This'll make ya fume!!!

[Christy4Christ]

Let me understand this now. If a Catholic parish has a non-Catholic on staff (even if they are the janitor) does this mean they are no longer a Catholic organization?

If this is the case then that means they are promoting discrimination because then the Catholics would have to only hire other Catholics.

 

[ps139]

I honestly would not be surprised if in 20 years the ACLU sues the Catholic Church for denying Communion to non-Catholics. I seriously think that these liberal organizations are going to try to control and destroy religion from the inside.

However, I have faith that we will win the battle, we always do

 

[Christy4Christ]

Yes ps139 I agree...

 

[nyj]

If this is the case then that means they are promoting discrimination because then the Catholics would have to only hire other Catholics.

Yes, but they would turn that around and say that since we're now hiring only Catholics, and we hadn't done so in the past (which they cannot see is due to this virtue called charity), that we are the ones responsible for the discrimination, not them.

 

[Veritas]

Yeah, I heard about this on the radio a few hours ago and my blood boiled (sort of).

Aren't non-profits allowed to hire who they want? Why can't a Catholic charity hire only Catholics who observe Church teaching? The next thing you know, churches will be forced to hire atheists in staff positions. I thought this is one of the reasons we have separation of Church and State. The State doesn't tell the Church what to do and the Church doesn't interfer with the State. First, we have a case started in my state with the theology major who the Supreme Court just ruled can't uses his state scholarship money for his education. But then we have the courts telling the Catholic Church, it's non-profit charities have to include ABC in it's health plan. Rubbish!

 

[boughtwithaprice]

I find it ironic that the Catholic Church is being punished for being too ecumenical. I mean we want to share the love of Christ with the entire world as our role in being the universal church. The state says that we are not allowed to do that; we have to stick to only Catholics or else we are not Catholic.

Has California said, "No Universal Church allowed"? If this isn't an establishment of a religion, I don't know what is.

Can some one say US supreme court? Would THEY put California in line or are we doomed to have religion outlawed in favor of secularism? They did put the smack down on Florida in 2000, let's pray they do the same to California

 

[faerieevaH]

Really this is an absolute ridiculous ruling. And yes, that comes from someone who often is much more 'liberal' (oooh, I just don't like that word) then most. What's next? Going to force catholic priests to bless gay marriages? Wether or not you agree with gay marriage or birth controll, you shouldn't put someone who does not believe in them in a position where he has to provide them.

 

[DJ B.K.]

Really this is an absolute ridiculous ruling. And yes, that comes from someone who often is much more 'liberal' (oooh, I just don't like that word) then most. What's next? Going to force catholic priests to bless gay marriages? Wether or not you agree with gay marriage or birth controll, you shouldn't put someone who does not believe in them in a position where he has to provide them.

If they do force catholic priests to bless gay marriages I will go freaking crazy, start a protest or something (Don't worry it'll be non-violent)! They only want separation of church and state when it benefits the state.

 

[mathias1979]

Here's the only reason I'm not completely outraged at this decision. According to the article on CNN.com,

It does not demand that its workers be Catholic or share the church's philosophy.

Yet by not offering birth control...aren't you sort of forcing these people to follow the church's phiolosophy even after you clearly told them they weren't required to? If they clarify this so that they don't require their employees to be Catholic but still ask them to follow some Catholic teachings, then I think they have a better case.

-Matt

 

[boughtwithaprice]

Here's the only reason I'm not completely outraged at this decision. According to the article on CNN.com,


Yet by not offering birth control...aren't you sort of forcing these people to follow the church's phiolosophy even after you clearly told them they weren't required to? If they clarify this so that they don't require their employees to be Catholic but still ask them to follow some Catholic teachings, then I think they have a better case.

-Matt

But the church is not asking them to follow church teachings now, or would they ever have to. This decision is asking the CHURCH to go against its own teachings and PAY for birth control. If people want birth control, then let them pay for it themselves

 

[JillLars]

But the church is not asking them to follow church teachings now, or would they ever have to. This decision is asking the CHURCH to go against its own teachings and PAY for birth control. If people want birth control, then let them pay for it themselves

I think that if the church hired these people telling them that they would not be required to adhere to Catholic beliefs, and then denied them the benefits that are provided by other secular companies, they have brought this on themselves. You can't tell employees they will be treated in a secular manner and then base policies on Catholic (or any other religious) beliefs.

 

[geocajun]

I think that if the church hired these people telling them that they would not be required to adhere to Catholic beliefs, and then denied them the benefits that are provided by other secular companies, they have brought this on themselves. You can't tell employees they will be treated in a secular manner and then base policies on Catholic (or any other religious) beliefs.

I wonder when they were told they would be treated in a secular manner?
Who goes to work for a religious institution expecting it to not be religious?

 

[JillLars]

Who goes to work for a religious institution expecting it to not be religious?

Well, apparently the people who went to work for this organization did not expect it to be religious. Why? Because the organization specifically states that employees do not have to share the church's philosophy, yet they enforce their philosophy through employee benefit packages, which directly contradicts what they told employees upon hiring. I wouldn't have a problem with them refusing birth control coverage if they were up front about it, but they are not.

It does not demand that its workers be Catholic or share the church's philosophy.

 

[geocajun]

Well, apparently the people who went to work for this organization did not expect it to be religious. Why? Because the organization specifically states that employees do not have to share the church's philosophy, yet they enforce their philosophy through employee benefit packages, which directly contradicts what they told employees upon hiring. I wouldn't have a problem with them refusing birth control coverage if they were up front about it, but they are not.

ahh ok, I don't think the church is asking the people to share in its "philosophy", but rather it is stating that it will not assist people in their sins, and it does not expect to be forced to share in your [the employee's] "philosophy" anymore than it forces the employee to share in its own.

 

[JillLars]

ahh ok, I don't think the church is asking the people to share in its "philosophy", but rather it is stating that it will not assist people in their sins, and it does not expect to be forced to share in your [the employee's] "philosophy" anymore than it forces the employee to share in its own.

I think that if they are upfront about what their plans include and why (for example, upon hiring, let the employee know that because this is a Catholic organization birth control is not covered, you don't have to be catholic, but we want to make sure you understand this is not something our company pays for).

I guess ultimately employees should be able to take it or leave it, and I don't think that the court's rulings about the nature of this organization were correct. If it is a Catholic charity, that is providing secular services, it doesn't change the fact that the charity is most likely being supported by people of the Catholic faith, I think the courts should have taken that into consideration when making their decision, but I also think that the organization should be upfront about the effect their beliefs have on their policies.

If that makes sense...(i've been up all night, sorry)

 

[geocajun]

I do find it ironic, that when a pharmiscist refuses to give out the abortion pill, he is fired for it - and the response from most liberal secularists was "if he didn't like giving out the abortion pill, then he shouldn't be working there"
Apparently the company could not be forced to conform its policy to permit him to have his beliefs and work there...

but when a non-Catholic goes to work for a Catholic charity, apparently the church should conform its policy to the non-Catholic beliefs rather than the same standard being applied to them.

 

[geocajun]

but I also think that the organization should be upfront about the effect their beliefs have on their policies.

yea, like they could put the word 'Catholic' in their name or something to that effect. That would surely let people know they were an organization with Catholic moral standards right?

 

[JillLars]

yea, like they could put the word 'Catholic' in their name or something to that effect. That would surely let people know they were an organization with Catholic moral standards right?

Or, here's a thought, they could be up front with their employees rather than leading them to believe they don't need to follow Catholic beliefs, and implying that their policies will reflect such a statement.

Ultimately the organization set itself up for disaster by telling their employees they would not be affected by Catholic beliefs and then forming policies around them. The policies aren't bad, not being straight forward with employees about the reasoning behind the policies is bad.

 

[geocajun]

Or, here's a thought, they could be up front with their employees rather than leading them to believe they don't need to follow Catholic beliefs, and implying that their policies will reflect such a statement.

Ultimately the organization set itself up for disaster by telling their employees they would not be affected by Catholic beliefs and then forming policies around them. The policies aren't bad, not being straight forward with employees about the reasoning behind the policies is bad.

again, the employees are not being told that they must "follow Catholic beliefs" - your spinning this to mean something it doesn't.
The policy is that the Church will not support activity which it deems sinful - period. The employee can beleive whatever they want to believe.

So maybe the Church should hand all employees a Catechism and let them know that in this is the moral standards of the church and the policy may reflect it?
Surely that would be easier than trying to verbally give a list of things which someone who is not Catholic may or may not disagree with given that they could subscribe to literally thousands of different moral critera which the Church would find morally wrong. Your suggestion appears unreasonable to me.

 

[PeterPaul]

Or, here's a thought, they could be up front with their employees rather than leading them to believe they don't need to follow Catholic beliefs, and implying that their policies will reflect such a statement.

Ultimately the organization set itself up for disaster by telling their employees they would not be affected by Catholic beliefs and then forming policies around them. The policies aren't bad, not being straight forward with employees about the reasoning behind the policies is bad.

And who is to say they are not? First off, when you go on an interview you ask about benefits package. If you are interested in one particular aspect of that package you will ask it. If not, and you are hired, you will only then pay attention to the healthcare packet containing information. To assume you will recieve the same package from one secular job to another is absurd, so why would you expect that when going from a secular job to religious organizational employment?

It is the responsability of the prospect to ask about specifics, not the employer. The employer will give a general description but does not know what is on your mind. Otherwise, interviews would be 3 hours long.

This is just a smoke screen.

As for the court's ruling, I'm disgusted by its "impartiality". Let's be honest folks, there is no such thing as separation of Church and State if the state's church is of the secular kind.