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

[SMGS127]

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, many times employers just see their employee with their partner at a grocery store or similar place that everyone shops, especially in a small town, then fires them as a result. The employee isn’t even trying to be public about it, and yet they still get fired over it. That’s unjust discrimination.

 

[on_the_hill]

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.

Agnes Therese–You’ve been around CAF long enough to know that homosexuals are just about as evil as evil gets. They are child molesters, pedophiles, fornicators, rapists…they’re predators, lying in wait for us to let our guard down.

 

[yellowbird]

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.

I appreciate that your point of view comes with your experience of teaching CCD to children whose parents may not have been very faithful to their vow of raising their children in the Church. I have the utmost respect for you and your willingness to teach CCD. I mean that with all sincerity. I went through RCIA 9 years ago and I LOVE our Church - and I’m so thankful for my teachers.

The Susie conversation I posted was something I’d have with my children in 3rd grade - but it wouldn’t end there. We’d continue to talk about this subject and others throughout their formative years. I can assure you my teenagers know exactly where I stand on the gay issue. I try very hard to convey the love the sinner (very much) but hate the sin (and yes, it’s a sin regardless of what they see on TV and regardless of what everyone else says) But I have to balance that message with the truth that we are all sinners - desperately in need of a savior and all of us would be lost without God’s grace. I call sin a sin - but leave the judgment up to God - trusting that he loves all of us in our sinfulness so much that he sent His Son to die in our place and His mercy is beyond our comprehension. We are very active in the art community so we know a wide variety of gay people. They are our friends, neighbors and even a relative or two and I welcome them in our lives. I don’t view them the same as abusers, child molesters, or liars. I simply view them as people I know and love. I don’t know if that’s right or wrong… I would hope that God would never fault me for loving someone in spite of their sin. Isn’t that what He does?

God bless.

 

[markomalley]

I appreciate that your point of view comes with your experience of teaching CCD to children whose parents may not have been very faithful to their vow of raising their children in the Church. I have the utmost respect for you and your willingness to teach CCD. I mean that with all sincerity. I went through RCIA 9 years ago and I LOVE our Church - and I’m so thankful for my teachers.

The Susie conversation I posted was something I’d have with my children in 3rd grade - but it wouldn’t end there. We’d continue to talk about this subject and others throughout their formative years. I can assure you my teenagers know exactly where I stand on the gay issue. I try very hard to convey the love the sinner (very much) but hate the sin (and yes, it’s a sin regardless of what they see on TV and regardless of what everyone else says) But I have to balance that message with the truth that we are all sinners - desperately in need of a savior and all of us would be lost without God’s grace. I call sin a sin - but leave the judgment up to God - trusting that he loves all of us in our sinfulness so much that he sent His Son to die in our place and His mercy is beyond our comprehension. We are very active in the art community so we know a wide variety of gay people. They are our friends, neighbors and even a relative or two and I welcome them in our lives. I don’t view them the same as abusers, child molesters, or liars. I simply view them as people I know and love. I don’t know if that’s right or wrong… I would hope that God would never fault me for loving someone in spite of their sin. Isn’t that what He does?

God bless.

It is a tough call. And I mean that sincerely. We don’t want to condemn a person to everlasting perdition (that is God’s job)…on the other hand, remember that two of the spiritual works of mercy are to admonish the sinner and to instruct the ignorant. So the question is on how we are to perform those spiritual works of mercy without totally alienating friends and relatives. Or is it, in fact, more merciful to lay it out and let the chips fall where they may?

I also recognize that if you aren’t careful, Susie is, the next school day, going to tell Miss Jones that she is going to hell. And that won’t end well for anybody.

Imagine if Miss Smith, a fourth grade teacher, goes out sick for a couple of days and comes back and, when asked by her kids what was wrong and if she feels better, tells her class that she had an abortion “because when she wants to become a mommy, she wants to love the child as much as possible and she just couldn’t love her child right now as much as she loves the kids in her class.” (Yes, it has happened). What’s the Catholic parent to say to the kid in that situation?

This example is the reason why I think that morality clauses (including public admission of homosexuality) should be in place for public school teachers just like it is for parochial school teachers. They are role models for the children under their care and they teach the kids as much by their manner of living as they do by the lessons they teach. If they aren’t in place, at some point in time whether an agenda is pushed by the teacher or not, the contradictions are going to come out. And that puts parents in a bad position, particularly if they are trying to rear their children with more-or-less traditional paradigms of morality.

This also illustrates why I would be very, very reticent to allow a “same sex couple” to enroll their child(ren) in a parochial school. [And I would include parents on their second or third marriage – unless prior ones were properly annulled]. At some point, if the parochial school is doing its job in passing on the Faith, the contradictions in the parents’ lives are going to come out. When the school deals with sexuality, marriage, family, etc., the school will either have to compromise on the teachings of Christ or the school will be teaching the kids that their parents are in a sinful relationship. [in the case of “same sex parents”, the only exception I would allow is if the parents would voluntarily sign a disclaimer acknowledging that they understand their relationship is viewed as disordered by the Church and that their children will be taught that at some point…and with a promise that they will not complain about it when it comes up…whether in religion class or otherwise]

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

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.

No! (See below…)

Would it be wrong to fire someone just for being gay if they work for a non-catholic entity?

Yes! :bigyikes:

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

You couldn’t possibly be any more wrong - any more horrendously wrong.

CCC 2358 says, “[Homosexuals] must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.”

No Catholic institution that I’m aware of says that it would be wrong to “have gays working for them.” That would be a horrible and genuinely discriminatory position to take.

WildCatholic, if gays aren’t allowed to work in your ideal world, then how do they survive? How do they make money in order to be able to eat? What are gay people supposed to do, hide from the world and just waste away and die?

But then should catholic institutions say this as well and hire them? I think not.

The same standards apply to everyone, sexual orientation notwithstanding: anyone who is willing to support the Catholic faith and worldview should be allowed to work at a Catholic organization.

Don’t get me wrong, but a person doesn’t have to be gay. Being gay isn’t like being black or being disabled. You can’t change those things.

Ah, I see your confusion.

When most of our world today uses the word “gay,” they’re speaking simply of orientation: so even a chaste, celibate individual counts as gay if (s)he happens to be attracted mostly to members of the same sex.

And since people discover rather than choose whom they’re attracted to, then no, they can’t change it.

Why is it wrong though. My own priest says the gay lobby controls the media and that all this anti gay stuff is just the media being a bunch of crybabies. Why not just go work for a gay friendly company. There’s plenty of them.

So a gay person has no place in the Church? Christ didn’t die for them, too?

How do you see a homosexual fitting into a life of active, Catholic discipleship? There has to be a way. To deny that there is would be both hurtful and heretical.

So what is that way? How do they fit in?

I’m Catholic, and I hired a gay person. He was the best candidate for the job, and he has exceeded our expectations.

I know very little about his personal life, and in any case it has essentially no bearing on his job.

Well said. May your sanity prove contagious.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

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.

And those examples you provide are what I would term as just actions in regards to not hiring and or firing someone. The OP lists a position at Target in the example. I can not think of any position at Target in which engaging in homosexual behavior is a just reason for not hiring and/or firing someone. A teacher, let alone at a Catholic school, is completely different.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

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.

I was appalled by you comparing a gay couple to domestic violence.

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.

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”.

And if a heterosexual male had a photograph of his girlfriend on his desk?

Two women claiming to be married to each other would fall under the morality clause at a Catholic school.

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.

Too often I see people apply “hate the sin, love the sinner” as “hate the sin, love the sinner”, they act as though telling gay people how disgusting they are because of the actions they do is “love”.

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.

Those aren’t just immoral actions, those are also illegal and demonstrate that said person might be inclined to violate the law again and their duties.

Agnes Therese–You’ve been around CAF long enough to know that homosexuals are just about as evil as evil gets. They are child molesters, pedophiles, fornicators, rapists…they’re predators, lying in wait for us to let our guard down.

You forgot zoophiles, devotees of Satan and genocidal maniacs

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

It is a tough call. And I mean that sincerely. We don’t want to condemn a person to everlasting perdition (that is God’s job)…on the other hand, remember that two of the spiritual works of mercy are to admonish the sinner and to instruct the ignorant. So the question is on how we are to perform those spiritual works of mercy without totally alienating friends and relatives. Or is it, in fact, more merciful to lay it out and let the chips fall where they may?

I also recognize that if you aren’t careful, Susie is, the next school day, going to tell Miss Jones that she is going to hell. And that won’t end well for anybody.

Imagine if Miss Smith, a fourth grade teacher, goes out sick for a couple of days and comes back and, when asked by her kids what was wrong and if she feels better, tells her class that she had an abortion “because when she wants to become a mommy, she wants to love the child as much as possible and she just couldn’t love her child right now as much as she loves the kids in her class.” (Yes, it has happened). What’s the Catholic parent to say to the kid in that situation?

This example is the reason why I think that morality clauses (including public admission of homosexuality) should be in place for public school teachers just like it is for parochial school teachers. They are role models for the children under their care and they teach the kids as much by their manner of living as they do by the lessons they teach. If they aren’t in place, at some point in time whether an agenda is pushed by the teacher or not, the contradictions are going to come out. And that puts parents in a bad position, particularly if they are trying to rear their children with more-or-less traditional paradigms of morality.

This also illustrates why I would be very, very reticent to allow a “same sex couple” to enroll their child(ren) in a parochial school. [And I would include parents on their second or third marriage – unless prior ones were properly annulled]. At some point, if the parochial school is doing its job in passing on the Faith, the contradictions in the parents’ lives are going to come out. When the school deals with sexuality, marriage, family, etc., the school will either have to compromise on the teachings of Christ or the school will be teaching the kids that their parents are in a sinful relationship. [in the case of “same sex parents”, the only exception I would allow is if the parents would voluntarily sign a disclaimer acknowledging that they understand their relationship is viewed as disordered by the Church and that their children will be taught that at some point…and with a promise that they will not complain about it when it comes up…whether in religion class or otherwise]

Most people just the situation worse when they “admonish the sinner” because they are doing it horribly wrong.

“[P]ublic admission of homosexuality” is a vacuous phrase and would be useless in a legal document.

Heaven forbid parents should have to actually parent and instruct their child in the faith at some point.

I think the word you are looking for is “reluctant”, not “reticent”

 

[oldcatholicguy]

I was appalled by you comparing a gay couple to domestic violence.

Too often I see people apply “hate the sin, love the sinner” as “hate the sin, love the sinner”, they act as though telling gay people how disgusting they are because of the actions they do is “love”.

So I can see your comment to me as you "telling [people you disagree with and/or question what they are saying] how disgusting they are because of the actions you do is “love.”?

Stating that my example wasn’t very good due to it easily being interpreted incorrect, or even asking me if I was comparing homosexuals to abuser are rather different than the comment you made.

 

[Corki]

I was appalled by you comparing a gay couple to domestic violence.

Why? The Church has said that allowing homosexual couples to adopt is a form of child abuse.

And if a heterosexual male had a photograph of his girlfriend on his desk?

Invalid comparison. There is nothing immoral about a man having a girlfriend.

Two women claiming to be married to each other would fall under the morality clause at a Catholic school.

What if it wasn’t a Catholic school? It’s still just as immoral.

Those aren’t just immoral actions, those are also illegal and demonstrate that said person might be inclined to violate the law again and their duties.

Attempting to marry a person of the same sex is against the law in most states and demonstrates that such person might be inclined to violate the law again and their duties. It is, at best, an indication of the character of the individual and his frame of morals and ethics. This is an important thing for an employer to assess.

 

[Cimachol]

Obviously I know (and agree with ) that Catholic institutions shouldn’t have gays working for them.

I don’t know that I think even this is obvious, or that I agree with it. The janitor at your parish should be fired if he’s gay? I’d say only if that is somehow interfering with his job duties or if he’s somehow using his position as a janitor to try to spread a pro-homosexuality agenda within the parish. In that case, you wouldn’t be firing him because of his being gay, per se, but because of the ideology he is spreading.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Why? The Church has said that allowing homosexual couples to adopt is a form of child abuse.

Pope Francis said that before being elected pope; I don’t recall the Vatican officially saying it.

Invalid comparison. There is nothing immoral about a man having a girlfriend.

Girlfriend/Boyfriend now often implies a sexual relationship especially amongst younger people

What if it wasn’t a Catholic school? It’s still just as immoral.

And?

Attempting to marry a person of the same sex is against the law in most states and demonstrates that such person might be inclined to violate the law again and their duties. It is, at best, an indication of the character of the individual and his frame of morals and ethics. This is an important thing for an employer to assess.

If they were married in a state that allows marriage between two people of the same sex then the federal government recognizes it therefore even if the state where they currently reside does not permit it they can say they are married.

 

[dixieagle]

Agnes Therese–You’ve been around CAF long enough to know that homosexuals are just about as evil as evil gets. They are child molesters, pedophiles, fornicators, rapists…they’re predators, lying in wait for us to let our guard down.

In other words, just like the heterosexuals who make up the majority of people who do these things?

I can only hope you’re being facetious…

 

[Corki]

Pope Francis said that before being elected pope; I don’t recall the Vatican officially saying it.

Pope Francis said that in Dec. 2013 which was long after he became Pope. There is also a document from the early 2000s that describes adoption by same-sex couples as a violence to the child.

Girlfriend/Boyfriend now often implies a sexual relationship especially amongst younger people

I think you mean that people often **infer **a sexual relationship but there is nothing about a pic of a man and his girlfriend that indicates anything immoral. (Unless you are saying that any picture of two people means they are having a sexual relationship?) A pic of a woman and her “wife” certainly does indicate something immoral.

And?

And the message to the kids is the same even if there is no contract with a morals clause.

If they were married in a state that allows marriage between two people of the same sex then the federal government recognizes it therefore even if the state where they currently reside does not permit it they can say they are married

But it is still an indication of an immoral character. There are states where marijuana use is legal but it is still a good idea for an employer to screen out pot smokers from the employment pool. Being a stripper is legal in many states but having that on your resume is likely to cost you many possible jobs. Illegal activity is almost always immoral but legal activity does not always mean moral activity.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

In other words, just like the heterosexuals who make up the majority of people who do these things?

I can only hope you’re being facetious…

I’m pretty sure that post is mocking the various posts that have said those things.

 

[markomalley]

Most people just the situation worse when they “admonish the sinner” because they are doing it horribly wrong.

“[P]ublic admission of homosexuality” is a vacuous phrase and would be useless in a legal document.

Heaven forbid parents should have to actually parent and instruct their child in the faith at some point.

I think the word you are looking for is “reluctant”, not “reticent”

No, I meant reticent.

Full Definition of RETICENT
1: inclined to be silent or uncommunicative in speech : reserved
2: restrained in expression, presentation, or appearance <the room has an aspect of reticent dignity — A. N. Whitehead>
3: reluctant
I would be reticent to allow the children of homosexual “parents” to enter a parochial school because of the fact that I would have to be reticent in refusing them admission.

If I was to phrase it differently, though, I would not use “reluctant” – I would rather say that I would not be sanguine to the prospect of children of homosexual “parents” entering a parochial school.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

No, I meant reticent.

Full Definition of RETICENT
1: inclined to be silent or uncommunicative in speech : reserved
2: restrained in expression, presentation, or appearance <the room has an aspect of reticent dignity — A. N. Whitehead>
3: reluctant
I would be reticent to allow the children of homosexual “parents” to enter a parochial school because of the fact that I would have to be reticent in refusing them admission.

If I was to phrase it differently, though, I would not use “reluctant” – I would rather say that I would not be sanguine to the prospect of children of homosexual “parents” entering a parochial school.

Neither 1 or 2 make much sense in either sentences.

 

[markomalley]

Neither 1 or 2 make much sense in either sentences.

Take your argument up with Merriam Webster.

 

[markomalley]

Neither 1 or 2 make much sense in either sentences.

But, for the benefit of the viewing audience:

I would be reticent (#3 – with nuances pointing to #1) to allow the children of homosexual “parents” to enter a parochial school because of the fact that I would have to be reticent (#1 or #2, take your pick) in refusing them admission.

(In other words, I’d have to bite my tongue in today’s popular culture)

 

[Corki]

And those examples you provide are what I would term as just actions in regards to not hiring and or firing someone. The OP lists a position at Target in the example. I can not think of any position at Target in which engaging in homosexual behavior is a just reason for not hiring and/or firing someone. A teacher, let alone at a Catholic school, is completely different.

Character matters and as an employer, it’s an important thing to look for in a potential employee. Whether or not a person is engaged in homosexual behavior is not as much of an issue but if the prospective employee feels he** needs** to make sure you know about that activity, it speaks volumes as to his character.