Oh my God! No! No! No!

  • Thread starter Thread starter EdWasHere
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Simple as this. Us Catholics should beat them to the mark. That means we should be volunteering at church offices, the voluntary catechism programs etc. We cannot force them out of these positions, all that can be done now is ensure they are already full.
 
Sailor_Kenshin said:
Holy Mother Church will prevail—but it’s gonna be a long hard slog. We slept at the switch for decades and this is only to be expected.

The Ents have awakened.
Click to expand...
Yes, Holy Mother Church will prevail. Of this I can stake my life on.

As for the hiring of those who do not uphold the faith, it would be a theological reason, not a reason according to someone’s “identity.”
 
LDNCatholic said:
Simple as this. Us Catholics should beat them to the mark. That means we should be volunteering at church offices, the voluntary catechism programs etc. We cannot force them out of these positions, all that can be done now is ensure they are already full.
Click to expand...
VERY “sound” idea. 👍
 
Could this law force a parish to hire someone who is not Catholic, or has been excommunicated?
 
LDNCatholic said:
Simple as this. Us Catholics should beat them to the mark. That means we should be volunteering at church offices, the voluntary catechism programs etc. We cannot force them out of these positions, all that can be done now is ensure they are already full.
Click to expand...
It’s not ‘optional’, they will force it upon them even if full.

God Bless.
Chris.
 
Crimsonflyboy said:
The ironic thing is that these are the same people that are always screaming about separation of church and state whenever someone wants creationism taught in the government schools. Where is all that separation between church and state now?
Click to expand...
It’s very simple, when the Church was powerful, the state wanted seperation from it, now that the state becomes powerful, they want control over it.

It’s no longer seperation of Church and State.

It’s now wanting seperation from the State.

God Bless.

Chris.
 
Spirithound said:
Could this law force a parish to hire someone who is not Catholic, or has been excommunicated?
Click to expand...
Presumably yes. It isn’t stated explicitly in the articles provided. This is based on the UK “Equality Bill”. If it protects sexual orientation, I would assume it also protects religious affiliation.

Are there any British CAF users here who could chime in? As an American, I don’t really know anything about British government. Is there a “check” to the parliament much as we Americans have a “check” to the legislature in the form of the courts? If so, is there British jurisprudence that will likely lead to the reversal of this law if it were to pass?

Thanks.
 
LDNCatholic said:
Is that in the article? I didn’t see it.
Click to expand...
Article.:
British churches will be forced to accept practicing homosexuals or “transsexuals” in positions as youth workers and similar roles, under upcoming equality legislation, the government has said. The Labour government’s Equality Bill will prohibit churches from refusing to hire active homosexuals even if their religion holds such behavior to be sinful, said deputy equalities minister Maria Eagle.
Click to expand...
While it’s not direct, there is ‘force’ to accept if the said homosexual or transsexual wants to, most likely they could complain to the government for refusal, and the government would likely take action.

It’s not direct in the article, but if one wants it, they can seek government support, which they want the churches to be ‘forced’ into accepting against their own will.

God Bless.

Chris.
 
Cluny said:
Oh, there are homosexuals active in your parishes and schools.

You just don’t know who they are, that’s all.
Click to expand...
I work in the schools and I see it everyday but like they say it is not a sin to be guy,it is a sin to practice homosexuality. You are so right about it being in our Parishes how many Priest or just clergy are gay and we just don’t know it ? Again hate the sin love the sinner.

And think :oWHA WOULD JESUS DO
 
omg said:
I work in the schools and I see it everyday but like they say it is not a sin to be guy,it is a sin to practice homosexuality. You are so right about it being in our Parishes how many Priest or just clergy are gay and we just don’t know it ? Again hate the sin love the sinner.

And think :oWHA WOULD JESUS DO
Click to expand...
Jesus would tell them to ‘‘Repent, and sin no more’’

The problem is not about them being gay. The problem is that parishes will be forced to accept practicing homosexuals as staff.

I wonder will any homosexuals apply at a mosque.

Conversely I wonder if I could apply to work for ‘‘Stonewall’’, little bit of table turning methinks?
 
LDNCatholic said:
Jesus would tell them to ‘‘Repent, and sin no more’’

The problem is not about them being gay. The problem is that parishes will be forced to accept practicing homosexuals as staff.

I wonder will any homosexuals apply at a mosque.

Conversely I wonder if I could apply to work for ‘‘Stonewall’’, little bit of table turning methinks?
Click to expand...
Presumably, yes you could. However you would be bound to similar terms of employment. Just as the active gay person couldn’t promote an affirming stance on homosexuality at the church, you couldn’t promote an oppositional stance at “Stonewall” (whatever that is).
 
Primox said:
Homoesexual sinners amidst non-homosexual sinners
Click to expand...
The problem is not them being sinners, as we all are sinners. The problem is the scandal caused by having unrepentant and public sinners in official parish positions. Scandal, according to CCC 2284, is “an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil”. This will directly contradict Catholic teaching, and could lead others into heresy.
 
Spirithound said:
The problem is not them being sinners, as we all are sinners. The problem is the scandal caused by having unrepentant and public sinners in official parish positions. Scandal, according to CCC 2284, is “an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil”. This will directly contradict Catholic teaching, and could lead others into heresy.
Click to expand...
In my own observation, I’ve never seen sex in public; it’s a private act.

Heresy is NOT the same thing as person sin. Let’s not confuse the issues.
 
Carlion said:
No, it can’t happen in America. … in the USA we have the Establishment Clause to prevent such a thing from happening. The government can’t interfere with out churches in such a way, nor can our churches take control of our government. That’s not to say they can’t have an affect on one another in various ways, but such blatant interference is forbidden by the Constitution.
Click to expand...
Actually, that is not true (it can go either way). At the federal level, Congress passed laws making it illegal for employers and others in the USA to discriminate based on religion, race, color, national origin, or gender. Regarding religion, Congress specifically exempted religious organizations (churches)–but they didn’t do this for race, color, national origin, or gender. In other words, a Catholic church or school can tell somebody “we are not hiring you because you are not a Catholic,” and that is okay, **but it is not okay if they do that regarding race, color, national origin, or gender. **

Now yes, attorneys for churches tried to challenge this as unconstitutional (the race, color, national origin, or gender part), saying that it is in violation of the 1st Amendment’s Establishment Clause. However, they failed. The courts upheld the laws as Constitutional, and said that churches cannot discriminate regarding race, color, national origin, or gender. Churches can only discriminate regarding religion.

Congress has also passed other laws making it illegal to discriminate in some cases regarding age and physical disability. I’m reading a case right here where a Catholic school tried to argue that the federal age discrimination laws didn’t apply to them because of the 1st Amendment’s Establishment Clause, and the Federal Appeals Court rejected their argument, relying on a Supreme Court decision.

However, that Federal Appeals Court decision said the courts do recognize a few exceptions:
  1. members of the clergy – they said that none of the federal discrimination laws regarding race, color, national origin, or gender apply to the cases of a church discriminating against their clergy. This is why, for example, it is okay under federal law for the Catholic churches in the USA to refuse to take women into their clergy. And the they did say this was a First Amendment issue, recognizing “the pervasively religious relationship between a member of the clergy and his religious employer.”
  2. some specific cases “involving lay employees in which the relationship between employee and employer is so pervasively religious that it is impossible to engage in an discrimination inquiry without serious risk of offending the [first amendment].”
Regarding the legality of discrimination against homosexuals, under federal law it is okay for an employer to discriminate against homosexuals. It is okay for you to say, “I am not going to hire you because you are gay.” This federal law may or may not change.

However, the federal laws aren’t the only laws you live by, you are also governed by your state and local laws. You need to check to see if your state makes it illegal to discriminate against homosexuals and you need to check to see if your locality makes it illegal to discriminate against homosexuals.

There are many states that make it illegal for employers to discrimate against homosexuals. I’d imagine there have already been numerous cases where homosexuals here in the USA have sued churches for refusing to hire them or for firing them, solely because they were gay. I just don’t feel like spending the time to find them to see what happened. Last time I checked, my state has no law making it illegal to discriminate against gays. If you live in my state, it is okay if say, “I am not going to hire you because you are gay.”

But like I said, you also have to follow the laws in your locality. Last time I checked, I was surprised to learn that every city I have lived in, including the one I live in now, has a law that makes it illegal for me to refuse to hire or to fire an employee solely because he is a homosexual. Again, like I said, I’d imagine there have already been numerous cases where homosexuals here in the USA have sued churches for refusing to hire them or for firing them, solely because they were gay. I just don’t feel like spending the time to find them to see what happened.
 
Palm_Tree said:
Actually, that is not true (it can go either way). …
Click to expand...
Keeping in mind what I wrote in my post above, let’s say you live in one of the states or cities in the US that makes it illegal for employers to discriminate against homosexuals. If you don’t want to hire the homosexual, or if you want to fire the homosexual, then just make sure you do it for something else besides his homosexuality. It’s only illegal if he can prove you discriminated against him because he is a homosexual. If he gets you on tape saying that you’re firing him just because he is gay, then you’re trouble. Just ignore the homosexual thing and refuse to hire him because you found somebody better. Or fire him for some other reason. Don’t mention anything about the homosexuality thing.

Now let’s say you have a case of a somebody who turned out to be a homosexual after you already hired him. Say a Catholic school teacher turns out to be a homosexual after a few years on the job, and so he gets fired. If he got fired just because he is gay, that is illegal, and the court will punish the church for doing that. This shouldn’t be surprising, because even ** the Church teaches that we should not unjustly discriminate against someone solely based on their sexual orientation, and that those with deep-seated homosexual tendencies must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity (CCC 2358). **Same with the Vatican documents regarding taking priests. They don’t refuse all homosexual priest candidates, just those homosexual priests candidates that aren’t trustworthy enough to be good, chaste, loyal Catholic priests.

But back to the example of a Catholic school teacher who turns out to be a homosexual after a few years on the job, you can fire him as long as you find another reason to fire him besides his homosexuality. And even if the guy is a perfect teacher and you can’t find anything to fire him for, you should still be able to fire him if engages in an open homosexual lifestyle, or if he starts telling the kids that homosexuality is cool, etc. Like that Federal Appeals Court said, the courts think it is okay for a church to violate the discrimination laws in some specific cases “involving lay employees in which the relationship between employee and employer is so pervasively religious that it is impossible to engage in an discrimination inquiry without serious risk of offending the [first amendment].”

In other words, if a Catholic school teacher or other employee is telling kids homosexuality is okay or is living an openly gay lifestyle in front of everybody (has a boyfriend that he brings around, etc), then the church isn’t firing him because he is a homosexual, the church is firing him because he is not living up to the religious expectations of the job. It would be the same as firing a normal heterosexual teacher because he was telling the kids that it was okay to masturbate or have premarital sex or look at pornography, etc. Or it would be the same as firing a normal heterosexual teacher because he was living a public lifestyle that was way too sinful (bring several scantly-clad women around with him at all times, etc).

Of course, everything in this last post only applies to those parts of the US were it is illegal to discriminate against homosexuals. In other parts of the US, it is completely legal to openly discriminate against homosexuals. You need to check your state and local laws.
 
Cluny said:
Oh, there are homosexuals active in your parishes and schools.

You just don’t know who they are, that’s all.
Click to expand...
Of course.

At at one of the several Catholic parishes a mile or two from my house, we had a very popular pastor in his late 50’s/early 60’s who everybody I knew loved and thought was awesome (I only saw him once, at a Mass I went to that he said… and he gave off zero gay vibe, but I was disappointed in him that he didn’t give an intelligent enough homily–too much fluff–not even trying… but I think that of a lot of priests, the majority actually).

In fact, many of the people I grew up with at my parish left my parish because they liked this guy so much better than our priest (including many people I was very close to).

Well, then he gets busted by the cops in a public bathroom with his pants down engaging in homosexual acts with another adult man in his age group. It was all over the local paper. Of course, our bishop removed him and I don’t know what happened to him. When I talked to all his parishioners that I knew, they all said they were cool that he turned out to be gay, they just wanted to know why in the heck he didn’t get a hotel room and kept that hidden (I know, I know… but that’s what they told me). None of the parishioners of his that I knew were upset that he turned out to be gay, they just weren’t happy that he made it public by being so negligent on that day. And none of them ever suspected he was gay (the priest was an old bald guy with a little bit of white hair left and was in terrible shape). And to the hysterical gay-haters, what’s the difference? He could have just as easily been a heterosexual priest that got busted engaging in sexual acts with a woman.
 
Jenny_Z said:
I would be more concerned about the fact that these people may be non-Catholic and forced to teach our Catholic children in a Catholic school.
Click to expand...
That is already happening in some Catholic schools. However, the instructors still call themselves Catholic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top