Pope Benedict attacks government over Equality Bill

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I didn't really see licensing as a contract sort of think.

A social contract, not a legal contract.

We let you run business here, you follow certain rules.

Yes... rules like "only base your hiring on qualities that are relevant to the job".

 

[Autodidact]

A social contract, not a legal contract.


Yes... rules like "only base your hiring on qualities that are relevant to the job".

There is no such rule in the U.S., 9-10ths. Certain kinds of discrimination are outlawed. Other than that, you can discriminate against ginger-haired people if you so desire.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There is no such rule in the U.S., 9-10ths.

When did we start talking about the US? The issue in the OP is a matter of British law.

From what I gather, British employment law is a bit of a hodge-podge of different pieces of legislation (a situation that this new bill is attempting to address), but in general, it's illegal for an employer to discriminate on virtually any basis unless the discrimination is based on a "genuine occupational requirement".

 

[TheKnight]

When did we start talking about the US? The issue in the OP is a matter of British law.

From what I gather, British employment law is a bit of a hodge-podge of different pieces of legislation (a situation that this new bill is attempting to address), but in general, it's illegal for an employer to discriminate on virtually any basis unless the discrimination is based on a "genuine occupational requirement".

Then why is the Pope protesting? The priesthood could still not allow homosexual priests because that is sort of something that is contra-occupational. I would imagine they'd want someone qualified to be a priest. As in they make a serious attempt to obey Catholic doctrines.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Then why is the Pope protesting? The priesthood could still not allow homosexual priests because that is sort of something that is contra-occupational. I would imagine they'd want someone qualified to be a priest. As in they make a serious attempt to obey Catholic doctrines.

The Catholic Church hires more people than just priests. They've got plenty of lay people in all sorts of jobs. Apparently, they want to make sure that their accountants, janitors, teachers, social workers, etc., etc. are all straight.

Also, the article in the OP quotes the Pope as saying that the Equality Bill "violates natural law", which I take to mean that he thinks anyone should be able to discriminate against homosexual people.

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

The Catholic Church hires more people than just priests. They've got plenty of lay people in all sorts of jobs. Apparently, they want to make sure that their accountants, janitors, teachers, social workers, etc., etc. are all straight.

Again, I have to say, the fundamental problem with this bill is that it tells the Church where belief is important to it and where it is not. It presumes that certain secular categories of separation exist within the Church already, or it is willing to foister them upon them.

Christian life, certainly Church life, is not separated into the spheres of "faith" and then the "secular".

To be a parish secretary, for example, is not to counsel people in their beliefs. However, why can the State say that what one believes here is irrelevant to the position if it is part of the nature of Christian life to do the work of God and sanctify the world in our ordinary living? In the Church, one's faith is relevant and brought to the table, ideally, in all positions of employment, because within the Church there is no such thing as secularity in the modern sense of that word. Everything we do for the Church is service to the Church and part and parcel of the Church's mission. To work as a secretary or even an accountant for the Church is not a "secular" task.

Now, must a Christian be willing to divide himself into "sacred and secular" when he goes out into society? Certainly, because he has entered what has become "the secular sphere". The Church itself is the "sacred sphere".

Again, this bill appears to impose secular categorical thinking within an institution which is, by definition, not secular. They are not allowing the Church to "be Church", a wholistic, total way of living, on its own ground.

Am I happy gay people are being excluded? No. But that is besides the point.

 

[Smoke]

Christian life, certainly Church life, is not separated into the spheres of "faith" and then the "secular".

To be a parish secretary, for example, is not to counsel people in their beliefs. However, why can the State say that what one believes here is irrelevant to the position if it is part of the nature of Christian life to do the work of God and sanctify the world in our ordinary living? In the Church, one's faith is relevant and brought to the table, ideally, in all positions of employment, because within the Church there is no such thing as secularity in the modern sense of that word. Everything we do for the Church is service to the Church and part and parcel of the Church's mission. To work as a secretary or even an accountant for the Church is not a "secular" task.

Now, must a Christian be willing to divide himself into "sacred and secular" when he goes out into society? Certainly, because he has entered what has become "the secular sphere". The Church itself is the "sacred sphere".

Having met many of the people who work for your church, I must say that if your church thinks they all sanctify the world in their daily living, your church has a truly bizarre notion of what sanctity is. But I guess I should have known that.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Again, I have to say, the fundamental problem with this bill is that it tells the Church where belief is important to it and where it is not. It presumes that certain secular categories of separation exist within the Church already, or it is willing to foister them upon them.

Christian life, certainly Church life, is not separated into the spheres of "faith" and then the "secular".

To be a parish secretary, for example, is not to counsel people in their beliefs. However, why can the State say that what one believes here is irrelevant to the position if it is part of the nature of Christian life to do the work of God and sanctify the world in our ordinary living?

Because the foundational principle of these sorts of laws is that an employer does not have the right to dictate the affairs of its employees beyond what's relevant to the job.

Any employer can feel strongly about certain issues, but none of them get to use their human resources policy as a soapbox to promote their cause. Just as the law declares that whether a PETA employee eats meat at home is none of PETA's business, the law declares that when an employee of the Catholic Church leaves the office at the end of the day, the Church's power (as employer) over that person ends.

In the Church, one's faith is relevant and brought to the table, ideally, in all positions of employment, because within the Church there is no such thing as secularity in the modern sense of that word. Everything we do for the Church is service to the Church and part and parcel of the Church's mission. To work as a secretary or even an accountant for the Church is not a "secular" task.

Now, must a Christian be willing to divide himself into "sacred and secular" when he goes out into society? Certainly, because he has entered what has become "the secular sphere". The Church itself is the "sacred sphere".

Again, this bill appears to impose secular categorical thinking within an institution which is, by definition, not secular. They are not allowing the Church to "be Church", a wholistic, total way of living, on its own ground.

Am I happy gay people are being excluded? No. But that is besides the point.

I see the issue somewhat differently.

Insofar as the Church participates in secular life by doing things like being an employer, it is subject to secular rules. It does not get a free pass from the law just because of its religious nature.

You're asking for a special exemption from normal rules and laws for the Church, but I see absolutely no reason why it should be given. When there is a conflict between spiritual and secular obligations, the secular wins out in the eyes of the secular law.

Also, I notice you didn't touch on the other aspect of this law: it's not just that the Church opposes this law because of its potential effect on itself; it also opposes the law because it apparently feels that anyone, even a secular employer, should have the right to discriminate against homosexual employees and hiring candidates.

 

[linwood]

You don't. You find some way to get successful at something. I would rather believe that said woman has the ability to develop a necessary skill or start an organization of her own where she can become successful of her own means than believe that she isn't good enough to figure something out. Ensuring that she gets a job because "she can't make it anywhere else" is an insult to her.

Racial discrimination is entirely ok by you.

Just wanted to get that one squared away.

I am thankful your POV isn`t the standard in my country.

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

it's not just that the Church opposes this law because of its potential effect on itself; it also opposes the law because it apparently feels that anyone, even a secular employer, should have the right to discriminate against homosexual employees and hiring candidates.

I am not certain that this is what the Church is saying here, and if it really is, then I strongly disagree.

Insofar as the Church participates in secular life by doing things like being an employer, it is subject to secular rules. It does not get a free pass from the law just because of its religious nature.

Again, it employs its priests doesn't it? This kind of thinking simply leaves the Church at the mercy of arbitrary secularism, which, for the moment, decides to permit its discriminating beliefs as far as priests are concerned, but such permission seems nowhere based on any unlaterable principles of the secular/sacred divide. Also, I do not think that the act of employment is inherently secular.

Suddenly we are saying that the Church can not pay its own people for the work they do for her service without being compromised by secularity?

I think it is secularism, which to me is a necessary thing, pressed too far.

 

[TheKnight]

The Catholic Church hires more people than just priests. They've got plenty of lay people in all sorts of jobs. Apparently, they want to make sure that their accountants, janitors, teachers, social workers, etc., etc. are all straight.

Also, the article in the OP quotes the Pope as saying that the Equality Bill "violates natural law", which I take to mean that he thinks anyone should be able to discriminate against homosexual people.

I suppose.

Racial discrimination is entirely ok by you.

Just wanted to get that one squared away.

I am thankful your POV isn`t the standard in my country.

Treating someone else as being inferior as a person is immoral in my eyes. However, deciding not to hire people based on certain traits (be they natural or learned) is not immoral.

Discrimination:
1 a : the act of discriminating b : the process by which two stimuli differing in some aspect are responded to differently
2 : the quality or power of finely distinguishing
3 a : the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually b : prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment

Discriminating:
making a distinction


(Source)


I fail to see how making a distinction between one person and another based on their traits is wrong.
Suppose there were two people. Person A and Person B. Person A and B are equally qualified.

Persons A and B apply for employer X. A is more ambitious than B. Employer X likes ambition, so A gets hired and B does not.

Persons A and B apply for employer Y. A is gay, B is straight. Employer Y's religious values (and the focus of Employer Y's business is religion) are against homosexuality. B gets the position, A does not.

Persons A and B apply for employer Z. A is black, B is white. Employer Z does not like black people. B gets the position, A does not.

Persons A and B apply for employer Q. A is fairly clever, while B is not. A and B are equal as far as intellectual capacity. Employer Q values wit. Therefore A gets hired, B does not.

I fail to see the difference in any of these scenarios. Neither do I see any moral violations. Making a distinction based on a personal standard is something that an employer of a company should be allowed to do.

Unless, the employer agrees (via social contract) not refrain from hiring people unless they are rejected on the basis of inability to do the job well.

That being said, I do not believe that church's even require business licenses to operate (they might, I don't know). If not, then I see no reason why the Catholic church would be forced to hire a homosexual when they don't want to.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I am not certain that this is what the Church is saying here, and if it really is, then I strongly disagree.

What do you think the Pope means when he says that the bill "violates natural law"?

Again, it employs its priests doesn't it?

Sure, and the government recognizes that, for whatever reason, being male and validly ordained (which would only follow confirmation, right?) is a reasonably relevant requirement for the position of priest in the Catholic Church.

However, it is not reasonably relevant to put similar requirements on the position of accountant. An Anglican, a Muslim or an atheist can administer GAAP (or whatever the British equivalent is) just as well as a Catholic... even for a diocese.

This kind of thinking simply leaves the Church at the mercy of arbitrary secularism, which, for the moment, decides to permit its discriminating beliefs as far as priests are concerned, but such permission seems nowhere based on any unlaterable principles of the secular/sacred divide.

It's not arbitrary secularism. Apparently, a Catholic priest cannot perform his job function if he is not male and has not been ordained by the Catholic Church. The same cannot be said of other positions.

It's fine for you to demand that your employees be qualified for their jobs. In the case of a priest, that implies that the person is ordained as a priest. In the case of an accountant, it might mean that the person has their CA designation, but it doesn't mean they have to have been confirmed. Or male. Or straight.

Also, I do not think that the act of employment is inherently secular.

So you don't think that employment is rightly under the jurisdiction of government when the employer is a religious institution?

Suddenly we are saying that the Church can not pay its own people for the work they do for her service without being compromised by secularity?

If there's a conflict, then yes. The Church as an employer is subject to all the same rules that any employer is subject to: adhering to the laws about workplace discrimination is no different in nature than having to adhere to the laws about hours of work, occupational health and safety, or payroll taxes and deductions. Like I said before, churches don't (or shouldn't) get a free pass from the normal rules of society.

I think it is secularism, which to me is a necessary thing, pressed too far.

Fun fact: in Ontario, it's been established by various court cases that a teacher in a Catholic school need not be Catholic. The teacher has to be qualified, and if the teaching role requires it, he or she needs to be knowledgeable or Catholic teaching, but that's where the requirement ends.

So far, the Church in Ontario has yet to disintegrate.

 

[Smoke]

Again, it employs its priests doesn't it? This kind of thinking simply leaves the Church at the mercy of arbitrary secularism, which, for the moment, decides to permit its discriminating beliefs as far as priests are concerned, but such permission seems nowhere based on any unlaterable principles of the secular/sacred divide. Also, I do not think that the act of employment is inherently secular.

This is, after all, the same Church that knowingly employed thousands of molesters, covered up their crimes, and aided and abetted them in the commission of further crimes. It stretches credulity to the breaking point to expect anyone to believe that this Church has a serious religious commitment to making sure that everyone who mows the lawn or cleans the toilets at St. Anne's is in a state of grace. This is not about sanctifying the world; this is about institutionalized bigotry, no more and no less. As a teacher of morals, Benedict is on about the same level as Chester the Molester.

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

It's not arbitrary secularism. Apparently, a Catholic priest cannot perform his job function if he is not male and has not been ordained by the Catholic Church. The same cannot be said of other positions.

Again, its the reduction of employment within the Church to function. It does not permit the Church to be the Church, where what one does and what one believes are inseparable.

So far, the Church in Ontario has yet to disintegrate.

The Church in Ontario has not, but soon the Catholic schools will, if we can not say it has happened already. I finished Catholic highschool just five years ago. They are not really Catholic.

If I wanted my children [were I to have any] to have a Catholic education, I would choose a privately funded Catholic school where Catholicism is actually taught. I learned more about Buddhist and Hindu doctrines in highschool than I ever did Catholic ones.

What do you think the Pope means when he says that the bill "violates natural law"?

I am not certain, I will have to look at his address again in more detail, but the concept of natural law involves more than just relations between the sexes.

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

This is, after all, the same Church that knowingly employed thousands of molesters, covered up their crimes, and aided and abetted them in the commission of further crimes. It stretches credulity to the breaking point to expect anyone to believe that this Church has a serious religious commitment to making sure that everyone who mows the lawn or cleans the toilets at St. Anne's is in a state of grace.

No one is denying that the Church has severely failed its own standards on many accounts. But to bar it legally from pursuing that integration of Christian life, belief and service is to bar it from its goal before it can even begin to pursue it.

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

I must reiterate, I am uncomfortable with this act as legislation , not neccessarily with Muslims, atheists or homosexuals working for the Church.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Again, its the reduction of employment within the Church to function. It does not permit the Church to be the Church, where what one does and what one believes are inseparable.

I disagree. Recognizing that the Church is an employer does not mean the Church can be nothing more than an employer.

The Church in Ontario has not, but soon the Catholic schools will, if we can not say it has happened already.

As a side note, I hope you're right. I look forward to the day when my government stops funding religious schools and subsidizing religious instruction.

I finished Catholic highschool just five years ago. They are not really Catholic.

Because not all the teachers are Catholic?

I am not certain, I will have to look at his address again in more detail, but the concept of natural law involves more than just relations between the sexes.

Sure, but apparently the Pope believes "natural law" has some bearing on the substance of the Equality Bill, a piece of legislation concerned with discrimination on the basis of things like race, gender, religion and sexual orientation. What aspect of the bill do you think he's referring to?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I must reiterate, I am uncomfortable with this act as legislation , not neccessarily with Muslims, atheists or homosexuals working for the Church.

No, you just think the Church should have the freedom to fire them or refuse to hire them if it so chooses, right?

 

[Smoke]

No one is denying that the Church has severely failed its own standards on many accounts. But to bar it legally from pursuing that integration of Christian life, belief and service is to bar it from its goal before it can even begin to pursue it.

Given that they've waited this long before beginning to pursue it, it's safe to say both that it's not a high priority and that purging the church of gay organists is probably way down on the list of things they'd need to do to achieve it.

It's really just impossible to take this objection seriously. It's abundantly obvious that this is not what it's about.

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

No, you just think the Church should have the freedom to fire them or refuse to hire them if it so chooses, right?

Yes. I think the Church should have the freedom to exist as a society of the faithful, including the ability to pay those faithful and hire them according to its internal criteria. I otherwise think secularism reaches too far, working towards a totalizing secularity, forgets its origins in the Christian world view (and consequential crises within that world view), and begins cutting itself off from its roots.

Anyways, that is just my opinion, I leave you be from here.