Pope Benedict XVI and the anti-gay rights bandwagon
Yes, yes, the Catholic Church opposes the active practice of homosexuality. We know already.
The Church already lost its fight to stop gay couples being considered by Catholic adoption agencies. Now the Pope has said that British laws “impose unjust limitations on the freedom of religious communities to act in accordance with their beliefs.” What’s he talking about?
David Blackburn at the Spectator is in no doubt. It’s the Equality Bill, which “will require organisations to employ without thought to suitability, and allocate resources under the perverse dictates of positive-discrimination.” What Blackburn is getting at, in a roundabout way, is that under certain provisions of the bill, the Catholic Church might have to consider hiring sexually active homo- or transsexuals.
There are two issues at stake here: one is the question of whether religious freedom is being violated, one is the exploitation of the Pope’s remarks to hammer a bill that will protect the employment rights of minorities – attacking it not in the interest of the Catholic minority, but using that as a convenient cover for a wider assertion that positive discrimination is a route towards employment ‘without thought to suitability’.
Blackburn goes on to call the Equality Bill un-British.
I shouldn’t need to say that I think the second issue is one of rank opportunism. Individuals have different abilities, but no ability relevant to employment is denied an individual by virtue of their being gay, lesbian, bisexual or transsexual. Thus employers should consider people for employment regardless of their sexual preferences, even the Catholic Church.
This leads to the first issue. The question of discrimination arises when we consider religion – even Catholicism – for what it is, rather than what the Catholic heirarchy demand that it be. Plenty of Catholics, many of whom consider themselves good Catholics, do not conform – nor wish to conform – to all the teachings of the Church. Plenty have sex before marriage, use contraception and so on.
Since I very much doubt that the application form requires that would-be employees reveal such details about themselves, or outlines, perhaps, what aspects of the Second Vatican Council they disagree with, or what tenets of Catholicism they do not abide by in their private lives, I don’t see why alternative sexual preferences and the transgendered should be singled out. Plenty of things mark people as ‘bad’ Catholics.
Why should homosexuality and trans-genderism be the things that exclude them from employment, if they are otherwise suited to the role?
If the jobs in question are religious in nature and are reserved for Catholics, there are plenty of Catholics who are openly gay and I’m sure even a few who are transgendered, but who otherwise attempt to live by Catholic teachings. Why should they be excluded from applying? Unless there is universal exclusion on the basis of deviation from Catholic doctrine, and in practice this would be exceptionally hard to establish, then it is discrimination to deny jobs to these specific minorities.
If the jobs in question are not reserved for Catholics, then really on what grounds do the religious beliefs of the employers matter?
Catholics and Catholicism are not monolithic – there are many shades of opinion. It is a mistake to selectively apply the harshest interpretation to all Catholics, then, when you get run down by anti-discrimination laws, claim foul on religious liberty. This is what David Blackburn does.
Of all the voices that will be raised about religious freedom, in the run up to Pope Benedict XVI’s UK tour, I wonder how many will be libertarians inadvertantly justifying the doctrinal absolutism of the Catholic heirarchy, implying that it must be the Pope and the Bishops alone who define what Catholicism is. This absolutism is alien to the lives of most Catholics, who define for themselves what Catholicism is, and practice it freely.
Labour MEP Stephen Hughes, speaking from Rome, made a good attempt to stick up for them: “As a Catholic, I am appalled by the attitude of the Pope. Religious leaders should be trying to eradicate inequality, not perpetuate it.”
This most personal of decisions about what one’s faith means is where real religious freedom lies, not in thinking up imaginative justifications for Bishops to exclude people from jobs on the basis of their sexual preference.
See also: Left Foot Forward, LibCon.
Your critique of Catholicism’s inconsistent approach to the severity of sin is rather accurate. I’m not sure it’s to the point though. The logical conclusion of this argument would be that the Catholic Church could discriminate against homosexuals if their belief system were consistent (maybe if there were Biblical authority that homosexuality was a special category of sin, a “super sin”). I’m not sure its right for the state to say that only consistent religions should discriminate.
If we are to accept freedom of religion we arguably must accept that such religions are more free than other institutions to set down their own membership and appointment criteria, however odious we may find them. To assert the strength of the state to impose a moral position onto a religion is not to respect the religious freedom of that group of believers.
One could argue that in choosing to be part of a particular religious body, one agrees to waive some of one’s normal rights. Without the acknowledgment of such a fact where would we be? Would priests who get defrocked for sleeping around be re-instated by employment tribunals to avoid invasion of their private life? Would ministers who preached explicitly against the teachings of their church be protected from discipline by the right to freedom of religion?
I would not claim these arguments to be decisive. It is a troubling issue, as one of our fundamental beliefs must be compromised, and to imagine that there is a cut and dried answer is naive.
p.s. just to make it explicit to anyone reading: I am not coming down either way on any side. I’m not going to get embroiled in any of the ridiculous name calling elsewhere on this site. I merely wanted to point out that it is not as clear cut as Dave’s article makes out. It is a purely formal exercise in trying to flesh out the map of the issues.
In a perfect world, the State wouldn’t be involved in such matters – but in my perfect world, religion wouldn’t be a professional activity. In this world, we have employment law and it is right that employers shouldn’t discriminate.
My point was that, if the Catholic heirarchy was consistent – and was proposing detailed background checks to see if people were guilty of flagrant breaches of Catholic doctrine of which they didn’t repent – then their practice wouldn’t be discrimination against gays and the transgendered. But we are were we are – and it is discrimination, and it should be prevented.
I can agree with you that roles within a religion that have specific religious significance should be exempted from employment law – preaching roles for example. But who cleans the churches? Or acts as a secretary?
I don’t know if these roles are even kept for Catholics; if they aren’t, where is the harm in saying that they should be open to everyone, since the issue isn’t one of being part of a religion, it’s simply performing a job.
What seems curious to me, however, is that these issues are even being talked about. Has there ever been a case where a homosexual or transgendered person has applied for a job over which the Catholic heirarchy had control? If not, and if the statistical likelihood of this happening is low – which I imagine it to be – it seems like a foolish thing for the Pope to declaim on.
Suppose a religion had three sins: supporting Tottenham Hotspur, being gay, and liking Charles Dickens early novels. They rigorously upheld a non-employment policy on all of those groups. Would still be discrimination against homosexuals – discrimination is simply using a given characteristic to select/deselect people with that charateristic.
i.e. Man United discriminate against bad footballers.
As for the secretary/cleaner points. I can’t imagine that is what is particularly upsetting the Pope (I may be wrong, I can’t pretend I keep up with this stuff) – surely its people in a specifically religious role? If it is cleaners etc…more dubious ground.
Damn, that religion has me going to hell on two out of three sins.
I understand what you were saying – but (though I’m not gay) it seems more unacceptable to simply target gay people than if you are acting more broadly in the terms you’ve set for your own religion, and it’s not just a fit of pique because gay rights happen to be increasing and you don’t like it.
And I don’t think anyone really knows what was upsetting the Pope, but religious roles are specifically exempted. Whilst David Blackburn and AP and a few others link it to the employment related provisions of the incoming Equality Bill, the previous Equality Act (April 2007) removed the right of Catholic adoption agencies to discriminate against gay couples.
Since then five of the eleven Catholic adoption charities have complied with the law, one has closed and the other five are in various stages of compliance or challenge to find out what they are allowed to get away with. I think perhaps the Pope was broadly referencing these things, but this may have been key.
If it was, it’s old news – the law is in force and whilst the Bishops have renounced diocesan links with the charities that complied, they are still Catholic charities. Nothing much has changed, except a few more kids will get homes with happy families.
Fair enough: agree with you, I think. I’m not sure about the precise choice of word ‘unacceptable’ but I know what you mean. At the end of the day it is a balancing act that is probably mostly based on moral intuition rather than hard and fast logic.
Just had a word with a friend; it’s possible that the employment law thing could be referring to grey areas like being headmaster of a Catholic school. I’m not sure what the situation is with that at the moment – I’m fairly sure all teachers, Catholic and not, have to take Catechism classes before they can teach there so I’m sure that would apply to headmasters as well. And I imagine that there are gay teachers at Catholic schools already.
It looks like Dopey Popey has a problem with fair, just equality legislation. This former Hitler Youth who heads a Church rife with pedophilia certainly has no room to speak. I say shame on the Pope, and I say this to Catholics: vote with your feet. Show the little corporal in Rome how disgruntled you are by CHANGEING YOUR RELIGION. I became an Anglican 20 years ago because I had it with John Paul II. I must say the change was refreshing.