Would it be okay for a Catholic Hiring manager or business owner to fire someone just for being gay?

[oldcatholicguy]

Why must it become a scandal? As the mother of five children, this is how it would play out in my home:

Susie goes home and asks her mother why Miss Jones has a wife? Mom says most men marry women, and women marry men, but sometimes men want to marry other men and sometimes women want to marry other women. Mom says our Faith teaches us this is not what God had in mind. Our Faith also teaches us that we should be more concerned with our own sin than with somebody else’s sin (splinter/log) so we aren’t going to judge, gossip or talk badly about Miss Jones. And finally, our Faith teaches us that we are all God’s children and above all, we are to love each other, so we are going to love Miss Jones.

Now eat your carrots.

Loving Miss Jones does not equate to accepting all of Miss Jones’s behaviors and/or exposing children, ours or otherwise, to it. Let us change Miss Jones from being in a homosexual relationship to being the abuser in an abusive relationship. Do we simply explain away Miss Jones beating her spouse in front of the children and then tell them to eat their carrots? What if Miss Jones was a chronic liar and engages in this behavior in front of the children (blatantly lies to the principal in front of the kids and the kids know it is a lie). Do we once again explain away her behavior?

 

[agnes_therese]

For example, lets say your an HR manager for a Target and you find out an employee of yours is gay. Is it morally alright to fire them just for being gay, even though the job is not one that promotes the gay lifestyle and the company isn’t catholic. Would it be wrong to fire someone just for being gay if they work for a non-catholic entity? Obviously I know (and agree with ) that Catholic institutions shouldn’t have gays working for them. But what about just a regular old business like target in my example

Probably just a rhetorical question, but –
I wonder why no one ever asks questions like this about adulterers? or liars? or people who don’t honor their parents? etc. etc. etc. It’s always homosexuals, as though that’s the worst possible thing out there.

 

[yellowbird]

Loving Miss Jones does not equate to accepting all of Miss Jones’s behaviors and/or exposing children, ours or otherwise, to it. Let us change Miss Jones from being in a homosexual relationship to being the abuser in an abusive relationship. Do we simply explain away Miss Jones beating her spouse in front of the children and then tell them to eat their carrots? What if Miss Jones was a chronic liar and engages in this behavior in front of the children (blatantly lies to the principal in front of the kids and the kids know it is a lie). Do we once again explain away her behavior?

If Miss Jones displays a photo of her wife, that tells me nothing about Miss Jones other than she considers herself (legally or otherwise) married to a woman, and my previous explanation to my 3rd grader is fitting. (Our Faith teaches that is not what God approves)

I don’t know what they are doing in their bedroom and I don’t care to know - it’s none of my business - none of my 3rd grader’s business, so your examples of things that are happening in front of the class (physical beating or lying) don’t apply unless Miss Jones and her wife have sexual contact in front of the class. Which is highly unlikely, wouldn’t you agree?

 

[markomalley]

Why must it become a scandal? As the mother of five children, this is how it would play out in my home:

Susie goes home and asks her mother why Miss Jones has a wife? Mom says most men marry women, and women marry men, but sometimes men want to marry other men and sometimes women want to marry other women. Mom says our Faith teaches us this is not what God had in mind. Our Faith also teaches us that we should be more concerned with our own sin than with somebody else’s sin (splinter/log) so we aren’t going to judge, gossip or talk badly about Miss Jones. And finally, our Faith teaches us that we are all God’s children and above all, we are to love each other, so we are going to love Miss Jones.

Now eat your carrots.

And your answer explains EXACTLY why it is scandalous. Thank you.

See, a few years later, Susie ends up in Mr. O’Malley’s 7th grade CCD class. And Mr O’Malley, during the unit dealing with human sexuality and the teaching of the Church, And Susie proceeds to become greatly confused, because Susie finds out that her mom has taught her incorrectly. But don’t worry, Susie is right behind Bobby, who has divorced and remarried parents who faithfully go up to receive Holy Communion every week (and haven’t bothered to go to confession since they were confirmed). Maybe this year, Bobby will have a CYO Softball game when CCD is scheduled and won’t be at Mr. O’Malley’s CCD class during that unit.

Mr. O’Malley really HATES it when that happens. Almost as much as when, as has happened on occasion, Mr. O’Malley, the offended parents, and the parish pastor have to sit down for a meeting because Bobby and Susie’s respective parents are incensed that Mr. O’Malley would have the utter gall to teach their children the Catholic faith rather than reaffirming the error that they’ve taught their children or that they’ve lived in front of their children.

---

SCANDAL. Any action or its omission, not necessarily sinful in itself, that is likely to induce another to do something morally wrong. Direct scandal, also called diabolical, has the deliberate intention to induce another to sin. In indirect scandal a person does something that he or she foresees will at least likely lead another to commit sin, but this is rather tolerated than positively desired.

 

[yellowbird]

And your answer explains EXACTLY why it is scandalous. Thank you.

See, a few years later, Susie ends up in Mr. O’Malley’s 7th grade CCD class. And Mr O’Malley, during the unit dealing with human sexuality and the teaching of the Church, And Susie proceeds to become greatly confused, because Susie finds out that her mom has taught her incorrectly. But don’t worry, Susie is right behind Bobby, who has divorced and remarried parents who faithfully go up to receive Holy Communion every week (and haven’t bothered to go to confession since they were confirmed). Maybe this year, Bobby will have a CYO Softball game when CCD is scheduled and won’t be at Mr. O’Malley’s CCD class during that unit.

Mr. O’Malley really HATES it when that happens. Almost as much as when, as has happened on occasion, Mr. O’Malley, the offended parents, and the parish pastor have to sit down for a meeting because Bobby and Susie’s respective parents are incensed that Mr. O’Malley would have the utter gall to teach their children the Catholic faith rather than reaffirming the error that they’ve taught their children or that they’ve lived in front of their children.

---

SCANDAL. Any action or its omission, not necessarily sinful in itself, that is likely to induce another to do something morally wrong. Direct scandal, also called diabolical, has the deliberate intention to induce another to sin. In indirect scandal a person does something that he or she foresees will at least likely lead another to commit sin, but this is rather tolerated than positively desired.

Please explain the error in Susie’s Mom’s teaching that same sex marriage is NOT what God intended, that we are to be more concerned with our OWN standing before God rather than our neighbor’s, and that we are all God’s children and are called to love everyone.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

If Miss Jones displays a photo of her wife, that tells me nothing about Miss Jones other than she considers herself (legally or otherwise) married to a woman, and my previous explanation to my 3rd grader is fitting. (Our Faith teaches that is not what God approves)

I don’t know what they are doing in their bedroom and I don’t care to know - it’s none of my business - none of my 3rd grader’s business, so your examples of things that are happening in front of the class (physical beating or lying) don’t apply unless Miss Jones and her wife have sexual contact in front of the class. Which is highly unlikely, wouldn’t you agree?

-The fact that little Susie came home knowing Miss Jones considered herself married indicates that more than just little Susie seeing the photo on the desk took place.

-Immoral behavior does not need to be as upfront as an abuser striking their spouse in public to have a negative impact on children. If you like, I can present you with a passive example in line with your “it’s just a photo on her desk.” Miss Jones’s wife shows up to school to drop off Miss Jones’s lunch. She happens to have a black eye and cut lip. Little Susie comes home and tells you that Miss Jones beats her wife if her wife does something wrong. Same “eat your carrots” conversation since it’s perfectly ok to let little Susie think beating your spouse is acceptable?

 

[agnes_therese]

Loving Miss Jones does not equate to accepting all of Miss Jones’s behaviors and/or exposing children, ours or otherwise, to it. Let us change Miss Jones from being in a homosexual relationship to being the abuser in an abusive relationship. Do we simply explain away Miss Jones beating her spouse in front of the children and then tell them to eat their carrots? What if Miss Jones was a chronic liar and engages in this behavior in front of the children (blatantly lies to the principal in front of the kids and the kids know it is a lie). Do we once again explain away her behavior?

You actually equate being a homosexual with being an abuser?

OK, I’m bowing out of this thread before I say something uncharitable enough to send me to confession.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

You actually equate being a homosexual with being an abuser?

OK, I’m bowing out of this thread before I say something uncharitable enough to send me to confession.

If you think this, then you haven’t bothered to read any of my other posts in this thread, or are looking for an excuse to object to my comment.

 

[markomalley]

Please explain the error in Susie’s Mom’s teaching that same sex marriage is NOT what God intended, that we are to be more concerned with our OWN standing before God rather than our neighbor’s, and that we are all God’s children and are called to love everyone.

Posting from phone…

The short answer is that it is relativistic. Particularly about a matter of natural law.

 

[kozlosap]

:thumbsup:Yellow Bird’s response to this hypothetical little drama was absolutely"spot on"!
I understand the difference in the manner that the Church uses the word scandal and the definition that the rest off the world uses, but in this case, the very smart Yellow Bird’s refusal to be drawn into pit and instead instructed her daughter that which Jesus would have taught!

 

[yellowbird]

Posting from phone…

The short answer is that it is relativistic. Particularly about a matter of natural law.

rel·a·tiv·ism
noun
1.
the doctrine that knowledge, truth, and morality exist in relation to culture, society, or historical context, and are not absolute.

Susie’s Mom told her daughter that same sex marriage is not what God intended for a man or a woman.

which is quite different from saying:

Since it’s acceptable in our society today, it’s acceptable to God.

So you are incorrect is stating her answer was relativistic.

 

[yellowbird]

:thumbsup:Yellow Bird’s response to this hypothetical little drama was absolutely"spot on"!
I understand the difference in the manner that the Church uses the word scandal and the definition that the rest off the world uses, but in this case, the very smart Yellow Bird’s refusal to be drawn into pit and instead instructed her daughter that which Jesus would have taught!

Why thank you kozlosap! :thankyou:

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Loving Miss Jones does not equate to accepting all of Miss Jones’s behaviors and/or exposing children, ours or otherwise, to it. Let us change Miss Jones from being in a homosexual relationship to being the abuser in an abusive relationship. Do we simply explain away Miss Jones beating her spouse in front of the children and then tell them to eat their carrots? What if Miss Jones was a chronic liar and engages in this behavior in front of the children (blatantly lies to the principal in front of the kids and the kids know it is a lie). Do we once again explain away her behavior?

Perhaps we should compare fornicators to child molesters, because that is just as charitable as what you have done.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Perhaps we should compare fornicators to child molesters, because that is just as charitable as what you have done.

Uncharitable would be me assuming you are purposefully ignoring my comments on this thread- forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=858268 which you happen to have posted on as well as me, my second example in my above quoted comment concerning chronic liars, and my follow on comment to yellow’s response to the above in order to find my above objectionable. That to me would be a lack of charity. But, if you wish to get into a discussion on how one type of sexual immorality is somehow better than another we can do that as well.

 

[Corki]

If Miss Jones displays a photo of her wife, that tells me nothing about Miss Jones other than she considers herself (legally or otherwise) married to a woman, and my previous explanation to my 3rd grader is fitting. (Our Faith teaches that is not what God approves)

I don’t know what they are doing in their bedroom and I don’t care to know - it’s none of my business - none of my 3rd grader’s business, so your examples of things that are happening in front of the class (physical beating or lying) don’t apply unless Miss Jones and her wife have sexual contact in front of the class. Which is highly unlikely, wouldn’t you agree?

What they may be doing in their bedroom is certainly wrong and none of the 3rd graders business. But getting “married” to another woman is also very wrong and this teacher decided to make it the 3rd graders business. Homosexual sex is not the only moral evil in the world and it’s not a valid position to say as long as they aren’t having sex in the classroom, everything is ok.

(Our Faith teaches that is not what God approves)

This is an incomplete explanation for a third grader. As a parent, it is our duty to also say that this behavior is gravely sinful and while we absolutely must treat Miss Jones with respect, we are sorry that she has chosen a disordered way to live and will pray for her to have a change of heart.

Otherwise it sounds like “Catholics go to Mass on All Saints day because of our faith but not everyone else does”.

 

[Corki]

For example, lets say your an HR manager for a Target and you find out an employee of yours is gay. Is it morally alright to fire them just for being gay, even though the job is not one that promotes the gay lifestyle and the company isn’t catholic. Would it be wrong to fire someone just for being gay if they work for a non-catholic entity? Obviously I know (and agree with ) that Catholic institutions shouldn’t have gays working for them. But what about just a regular old business like target in my example

To refuse to fire someone simply for being a homosexual would be unjust discrimination as prohibited in the CCC.

In practice, it is not very likely that a job applicant would come to a hiring manager’s attention as a homosexual if there were not some action involved. The applicant might indicate in the interview that he/she has a same-sex partner or have listed various advocacy groups on his/her resume, for example. It would not be immoral or unjust for a hiring manager to decline to hire someone who is active in the “gay” lifestyle or advocating immorality. It is almost surely against Target’s policy and might be against the law (depending on the state), however.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

To refuse to fire someone simply for being a homosexual would be unjust discrimination as prohibited in the CCC.

In practice, it is not very likely that a job applicant would come to a hiring manager’s attention as a homosexual if there were not some action involved. The applicant might indicate in the interview that he/she has a same-sex partner or have listed various advocacy groups on his/her resume, for example. It would not be immoral or unjust for a hiring manager to decline to hire someone who is active in the “gay” lifestyle or advocating immorality. It is almost surely against Target’s policy and might be against the law (depending on the state), however.

If engaging in sin was a valid reason not to hire someone and/or to fire someone, no Catholic would seek employment as none of us are without sin. Justly not hiring and/or firing someone for their immoral behavior requires more than just the fact they are engaging in the behavior.

 

[migueltojose]

If engaging in sin was a valid reason not to hire someone and/or to fire someone, no Catholic would seek employment as none of us are without sin. Justly not hiring and/or firing someone for their immoral behavior requires more than just the fact they are engaging in the behavior.

touche’ – nice reply…

---

Generally we often confuse tolerance and acceptance.

Sometimes we’re intolerant because we think it would otherwise be seen as accepting. Not so.

OR conversely, sometimes we are tolerant and unwittingly mistakenly become accepting… when we shouldn’t. Don’t.

We need to learn to be tolerant, merciful, forgiving while at the same time never accepting inherent evils against Church teaching.

It’s hard enough to do alone, but really hard to do in mixed company. Admittedly, we are statistically a minority. In fact, practicing Catholics are a very small minority. Maybe 3%.

Our family and friends, co-workers, neighbors, etc. are mostly following along the path of more and more secular relativism. We are lured by temptation, enabled by narcissistic individualism and permissiveness and funded by leisure time and disposable income.

 

[markomalley]

rel·a·tiv·ism
noun
1.
the doctrine that knowledge, truth, and morality exist in relation to culture, society, or historical context, and are not absolute.

Susie’s Mom told her daughter that same sex marriage is not what God intended for a man or a woman.

which is quite different from saying:

Since it’s acceptable in our society today, it’s acceptable to God.

So you are incorrect is stating her answer was relativistic.

My apologies for not responding sooner…got called away about half way through my response.

Sadly, Susie (or the vast majority of third grade children, for that matter) are not nearly as nuanced as miscellaneous adults – including their parents – would like them to be.

Let us look again at Susie’s mom’s statement (I will fisk it in red):Susie goes home and asks her mother why Miss Jones has a wife? Mom says most men marry women, and women marry men, but sometimes men want to marry other men and sometimes women want to marry other women *[NB: Susie’s Mom laid out the unfortunate modern situation. Sadly, Susie’s mom did not explicitly, emphatically, and unambiguously state that it was morally wrong. Therefore, Susie with her third grade brain believes that both arrangements, though different, but equal. But wait…Susie’s mom goes on:].

Mom says our Faith teaches us this is not what God had in mind. [Susie’s mom makes a theological error here it is not ecclesiastical law that homosexual activity is wrong, it is just as surely a part of natural law as the proscription against murder – and no, I’m not trying to equate the two except to say that the natural law prohibits both. One other point: by stating it in this way, Susie’s mom is implying that it would be OK as long as the people involved aren’t Catholic – kids like to push boundaries…particularly start].

Our Faith also teaches us that we should be more concerned with our own sin than with somebody else’s sin (splinter/log) so we aren’t going to judge, gossip or talk badly about Miss Jones. [That is very true…and neither Susie nor her mom should judge, gossip, or talk badly about Miss Jones. Having said that, though, there are some things that are objectively evil. It is a tough balance between identifying objective evil so that our children understand that it is not acceptable for anybody at any time, regardless of their religion or lack thereof…and jumping into a situation where we’re gossiping, judging, or calumnating others. Sadly, Susie’s mom is, in answering the way she did, stressing the secular virtues of acceptance and tolerance moreso than the spiritual works of mercy]

And finally, our Faith teaches us that we are all God’s children and above all, we are to love each other, so we are going to love Miss Jones. [This is very nice, but, again, it would have been more appropriate to say that we are going to love Miss Jones and pray for her]
Starting at around 8 or 9 years old, children start pushing boundaries. This is a perfectly normal part of their development. It is up to those people who are role models for those children, particularly in the age group from around 8 to around 15 (IMHO on the upper end) to set firm boundaries, particularly in matters of what is right and what is wrong.

Based upon my past experience, both as a parent and as one who has taught some particularly tough religion lessons to kids, I have seen this play out too many times. What Susie is going to take from this is that it’s not OK for us as Catholics, but it’s perfectly fine for non-Catholics…and the important thing to get from this is that it’s not OK to apply Catholic morality as a universal norm.

I understand that this is not the message Susie’s mom intended to convey…but I’ve seen too many kids who have been fed repeatedly that type of message by their parents and then a few years later reject any sort of universal morality.

And that’s why I called it (and still call it) relativistic.

As the Holy Father stated:But there is another form of poverty! It is the spiritual poverty of our time, which afflicts the so-called richer countries particularly seriously. It is what my much-loved predecessor, Benedict XVI, called the “tyranny of relativism”, which makes everyone his own criterion and endangers the coexistence of peoples. And that brings me to a second reason for my name. Francis of Assisi tells us we should work to build peace. But there is no true peace without truth! There cannot be true peace if everyone is his own criterion, if everyone can always claim exclusively his own rights, without at the same time caring for the good of others, of everyone, on the basis of the nature that unites every human being on this earth.
IMHO, it would be better if neither Susie nor her mom had to deal with the idea of homosexuality for several years after her third grade experience. Matters of sexuality and alternative “family” arrangements will do nothing but strip her of her innocence.

And going back to the original reason why this was brought up: that is why the CDF said “teachers” rather than “Catholic School teachers”…

 

[Corki]

If engaging in sin was a valid reason not to hire someone and/or to fire someone, no Catholic would seek employment as none of us are without sin. Justly not hiring and/or firing someone for their immoral behavior requires more than just the fact they are engaging in the behavior.

Actually, there are many cases where we are not only allowed to but sometimes required to refuse employment to someone based on immoral behavior. Catholic schools, for example, can’t hire anyone who has been involved in child abuse, banks can’t hire anyone who has been involved in check fraud, the police can’t hire drug dealers. The fact that homosexual behavior has a certain celebrity status right now doesn’t mean that that particular type of immoral behavior should be protected.

And yes, we are all sinners. But grave sins, publicly declared without contrition, will have consequences.