Infuriating Article

[Machete]

I don't give a fuck if the Diocese is within its rights or not, but a lesbian being fired for getting married is goddamned hypocracy

[Callie Del Noire]

True.. but it's a private Catholic supported school, when the diocese makes the decisions it's pretty much done. Sad though it is, she did violate her contract. (Screwy that...)

Me personally? I find it at the very least galling that you can fire a woman for being a married lesbian but as she points out, all those who use birth control, divorce and whatever (also 'sins' according to the Church) are quietly forgiven. And I find the timing of the announcement very interesting. She's out of a job at the beginning of the school year? With little or no lead time to go looking for a vacancy elsewhere.

That's very charitable and understanding. All in all, what I have come to expect of the Catholic Church. I find it hard to see the church as an organization as a force for good anymore.

[Wolfy]

True.. but it's a private Catholic supported school, when the diocese makes the decisions it's pretty much done. Sad though it is, she did violate her contract. (Screwy that...)

Me personally? I find it at the very least galling that you can fire a woman for being a married lesbian but as she points out, all those who use birth control, divorce and whatever (also 'sins' according to the Church) are quietly forgiven. And I find the timing of the announcement very interesting. She's out of a job at the beginning of the school year? With little or no lead time to go looking for a vacancy elsewhere.

That's very charitable and understanding. All in all, what I have come to expect of the Catholic Church. I find it hard to see the church as an organization as a force for good anymore.

<_<>_> The Church hasn't been a force of good for a long time. *cough*The Crusades*cough*

[Hemingway]

Reading this makes me feel a lot of things. Surprise is not one of them.

[Oniya]

True.. but it's a private Catholic supported school, when the diocese makes the decisions it's pretty much done. Sad though it is, she did violate her contract. (Screwy that...)

Me personally? I find it at the very least galling that you can fire a woman for being a married lesbian but as she points out, all those who use birth control, divorce and whatever (also 'sins' according to the Church) are quietly forgiven. And I find the timing of the announcement very interesting. She's out of a job at the beginning of the school year? With little or no lead time to go looking for a vacancy elsewhere.

That's very charitable and understanding. All in all, what I have come to expect of the Catholic Church. I find it hard to see the church as an organization as a force for good anymore.

The article did say that she had gotten married in August.  It doesn't give an exact date, but the meeting was apparently the first of September (Wednesday).  I don't think that the short lead time can be entirely laid on the diocese. 

My question would be whether or not there is evidence that known divorcees, etc. have been 'quietly forgiven'.  If there are such people, then yes, the diocese is being hypocritical, but what if there aren't?  What if there are actually cases where a re-married teacher has been passed over in hiring decisions, or was quietly let go?  Or a male teacher going on medical leave (for a vasectomy - not sure that's actually against the whole birth-control thing, but it was mentioned in the article) and not returning?

[Machete]

I was getting at the fact that I don't remember hearing that the Church removed any of the accused child molesters, whether they abused boys or girls, during the sexual abuse scandal.

[RubySlippers]

Not to mention the Churches long history of bloodshed, persecution, hatred to others (pagans, heretics, supposed witches), genocide and supporting war against other faiths none of which Jesus said was ok. And seeking worldly power and wealth becoming what amount to a guilded harlot just look at the Vatican is that what Jesus would have wanted?  ???

And I won't get into a more recent scandal with clergy and some parties that were innocent and that was covered up all the way up to the Holy See.

Anyway they had the right to fire her its seperation of church and state I must respect that at least as a member of the clergy lthough in the ULC we are flexible.

[Callie Del Noire]

Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry vs. The Catholic Church
<for the sake of space I took the rest out, you can follow it from the first one>

Stephen Fry makes some pointed commentary towards what some of the things that make me regard the Catholic Church as an organization which has lost it's way. (at least the leadership).

Ironically I think that the average devout Catholic has long been ignored and marginalized by their leadership. They have little or no say in the policies of the church, and of all the major christian faiths they seem to have the least input on policies, changes and how their church functions.

I might not agree with the policies of the fair I was raised in (Anglican/Presbyterian) but there is input among the lay folk. 

[Ironwolf85]

if they want to restore themselves, and the respect the world once had for them, the Cathoic church is going to have to do a lot of restructuring and cracking down.
the cathloic ministers I've met are usually good guys and their congragations are actually a force for good, but I think corruption sets in at the mid levels somewhere, and it's crippled their image. I heard of some groups of ministers starting to wonder about splitting off.
old "Mother Church" has lost moral authority when they became "the harlot of rome" (if you listen to calvinists) sometime during the early rennisance.
and to the list of percicutions, it was a bloody brutal time that the church inherited from the fallen romans, and every warlord used their faith to justify slauthering and trying to carve out a kingdom. so part of it was the bloody times, part that the church was kind of "politics of faith." That jesus would not have wanted, and that in-fact had him percuted and crusified in the first place.
People blame the church for it's brutality, but it's opposition was just as brutal especally in the early middle ages, the Papacy was just more organized, and could throw it's weight behind the warlords it liked.

I'm not painting it as a hero, or as the great power it imagines itself as, I just think they are blamed for all religious brutality in the middle ages, which is actually unfair... most of the time it was the local rulers who actually held their own witch trials.
The crusades were brutal of course, but their brutality cannot be blamed on the church alone, partly the result of a kind of peace in europe, you suddenly had millions of unemployed professional soldiers, knights, and generals. When the Byzantine emperor requested aid against the islamic armies in the east, the Pope used the local sultan's refusal to allow pilgrims in to the holy city as a way to get all those guys with swords out of europe. and hey if they take a few cities for the church... that'd be just fine...
When the man leading the first crusade lost his wife, he suddenly became impoverished, losing all ties to her wealthy family back home. exausted, hungry, overheated, and now dirt poor... but with an army of professional warriors eager and chomping at the bit for battle, what would you do? the brutality he started upon the people of the middle east in taking their wealth and land started a cycle of slaughter on both sides that only ended when Richard and Saladin agreed to end the cycle of slaughter.
see it's far more complex then "the church sent a lot of guys to kill muslims for having another religon"

and let's not forget the inquisition, a blight on the church if ever there was one... though the office of the inquisition was brutal, their real power was whipping crowds up into a frenzy, and using it to attack anyone suspected of heresy.
the worst branch of the inquisiton was the Spanish, this is because when the blood started to rise, the papacy could not stop them. The Spanish Inquisition answered only to the Spanish Crown, the pope actually had no say in their actions. though I'm guessing it would have still been brutal, but they would have stopped much earlier...

nothing is simple...
but Callie is right, they have marganlized their on flock over the years by being involved in such things, and now the scandals the church is 100% guilty

[Wolfy]

And yet they are going to get a free pass because they are "saving souls". >_>

Psh.

[Callie Del Noire]

And yet they are going to get a free pass because they are "saving souls". >_>

Psh.

Not entirely. Discontent within in the church has been growing over the lack of reform since the first real accusations in the 90s. As Ironwolf hasointed out, talk of breaking with the church has increased greatly. Not to mention the 'get out of jail' dealings have greatly hurt them in traditionally strong areas like Ireland. Reform is needed but too many senior officials at this time are possibly criminally culpable to allow it. As a result the are wringing their hands and trying to ignore the corpse in the closet in hopes it will go away.

Time will tell if the Vatican will grow a spine and start culling the rotten from the faithful. A lot of fences need to be mended to fix the wounds they have let fester for so long.

[Noelle]

Anyway they had the right to fire her its seperation of church and state I must respect that at least as a member of the clergy lthough in the ULC we are flexible.

How is firing her separation of church and state? If Massachusetts has laws that also include gays in protection against discrimination/termination, this is the church basically giving a finger to that and overruling state law with religious.

I dunno, shouldn't the woman have kind of seen this coming? It doesn't make it any less unfair for her, it seems she was a very prominent leader and was well-loved in the district, but Catholics have never been renowned for their progressive views regarding homosexuals, so it's surprising they'd allow an openly homosexual woman to teach in the first place...Their stance on homosexuals getting married should've been a no-brainer.

By all means, if a homosexual wants to practice and become involved Catholicism in particular, that's up to the individual, but it does kind of put you at the mercy of people who may not protect you when it comes down to it. Don't confuse this with victim-blaming -- by all means I sympathize with how disappointed and let down she must feel, but I have a hard time thinking that she couldn't have possibly seen this as a potential outcome of her decision.

Regardless, I hope she's happy with her partner and finds a position better-suited to supporting her marriage.

[Oniya]

How is firing her separation of church and state? If Massachusetts has laws that also include gays in protection against discrimination/termination, this is the church basically giving a finger to that and overruling state law with religious.

It's the fact that it's not a state-supported school, but a private organization.  In the same sense that the state can't force the church to hire women as priests, a religiously-affiliated school has exemptions on who they put in what positions.

[Brandon]

She worked there for 12 years total. She had plenty of time to find a different job if she felt the anti-gay sentiment of the catholic church was to much and she had plenty of time to find another job between the day she proposed (or was proposed to) and had the wedding. She signed a contract too meaning there are only 1 of 2 possibilities in my mind. The first is she didnt read the contract and if thats the case then Im sorry but shes an idiot. The first thing anyone learns about contracts is that you read the whole thing, even the little type at the bottom. The second is she is trying to stir up controversy, which I find much more likely. If thats the case I have zero sympathy for her (did anyone not even think that could be possibility?)

Edit: Also I think people missed the point that she had a choice of being fired or resigning. The former can hurt future job searches, the later wont (because you basicly quit). If this was a decision made out of malice she just would have been fired, end of story.

[Noelle]

It's the fact that it's not a state-supported school, but a private organization.  In the same sense that the state can't force the church to hire women as priests, a religiously-affiliated school has exemptions on who they put in what positions.

I see what you mean...I did happen to think of that, but couldn't quite formulate my thoughts (yay late-night posting). No, I agree entirely. A private organization is allowed to be as an elite of a club as they'd like. If they wanted to discriminate against women, people with red hair, and Cthulhu (though this might not be the wisest move D:), so long as the state isn't funding them, I don't see why not.

[Jude]

By being part of the Catholic School she taught in, she was facilitating children being taught religious dogma as part of their education, and in particular, a religious dogma that preaches against the way she lives her life.  If anyone was being hypocritical here, it was her.  She never should've taken a position within an institution that openly condemns her personal lifestyle.

Having said that, I still feel some sympathy for her, it sucks being fired, especially in this economy, but how did she not see this coming?  I obviously think it's wrong for people to be fired simply because they're homosexual, but she was wrong for supporting an institution that actively works against her interests for personal gain.

[kylie]

         Assuming this school is asking tuition and serving as one of a limited number of state-approved options for educational certification in the area, then I also wonder if they don't count as a business subject to recent laws against discrimination on the basis of orientation.  Particularly if they are claiming eligibility for any sort of federal money or programs.  Either way, I suspect as a school, they can be scrutinized as lying within the education industry.  It isn't the same as say, the Boy Scouts, who have gained a certain judicial protection for discrimination.  Has this school sort of case even been tested in court, in light of the laws about orientation and employment?

She never should've taken a position within an institution that openly condemns her personal lifestyle.

Ultimately, this means accepting a situation where if you are in a political minority, you are forced flee to some particular geographic enclave and live a segregated "community" existence, with only as many professional opportunities as the more "friendly" areas can provide. 

        One can say always people didn't work hard enough to get "out" of or avoid this or that unsympathetic organization.  That sort of argument can be extended until we reach the point where everyone should burn themselves at birth, rather than "allow" themselves to become a victim and/or complicit with abuse on any number of issues.  We're all implicated in the culture we are in, every little organization and issue that ties to all the others.  Most groups aren't so perfect and oppress people in some ways.  At some point, people have to take a stand from within the groups they have, or nothing changes at all. 

       Simply saying that one should avoid a given situation also ignores all of the good that people have tried to do through otherwise flawed communities.  It doesn't consider how limited their overall choices often are regarding where to work and how.  I'd really question how you can draw a clean line between personal issues and political action.  For lesbian women in the church, try substituting simply women in the US.  American women are well enough aware that they generally receive lower pay, and are frequently attacked or assaulted.  American society keeps on with this, much as the Catholic Church has kept on marginalizing women generally and now gays/lesbians in particular.    So, rather than remain scattered across an abusive society, should American women all flee to a few states with the most favorable laws for them, or seek asylum abroad?  Or should they challenge that culture by example -- even at the risk of further discrimination and suffering?  For that matter...  If the Catholic Church has a noteworthy problem of child abuse, does that mean all of the conscientious priests should give up the whole institution and those selective jobs they have worked endlessly to attain, as soon as they become aware of the scandal? 

[Imogen]

I don't see any hypocrisy or fail in the decision to let this teacher go based on the merits of this case alone.

Of course, we can drag in world politics. We can point at the abuse of young boys by Catholics, we can shout "Go Gay Marriage" and wave banners. We can bring in a thousand wrong doings and claim the Church consists of a bunch of hypocrites and cheer at this new example of prejudice, but in the end this employee was subject to a contract she has signed - assumingly - of her own free will.

I find it extremely naive to believe she would be exempt from consequences simply because she has worked there for twelve years. To my best knowledge, no amount of years of employment can give you any right to break a contract onesidedly.

If, and this is an IF that is printed in big, fat letters, there are other proven cases where the board has turned a blind eye towards other transgressors, then I agree with hypocrisy on the part of those who made the decision. But, I also do believe that tolerance should be invited, helped along and given a chance. Do I believe that gay people should have the right to marry? Absolutely. Do I think it is the smart thing to do when working for an institution that abhors that kind of thing? She has every right to flaunt her right to marry in the Institution's face. To believe that doing so would not meet with consequences ranges in my book from naive to outright dumb.

[kylie]

(Not necessarily assuming Imogen identifies as conservative - but I see a certain consistency in the rhetoric here.)

Conservatives are always talking about these supposedly 'obvious' consequences... 
As if the only "consequences" that matter -- the only ones we should notice -- are the ones that keep people within the lines one approves of.

          Well, there is more than one way to play that game.  There can be negative consequences of not tolerating gay marriage.  For instance, the law against employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation also provides for consequences.

          So, such outcomes are only as "natural" as your premises.

[Kurzyk]

I don't give a fuck if the Diocese is within its rights or not, but a lesbian being fired for getting married is goddamned hypocracy

That school is a private organization that does not condone or support gay marriage. When one of their staff does, it's within their rights, no matter how much we may agree or disagree with it, to terminate them. That is not hypocrisy.

It's only hypocrisy if her allegations that others are doing so with impunity is true. Policies regarding termination, in any business, should be consistent for all employees.

[Imogen]

I am not too fond of being attacked on a personal level on basis of a post. Not even when it is posted between brackets.

That said, I strongly believe there is a huge difference between "being right" and exercising common sense in another's reaction to executing those rights. Having worked for the school for twelve years, one would think this teacher would had had ample time to familiarize herself with its policy. Unfortunately, the article contains very little in the way of actual information, but as far as I can make out from the content as given, this teacher commited a breach of contract. From a legal point of view, the school has acted within its rights.

I would fully agree to the hypocrisy part IF the teacher's accusations towards the school about treating her different from her fellow teachers (divorcees, etc.) are indeed true. Unfortunately, the article doesn't provide further information about this angle and as such, it's anyone's guess what the school's stance has been in other cases. I'm not too keen on immediately accepting a recently fired and angry teacher's accusations as gospel.

[Scribbles]

I just wanted to point out that the hypocrisy is apparently based on the notion that others have committed acts which are against the rules but weren't terminated, or punished.

That said, I hope her qualifications or abilities were brought into question more than something as inane as marriage.

[Noelle]

It's not really that hypocritical if those other acts weren't a breach of contract -- as it has been mentioned, if it can be proven that she was treated differently compared to others who have made breaches of contract, then she'd have a perfectly legitimate case. It's really not that inane when you're working for an organization who openly condemns your lifestyle and believes it's going to send you to hell.

[Scribbles]

Oh, I'm very sure it's not inane to them.

However, I meant for me, personally, it's inane. I'd rather have my child taught by a teacher picked for their ability, experience, etc, than one picked because they didn't marry the wrong gender, race, etc.

[Jaybee]

I don't give a fuck if the Diocese is within its rights or not, but a lesbian being fired for getting married is goddamned hypocracy

The only possible "goddamned" part about it is this teacher's post-mortem fate (though it's an extremely small possibility, given that she has likely accepted Christ).  Furthermore, she was employed by a church; just why are you infuriated or surprised at this outcome?  It's not like she was the Head of Equities at JP Morgan.

[Brandon]

Oh, I'm very sure it's not inane to them.

However, I meant for me, personally, it's inane. I'd rather have my child taught by a teacher picked for their ability, experience, etc, than one picked because they didn't marry the wrong gender, race, etc.

The issue with that line of thinking is they are picked for their ability. She got hired as an open lesbian, and she remained an open lesbian throughout her employment. Its only when she broke her contract that she was given the choice to resign. I suppose you could make the argument that only people that stay there are kept because of their ability to keep their word but isnt that something that every employer wants in an employee?

[Florence]

While on one hand I do have to point out, it's kind of odd to get a job working with a group of people who hate your very existence... that said, if that's where she wants to work, it's disgusting to fire her like that, especially after her long history of loyalty. I'm an atheist, but I was raised Catholic, and if I'm not mistaken, aren't we taught that we're all sinners. Doesn't that mean that everyone else that works there sins in some way or another... so why the hell fire her? Just because you don't LIKE her sin?

[Brandon]

It isnt hate in the slightest, especially in this case (Im sure there are some homophobic people in the church but overall the church is not homophobic). I showed that earlier by pointing out they had grounds to fire here and they allowed her to resign instead. Being homosexual is not what they are against, its acting upon it that is the sin. If you have sex with someone of your sex its a sin, if you're only attracted to someone of the same sex it isnt. Subtle but important difference.

The situation has nothing to do with original sin either. Once a person is baptized original sin is washed away along with any any other sins. After a person is baptized they must confess sins under a priest (when alive) or before god (after death) to have them forgiven.

I dont know the exact reasoning in this case but I suspect the reason is that getting married was assumed that she would be having sex with her wife, thus sinning. She signed a contract that said she wouldnt engage in that kind of activity and she broke her word. She had a choice not to agree to it. Being that she was there for 12 years also allowed her a lot of time to find a new job is she felt the contract was no longer worth holding.

[Scribbles]

The issue with that line of thinking is they are picked for their ability.

I know that it can be difficult to find qualified and experienced people to fill a position, so it'd be a shame to sift through them based on an exceptionally silly preference. It just baffles me when society feels this need to purposefully handicap itself. I suppose I understand the sentimental aspect a little but, personally, I try to stop if I feel it's inconveniencing someone other than myself.

She got hired as an open lesbian, and she remained an open lesbian throughout her employment. Its only when she broke her contract that she was given the choice to resign.

I've yet to say that there's anything wrong with an employer attempting to dismiss an employee for breaching their contract. 

I suppose you could make the argument that only people that stay there are kept because of their ability to keep their word but isnt that something that every employer wants in an employee?

Am I really coming off so snarky?  :P

[Brandon]

No you werent coming off as snarky but I guess I was expecting that line of thinking as if assuming you were someone else. Sorry

Well theres also the fact that you find it silly, they dont. People look at aspects of life and actions differently

[Scribbles]

No you werent coming off as snarky but I guess I was expecting that line of thinking as if assuming you were someone else. Sorry

That's okay, it happens.  :-)

Well theres also the fact that you find it silly, they dont. People look at aspects of life and actions differently

True, our opinions differ. I wish I could understand the consequences they see however. I had a teacher, who was both lesbian, married and in a Catholic Girls School, and nothing horrible happened to anyone or the school. It was actually considered one of the best in the area.

[Brandon]

Im reminded of my mom once saying she didnt want any of the male teachers me or my brother had to be gay because she thought they might influence us somehow. Today she knows thats not how things tend to work but for the time it was her way of thinking. For them, as far as I know the bible only has 1 section that covers homosexuality and it plainly states its an abomination to the natural order (I dont believe that myself). This means when the bible is used as a club (something I despise in and of itself) christians are pretty much trapped in one answer to the issue, at least until another testament is added. Then again, if there were two contradicting answers toward it then we would be where Hindu's are. Not being sure which to believe and use

I think ultimately theyre trying to do what they see as the right thing, saving peoples souls from going to hell. A lot of people think that its hatred of homosexuals but over all its not, its love for all  of mankind. I once made the comparison that if a person knows someone who is killing themselves with drugs they interfere because they know its killing the body. When a christian see's sin they interfere because they know its killing the soul. The difference between these comparisons is in the case of drugs we can see the effects with our own eyes but what happens to the soul after death is and likely will forever remain a mystery

[Jude]

Im reminded of my mom once saying she didnt want any of the male teachers me or my brother had to be gay because she thought they might influence us somehow. Today she knows thats not how things tend to work but for the time it was her way of thinking. For them, as far as I know the bible only has 1 section that covers homosexuality and it plainly states its an abomination to the natural order (I dont believe that myself). This means when the bible is used as a club (something I despise in and of itself) christians are pretty much trapped in one answer to the issue, at least until another testament is added. Then again, if there were two contradicting answers toward it then we would be where Hindu's are. Not being sure which to believe and use

I think ultimately theyre trying to do what they see as the right thing, saving peoples souls from going to hell. A lot of people think that its hatred of homosexuals but over all its not, its love for all  of mankind. I once made the comparison that if a person knows someone who is killing themselves with drugs they interfere because they know its killing the body. When a christian see's sin they interfere because they know its killing the soul. The difference between these comparisons is in the case of drugs we can see the effects with our own eyes but what happens to the soul after death is and likely will forever remain a mystery

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_the_bible

As you can see, even the perception that it's only in the old testament isn't accurate.

[Serephino]

Yeah, I'd say this is big time hypocrisy, but I'm not surprised.  Why this woman chose to teach at a Catholic school is beyond me.  I wouldn't.  Even still, I do believe that this is a case of discrimination.  Whether or not they receive government funding doesn't matter.  No place that hires people is allowed to do this.  McDonalds is a privately owned corporation and they can't discriminate against my boyfriend.  They are asses with us, but they haven't done anything we could sue for yet I don't think.  I don't think it said there was anything about this in her contract, but even if there was it wouldn't hold up.  Any clause of a contract that violates a law, such as the anti-discrimination laws, is invalid.  There only standing in this is their beliefs. 

And yes, according to the Bible everyone who works there is a sinner.  Original sin may be washed away with baptism, but if everyone was suddenly perfect after that why would they need confession?  It is believed that even the most righteous of people can occasionally be led astray because we puny humans are weak while Satan is powerful. This is coming directly from the mouth of a hardcore Catholic that I used to talk to, and also reading the Bible myself and going to church every Sunday for about 7 years.     

She also said that since homosexuality is called an abomination then it must be worse than a regular sin.  This idiot kept trying to save my soul because she liked me, and I have to say, it was fucking annoying!  There is such a thing called tact, and this woman didn't have it.  I also don't believe they were trying to save her soul when they forced her to resign.   

Anyway...  we don't know if there are other teachers there who are divorced among other things, but it wouldn't surprise me if there were.  After all, regular sins can be absolved in confession.  If she married another woman she obviously had no intent of walking the path of God, and fully intended on indulging in an abomination.         

[Noelle]

Yeah, I'd say this is big time hypocrisy, but I'm not surprised.

Where is the inconsistency with this case? The woman had a contract, she violated said contract, she was given the option to resign or be terminated. That's protocol. They allowed her to teach for twelve years uninterrupted until she broke her contract. How much more straight forward could that be?

Whether or not they receive government funding doesn't matter.

Except it does matter. Which is why churches don't have to accept gays, why Freemasons can reject women (not all of them do, but they're traditionally a fraternity), why private schools can include religion at all as opposed to public schools. More on this in a second...

No place that hires people is allowed to do this.  McDonalds is a privately owned corporation and they can't discriminate against my boyfriend.

You don't seem to know what a private corporation is...There's quite a difference. This is what Wikipedia says:

A privately held company or close corporation is a business company owned either by non-governmental organizations or by a relatively small number of shareholders or company members which does not offer or trade its company stock (shares) to the general public on the stock market  exchanges, but rather the company's stock is offered, owned and traded or exchanged privately. Less ambiguous terms for a privately held company are unquoted company and unlisted company.

McDonalds does NOT fall under this definition. At all. The opposite of "privately-owned" isn't "government-run". Here's the definition of a public-owned company, which I believe is more accurate.

A public company or publicly traded company is a company that has permission to offer its registered securities (stock, bonds, etc.) for sale to the general public, typically through a stock exchange, or occasionally a company whose stock is traded over the counter (OTC) via market makers who use non-exchange quotation services.

That would be more along the lines of what you're looking for and why McDonalds has to adhere to a discrimination policy and a Catholic school does not (also by way of separation of church/state).



I can't say I disagree with you in terms of the rest of your post; divorce is a tricky subject, since you can get your marriage annulled within the Church, which I guess makes it "okay" -- the marriage wasn't a sin in the first place, which is where it becomes trickier for gays.

[Jude]

Yeah, I'd say this is big time hypocrisy, but I'm not surprised.  Why this woman chose to teach at a Catholic school is beyond me.  I wouldn't.  Even still, I do believe that this is a case of discrimination.  Whether or not they receive government funding doesn't matter.  No place that hires people is allowed to do this.  McDonalds is a privately owned corporation and they can't discriminate against my boyfriend.  They are asses with us, but they haven't done anything we could sue for yet I don't think.  I don't think it said there was anything about this in her contract, but even if there was it wouldn't hold up.  Any clause of a contract that violates a law, such as the anti-discrimination laws, is invalid.  There only standing in this is their beliefs.

Amateur lawyering without even looking up the law as a reference point is a very poor choice.  The protected classes according to Federal Law in the United States are:   Religion, Sex, Race, Pregnancy, Veterancy, Future Deployment, Disability, Age, DNA, Citizenship, and where you were born.

You'll notice that sexual orientation is not on there.  You may ask why.  You can thank LGBT groups for that:  they torched the latest ENDA proceedings that were more than likely going to pass because they didn't include protections for transgendered peoples, only sexual orientation.  So in theory, Mc Donalds could fire your boyfriend for being gay (depending on the state prohibitions; it varies from state to state).

Of course, the law also includes exemptions for religious organizations.  It would be a little silly for the church to be unable to fire a pastor who they find out is an atheist, wouldn't it?

And yes, according to the Bible everyone who works there is a sinner.  Original sin may be washed away with baptism, but if everyone was suddenly perfect after that why would they need confession?  It is believed that even the most righteous of people can occasionally be led astray because we puny humans are weak while Satan is powerful. This is coming directly from the mouth of a hardcore Catholic that I used to talk to, and also reading the Bible myself and going to church every Sunday for about 7 years.

What makes homosexuality a grievous sin in the eyes of the religious has nothing to do with the sin itself, but that in being openly gay you are continually sinning without asking for repentance.  Entering into a union with another homosexual is essentially the essence of cyclical, unrepentant sinning:  it's really not the same at all.  It's defiant, open disobedience and lack of consideration for god's will.

She also said that since homosexuality is called an abomination then it must be worse than a regular sin.  This idiot kept trying to save my soul because she liked me, and I have to say, it was fucking annoying!  There is such a thing called tact, and this woman didn't have it.  I also don't believe they were trying to save her soul when they forced her to resign.

Maybe not hers, but there's an argument to be made that if they tolerate her homosexuality they have to tolerate any homosexual within the orientation.  Since they believe it's a sin, they believe tolerating that sin would be excusing it, and thus bad because anyone that they excuse god will not.  They consider it their responsibility to act as agents of god and promote his will, not their own, exemplified in dogmatic opposition to homosexuality.

Anyway...  we don't know if there are other teachers there who are divorced among other things, but it wouldn't surprise me if there were.  After all, regular sins can be absolved in confession.  If she married another woman she obviously had no intent of walking the path of God, and fully intended on indulging in an abomination.

You can't be a member of the Catholic Church and be in good standing, divorced, and then be allowed to remarry (and have it accepted by the church).  If someone did such, they would be fired for the same cyclical sort of sinning (and it's considered repetitive adultery by their dogma).  Find an example where someone did that and they weren't fired, then you'd have some hypocrisy to point out.

[Oniya]

You can't be a member of the Catholic Church and be in good standing, divorced, and then be allowed to remarry (and have it accepted by the church).  If someone did such, they would be fired for the same cyclical sort of sinning (and it's considered repetitive adultery by their dogma).  Find an example where someone did that and they weren't fired, then you'd have some hypocrisy to point out.

You can if you get the marriage annulled.  This means that the previous marriage is declared invalid retroactive to the date of the marriage (although this does not affect the legitimacy of any children of the annulled marriage.

The Roman Catholic Church considers a marriage valid when:

    * It is celebrated in a ceremony according to Church law;
    * Both parties are free to marry each other;
    * Each partner intends, from the beginning of the marriage, to accept God's plan for married life as taught by the Church;
    * Each partner has the physical and psychological ability to live out the consent and commitment initially given to the marriage.

If any of these requirements are lacking from the beginning of the marriage, then the Tribunal, acting as the bishop's representative, can declare that marriage invalid.

Grounds for annulment are any of the following:

    * Most annulments are based on canon 1095, psychological reasons. These include a wide range of factors. Some of them may be misrepresentation or fraud (concealing the truth about capacity or desire to have children for example, or about an preexisting marriage, drug addiction, felony convictions, sexual preference or having reached the age of consent)
    * Refusal or inability to consummate the marriage (inability or refusal to have sex)
    * Bigamy, incest (being married to someone else, or close relatives)
    * Duress (being forced or coerced into marriage against one's will or serious external pressure, for example a pregnancy)
    * Mental incapacity (considered unable to understand the nature and expectations of marriage)
    * Lack of knowledge or understanding of the full implications of marriage as a life-long commitment in faithfulness and love, with priority to spouse and children.
    * Psychological inability to live the marriage commitment as described above.
    * Illegal "Form of Marriage" (ceremony was not performed according to Catholic canon law)
    * One/both partners was under the influence of drugs, or addicted to a chemical substance.


If the divorced person has not gone through an annulment and has remarried, then you have the serial adultery (and therefore breach of contract with the school).

[Serephino]

Except it does matter. Which is why churches don't have to accept gays, why Freemasons can reject women (not all of them do, but they're traditionally a fraternity), why private schools can include religion at all as opposed to public schools. More on this in a second...


You don't seem to know what a private corporation is...There's quite a difference. This is what Wikipedia says:

McDonalds does NOT fall under this definition. At all. The opposite of "privately-owned" isn't "government-run". Here's the definition of a public-owned company, which I believe is more accurate.

That would be more along the lines of what you're looking for and why McDonalds has to adhere to a discrimination policy and a Catholic school does not (also by way of separation of church/state).



I can't say I disagree with you in terms of the rest of your post; divorce is a tricky subject, since you can get your marriage annulled within the Church, which I guess makes it "okay" -- the marriage wasn't a sin in the first place, which is where it becomes trickier for gays.

All right, explain this to me then.  The restaurant where my mother works as an accountant is privately owned.  It is not a chain, but a small family owned place.  I worked there too in the kitchens the summer after I graduated high school, and the day I was hired was given an employee handbook. 

In there it stated "This establishment may not discriminate against any potential employee due to race, sex, religion, or criminal background."  Then it had the name and number of some consumer protection agency that one could file a complaint with if they felt that they had indeed been discriminated against.

So why if a place of employment has to either receive government funding, or be a public corporation for this to apply, then why does the small family owned restaurant also have to follow that law?  So again, government funding doesn't matter.  The only leg they have to stand on is that they are a religious institution, which is a pretty damned poor one if you asked me. 

If she hadn't resigned then she would have been fired, so really the only difference here is terminology.  She was allowed to teach because the Catholic church has decided that it's not so bad to be attracted to the same sex as long as you don't act on it.  They are now allowing openly gay priests, which there are no words for. 

I agree that she was crazy for teaching there in the first place, but things like this drive me crazy.  Christ taught his followers to be loving and forgiving *grumbles*   

[Noelle]

All right, explain this to me then.  The restaurant where my mother works as an accountant is privately owned.  It is not a chain, but a small family owned place.  I worked there too in the kitchens the summer after I graduated high school, and the day I was hired was given an employee handbook. 

In there it stated "This establishment may not discriminate against any potential employee due to race, sex, religion, or criminal background."  Then it had the name and number of some consumer protection agency that one could file a complaint with if they felt that they had indeed been discriminated against.

You answered your own question without realizing it.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e and following)

Title VII prohibits employers from discriminating against applicants and employees on the basis of race or color, religion, sex, pregnancy, childbirth and national origin (including membership in a Native American tribe). It also prohibits employers from retaliating against an applicant or employee who asserts his or her rights under the law. For example, an employer cannot fire someone for complaining about race discrimination.

Sexual orientation isn't on there. Jude already pointed out that the GLBT organization shot themselves in the foot on that one.

So why if a place of employment has to either receive government funding, or be a public corporation for this to apply, then why does the small family owned restaurant also have to follow that law?  So again, government funding doesn't matter.  The only leg they have to stand on is that they are a religious institution, which is a pretty damned poor one if you asked me. 

Perhaps this was my mistake; my understanding was that privately-owned businesses had some leeway, but that might not have been entirely correct. Your definition of a private business was still the wrong one, however. If someone wants/needs to clarify this private/public thing further, feel free, my brain is not working at the moment.

Discrimination Allowed by Title VII

In a very narrow exception, Title VII allows an employer to discriminate on the basis of religion, sex or national origin (but never race) if the characteristic is something intrinsic to the job. In legal terms, this exception is called a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) exception.

I wonder if this can be applied in this instance in terms of religion...If the job requires you to be Catholic, then it's expected that you will follow Catholic standards. Gay marriage is not a Catholic standard.

She was allowed to teach because the Catholic church has decided that it's not so bad to be attracted to the same sex as long as you don't act on it.  They are now allowing openly gay priests, which there are no words for. 

She was hired twelve years ago. I would hardly say that was the standard back then. I have no idea what they were thinking.

[kylie]

I'm still a little curious about whether the legality of this has really been thought through out there. 

       I was first thinking of ENDA, which for some reason I (apparently too wishfully) had thought had moved through at the federal level by now.  Apparently even that has some exemption built in for religious organizations.  Ironically enough, that is itself explained through a reference to the 1964 Civil Rights Act...  Massachusetts does have its own Fair Employment Practices Law prohibiting employment discrimination on the basis of orientation.  The pertinent section is here for reference:  http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXXI/Chapter151B/Section4

It seems that at first, this law bars discrimination regarding sexual orientation in schools (among other industries).  But then, it turns around and makes a super-broadly worded exemption for religious institutions.  Which leaves only the possibility of meta attacks on the exemption as written.  Another California-style Equal Protection suit might do. 

          Incidentally, along the way I found:  The 21-ish states with laws against employment discrimination on the basis of orientation all have apparently built in various kind of exemptions for religious organizations.  It's arguable that some exemptions are more vulnerable to empirical review and judicial upset than others.  There's an article that reviews them and the proposed federal ENDA here: 

http://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/0k93c8mh?display=all 

        Although there isn't so much precedent for legal challenges to the religious exemption that I know of now...  I still have a sense that the trend is going to be toward more Equal Protection concerns, increasingly orientation-aware state protections, and eventually more firm challenges to this sort of thing.

[Florence]

It isnt hate in the slightest, especially in this case (Im sure there are some homophobic people in the church but overall the church is not homophobic). I showed that earlier by pointing out they had grounds to fire here and they allowed her to resign instead. Being homosexual is not what they are against, its acting upon it that is the sin. If you have sex with someone of your sex its a sin, if you're only attracted to someone of the same sex it isnt. Subtle but important difference.

The situation has nothing to do with original sin either. Once a person is baptized original sin is washed away along with any any other sins. After a person is baptized they must confess sins under a priest (when alive) or before god (after death) to have them forgiven.

I dont know the exact reasoning in this case but I suspect the reason is that getting married was assumed that she would be having sex with her wife, thus sinning. She signed a contract that said she wouldnt engage in that kind of activity and she broke her word. She had a choice not to agree to it. Being that she was there for 12 years also allowed her a lot of time to find a new job is she felt the contract was no longer worth holding.

Did you just ignore the fact I was pointing out, or did I not speak it clearly enough. We're all sinners. Not just "original sin" but by human nature, we all have vices. If I'm not mistaken, everyone working there is not even required to be a man of the cloth, which means that most of them are just normal people. Are you supposing that they are all saints? None of them commit any sin or activity the church frowns upon? Not a single one has ever coveted something they shouldn't have, none of them have their own little vices? Highly unlikely. Regardless of whether the school knows or finds out, I doubt they're going to fire them. How is her being a lesbian counter-productive to her teaching? Did she propose to have a Gay Sex 101 class?

Now, legally, I'm not arguing, I fully understand, she signed a contract, they had every legal right to fire her (sorry, "let her resign"). That doesn't make it any less disgusting, though. Regardless of how they mask it, it's simple discrimination, it's firing someone because they don't like how she lives her own private life.

It's not hypocrisy, though, the Catholic Church has been fairly consistent on the whole "hating gay people" thing.

[Serephino]

The reason this is hypocrisy is firstly, as you said, we're all sinners.  They'll pray for the adulterer, but they showed a lesbian the door.  They'll quietly cover up a priest molesting an altar boy, but they fired her.  I half wonder if she had been a nun caught having sex with another woman if they would have been more lenient.  Their behavior makes it seem that way. 

Secondly, the Christian message is love.  Christ taught to love your neighbor as yourself, but somehow some of the most bigoted people I've met called themselves Christians.  Go figure....  Now I'm not saying all Christians are bigots here.  I'll be clear about that now so as not to be accused later.  But I did have a devoted Christian tell me how lucky I am to live in a part of the country where the population is 98.3% white.  That, and the whole hating gay people thing.  That goes against what is written in their book.

It definitely is disgusting though.  If it is legal it shouldn't be.  They can go ahead and believe it's a sin, but if they're going to hire regular people off the street it shouldn't matter. 

[Brandon]

Did you just ignore the fact I was pointing out, or did I not speak it clearly enough. We're all sinners. Not just "original sin" but by human nature, we all have vices. If I'm not mistaken, everyone working there is not even required to be a man of the cloth, which means that most of them are just normal people. Are you supposing that they are all saints? None of them commit any sin or activity the church frowns upon? Not a single one has ever coveted something they shouldn't have, none of them have their own little vices? Highly unlikely. Regardless of whether the school knows or finds out, I doubt they're going to fire them. How is her being a lesbian counter-productive to her teaching? Did she propose to have a Gay Sex 101 class?

Now, legally, I'm not arguing, I fully understand, she signed a contract, they had every legal right to fire her (sorry, "let her resign"). That doesn't make it any less disgusting, though. Regardless of how they mask it, it's simple discrimination, it's firing someone because they don't like how she lives her own private life.

It's not hypocrisy, though, the Catholic Church has been fairly consistent on the whole "hating gay people" thing.

Im sorry but I dont think I understand your point at all. The best I can figure is that you think because were all born in sin, by saying you shouldnt keep doing that they're being somehow hypocritical. If this is the case then I dont think you understand the definition of Hypocrite.

[Trieste]

Im sorry but I dont think I understand your point at all. The best I can figure is that you think because were all born in sin, by saying you shouldnt keep doing that they're being somehow hypocritical. If this is the case then I dont think you understand the definition of Hypocrite.

It seems to me that he was saying that it's not JUST original sin that makes us sinners, and that none of the other staff are being punished for their sins. And that the very people making this decision are sinners by nature (to err is human, and whatnot) so casting someone else down for sinning is hypocritical because they themselves are sinners.

It seems to be a 'let he who is without sin cast the first stone' situation.

That's my understanding, anyway.

[Florence]

Im sorry but I dont think I understand your point at all. The best I can figure is that you think because were all born in sin, by saying you shouldnt keep doing that they're being somehow hypocritical. If this is the case then I dont think you understand the definition of Hypocrite.

I have no idea where you got any of that from. I don't believe in "sin", I believe in objective cause and effect. However, the Church teaches, if I haven't already forgotten all I was taught back when I considered myself a Catholic, that all kinds of things are sins. Stealing, lying, the mere thought of coveting another's wife or possessions, thoughts of lust for anyone you're not married to, and a long list. My point was, if everyone sins, not just the "original sin", but minor things we do every day. Thinking bad thoughts, acts of petty selfishness, etc. So it stands to reason that most, perhaps all, of the people in that institution sin on a rather regular basis. Why are they allowed to continue working there, but this woman is not? Is it because she is open about her sin? Why, I thought the Bible commended honesty. No, I think it's far more likely, she isn't allowed to work there because they hate who she is, they hate what she is.

One thing that's always bugged me about the Catholic church, not all Catholics, mind you. I was raised Catholic and my grandparents are devout Catholics, and they are the kindest, most honest and fair people on the face of this planet. But the Catholic church as an institution has this tendency to pick and chose what parts of the Bible they want to apply and where. A priest molest a young boy, he gets a slap on the wrist. A hardworking woman teaching at one of their schools is a lesbian, they give her the boot. The Pope himself can lie and spread propaganda and, frankly, commit some of the most evil acts imaginable, and he walks away with not even a stern talking to. This woman has to find herself a new job for the horrendous crime of being in love. My point is, if NOTHING else, some consistency in how they apply biblical law would be nice.

[Noelle]

Just a minor thing, but...They're not targeting her for "being in love". It's never been about telling people who they can be in love with, as far as I'm aware, and claiming so has mostly just been used as an essentially baseless catchphrase to evoke sympathy or what-have-you. She was in love with her partner presumably for some time leading up to her actual marriage and remained teaching with this school the entire time. She was fired for getting married.

[Will]

Bringing up pedo priests is just going to stifle the discourse. : /

The difference between an adulterer and the lesbian getting married is that the lesbian isn't just committing a sin, she is committing to a sin.  As in, willfully basing her life on a sin.  Personally, I don't think that makes it any less absurd and discriminatory, but such is the way with beliefs that differ from yours.  They often seem very questionable. :P

        Although there isn't so much precedent for legal challenges to the religious exemption that I know of now...  I still have a sense that the trend is going to be toward more Equal Protection concerns, increasingly orientation-aware state protections, and eventually more firm challenges to this sort of thing.

This goes against their beliefs.  Forcing them to change their faith-driven practices to accept people they expressly do not accept seems misguided, hostile, even counter-productive, and doesn't seem very much in line with their freedom of religion.  I'm all for gay marriage, believe me, but I think there's a reason that religious institutions get exemptions from the laws.  It's not quite the same as working at some random business; this is a church, and a church by definition has certain views on the world that translate to its practices.

[RubySlippers]

Really show me where in the OT or the ministry of Jesus lesbanism is prohibited. Even in the Torah male homosexuality is an abomination but not expressed as a death penalty offense where ADULTRY is and there is nothing about lesbianism mentioned at all. Jesus never brought this issue up. Paul did but he was not either an Apostle or even a disciple of Jesus that was taught by Him so doesn't count in my opinion.

To also add under the principles of Continuous Revelation our knowledge now is far more advanced than it was over two thousand years ago we understand there is a genetic and upbirning compnent together so NOW it may be acceptable to God for gays to marry.

And Will, religious people must accept lots of other things in a secular society and live with them - example of this in my area a protestant church placed literature trying to "convert" Catholics through tracts they have no right to argue its 1st Amendment Protected Speech for them. They didn't like it and were offended but that is no reason to stop the action of placing the tracts as something they can't do. You have no right in the US to no be offended or be exposed to thngs you don't like unless otherwise illegal - xxx porn in public where its not your choice is an example.

[Will]

Have you read the thread, Ruby?  I only had to scroll up the page to find what you were asking for.  I would link the post, but... seriously.  It's on this page.

And regardless of your personal views on homosexuality, you do not represent all religious people, much less Catholics.  How you feel about Paul does not apply to all religious people everywhere.  Surely his opinion has some weight among Christians, as evidenced by the fact that he figures SO prominently in the Bible.  You seem to be talking a lot about what you think, but we aren't talking about your faith.  We aren't talking about the ULC.  We're talking about the Catholic Church.

[Noelle]

And Will, religious people must accept lots of other things in a secular society and live with them - example of this in my area a protestant church placed literature trying to "convert" Catholics through tracts they have no right to argue its 1st Amendment Protected Speech for them. They didn't like it and were offended but that is no reason to stop the action of placing the tracts as something they can't do. You have no right in the US to no be offended or be exposed to thngs you don't like unless otherwise illegal - xxx porn in public where its not your choice is an example.

The majority of the country is and always has been religious in some manner. It's a little hard to victimize the majority, especially when the majority is given favor in many instances in this country. Furthermore, it's frustrating to me that your response comes bearing zero researched facts and yet you expect the rest of us to provide you with evidence to the contrary. That's incredibly unfair, a double standard at best.

To address the latter part of your post, in the US, nobody is telling you you can't be offended. By all means, be offended by anything and everything you want -- there are plenty of groups out there working for you, why do you think certain things aren't allowed on daytime TV? Why do you think you can't say certain words on the radio? However, it is not your right to impede on the rights of others with your offense. That's the real difference here. If you want the right to be able to express yourself, then you have to give it to others in return, even if you don't like what they have to say. Once you start demanding that things you find offensive be censored or removed from view, you basically damn your own speech to the same fate. If I don't like what you have to say, who's to say I can't legislate that everything you express be erased, too?

It doesn't sound so great when you consider that there are people out there who would gladly censor the things you say, does it? For every opinion, there is at least one person who dislikes it, I can basically guarantee it.

I'm also wondering where you think pornography is being forced upon you in public. There are decency/obscenity laws that have been upheld by the courts in years past, if you care to look them up.

Edit: Sorry, perhaps I read your last sentence wrong, if you weren't implying that pornography is being forced upon you in public, then I retract my last statement, but the rest of it still stands.

[Brandon]

I have no idea where you got any of that from. I don't believe in "sin", I believe in objective cause and effect. However, the Church teaches, if I haven't already forgotten all I was taught back when I considered myself a Catholic, that all kinds of things are sins. Stealing, lying, the mere thought of coveting another's wife or possessions, thoughts of lust for anyone you're not married to, and a long list. My point was, if everyone sins, not just the "original sin", but minor things we do every day. Thinking bad thoughts, acts of petty selfishness, etc. So it stands to reason that most, perhaps all, of the people in that institution sin on a rather regular basis. Why are they allowed to continue working there, but this woman is not? Is it because she is open about her sin? Why, I thought the Bible commended honesty. No, I think it's far more likely, she isn't allowed to work there because they hate who she is, they hate what she is.

One thing that's always bugged me about the Catholic church, not all Catholics, mind you. I was raised Catholic and my grandparents are devout Catholics, and they are the kindest, most honest and fair people on the face of this planet. But the Catholic church as an institution has this tendency to pick and chose what parts of the Bible they want to apply and where. A priest molest a young boy, he gets a slap on the wrist. A hardworking woman teaching at one of their schools is a lesbian, they give her the boot. The Pope himself can lie and spread propaganda and, frankly, commit some of the most evil acts imaginable, and he walks away with not even a stern talking to. This woman has to find herself a new job for the horrendous crime of being in love. My point is, if NOTHING else, some consistency in how they apply biblical law would be nice.

I pointed out earlier how it wasnt hate, neither do I hate gays (in fact I tolerate them and even work within the church to change things), nor do I know a single catholic practitioner priest, monk, or bishop that I could define as homophobic. I dont deny that there are likely some (pure probability states they pretty much have to be there) but I do deny that the organization or people must hate gays just to disagree with the choice they make in their life (the choice reffering only to the choice of having sex or not with a person of the same sex). I presume that you are somewhat jaded, if the case is that you can not accept them as anything except evil, or hatred ridden people then I think it would be best that you not participate in these kinds of conversations. Its counterproductive to the debate and the idea of fair representation of people and groups

I want to comment about pedophile priests, but I said I no longer would. I recomend you review the other threads regarding that topic, especially the one I posted not to long about about punishment for a priests inappropriate actions. It does not happen all the time, and people seem to blame the pope directly for it which is at best Ill informed.

You also fail to relize that its a possiblity that she wanted to start conflict, as I mentioned earlier. To many people are to quick to jump to the side of gays when in this situation either or even both groups could be considered the victim

[Florence]

I pointed out earlier how it wasnt hate, neither do I hate gays (in fact I tolerate them and even work within the church to change things), nor do I know a single catholic practitioner priest, monk, or bishop that I could define as homophobic. I dont deny that there are likely some (pure probability states they pretty much have to be there) but I do deny that the organization or people must hate gays just to disagree with the choice they make in their life (the choice reffering only to the choice of having sex or not with a person of the same sex). I presume that you are somewhat jaded, if the case is that you can not accept them as anything except evil, or hatred ridden people then I think it would be best that you not participate in these kinds of conversations. Its counterproductive to the debate and the idea of fair representation of people and groups

I want to comment about pedophile priests, but I said I no longer would. I recomend you review the other threads regarding that topic, especially the one I posted not to long about about punishment for a priests inappropriate actions. It does not happen all the time, and people seem to blame the pope directly for it which is at best Ill informed.

You also fail to relize that its a possiblity that she wanted to start conflict, as I mentioned earlier. To many people are to quick to jump to the side of gays when in this situation either or even both groups could be considered the victim

I don't want to rant about this point, so I'll simply state: There mere fact that you consider tolerance to be an impressive thing shows the hate that society in general has for gay people.

If you do not know a single catholic who is homophobic you clearly don't know too many, that or you are just willfully ignoring that aspect of them. I think it's pretty cut and dry. If I campaigned against civil rights on the grounds that my religion told me black people were evil... you'd likely consider me a racist. But for some reason, when it's gay people, "oh, they're not homophobic, they just think it's wrong." Interesting double-standard, that.

As for me being jaded, I've said before, my grandparents being a great example, I KNOW that there are amazing people out there, who take the best out of religion, so it's not that I think that all Catholics are evil. But, frankly, I do think the Church is. Not even just on this point. I don't want to derail the topic into a discussion of how the Catholic Church is evil and the Pope should be arrested for crimes against humanity, but suffice to say, yeah, I think they're pretty evil. Personally, I think, if I should leave for being so certain of how evil they are, I think you should leave for being too naive to accept how evil they are. That's besides-the-point, of course, because this thread isn't ABOUT whether or not the Catholic church is evil, it's about whether or not this particular instance is wrong or not. I can argue whether or not they're wrong on a single issue regardless of my opinion on how evil they are in general.

To a side note, before getting back on topic, I don't blame the Pope for the child molestation controversy, I blame him for all the stuff he HAS done.

Now, back on topic, frankly, even if she DID do this just to stir up controversy, I still stand by my position. Just because she may have been in the wrong, doesn't mean they were in the right.

[Brandon]

I don't want to rant about this point, so I'll simply state: There mere fact that you consider tolerance to be an impressive thing shows the hate that society in general has for gay people.

If you do not know a single catholic who is homophobic you clearly don't know too many, that or you are just willfully ignoring that aspect of them. I think it's pretty cut and dry. If I campaigned against civil rights on the grounds that my religion told me black people were evil... you'd likely consider me a racist. But for some reason, when it's gay people, "oh, they're not homophobic, they just think it's wrong." Interesting double-standard, that.

As for me being jaded, I've said before, my grandparents being a great example, I KNOW that there are amazing people out there, who take the best out of religion, so it's not that I think that all Catholics are evil. But, frankly, I do think the Church is. Not even just on this point. I don't want to derail the topic into a discussion of how the Catholic Church is evil and the Pope should be arrested for crimes against humanity, but suffice to say, yeah, I think they're pretty evil. Personally, I think, if I should leave for being so certain of how evil they are, I think you should leave for being too naive to accept how evil they are. That's besides-the-point, of course, because this thread isn't ABOUT whether or not the Catholic church is evil, it's about whether or not this particular instance is wrong or not. I can argue whether or not they're wrong on a single issue regardless of my opinion on how evil they are in general.

To a side note, before getting back on topic, I don't blame the Pope for the child molestation controversy, I blame him for all the stuff he HAS done.

Now, back on topic, frankly, even if she DID do this just to stir up controversy, I still stand by my position. Just because she may have been in the wrong, doesn't mean they were in the right.

Tolerance goes both ways and is needed by all. If anyone is supposed to tolerate a homosexual person that homosexual person must also tolerate the same person. Not doing so is hypocrasy and it is most delicious

Anyway, seems I have to point it out again. It is not a sin to be gay, it is a sin when people act on that impulse. When you are a man and have sex with a man or if you are a woman and have sex with a woman you are sinning. You can be attracted to a person of the same sex, have romantic feelings about a person of the same sex, or even want to screw someone of the same sex's brains out but you are not sinning till you have sex with a person of the same sex. That is the official point of view and anyone saying different is improperly following the catholic faith.

However again you neglect (possibly ignore) the important distinctions Ive made a point of laying out there to disprove your point of view. Seriously I need to know, are you just going to ignore the evidence I point out in lieu of your own view points?

[Trieste]

Nope, back up. Debate is good, getting personal is not.

Please remember to target points, not people.

[Will]

If I campaigned against civil rights on the grounds that my religion told me black people were evil... you'd likely consider me a racist. But for some reason, when it's gay people, "oh, they're not homophobic, they just think it's wrong." Interesting double-standard, that.

That's not really an accurate comparison.  What they're doing here, in the OP, isn't denying a person their civil rights.  They're not preventing this woman from getting married.  They're just saying that she can't work in the church while doing it.  I'd be a lot less forgiving on this issue if they were attacking her civil rights.  So, no, it's not a double standard at all.

The rest of the post was pretty off topic. >.>  Bringing up the general evilitude of the Catholic Church is not going to help anything, and it's likely to send this thread spiraling into unproductive territory.

[Florence]

Tolerance goes both ways and is needed by all. If anyone is supposed to tolerate a homosexual person that homosexual person must also tolerate the same person. Not doing so is hypocrasy and it is most delicious

Anyway, seems I have to point it out again. It is not a sin to be gay, it is a sin when people act on that impulse. When you are a man and have sex with a man or if you are a woman and have sex with a woman you are sinning. You can be attracted to a person of the same sex, have romantic feelings about a person of the same sex, or even want to screw someone of the same sex's brains out but you are not sinning till you have sex with a person of the same sex. That is the official point of view and anyone saying different is improperly following the catholic faith.

However again you neglect (possibly ignore) the important distinctions Ive made a point of laying out there to disprove your point of view. Seriously I need to know, are you just going to ignore the evidence I point out in lieu of your own view points?

Which evidence are you refering to? I may have overlooked it, and if you can point out what you're referring to, I'll address it directly. I must also note that I don't understand your point of tolerance. On one hand, how is that relevant? I was pointing out that tolerance should be something that's a given, not something that should be notable. Second hand, why should one tolerate intolerance? To me, that seems counter-productive. I'm pretty sure I recall a separate thread that covered this point, so I don't want to hijack the thread, but it just seems kind of bizarre to expect people to tolerate people who are trying to take away their rights. Unless you meant gay people need to tolerate straight people in general... which... I would have to ask you to point out where they don't.

That's not really an accurate comparison.  What they're doing here, in the OP, isn't denying a person their civil rights.  They're not preventing this woman from getting married.  They're just saying that she can't work in the church while doing it.  I'd be a lot less forgiving on this issue if they were attacking her civil rights.  So, no, it's not a double standard at all.

The rest of the post was pretty off topic. >.>  Bringing up the general evilitude of the Catholic Church is not going to help anything, and it's likely to send this thread spiraling into unproductive territory.

Hmm, I suppose it was a poor comparison, but my point was less about specific actions and just the attitude in general. People accept homophobic stances and attitude's, writing it off as religious or personal belief and thus not being homophobic, however, if someone espouses a racist ideal, regardless of their rational, it's viewed as racism.

As for bringing in the evils of the Church, I wasn't the one who brought that in, Brandon suggested that my belief that the Church is evil is effecting my opinion in this matter, and I was simply responding to that. Granted, I probably spent too much time addressing that point than I should have, but regardless, I didn't bring it up, I merely addressed it.

[Will]

Hmm, I suppose it was a poor comparison, but my point was less about specific actions and just the attitude in general. People accept homophobic stances and attitude's, writing it off as religious or personal belief and thus not being homophobic, however, if someone espouses a racist ideal, regardless of their rational, it's viewed as racism.

I still don't see how it's a double standard.  Keep it to yourself and your congregation, and most people couldn't care less what you believe.  As soon as you step out of your institution and start trying to enforce it on people that don't buy your doctrine, that's where the problems begin.  That goes for racism, homophobia, or anything (though I think homophobia is being used in a very loose sense, here.  Not liking lesbians or not considering them fit for work in a church isn't necessarily the same as being terrified of them).

[Brandon]

Which evidence are you refering to? I may have overlooked it, and if you can point out what you're referring to, I'll address it directly. I must also note that I don't understand your point of tolerance. On one hand, how is that relevant? I was pointing out that tolerance should be something that's a given, not something that should be notable. Second hand, why should one tolerate intolerance? To me, that seems counter-productive. I'm pretty sure I recall a separate thread that covered this point, so I don't want to hijack the thread, but it just seems kind of bizarre to expect people to tolerate people who are trying to take away their rights. Unless you meant gay people need to tolerate straight people in general... which... I would have to ask you to point out where they don't.

Hmm, I suppose it was a poor comparison, but my point was less about specific actions and just the attitude in general. People accept homophobic stances and attitude's, writing it off as religious or personal belief and thus not being homophobic, however, if someone espouses a racist ideal, regardless of their rational, it's viewed as racism.

As for bringing in the evils of the Church, I wasn't the one who brought that in, Brandon suggested that my belief that the Church is evil is effecting my opinion in this matter, and I was simply responding to that. Granted, I probably spent too much time addressing that point than I should have, but regardless, I didn't bring it up, I merely addressed it.

Acctually you started the whole evil argument, see below

A priest molest a young boy, he gets a slap on the wrist. A hardworking woman teaching at one of their schools is a lesbian, they give her the boot. The Pope himself can lie and spread propaganda and, frankly, commit some of the most evil acts imaginable, and he walks away with not even a stern talking to.

Due to the language used, the lack of examples, the ignorance, and the inability (or unwillingness) to listen to the truth I felt I needed to point out the possiblity of bias formed through what seems to be a person who is simply jaded with the church. You've only reinforced that presumption

I could go on for days about how you are wrong about the church and the pope Benedict, but thats not what this thread is about nor do I think you would really listen. Just like a lot of other people around here. I wont let you demonize them but I wont shut my eyes and pretend that things arent happening either, fair representation is what I want and its what is needed

Now if you really want to look at it, I said before and i reiterated a few times that being gay is not the sin in their eyes. Having sex with a person of the same sex is. You didnt listen to that, you continued to put the human element into it when its not about hating a person but hating an action that they see as a sin. Thus I see it as demonizing the church by spreading a flat out lie that they hate homosexuals

[Noelle]

I could go on for days about how you are wrong about the church and the pope Benedict, but thats not what this thread is about nor do I think you would really listen. Just like a lot of other people around here.

Nope, back up. Debate is good, getting personal is not.

Please remember to target points, not people.

Seriously. Can we stop doing this? This is incredibly passive-aggressive and unnecessary. Not agreeing =/= not listening.

[Florence]

I still don't see how it's a double standard.  Keep it to yourself and your congregation, and most people couldn't care less what you believe.  As soon as you step out of your institution and start trying to enforce it on people that don't buy your doctrine, that's where the problems begin.  That goes for racism, homophobia, or anything (though I think homophobia is being used in a very loose sense, here.  Not liking lesbians or not considering them fit for work in a church isn't necessarily the same as being terrified of them).

It's a common mistake that homophobia has to be a fear. A phobia is an irrational fear, hatred or disgust, not strictly fear. I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree on whether or not it's a double-standard, because I've not much more to say on the matter.

Acctually you started the whole evil argument, see below

Due to the language used, the lack of examples, the ignorance, and the inability (or unwillingness) to listen to the truth I felt I needed to point out the possiblity of bias formed through what seems to be a person who is simply jaded with the church. You've only reinforced that presumption

I could go on for days about how you are wrong about the church and the pope Benedict, but thats not what this thread is about nor do I think you would really listen. Just like a lot of other people around here. I wont let you demonize them but I wont shut my eyes and pretend that things arent happening either, fair representation is what I want and its what is needed

Now if you really want to look at it, I said before and i reiterated a few times that being gay is not the sin in their eyes. Having sex with a person of the same sex is. You didnt listen to that, you continued to put the human element into it when its not about hating a person but hating an action that they see as a sin. Thus I see it as demonizing the church by spreading a flat out lie that they hate homosexuals

I've not reinforced it, I've outright confirmed it. And also stated it's irrelevant, as I am fully capable of forming an opinion on a case to case basis. Also, it does little to help enforce civil debate when you refer to disagreeing with you as "refusing to listen to the truth". Saying they hate gay sex but not gay people is utter semantics. It's an irrational expectation of gay people to all be celibate to please their arbitrary sense of morality.

I'd rather not have this thread locked, however, so lets try to have the original topic continue, shall we?

[Serephino]

I believe the stance that being gay is not a sin, but acting upon it is one is a fairly recent development.  I vaguely remember hearing about how the church talked about it and decided to start allowing openly gay priests.  Up until then it was widely thought that being gay was a sin, but it seems they could no longer ignore the research that says it isn't a choice.  I suppose the fact that they finally admit it instead of continuing to call it a mental disease is something.....

It's incredibly frustrating and damning to hear about a priest molesting a boy and it getting quietly swept under the rug while this woman was let go.  I'm sure they wanted to keep this quiet too, but still, why let the priest stay a priest and then turn around and tell her to resign?  I don't get it all all, and it only reaffirms my conclusions about the church. 

[Will]

It's a common mistake that homophobia has to be a fear. A phobia is an irrational fear, hatred or disgust, not strictly fear. I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree on whether or not it's a double-standard, because I've not much more to say on the matter.

The particular issue of definition was just an aside to my main point, which you didn't really address.  How is it a double standard?  They aren't forcing their beliefs (hateful though they may be) on anyone outside of their church, so I wouldn't care if they were the most racist people on the planet.  The issue isn't what they dislike, it's what they do about it.

[Brandon]

I've not reinforced it, I've outright confirmed it. And also stated it's irrelevant, as I am fully capable of forming an opinion on a case to case basis. Also, it does little to help enforce civil debate when you refer to disagreeing with you as "refusing to listen to the truth". Saying they hate gay sex but not gay people is utter semantics. It's an irrational expectation of gay people to all be celibate to please their arbitrary sense of morality.

I'd rather not have this thread locked, however, so lets try to have the original topic continue, shall we?

That's bull. Im calling you out on this one. The difference between hating the sin and the sinner is massive. Calling it semantics is just downplaying the reality of the situation so it fits in your view point.

[Trieste]

*sigh*