OK, I’m confused
As I noted in my article, Rules are rules, especially if we don’t like you, The Roman Catholic Church uses its prerogative (which it is perfectly entitled to) to discharge folks who don’t follow its beliefs.
There have been numerous articles on the subject. Examples include the firing of unmarried pregnant teachers and the subject I wrote on, the firing of a devoted church youth music director (who happens to be the wife of a PNCC priest on active duty with the U.S. Air Force), and so on.
My feed reader caught two articles today that show the discrepancies and unequal treatment practiced from diocese to diocese.
From NineMSN: Catholic schools in bid to ban non-Catholics
Tasmanian Catholic schools have applied for an exemption to the state’s Anti-Discrimination Act in a bid for the power to turn away non-Catholic students.
Archbishop Adrian Doyle has outlined the new plan, which aims for all Catholic schools to have at least 75 percent Catholic students.
He said the policy would ensure “very strong Catholic ethos and vision” in Tasmanian Catholic schools, and would be slowly rolled out across the state…
— versus —
From RTí‰: Presbyterian gets top Catholic Church post
The Catholic Church in Ireland has appointed a Presbyterian as the head of its child protection unit.
Ian Elliot, Director of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children in Belfast, is to become the first Chief Executive of the Church’s National Board for Child Protection.
When he takes up his duties in a month’s time, he will have completed two years on secondment to Northern Ireland’s civil service where he has led a major reform programme for child protection services.
AdvertisementChurch sources say he is the first non-Catholic to be appointed to such a senior post in Irish Catholicism.
OK, so there’s a shortage of Roman Catholics in Ireland!?!
I get that I’m being sarcastic, but doesn’t the Roman Church’s inconsistent treatment of folks make it look all subjective and vindictive?
Again, no problem if the Church chooses to solely hire Roman Catholics, and solely Roman Catholics who follow Church teaching. That might actually represent something – a strength of witness. Instead it looks like it is all ends justify the means Machiavellian. That’s unfortunate.
Without knowng the exact details of each of the two
cases you cite, I can point out one obvious
explanation:
The Catholic Church has a moral obligation to provide
a religious education to its OWN youth FIRST, then
to the rest of the school age population. Most other
religious denominations would say and do the same.
As for the Presbyterian getting the top Catholic
Church post as the head of its child protection unit,
if that person was Director of the National Society
for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children in Belfast,
it sounds like the most QUALIFIED candidate –
regardless of religious affiliation – was chosen. If
that applicant is willing to agree to the requirements
laid down for that position, they are entitled to be
hired.
These are two DIFFERENT circumstances. To a non-Catholic, it may appear on the surface to be
“inconsistent”, “subjective and vindictive”. But, do
a little investigating of Catholic Church teaching,
and it turns out to be quite logical and justifiable.
And, other religious groups – be they Protestant,
Jewish, or Muslim – would have reason to make similar
decisions.