"If Catholic School Employees Had to Live By The Bible, They’d All Get Fired"

[mr blur]

[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#deedfc; color:#00000 0; margin-left:1em; border:1px dashed #7a7b7d ; border-radius:1em; box-shadow:4px 4px 4px #999999;"]Camille Beredjick who works in the LGBT nonprofit industry, writes:

Marriage equality may have swept the nation last week, but LGBT people are far from equal. Even in places where LGBT individuals and same-sex couples are granted some array of legal rights, religious institutions routinely fire LGBT teachers after they come out or get married.

The most common explanation is that gay teachers aren’t upholding Catholic ideals when they pursue or “flaunt” their relationships. When they get hired, teachers at these schools are often asked to sign agreements stating they’ll abide by “Catholic principles.” If someone gets outed as LGBT, administrators use these documents to claim a breach of contract, then send the gays on their way.

In practice, the terms of these contracts don’t do much except ban same-sex relationships, ignoring a host of other prohibitions the Bible sets. In an excellent op-ed for the New York Times titled “The Church’s Gay Obsession,” openly gay columnist Frank Bruni explains why that’s such an issue:

"Repeatedly over the last year and a half, I’ve written about teachers in Catholic schools and leaders in Catholic parishes who were dismissed from their posts because they were in same-sex relationships and — in many cases — had decided to marry.

Every time, more than a few readers weighed in to tell me that these people had it coming. If you join a club, they argued, you play by its rules or you suffer the consequences.

Oh really?

The rules of this particular club prohibit divorce, yet the pews of many of the Catholic churches I’ve visited are populous with worshipers on their second and even third marriages. They walk merrily to the altar to receive communion, not a peep of protest from a soul around them. They participate fully in the rituals of the church, their membership in the club uncontested.

The rules prohibit artificial birth control, and yet most of the Catholic families I know have no more than three children, which is either a miracle of naturally capped fecundity or a sign that someone’s been at the pharmacy. I’m not aware of any church office that monitors such matters, poring over drugstore receipts. And I haven’t heard of any teachers fired or parishioners denied communion on the grounds of insufficiently brimming broods."

<snip>

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/10/13/if-catholic-school-employees-had-to-live-by-the-bible-theyd-all-get-fired/

So why is the RCC willing to overlook examples of its members not living 'Biblically' until it involves gay people? At best this seems to suggest double standards, at worst outright bigotry leading to hatred.

(NB: Before the usual apologists pile in I don't know why I feel the need to point out that isn't "flamebait" - experience probably - but this is a group to discuss religion and this is a religious topic and the New York Times piece makes several important points.)

[Kelvin Mace]

1. Hypocrisy!

It's not a bug, it's a feature.

[Gelliebeans]

2. It's another

"Don't ask don't tell" just by another institution.(fucking ridiculous!!!)

[cbayer]

3. I agree that the position is hypocritical and not uniformly applied.

The RCC has a very, very long way to go here, but I think the information today indicates a change in direction. I hope I can see this happen in my lifetime, but I may not.

I don't think this is flame bait at all, by the way. The RCC's position on GLBT people is definitely appropriate for discussion.

And I hope that the usual anti-apologists will contribute to the conversation and be able to see that the position taken by the Vatican today is a positive step.

[trotsky]

5. Nice name-calling.

Poisoning the well by labeling anyone who doesn't agree with you. That's just swell. Keep up the great work, making this a welcome forum for discussion!

Perhaps you could explain why we should be encouraged by this?

For instance, is there ANY indication whatsoever that this signals any kind of change in policy or church teaching? Basically, anything at all to distinguish this from a pure PR move intended to mollify those who are rejecting and criticizing the RCC and its bigotry?

I'll wait.

[Warren Stupidity]

7. you are referring to the "no change in policy" HUGE ANNOUNCEMENT?

Yeah why the flying fuck isn't everyone celebrating this non-event?

[Hoppy]

4. The rules also prohibit buggering children...

Where is Cardinal Law?

[trotsky]

6. Great question. n/t

[DrewFlorida]

8. True! Hell, if Catholics and or Christians were required to act according to Jesus's...

teachings, they would all be kicked out of their religions.

[cbayer]

9. Which teachings are those?

[Manifestor_of_Light]

10. You're supposed to sell everything you have and leave your family.

That's one thing Jesus said you need to do to follow him.

That would make for a lot of homeless kids and stranded spouses.

[cbayer]

11. Only if you are a literalist. This is totally allegorical

but you do seem to take the bible very literally.

It's about how one should give up their riches to take care of the poor and about how his disciples will be rewarded for their personal sacrifices.

If you could just step back form this literalism, I think you would find all of this much less confounding.

[Warren Stupidity]

12. that's funny. It wasn't allegorical to the first generation of christians, it was literal.

It became "allegorical" as jeebus kept not showing up. In this context "allegorical" means "obvious nonsense that has to be re-interpreted".

[Manifestor_of_Light]

13. Literally?

Would you please show me a church doctrine that says "We don't take literally the ridiculous and cruel stuff in the bible. We only use the Sermon on the Mount (for example) as our moral guide."

You seem to say that liberal Christians don't take the bible literally, but I would like to see some explanation for your statements that has actual doctrinal statements behind it, not "the people in X denomination don't take it literally" or "I never heard of that" or "the people in my church don't believe that" or whatever.

[cbayer]

14. No, I won't' show you anything.

Your mind is made up. Your ideas are extremely rigid.

Time after time people here have given you information that counters the dogmatic approach you have to religion, and you reject it and still cling to your very strict interpretations and definitions.

I'm going to continue to counter you when you make statements that are borne only from your distorted view and not based in reality, but I am not going to try to explain why you are wrong.

It's like beating my head against a brick wall.

[skepticscott]

15. Says the person whose mind is set in concrete

And who admits right here that evidence doesn't matter, only her opinion.

Ironic too, that when people say that the pope's homophobic bigotry will never change, some posters here are convinced to a moral certainty that he can be swayed against unchangeable doctrine.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

16. Oh? Ye of strong faith?

Then why don't you have any doctrine you can show me? Written down?

Are you afraid of your beliefs being known? Why can't you state them?

Isn't your faith strong enough that you can say "I believe, A,B,C,D" unapologetically? Most church services have a part called confession of faith, which is usually the Apostles' Creed or the Nicene Creed, at least among Protestants. Why can't you state that you believe one of those creeds, for example, or some statement of faith that is explicatory?

Does the congregation or denomination say "Officially we believe A" but by word of mouth, unofficially they believe B which is not compatible with belief A? Does that mean that when they are reciting the Apostles' Creed or the Nicene Creed, that they don't believe it?

This sounds like the situation of 99% of American women using contraception at some point in their life and that includes Catholics, who I believe are committing a mortal sin if they use it? And are not allowed to take communion? And American women have decided their sex lives are none of the Pope's business?

[cbayer]

17. I don't have any doctrine or religious beliefs at all.

and your obsession with doctrine is greater than most religious people I know.

You have judged me and determined who and what I am based completely on your own prisms, which distort the world around you. The assumptions you make about me are completely erroneous.

I am sorry that you are stuck in this vortex. I really am. I wish for you that you could relax those filters and take people for who they are instead of the "doctrines" that you attach them to.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

18. Sounds like you're an atheist.

Atheism is not beliefs. Atheism is "I see no evidence for a god." Agnosticism is "I cannot know if there is a god or not but I see no evidence of one."

[cbayer]

19. Sounds like you don't get to define me.

I am definitely agnostic and I like the term apatheist. I also like the term faitheist as used by Chris Stedman, although it is problematic as it is often used as an attack by some around here.

I know what the definitions are.

[cbayer]

20. The usual suspect has never claimed to be anything but an agnostic.

What do you make of your assumption otherwise, even though you have never had any data or "reason" to back it up?