Peterborough [Ontario] Bishop Faces Human Rights Complaint

[Charlotte408]

Thats ridiculous…he shouldnt have worked there in the first place. And its in a CHURCH so what authority do they have anyways?? I dont understand this whole separation of church and state thing??? Its totally one sided…like, we have to abide by their laws, not discriminate against homosexuality (even though its against our religious beliefs which I thought we were entitled to?) buuut…when it comes to ours, like, marriage…then they play with words like ‘civil rights’ and undermine even GODS authority…and who are these people anyways?? Public officials serving a 4 to 8 yr term trying to make a name for themselves??..my Lord is infinite and timeless <33

 

[caoimhin]

The real issue, it seems to me, is the independence of the church. There is no right to be an altar server!

Exactly. What if (to borrow from CS Lewis) someone felt they had the “right” to be considered a poached egg?

And to think that Canada was one of the first nations into the breach in the war against fascism. It’s time these HRCs are rejected by Canadians.

 

[PadraigPearce]

Take note, Americans. This is what can happen when you let your government get out of control. I love my country, but I’m beginning to recognize it less and less all the time. I think I can sense a backlash happening here over some of the ridiculous rulings of the Human Rights Tribunals, but the horse is already out of the barn. The worst part is that the complainants get their legal fees taken care of through by the government, but the defendant has to provide their own defense. This can end up bankrupting people, so often the process itself is the punishment. Even if the person is aquitted they still have to pay for their defense. Last year a case was brought against Father Alphonse de Valk, who runs a small newspaper called Catholic Insight, with a circulation of about 5000. Father de Valk won his case, but still ended up $25,000 in debt.

 

[Jordan_Francis]

Anti-Catholic bigotry is enshrined in Canadian law.

Really? The same legal system which publicly funds Catholic education at primary and secondary school levels? And publicly funds no other religious denomination?

 

[averheyen]

Really? The same legal system which publicly funds Catholic education at primary and secondary school levels? And publicly funds no other religious denomination?

Well, the Human Rights tribunals are sketchy that’s for sure.

 

[canadianguy1143]

Really? The same legal system which publicly funds Catholic education at primary and secondary school levels? And publicly funds no other religious denomination?

As soon as full funding was granted to Catholic education, we lost our Catholic education as it allowed the Government to control it. Examples: Marc Hall, Joanna Manning.

 

[peduzzi89]

I must mention how i noticed someone brought up separating church and state, when a lot of people try to say how our country was founded on religious morals (false) and therefore the government should defend their moral standpoints. Sounds like a contradiction to me.

 

[Phemie]

Really? The same legal system which publicly funds Catholic education at primary and secondary school levels? And publicly funds no other religious denomination?

Education is a provincial responsibility and at least 4 provinces don’t fund Catholic education. Of those 4, one used to only have a denominational system, funding Catholic, Pentecostal, Salvation Army & Integrated (Anglican/United) schools and no public schools. A referendum took care of that.

 

[arcio]

Reading the Catholic Register article, it says that the Gay altar server is quoted as saying he is chaste but lives with a male roommate.

Now am I naive to think that I should take him at his word? If not, then a Gay male who is living a chaste lifestyle is committing no sin and shouldn’t be removed from being an altar server.

I would also like to know how those parishioners found out that he was gay.

If this man is living a chaste life, one does have to question why he was removed from his position. Perhaps there is an undertone of discrimination….…perhaps we need wait to find out what all the evidence is, before we can make an informed decision…

 

[averheyen]

If this man is living a chaste life, one does have to question why he was removed from his position. Perhaps there is an undertone of discrimination….…perhaps we need wait to find out what all the evidence is, before we can make an informed decision…

No informed decesion is necessary. The government has absolutely no right whatsoever sticking it’s nose in here. End of story. This is what freedom of religion is all about.

 

[fix]

If this man is living a chaste life, one does have to question why he was removed from his position. Perhaps there is an undertone of discrimination….…perhaps we need wait to find out what all the evidence is, before we can make an informed decision…

This does not matter at all. The government is not the authority in these matters.

 

[arcio]

This is what freedom of religion is all about.

The freedom to discriminate?

 

[averheyen]

The freedom to discriminate?

Nice try. The government has no business whatsoever, WHATSOEVER, sticking it’s nose in the church. If you want to debate whether or not the bishop was discriminitory, that’s fine, go to town. That’s another issue entirely. It’s one thing to disagree with a bishop’s judgement on a particular matter, it’s another thing to go to the state to solve your grevience. It’s a particularly scary thing when they agree to help solve your grevience. Seperation of Church and state works both ways, not just to keep the church out of the state, but the state out of the church.

 

[arcio]

Nice try. The government has no business whatsoever, WHATSOEVER, sticking it’s nose in the church. .

Wrong.

The Church is not free to blatantly and flagrantly breach the charter of rights and freedoms.

Admitidly, there is a more delicate balance between religion and the charter, than there is when dealing with the secular world.

The state recognizes that the Church and all religions are free to openly discriminate, yet remain within the confines of the law and the charter.

The religious propensity to practice discrimination, does however, only go so far. In that there are reasonable limits as to how far a faith group may practice discrimination.

If faith groups are not at all pleased with having to operate within the confines of a charter, then they are free to leave.

 

[rossum]

Nice try. The government has no business whatsoever, WHATSOEVER, sticking it’s nose in the church.

I disagree. What if a Satanist church decided to hold a service of human sacrifice? The Government would be correct to intervene to prevent that happening.

I can see that the Church is allowed to discriminate against sinners - there is no law preventing discrimination against sinners. However there are laws against discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation. If the discrimination is on grounds of sinfulness then it is probably legal, however if it is on grounds of homosexuality then it is probably not. Have heterosexual servers been investigated to ensure that they are not divorced/remarried and that they do not use artificial contraception?

Reading between the lines, this seems to be part of a conflict between the 12 parishoners and the Parish Priest, with Mr Corcoran being caught in the crossfire.

$0.02

rossum

 

[averheyen]

Wrong.

The Church is not free to blatantly and flagrantly breach the charter of rights and freedoms.

Admitidly, there is a more delicate balance between religion and the charter, than there is when dealing with the secular world.

The state recognizes that the Church and all religions are free to openly discriminate, yet remain within the confines of the law and the charter.

The religious propensity to practice discrimination, does however, only go so far. In that there are reasonable limits as to how far a faith group may practice discrimination.

If faith groups are not at all pleased with having to operate within the confines of a charter, then they are free to leave.

No, I’m right. And the Bishop had every right to do so if that’s what he felt he should do.

 

[averheyen]

I disagree. What if a Satanist church decided to hold a service of human sacrifice? The Government would be correct to intervene to prevent that happening.

I can see that the Church is allowed to discriminate against sinners - there is no law preventing discrimination against sinners. However there are laws against discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation. If the discrimination is on grounds of sinfulness then it is probably legal, however if it is on grounds of homosexuality then it is probably not. Have heterosexual servers been investigated to ensure that they are not divorced/remarried and that they do not use artificial contraception?

Reading between the lines, this seems to be part of a conflict between the 12 parishoners and the Parish Priest, with Mr Corcoran being caught in the crossfire.

$0.02

rossum

The legality or illigality of it is irrelivent. It’s none of the government’s business. The catholic church has it’s own governance. If he feel he was unjustly dismissed, he can hire a cannon lawyer and they can argue his case. That’s what most people do.

 

[rossum]

The legality or illigality of it is irrelivent. It’s none of the government’s business.

I disagree. Satanists holding human sacrifices is very much the Government’s business. It should not be possible to escape any law merely by setting up a religion. The anti-discrimination laws already have religious exceptions written into them - Catholics may legally discriminate against women when selecting priests. The debate is about where the boundary between religious exceptions and obeying the law should lie.

rossum

 

[averheyen]

I disagree. Satanists holding human sacrifices is very much the Government’s business. It should not be possible to escape any law merely by setting up a religion. The anti-discrimination laws already have religious exceptions written into them - Catholics may legally discriminate against women when selecting priests. The debate is about where the boundary between religious exceptions and obeying the law should lie.

rossum

No, the entire debate is in the overreaching of the human rights tribunals. And where the heck did the human sacrifice thing come from? You lost me on that one.

Still, even that would be decided under REAL courts with REAL judges and REAL legality (habius corpus, etc.). The problem here is not that Mr Corcoran felt he was discriminated against. It’s not that the people complained to the bishop or even that the bishop dismissed him as an atlar server. Those are relative dramas and can be delt with accordingly.

The problem here is completely with a Kangeroo court system that has long since moved past the original purpose with which it was created, and is now finding itself in places where it really doesn’t belong.

 

[Tigg]

Isn’t this one of the very greatest dangers of socialism? Doesn’t it ideologically believe that man should be the arbiter of morals - and further that God’s will and law is determined by a consensus of society’s citizens.