Is the Roman Catholic Church Persecuting a Child?

[Alceste]

Next step: pee tests for birth control.

 

[Sunstone]

If there is discrimination it is the couple
who are the child's guardians. Every child
has the right to have a father.

That attitude is one of the things wrong with this world.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If there is discrimination it is the couple
who are the child's guardians. Every child
has the right to have a father.

I guess it's a good thing that the Catholic Church has a ready supply of "fathers" for everyone, isn't it?

Problem solved, apparently.

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

I had time to think about this more today. The Archdiocese's decision is not pleasing to me, it represents some of the problems I have with the status quo of Catholic institutional life.

Nonetheless, Penguin, I think you and I simply do not agree about the nature of secularism---or at least to what extent secularization has its warrant. I am not talking about any particular institutions, but about the very possibility of the autonomy of the secular, which existed implicitly and waiting to be exposed in the unique divisions of Christian eschatology, in the image of the "two keys". From this view of the order of society, it is simply the secular which has inserted itself into the religious by announcing its primacy. This was the revolution of the last several hundred years, and it burned as an unstable energy in the heart of Christendom as the struggles between princes and popes, inter alia.

In other traditional societies, the cosmological and religious conception of the world was virtually inseparable from its political institutions. In many, it still is, which is why the idea of secualrism is routinely denounced as a sublte form of Western or even Christian imperialism in Muslim countries, by factions in India and also South East Asia. Where secularism exists, there has been Western (semi-Christian) influence. Anyways, this is too much text about something that is quite beside the point.

My point is, even though I disagree with the Archbishop's decision and would not set it forth as an example to my children, if I had them, about how to treat their neighbor, I deplore the rights talk that is brought to the table here because it is toxic.

It is the kind of thinking which says, as I know you have, that a private Catholic school can not refuse to hire an atheist on those grounds if he applies to be a math teacher or a teacher of English----because he is not teaching "religion".

We forget that that very word "religion" is part of the modern vocabulary. For us, Catholicism is biology, it is mathematics, it is literature, it might even be pre-school. But you would have the State begin the process of forcing the intellecutal fragmentation of modernity onto Catholic thought, the one that says "math" or "physics" is not related to God and to the transmission of faith. Likewise, with the framgentation of the person, that says being an accountant or a secretary is not related to our spirituality, and therefore faith.

I don't even think you would give Catholics the luxury to re-create our own ghettos, which is surely what Chaput is suggesting.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

My point is, even though I disagree with the Archbishop's decision and would not set it forth as an example to my children, if I had them, about how to treat their neighbor, I deplore the rights talk that is brought to the table here because it is toxic.

How is it toxic? Rights of the individual are the foundation of all other rights. The freedoms of your church are meaningless if the people who make up that church are not free themselves.

It is the kind of thinking which says, as I know you have, that a private Catholic school can not refuse to hire an atheist on those grounds if he applies to be a math teacher or a teacher of English----because he is not teaching "religion".

I'd go even further, actually. IMO, if a teacher has a good command of the material for the religion class and is able to teach it, then that should be the only requirement. I suppose that most people who would develop a good command of the material probably would be observant Catholics, but the job should be awarded based on the direct qualifications themselves.

We forget that that very word "religion" is part of the modern vocabulary. For us, Catholicism is biology, it is mathematics, it is literature, it might even be pre-school. But you would have the State begin the process of forcing the intellecutal fragmentation of modernity onto Catholic thought, the one that says "math" or "physics" is not related to God and to the transmission of faith. Likewise, with the framgentation of the person, that says being an accountant or a secretary is not related to our spirituality, and therefore faith.

I don't even think you would give Catholics the luxury to re-create our own ghettos, which is surely what Chaput is suggesting.

I think you're twisting around what I'm saying. You're free to consider anything you do as an expression of your faith; so is anyone else, and so is the Catholic Church. The only limitations I'm suggesting are ones that prevent people or groups from imposing harm on others. If you're asking for the right for the Church to discriminate against people it disapproves of, well, then I don't think what you're asking for is reasonable. And if you're not asking for that, then the limitations I'm talking about wouldn't impinge your ability to make whatever you do an expression of your religion.

And frankly, it somewhat bothers and bewilders me when Catholics argue against equality rights. It wasn't that long ago that Catholics were the victims of major discrimination themselves. Here in Ontario, the Orange Lodge ensured that it was virtually impossible for a Catholic to be elected to office even into the 20th Century. The whole reason that the Knights of Columbus exists at all was that Catholics were barred from the mainstream trade unions and fraternal organizations of the time.

The right for a lesbian parent to not be turned away from a Catholic daycare for being lesbian is the same right that protects a Catholic from being fired from a job with a Protestant company for being Catholic.

 

[TheKnight]

No, but they, like any business that offers services to the public, are obligated to provide those services on an equitable basis.

I suppose.

I'd defend them in Court.

 

[footprints]

Wait... so are you saying that if we leave the Catholic Church alone on the issue of homosexuality, it will come to a satisfactory resolution itself in its own way?

Did the USA stop killing American Indians, when left alone, in their own thinking.

Did England stop santioning the mass slaughter of Australian Aboriginal people, when left alone, in their own thinking.

Debate, forcing an issue, doesn't show people their different intelligence, it just pushes them further into justifying their own intelligence.

 

[Alceste]

Did the USA stop killing American Indians, when left alone, in their own thinking.

Did England stop santioning the mass slaughter of Australian Aboriginal people, when left alone, in their own thinking.

Debate, forcing an issue, doesn't show people their different intelligence, it just pushes them further into justifying their own intelligence.

It took a powerful and committed network of activists lobbying on behalf of indigenous rights and to bring those improvements about. So, no. The US and UK government did not voluntarily decide to stop oppressing indigenous populations on their own. In fact, here in Canada the ill treatment of the indigenous population continues, as it does in Australia and the US, and the rest of the colonial world. The pressure to assimilate is very intense, and living conditions for those who do not assimilate are appalling.

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

I am not "against equality rights", they are important to me. I simply think that when the logic of them carrys us to conclude, for example, that a private Catholic institution for education can not make the practice of the Catholic faith part of its criteria for teachers, something has gone awry and something has been pushed too far.

I also think, sooner or later, we will have to ask ourselves why we have rights at all and what it is that they are grounded on.

Sometimes, I also think the appeal to rights incessantly, as necessary as they have been in historical circumstance, is in danger of tiring itself out, or ourselves. They can be iminical to the spirit of a community, which depends on dialogue and, as I said before, an encounter of hearts, rather than a constant appeal to legal notions that legislate a kind of bubble around the individual and set them up in tension with the community. You should look into the discussion among Aboriginals about the language of human rights, which many of them oppose as culturally imperialisitc and destructive to their way of life.

In terms of matters intra to the Catholic community, the talk of rights is often used in a toxic way. People say that they have a "right" to communion, a "right" to the priesthood, who perform their "sit-ins" and make politicized spectacles at Mass, as happened recently in the Netherlands--- all these ultimately sap out the mystery of the church community wherever they occur.

I also found a good blog post here about the mentioned incident. It does not put the diocese in a good light:

A Catholic School, a Child, and a Lesbian Couple « Advent Hope

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I am not "against equality rights", they are important to me.

But you're against the right of this lesbian couple to be protected from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, aren't you? That's an equality right.

I simply think that when the logic of them carrys us to conclude, for example, that a private Catholic institution for education can not make the practice of the Catholic faith part of its criteria for teachers, something has gone awry and something has been pushed too far.

Hmm. I see this as merely an expression of the principle that a person's access to employment should be determined by their qualifications alone and not things like religious affiliation. Protecting an employee of a Catholic school from being fired for not being Catholic isn't "pushing" any further than it is to insist that some other employer can't fire an employee for being Catholic. It's two sides of the same coin.

I also think, sooner or later, we will have to ask ourselves why we have rights at all and what it is that they are grounded on.

Perhaps, but as I pointed out in my last post, group rights are derived from individual rights. If the rights of people are deemed to be baseless, then by extension the rights of collections of people will be deemed baseless as well. Either way, there's no good case for why a church's rights should supercede human rights.

Sometimes, I also think the appeal to rights incessantly, as necessary as they have been in historical circumstance, is in danger of tiring itself out, or ourselves. They can be iminical to the spirit of a community, which depends on dialogue and, as I said before, an encounter of hearts, rather than a constant appeal to legal notions that legislate a kind of bubble around the individual and set them up in tension with the community.

Why do you pin the blame on the person who stands up for their rights? Wouldn't it be more appropriate to speak out against the person infringing the rights in the first place? Hurting other people is the real thing that's "iminical to the spirit of a community".

You should look into the discussion among Aboriginals about the language of human rights, which many of them oppose as culturally imperialisitc and destructive to their way of life.

OTOH, disregard for the human rights of Aboriginal peoples has been very destructive to their way of life as well.

In terms of matters intra to the Catholic community, the talk of rights is often used in a toxic way. People say that they have a "right" to communion, a "right" to the priesthood, who perform their "sit-ins" and make politicized spectacles at Mass, as happened recently in the Netherlands--- all these ultimately sap out the mystery of the church community wherever they occur.

And they're all a foreseeable outcome of establishing Canon Law in the first place, aren't they?


BTW - I read a bit more about the incident. According to the Archdiocese site, the child wasn't immediately removed from class; instead, the parents were told that she'd be allowed to go through kindergarten, but wouldn't be allowed to enter the school's elementary program after that.

However, this doesn't seem to mesh with the news accounts that make it sound like the child has already been removed, so I'm not really sure where the truth lies in all of this.

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

Protecting an employee of a Catholic school from being fired for not being Catholic isn't "pushing" any further than it is to insist that some other employer can't fire an employee for being Catholic. It's two sides of the same coin.

Not when the basic idea behind the founding of the private institution is that it is a Catholic school.

 

[Sunstone]

I don't think a religious organization gains a right to discriminate just because it's a religious organization. If that were so, then what would stop it from gaining a right to murder just because it's a religious organization?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not when the basic idea behind the founding of the private institution is that it is a Catholic school.

Yes, a Catholic school: a place to provide children with a Catholic education. This does not necessarily require the teacher to be Catholic. It certainly doesn't require the janitor or treasurer to be.

You talked before about how anything that a Catholic does can be considered an expression of their Catholic faith. Does this apply to other religions as well? Should a Muslim or a Protestant business owner who considers his company an expression of his faith have the right to fire you for the fact that you don't have what they consider to be the "right" faith to work there?

Edit: for example, should a halal meat packer be able to fire a Christian for engaging in "haraam" activities (e.g. worshipping the Trinity)?

BTW - you talked about the origins of the term "secular" before. Given the original meaning of the term "Catholic", it seems like you're applying it in a surprisingly exclusionary way.

 

[logician]

Lucky kid. That was a close call.
Think it'd work in Ireland?
I'd happily become a lesbian if I thought the church would refuse to educate my kids and the state was forced to provide me with some secular education.

I second that emotion.

 

[alyxandres]

It's not a religion, it's a daycare. A business doesn't stop being a business just because it's owned by a church.

You know this is was for re-enrolment for a private school and not a daycare facility right? This is not new, churches or private schools ran by churches do not fall under the same discrimination laws that normal businesses do for obvious reasons. Not that I agree with them, myself I think the whole catholic church should be dismantled but that doesn't change my belief that you should be able to have a private school excluding whomever for whatever.

If there are no tax dollars paying for the school I see don't how just anyone would think they should have a say about who gets in and who doesn't. If you take away your personal feelings about discrimination do you really see any difference between excluding someone because of their beliefs, their income, their grades? Kids are excluded all the time from private schools, surely you can see how a belief in a religions school would be a restriction.

I don't think it is the governments job to step into the private sector and start telling people how to operate despite my feelings about discrimination.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You know this is was for re-enrolment for a private school and not a daycare facility right?

Kinda... the child was enrolled in a preschool program at a private school. As I mentioned before after I made that post, I found more details: the school said they would let the child stay through kindergarten, but wouldn't be allowed to proceed into their elementary school program.

This is not new, churches or private schools ran by churches do not fall under the same discrimination laws that normal businesses do for obvious reasons.

You might want to spell them out, because they're not at all obvious to me.

Not that I agree with them, myself I think the whole catholic church should be dismantled but that doesn't change my belief that you should be able to have a private school excluding whomever for whatever.

Do you also think other businesses should be able to discriminate against their clientele? I alluded before to the incident where a Denny's restaurant got sued for discriminating against black customers. Should that lawsuit not have been successful?

If there are no tax dollars paying for the school I see don't how just anyone would think they should have a say about who gets in and who doesn't.

There are tax dollars paying for the school. As you pointed out, the school is run by a church, which receives subsidy from the government in the form of both government services provided free-of-charge, and in the form of tax deductions for its donors.

If you take away your personal feelings about discrimination do you really see any difference between excluding someone because of their beliefs, their income, their grades? Kids are excluded all the time from private schools, surely you can see how a belief in a religions school would be a restriction.

I think those issues are different... with the exception of income. I don't think it's appropriate for a private school to discriminate on the basis of income; it's certainly within its rights to ask that people pay their tuition fees, but that's not the same thing.

The others, though, are issues of student performance, and the school has a definite interest in enforcing a certain level of student performance. However, the sexual orientation of a child's parents does not have anything to do with student performance in and of itself.

I don't think it is the governments job to step into the private sector and start telling people how to operate despite my feelings about discrimination.

If we were talking about an across-the-board freedom of all organizations to discriminate freely, then I could see your point. It wouldn't be a situation I'd personally prefer, but I could see that the law was being applied equally. However, what I disagree with strongly is the idea that religious organizations should be exempt from the normal requirements of the law for no reason other than the fact that they're religious.

 

[alyxandres]

I don't think a religious organization gains a right to discriminate just because it's a religious organization. If that were so, then what would stop it from gaining a right to murder just because it's a religious organization?

Your answer is relative to the way we the people view religion and its place in our society. I'll agree though that this perspective can change and perhaps this is the reason we are seeing this in the news. Ideally it would be nice to ban discrimination like we do murder, maybe someday we will but for now as a free man its about choice, not really wanting someone to tell me who I have to allow in my private organization.

 

[alyxandres]

If we were talking about an across-the-board freedom of all organizations to discriminate freely, then I could see your point. It wouldn't be a situation I'd personally prefer, but I could see that the law was being applied equally. However, what I disagree with strongly is the idea that religious organizations should be exempt from the normal requirements of the law for no reason other than the fact that they're religious.

Not going to respond to tree posting, as I don't have the kind of time to waste explaining all the different ways you can take something.

I think it is fair to say that the law has to have the ability to work and change with the challenges that faces its society. Religion for a long time has been a large part of our culture, and I don't think it is that hard of a stretch to understand why discrimination and religious private organizations gain an exception as a personal belief has a lot to do with this. I understand you are trying to draw a line in the sand but if enough people want to live or instruct their way without the influence of those who differ then such a circumstance should be allowed.

 

[berrychrisc]

Is the Roman Catholic Church right to exclude the child of a lesbian couple from its school?

No, the church is wrong. The child should be allowed to attend school.

Is the Church's action persecution?

The church has a responsibility to act as Jesus would. I cannot picture Jesus denying this child access to the school, or treating the child's parents in any but a loving way.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think it is fair to say that the law has to have the ability to work and change with the challenges that faces its society. Religion for a long time has been a large part of our culture, and I don't think it is that hard of a stretch to understand why discrimination and religious private organizations gain an exception as a personal belief has a lot to do with this.

The only reason I can come up with for this is the disproportionate amount of power that religions have had historically, but I don't see this as justification so much as an unfortunate reason.

I understand you are trying to draw a line in the sand but if enough people want to live or instruct their way without the influence of those who differ then such a circumstance should be allowed.

How, though? We're all one society; nobody's an island.

Personally, I think that the existing arrangement should entitle me to more say in the affairs of religious organizations, not less. So long as religions have preferential tax status, they receive benefit from the government and by extension taxpayers. I personally think that my say in something should be in proportion to its effect on me. As long as I subsidize something, I (or my elected representatives) should get a voice in how it's run.

IMO, it's hypocritical to accept benefit from society but refuse normal societal obligations.