CIVIL RELIGIOUS DISCUSSION: All things Christianity

[Ziggidy]

But that can't apply to non-Catholics, right?

Doesn't catholicism teach that unless you are baptized catholic, it's pretty much over for ya? So would it matter if a non-catholic went to church (mass) or not? As a christian, I cannot for the life of me remember reading missing mass was a sin; but I've been wrong before.

 

[foszoe]

It is treated as a living document by American Christianity. How it was interpreted by the Holy Fathers is not important to most of them.

Now the Constitution? Those Founding Fathers are sacred.

Full disclosure...pet peeve alarm

what the bible isn't a "living document" like the constitution?

can we vote for amendments to the bible.

that thing about not coveting property could use a modern take.

 

[foszoe]

You, particularly, I am interested in elaboration from. Well, if it is more than 10k words, I'll probably just skim it.



Actually, now, she is not being deceptive.

As to your first point, the question becomes what a Catholic high school should expect from its employees and whether there is a double standard. It is a sin for Catholics to not go to Sunday mass (or Saturday vigil). But that can't apply to non-Catholics, right?

Nah it won't take long at all.

I just don't really know.

I am not sure if your question revolves around legality or morality?

Either way, I don't know enough about the law to make a legal argument.

From a moral standpoint, I am not sure why we single this sin out above all others. While being deceptive, she obviously did not promote the lifestyle openly. Now that it is in the open is the agenda to promote the lifestyle now? I don't know.

Is adultery treated the same way? etc or pick your own "grievous sin".

However, lying on an application is, I believe, a terminal offense.

I do know some folks at Roncalli. Maybe I'll hit them up for a conversation.

 

[foszoe]

1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament. (1249)


1260 “Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery.”63 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity. (848)




Catholic Church. (1997). Catechism of the Catholic Church (2nd Ed., p. 321). Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana.

Doesn't catholicism teach that unless you are baptized catholic, it's pretty much over for ya? So would it matter if a non-catholic went to church (mass) or not? As a christian, I cannot for the life of me remember reading missing mass was a sin; but I've been wrong before.

 

[T.Lex]

What specific sin(s) does the pope now openly accept, and specifically what does that mean?

Maybe I do not know your point? I read your post as suggesting the pope openly accepts what the Word speaks out against. Can you clarify?

BTW, we are not speaking of every Christian denomination; we are speaking of a catholic church.

Yes. First, I confess that ambiguity in my posting could be very much a product of my (prayerful) struggle with this decision by the diocese (although not my diocese, it certainly is an important one).

The pope, somewhat in line with what foszoe describes, has articulated that we should perhaps not be so quick to condemn homosexuality more stridently than we do other sins. That is, in many Catholic areas, it is elevated above other sins in such a way that overlooks important failures.

The issue is not whether it is a sin, but how we - both as individual Catholics and the Church - should react to it. Keep in mind, Pope Benedict hasn't exactly lived his life amongst the first world cultural progressives, although he is from a relatively affluent family. He might arrive at a similar rhetorical destination as those kinds of people, but from an altogether different path.

My point about bringing up non-Catholic denominations is an effort to articulate (probably rather poorly) part of the possible hypocrisy: if we accept non-Catholic-conforming behaviors from other employees, should we accept them from Catholics. That is something I am ruminating on.

Doesn't catholicism teach that unless you are baptized catholic, it's pretty much over for ya? So would it matter if a non-catholic went to church (mass) or not? As a christian, I cannot for the life of me remember reading missing mass was a sin; but I've been wrong before.

Yes as to the baptism thing. There are some faiths that Catholicism recognizes, so members of those traditions can take communion. (Awkwardly, I think Orthodox is one, although it is not uniformly reciprocated by them).

Missing mass, for no reason or a bad reason, is a sin. Missing mass for a good, appropriate reason is not a sin. God knows if it is legitimate or not.

 

[foszoe]

 

[foszoe]

We'll give you antidoron and you can drink wine in the hall afterwards....I am the resident bartender at my parish.

 

[Ziggidy]

I do not know the answer to the female and her employment, but I do have thoughts and questions as it may pertain to the catholic church (and maybe others).

I am guessing that grievous sin is the same a mortal sin? If not please correct me. I believe all sin is forgivable, for Christ died just for me and my sins; however, if I continue to sin (live in sin) then I have not truly received His gift of grace. ANY sin, sexual immorality, killing, lying, stealing and so on is all forgivable as long as I repent and no longer "live in sin". Being gay is not a sin; for temptation in and of itself is not sin (Christ was tempted); however, acting on (living in) sin is not repenting - as we agree, unrepented sin is not a good thing. Living a gay lifestyle, having an ongoing affair, being a thief....and so on - is living in sin.

My question is, when does the catholic church excommunicate a person based on their "lifestyle of sin"? I ask about the catholic church because this is what the topic is about. Can that very same standard be followed with employment through the catholic church? I understand the idea that we are all sinners and we need to open our doors to the sinner - I get all that; but when does it become counterproductive to the doctrines of the church and if a church becomes too open, doe sit not jeopardize the very foundation of that church? We are to love everyone, but we are also instructed when to ask one to leave. When is that point and can it be legally (worldly) enforced?

 

[T.Lex]

Nah it won't take long at all.

I just don't really know.

I am not sure if your question revolves around legality or morality?

Either way, I don't know enough about the law to make a legal argument.

From a moral standpoint, I am not sure why we single this sin out above all others. While being deceptive, she obviously did not promote the lifestyle openly. Now that it is in the open is the agenda to promote the lifestyle now? I don't know.

Is adultery treated the same way? etc or pick your own "grievous sin".

However, lying on an application is, I believe, a terminal offense.

I do know some folks at Roncalli. Maybe I'll hit them up for a conversation.

First, this is not a legal exercise for me - otherwise I would've posted it elsewhere, and it would've been a short conversation.

And no, I wouldn't even really call this a moral issue for me. Part of the reason I posted here, other than it kinda came up recently, was that I'm trying to (prayerfully) discern what I think God's answer is. This is an issue that will continue to come up and I think the Catholic church needs to have a defensible response. Maybe that response is the same as it always has been, but maybe not.

I do not fear doubt or change when it comes to these matters of faith. I'm not even really afraid of ambiguity. Perhaps this is one of those issues that reasonable Catholics (including bishops) can disagree about.

Since this is public now, I don't think it would be breaching any trust or anything to ask people about it. I absolutely concede that I have but a sliver of information beyond what is being reported. There may be significant facts that I do not know.

 

[T.Lex]

I do not know the answer to the female and her employment, but I do have thoughts and questions as it may pertain to the catholic church (and maybe others).

I am guessing that grievous sin is the same a mortal sin? If not please correct me. I believe all sin is forgivable, for Christ died just for me and my sins; however, if I continue to sin (live in sin) then I have not truly received His gift of grace. ANY sin, sexual immorality, killing, lying, stealing and so on is all forgivable as long as I repent and no longer "live in sin". Being gay is not a sin; for temptation in and of itself is not sin (Christ was tempted); however, acting on (living in) sin is not repenting - as we agree, unrepented sin is not a good thing. Living a gay lifestyle, having an ongoing affair, being a thief....and so on - is living in sin.

My question is, when does the catholic church excommunicate a person based on their "lifestyle of sin"? I ask about the catholic church because this is what the topic is about. Can that very same standard be followed with employment through the catholic church? I understand the idea that we are all sinners and we need to open our doors to the sinner - I get all that; but when does it become counterproductive to the doctrines of the church and if a church becomes too open, doe sit not jeopardize the very foundation of that church? We are to love everyone, but we are also instructed when to ask one to leave. When is that point and can it be legally (worldly) enforced?

Ah! I think I see part of our narrow miscommunication. This is not at all about excommunication. At least not yet, as far as I know. Right now, this is an employment issue where she works for an employer that is excepted from certain non-discrimination laws.

To your question, her church could take steps to ex-communicate her based on the "living in sin" condition. My understanding is that such an extreme discipline would only come after a lengthy, deeply personal, discussion with her. Including opportunities for confession and appropriate penance. I do not know if that penance would include revoking a civil marriage that isn't recognized by the church anyway.

In fact, I'm not sure that makes a difference. If she hasn't sought to have the marriage recognized, then that isn't the issue. Her disclosure of the relationship is.

 

[rvb]

the article talked about a contract not being renewed? so if she wasn't directly employed, but under a contract, can we presume the contract had wording to the effect of "living a lifestyle reflecting the values of the church?" e.g. a morality clause if you will? If so, then either termination under the terms of the contract or not renewing it based on this information would be reasonable. Perhaps this sin isn't being singled out, but the church gave themselves a way to distance a thief, adulterer, drunkard, etc etc (or in this case a person living a homosexual lifestyle) from their students?

-rvb

 

[T.Lex]

the article talked about a contract not being renewed? so if she wasn't directly employed, but under a contract, can we presume the contract had wording to the effect of "living a lifestyle reflecting the values of the church?" e.g. a morality clause if you will? If so, then either termination under the terms of the contract or not renewing it based on this information would be reasonable. Perhaps this sin isn't being singled out, but the church gave themselves a way to distance a thief, adulterer, drunkard, etc etc (or in this case a person living a homosexual lifestyle) from their students?

-rvb

That's a safe bet.

This isn't really about whether the school *can* do this, but more about whether it should. (At least, for my purposes in this thread.)

My kids have gone through Catholic schools, although not Roncalli. Particularly with regard to the high school level, I am aware of homosexual teacher/coaches in situations where it was an open secret. That is, no one was hiding anything, but they also weren't broadcasting it.

Perhaps worse, if we look at some other sinful acts done openly - greed, wrath, envy, pride - that are sometimes exhibited by high school teachers/administrators/coaches... a certain hypocrisy begins to appear. And yes, I'm looking at a handful of coaches that deliver state tournament victories, but with certain costs.

 

[rvb]

Gut Reaction Question, Elaborate if you wish with a scriptural defense!

Was a Blood Sacrifice required to satisfy the Wrath of God in order to obtain forgiveness of sins?

gut reaction:I think yes.
Only because Leviticus comes to mind. blood splashed everywhere for sin offerings!
And those sins where death is the punishment, Leviticus says something like "their blood will be on their heads."
Jesus fulfilled the OT by being the blood offering for our sins, the purest lamb sacrificed for the sins of the people...
-rvb

 

[rvb]

That's a safe bet.

This isn't really about whether the school *can* do this, but more about whether it should. (At least, for my purposes in this thread.)

My kids have gone through Catholic schools, although not Roncalli. Particularly with regard to the high school level, I am aware of homosexual teacher/coaches in situations where it was an open secret. That is, no one was hiding anything, but they also weren't broadcasting it.

Perhaps worse, if we look at some other sinful acts done openly - greed, wrath, envy, pride - that are sometimes exhibited by high school teachers/administrators/coaches... a certain hypocrisy begins to appear. And yes, I'm looking at a handful of coaches that deliver state tournament victories, but with certain costs.

I dn't think one person's sin (mine, or someone else's) should be viewed in context of other people's sins. Like asking the police officer why they pulled you over for speeding when there were other people going faster.... not really going to help your situation.

perhaps there are "open secrets," ... maybe no action there because no evidence to point to vs this case with a legal document? I mean the church has hopefully moved on from witch hunts (is she heavier than a duck?) and maybe is relying on existence of tangible evidence, almost requiring action?

-rvb

 

[Ziggidy]

Favorite and ONLY

 

[rvb]

Favorite and ONLY

I was in Salt Lake City a couple weeks ago for work, and saw this beer poster:

 

[Ziggidy]

Personally I don to know what the correct and proper answer is. At this moment, I would lean towards a long discussion with the employee and reiterate specific expectation from both sides. Respectful of the individual but with full understanding that it does against the church. Expectations would include the employee not exhibit or disclose their sinful lifestyle. If the employee would cross the line, she would be terminated. At this point, it needs to be fully understood that ANY unfairness or perceived unfairness MAY be cause for legal action. This is so delicate and needs to be handled appropriately.

As brought up before, any "life of sin" must be dealt with equally. Documentation impeccably kept, equally and fairly across the board.

I would be very interested in knowing the official outcome - this could create havoc; the enemy loves this and will use.

 

[T.Lex]

I dn't think one person's sin (mine, or someone else's) should be viewed in context of other people's sins. Like asking the police officer why they pulled you over for speeding when there were other people going faster.... not really going to help your situation.

perhaps there are "open secrets," ... maybe no action there because no evidence to point to vs this case with a legal document? I mean the church has hopefully moved on from witch hunts (is she heavier than a duck?) and maybe is relying on existence of tangible evidence, almost requiring action?

That is a thought-provoking point, thank you for that!

To me, that brings up 2 separate angles to it. First, in a world lacking commitment to much of anything, at least they appear to be committed to each other. Second, I'm not sure that making something "legal" is actually much more of a revelation. Hypothetically, if a certain coach is known to be gay, and brings their committed-partner on as an assistant coach, and while they do not express themselves romantically at the school, they do appear to be a couple in all other respects. Everyone just understands and accepts them, and in fact value them as positive influences for the kids in all material ways. People just don't talk about how much time they spend together.

I'm not sure that's any different than having a civil marriage certificate.

Also, one context of Pope Francis's comments is that the church should have a "fraternal space" where gay people can provide the benefit of the gifts that they have from God. I think that is a relatively new development.

 

[Ziggidy]

Well, most here are asking what the catholic church says about this or what they may do.

What does the Word of God say about it? That is most important and has final authority.

 

[T.Lex]

Well, most here are asking what the catholic church says about this or what they may do.

What does the Word of God say about it? That is most important and has final authority.

Indeed. That's what I asked.

Interested in what those here think would be the appropriate implementation of Christ's teachings.