Tolerance

[Guest Raz]

People need to stop making disordered passions and desires into identifying characteristics of the human person. No one is gay; instead, some people are afflicted with homosexual desires and inclinations, which although not sinful per se, are - as the Church explains - "a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder" [CDF Instruction Homosexualitatis Problema, no. 3]. If the teacher is living an objectively immoral lifestyle I see no other option but for the school to let her go.

 

So in a nutshell what you're saying is that the proper Christian thing to do with people who engage in homosexual behavior is to get them out of your life.

Edited April 25, 2013 by Raz

[Apotheoun]

So in a nutshell what you're saying is that the proper Christian thing to do with people who engage in homosexual behavior is to get them out of your life.

It is the Christian thing to do to forbid people who not only suffer from this disordered condition, but who - like Ms. Hale - act upon, to have positions of authority in Catholic institutions. The homosexual inclination - although not a sin - is not benign either, because - as the Church teaches - it involves an attraction to moral evil. Socrates has already posted the information put out by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith which speaks of just form of discrimination in employment. No one has a right to teach at a Catholic school

 

Ms. Hale is a Methodist, and as a former Methodist myself, I would advise her to try and find employment with the United Methodist Church. The United Methodist Church has embraced moral evil as normal.

Edited April 25, 2013 by Apotheoun

[TeDeum]

3.  Co-habitation in any forms should be grounds for firing from a Catholic school.  I live in the west and there are plenty of pods of polygamy.  Many of them are amazing people.  However, the Catholic schools don't hire these people.  No one whines about their "rights" to a personal life.

 

 

With that said.  The school should of given her a chance to rectify her living situation before letting her go.  Then again, she should of known she was not living up to the pretty basic standards of the Catholic Church.  To me (I'm not Catholic) co-habitation is the issue, not gay....but everyone pays attention because it's a gay issue.

 

Yep, one of the teachers at my Catholic high school got his girlfriend pregnant and then they started living together. The school found out about it and fired him. Of course no one cared because it was a heterosexual relationship, it didn't even make the local news. Granted I'm sure a bunch of people incorrectly thought "Well it's silly and old-fashioned that the Church is doing this, they really need to get with the times." but it really wasn't a big issue. There was no massive protest movement or Facebook group to get his job back, even though he was likable enough as a teacher.

 

Compare that with this situation which does have all sorts of anger and protests. The only real substantial difference is this is a homosexual relationship instead of a heterosexual one.

 

This is something I've notice recently, the Catholic Church has been a big proponent of upholding traditional morality and has therefore held that A) straight sexual relationships outside of marriage, B) the use of contraceptives, and C) homosexual relationships are sinful. Now to be sure, society views the condemnation of all 3 as outdated and backward, but in case C it also seems to regard it as bigoted. Sure a cohabiting unmarried couple with the woman on the Pill will reject the Church's teaching against their actions as backwards and weird, but I don't ever think I've heard someone living that lifestyle say that the Church is prejudiced against them, they just say that it's "out-dated, behind the times, ect."

 

But with a gay or lesbian couple, in addition to being out dated and behind the times the Church is now considered prejudiced as well. Even though from the Church's perspective it's doing the exact same thing both times, it's proclaiming the standards of morality that we've received form Sacred Scripture and Tradition. But for some reason when it does it to straight couples it's backwards, when it does it to gay couples it's backward AND bigoted.

 

Why is holding gay people to the same standards as straight people are bigoted? From a secularist perspective shouldn't they both be just backwards, or both be backwards and bigoted? The Church teaches that both are in the wrong, yet it is only towards the gay couple that the Church is said to be prejudiced against. Why?

[Gabriela]

How has this not gone to the Debate Table yet?

[Guest Raz]

Yep, one of the teachers at my Catholic high school got his girlfriend pregnant and then they started living together. The school found out about it and fired him. Of course no one cared because it was a heterosexual relationship, it didn't even make the local news. Granted I'm sure a bunch of people incorrectly thought "Well it's silly and old-fashioned that the Church is doing this, they really need to get with the times." but it really wasn't a big issue. There was no massive protest movement or Facebook group to get his job back, even though he was likable enough as a teacher.

 

Compare that with this situation which does have all sorts of anger and protests. The only real substantial difference is this is a homosexual relationship instead of a heterosexual one.

 

This is something I've notice recently, the Catholic Church has been a big proponent of upholding traditional morality and has therefore held that A) straight sexual relationships outside of marriage, B) the use of contraceptives, and C) homosexual relationships are sinful. Now to be sure, society views the condemnation of all 3 as outdated and backward, but in case C it also seems to regard it as bigoted. Sure a cohabiting unmarried couple with the woman on the Pill will reject the Church's teaching against their actions as backwards and weird, but I don't ever think I've heard someone living that lifestyle say that the Church is prejudiced against them, they just say that it's "out-dated, behind the times, ect."

 

But with a gay or lesbian couple, in addition to being out dated and behind the times the Church is now considered prejudiced as well. Even though from the Church's perspective it's doing the exact same thing both times, it's proclaiming the standards of morality that we've received form Sacred Scripture and Tradition. But for some reason when it does it to straight couples it's backwards, when it does it to gay couples it's backward AND bigoted.

 

Why is holding gay people to the same standards as straight people are bigoted? From a secularist perspective shouldn't they both be just backwards, or both be backwards and bigoted? The Church teaches that both are in the wrong, yet it is only towards the gay couple that the Church is said to be prejudiced against. Why?

 

C is called bigotry because by definition, it is.

 

Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot: someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats other people with hatred, contempt, and intolerance on the basis of a person's race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity,national origin, religion, language, socioeconomic status, or other status.

Edited April 25, 2013 by Raz

[Apotheoun]

Socrates (in post #42) gave the Church's official position on the issue of discrimination. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has indicated that not all forms of discrimination are unjust. Of course the CDF really should not have had to say that, because Catholics should know that they must discriminate all the time when they choose to do what is right rather than embrace moral evil or doctrinal error. Immorality and error have no rights.

 

10. “Sexual orientation” does not constitute a quality comparable to race, ethnic background, etc. in respect to non-discrimination. Unlike these, homosexual orientation is an objective disorder (cf.Letter, no. 3) and evokes moral concern.

 

11. There are areas in which it is not unjust discrimination to take sexual orientation into account, for example, in the placement of children for adoption or foster care, in employment of teachers or athletic coaches, and in military recruitment.

 

[Papist]

How has this not gone to the Debate Table yet?

 

b/c hsmom is watching Arrested Development.

[Guest Raz]

Socrates (in post #42) gave the Church's official position on the issue of discrimination. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has indicated that not all forms of discrimination are unjust. Of course the CDF really should not have had to say that, because Catholics should know that they must discriminate all the time when they choose to do what is right rather than embrace moral evil or doctrinal error. Immorality and error have no rights.

 

That doesn't change the fact that by definition it is bigotry. Let's look at the definition again.

 

Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot: someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats other people with hatred, contempt, and intolerance on the basis of a person's race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity,national origin, religion, language, socioeconomic status, or other status.

 

 

 

10. “Sexual orientation” does not constitute a quality comparable to race, ethnic background, etc. in respect to non-discrimination. Unlike these, homosexual orientation is an objective disorder (cf.Letter, no. 3) and evokes moral concern.

 

11. There are areas in which it is not unjust discrimination to take sexual orientation into account, for example, in the placement of children for adoption or foster care, in employment of teachers or athletic coaches, and in military recruitment.

 

^ Those are prejudices. So, as I said,  the scenario you described in example C of your previous post, is by definition, bigotry, and that's why people call it that.

 

 

 

 

Edited April 25, 2013 by Raz

[Apotheoun]

That doesn't change the fact that by definition it is bigotry. Let's look at the definition again.

 

Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot: someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats other people with hatred, contempt, and intolerance on the basis of a person's race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity,national origin, religion, language, socioeconomic status, or other status.

 

 

 

^ Those are prejudices. So, as I said,  the scenario you described in example C of your previous post, is by definition, bigotry, and that's why people call it that.

It is good to be prejudiced against moral evil. After all, lack of moral judgment is the opposite of virtue.

[Papist]

I completely agree, we teach by example. What did the church teach the world through this action? They taught the world that if you are gay, you are not allowed to teach.

 

Is that how you interpret this?  

 

Also, I believe you are confusing tolerance with unconditional acceptance. They are not the same.

[Guest Raz]

Is that how you interpret this?  

 

Also, I believe you are confusing tolerance with unconditional acceptance. They are not the same.

 

I assure you that I have not confused the two. I refer you to the quote I started this entire thread with.

 

Yes, that is how I interpreted this action by the diocese of columbus, and that is how this action is seen by the majority of the people who have followed this story, because that is what happened. Just ask the students of the school.

Edited April 25, 2013 by Raz

[Apotheoun]

I believe that the Church has simply taught that the homosexual condition is a disorder, and that it cannot be used as a defining characteristic of a person as far as "rights" are concerned, and that if a person acts upon those disordered desires - as the teacher in the present case has done - they cannot work at a Catholic institution.

[Papist]

I assure you that I have not confused the two. I refer you to the quote I started this entire thread with.

 

Yes, that is how I interpreted this action by the diocese of columbus, and that is how this action is seen by the majority of the people who have followed this story, because that is what happened. Just ask the students of the school.

 

OK. If that is how you believe it to be. She was fired for "being gay". Then please define what "being gay" is? 

[Guest Raz]

I believe that the Church has simply taught that the homosexual condition is a disorder, and that it cannot be used as a defining characteristic of a person as far as "rights" are concerned, and that if a person acts upon those disordered desires - as the teacher in the present case has done - they cannot work at a Catholic institution.

 

That's all correct. I just don't think that firing someone is a good way to help them with a disorder and doesn't set a good example for how others should treat homosexuals.

[brianthephysicist]

 

Yes, there is definitely a difference between those who try not to sin and fail, and those who sin willfully. And as you said, we as humans absolutely can and should forgive both, and we should especially pray for that those who sin willfully will learn the error of their ways.

 

In terms of teach by example, this woman taught at this school for 19 years. She did not teach anything that went against Catholic doctrine. This was a teaching opportunity for the diocese of columbus, and the lesson they chose to teach was one of punishment isntead of forgiveness.

 

I'm gonna keep going with the questions.

 

"Do what I say but not what I do."  I'm not saying teachers need to be absolutely perfect, everybody messes up from time to time, but should we have someone in an authoritative position representing a morality that they are consistently and willfully living contrary to?

 

Is it a punishment for an employer to fire someone from a job in which they refuse to fulfill all of the requirements of that job?  (Note, I strongly mean refuse. Not a person trying to and having difficulty, but willfully and purposefully refusing).