.
What will it take to save us now? The Lord God promised there would be a remnant, but how many of us will live to see the return of the Lord?
P
Palm_Tree
Guest
As a British Catholic,…In terms of the proposed Bill - my knowledge is I am ashamed to say a little sketchy…Please pray for the UK - we need it!!
Unlike you, I went and actually read the bill. It doesn’t make churches have take active homosexuals like the sensationalist media outlet the OP got suckered by dishonestly claimed on purpose (don’t laugh, many of the people in this thread got suckered).
Yes, the hysterical-sky-is-falling types got duped and played. That was the goal of the sensationalist media article–they get more reader interest by taking advantage of their reader’s ignorance, and the more reader interest they get results in making them more money, which is their goal (they are a business, not the teachers of Truth, like the Church).
The actual teachers of Truth (the Church), teach that those with deeped-seated homosexual tendencies “must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided”
I’m sorry you people don’t agree with the Church.
As for the new UK law being proposed: yes, it is changing things in that churches can no longer refuse to hire those of homosexual orientation for jobs that have nothing to do with teaching or spreading the faith (like accountants or janitors). But the bill is very clear that churches can refuse to hire someone who has a homosexual orientation for a job that involves teaching or spreading the faith. GO READ THE BILL.
Also notice that it was just talking about people with a homosexual orientation, NOT ACTIVE HOMOSEXUALS.
People, if you don’t see the Pope telling you to oppose this bill, then don’t worry about it. This might be hard for you to believe, but the Pope is not an idiot. You can trust him.
T
thunderballs75
Guest
We’ll support an unjust war which killed over a million innocent civilians. This is okay. There are people starving and living in poverty in the same city as us! This is okay. Our society has fallen to materialism and consumerism. This is okay. We ALL sin. This is okay.
But now homosexuals are going to be around our kids? OH NO!!!
But now homosexuals are going to be around our kids? OH NO!!!
T
totallylost
Guest
I just came another thread about homosexual by the homosexual himself saying the Church does not understand him.
Well, what is so hard to understand about Church? Maybe I’m not homosexual myself,
but the Church does NOT condemn a person being having different taste.
The Church condemns ALL premarital sex!!! what is it so hard to understand about that???
That means it applies for heterosexual too!!! If you are heterosexual and the is having sex with someone who is not your wife, the Church condemns it!!!
So in which part does the Church discriminate against homosexual since heterosexual aren’t allowed to have sex outside marriage too?
If the Church does not allow a homosexual to have sex with same gender, the Church doesn’t allow a Priest, Religions Brother and Sister and Nun to have sex too. Now if the same logic applies, isn’t the Church ‘discriminate’ against everyone who is not married for they also cannot have sex with their preference gender??
Well, what is so hard to understand about Church? Maybe I’m not homosexual myself,
but the Church does NOT condemn a person being having different taste.
The Church condemns ALL premarital sex!!! what is it so hard to understand about that???
That means it applies for heterosexual too!!! If you are heterosexual and the is having sex with someone who is not your wife, the Church condemns it!!!
So in which part does the Church discriminate against homosexual since heterosexual aren’t allowed to have sex outside marriage too?
If the Church does not allow a homosexual to have sex with same gender, the Church doesn’t allow a Priest, Religions Brother and Sister and Nun to have sex too. Now if the same logic applies, isn’t the Church ‘discriminate’ against everyone who is not married for they also cannot have sex with their preference gender??
W
wapsi
Guest
Perhaps because heterosexuals have the option of eventually having sex with the person they love, but homosexuals are forever denied that possibility?
I think most gay or lesbians would say that they did not choose to be homosexual. However, priests and religious do make a choice to answer their call. And the sacrifice of priests and religious is widely honored within the Church… but the sacrifice made by celibate homosexuals gets only lip service at best, and at worst, is met by an angry demand to remain silent and invisible.
T
TheresaLS
Guest
I know I will get slammed for this but here goes…
Many, it would seem to believe that the essence of life is sexual. In order to ulfill our nature our sexual instincts must be met and if one is not fullfilling those instincts they are somehow disordered.
I will end this here even though I have more to say, but I have learned that in conversation dealing with a hot button issue one never puts all their cards on the table.
Please reply with faith…
Many, it would seem to believe that the essence of life is sexual. In order to ulfill our nature our sexual instincts must be met and if one is not fullfilling those instincts they are somehow disordered.
I will end this here even though I have more to say, but I have learned that in conversation dealing with a hot button issue one never puts all their cards on the table.
Please reply with faith…
- Status