USCCB Letter on Employment Nondiscrimination Act
I know I’m a little late to the party on this one. On May 19, the USCCB wrote a letter setting out its reasons for opposing the proposed Employment Nondiscrimination Act, which would prohibit discrimination against homosexuals in employment. The crux of its position appears to be that it is opposed to the law because (1) it might be applied to the Church in ways that interfere with its religious autonomy and (2) it might be used by litigants and courts to promote successful constitutional challenges to prohibitions on same-sex marriage.
I don’t know enough about the proposed legislation to comment on the Bishops’ specific claim that the religious exemptions built into the law are insufficient to protect the Church’s autonomy, but there were a number of troubling features of the letter that may shed some light on the hierarchy’s views on homosexuality and the law. First, the bishops repeatedly insist that, while they oppose the proposed legislation, the Church continues to oppose “unjust discrimination” on the basis of “homosexual inclination.” I found the two qualifications within this statement to be troubling. First, the word “unjust” seems to be doing a lot of heavy lifting for the bishops, both in this letter and in other statements. We know that at least one bishop thinks its not “unjust” discrimination to prohibit the child of a gay couple from attending Catholic school. And the Catholic Church openly engages in at least some exclusion of even celibate homosexuals from the priesthood.
So the question that this raises is precisely what sort of discrimination the bishops believe to be “unjust.” The letter doesn’t say, but it would be nice to know what they think. Would it be unjust for a Catholic school to fire a gay janitor simply because he is gay, even if he is celibate? Could a Catholic small-business owner do the same? Is an antidiscrimination law unjust because it penalizes the small-business owner who refuses to employ a gay janitor for religious reasons? What if the small-business owner is not religious but merely refuses to hire the gay janitor because he opposes homosexuality because he has read Robby George’s work and is convinced by it? I guess I’d like to hear what would, in the bishops’ view, constitutes unjust discrimination (since it is a category that seems to include less than it excludes)? The letter is silent on this point. It’s far more eager to carve out room for “just” discrimination than it is to specify where discrimination goes too far.
The potential capaciousness of the first qualification is brought into relief by the second: the letter’s emphasis on homosexual inclination. The bishops open their letter by distinguishing homosexual inclination from homosexual conduct. The letter’s affirmation of the Church’s opposition to “unjust discrimination against people with a homosexual inclination” suggests that the bishops do not object to discrimination on the basis of homosexual conduct. In other words, they seem to think that you are morally entitled to fire someone for having homosexual sex, even if it would be unjust to fire him merely for being gay. Not only that, in order to protect the right to discourage (through employment discrimination) gay conduct, the bishops seem to be opposed to any legal prohibitions of discrimination against homosexuals that do not expressly protect the right to discriminate against those who engage in homosexual conduct. The problem, for them, seems to be that a broad prohibition might be interpreted as encouraging homosexual conduct even if such broad protection is necessary to protect people with homosexual inclinations. I’m left wondering whether there is any way to craft legislation protecting homosexuals from employment discrimination that would not either (1) prohibit discrimination targeted narrowly against those who engage in homosexual sex or (2) be totally ineffective in protecting gay people from employment discrimination? I can’t think of any, since the person doing the discrimination could always just say that he fired (or refused to hire) a gay person not because he was gay but because he suspected the person was sexually active. And, if that’s the case, why do the bishops insist on using this pinched language? Why not just come out and say that they that, by and large, they think it’s OK to discriminate — as they themselves do in selecting priests — against those with homoseuxal inclinations? They’ve narrowed the category down so much that the invocations of the language about “unjust discrimination” feel like historical baggage more than sincere worries for the well-being of gay people. That is, they’ve said it so many times that they can’t just get rid of it, but it now seems to mean something much narrower than it used to.
A couple of other interesting tidbits in the letter. First, the bishops compare the success of gay marriage to Roe v. Wade. This is a particularly hard one for me to swallow whole. In the Church’s official view, Roe v. Wade opened the door to legally sanctioned murder of millions of innocent children. Nothing, we keep hearing, compares to this evil or justifies supporting politicians or political parties that support it. It’s mass murder. A holocaust. On the same level as legal slavery. Nothing compares to it, I guess, except gay marriage, which is a “moral disaster comparable” to mass murder. Interesting.
Finally, the proposed law is no good because it fails to include a “bona fide occupational qualification” exception “for cases in which it is neither unjust nor inappropriate to consider an applicant’s sexual inclination.” This is interesting because it appears to stand apart from the concerns, voiced earlier in the letter, with Church autonomy. I’m curious, apart from religious work that would be protected by a broad provision protecting religious groups’ autonomy, which jobs would justly require the power to discriminate against people on the basis of “sexual inclination” (not conduct, remember). I’m drawing a blank on this one. Truly.
You’re reading way too much into the mention of Roe. They said it is comparable “in many ways.” They didn’t spell out the ways, and I don’t see any reason why they would compare it the way you do here. A fair reading of the letter suggests that they were thinking of the legal ways that things gradual build on one another. Still, you raise a good question: what exactly are these “many ways”?
the bishops compare the success of gay marriage to Roe v. Wade.
In a past post at America magazine’s blog, Fr. James Martin mentions that for some at the UCCB, “abortionsamesexmarriage” had become one polysyllabic word.
I don’t really understand the bishops opposition. The law allows for religious exemptions …
SEC. 6. EXEMPTION FOR RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS. – This Act shall not apply to a corporation, association, educational institution, or society that is exempt from the religious discrimination provisions of title VII of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 pursuant to section 702(a) or 703(e)(2) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 2000e-1(a); 2000e-2(e)(2)). – http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-3017“>Text of H.R. 3017
I had seen a post about the letter a while ago at America magazine’s blog and wrote something about it at my own blog.
I can think of plenty of examples of discrimination that the bishops would probably object to.
- If a man is beaten up or killed because he’s gay
- If a bus driver refuses to let some man get on the bus because he’s gay
- If a doctor refuses to provide general health care to a man because he’s gay
- If a bank refuses to open a account for a man because he’s gay
- If the salvation army refuses to give out clothes to a man because he’s gay
- If the city hall refuses to process a man’s passport application because he’s gay
- If the controller on the train refuses to accept the validity of a passenger’s ticket, because the passenger is gay.
And I’m sure that most bishops would object if a Catholic school refused to enroll children of gay/lesbian parents.
Oops –
Let us not forget that those who rant about gays, as the bishops do with such astonishing insistence and regularity, are probably themselves gay. Consider the case of George Rekers and the rentboy from Miami — and countless other cases.
Gay bishops ? Really ???
The next thing you’ll be telling us is that there might be gay (gasp!) cardinals.
If you were gay without knowing it, you would probably find gay people threatening even if they’re not sexually active, because, you know, you might get influenced: homosexuality is contagious, would you think in fear. Wouldn’t that justify, in your mind, employment discrimination? Think about it: who would want to employ someone who has a contagious disease with no reliable cure?
The Dignity of the Human Person is a Gift from God for it is in God’s Image that every Human Being is created. To deny the Human Person’s inherent predestined role in the Creative Love of God, “Be fruitful and multiply”, is to deny the Creative Love of God from The Beginning.
Nancy, would you be willing to employ a homosexual person to mow your lawn, even if that person was catholic and celibate?
Claire,
If i understand Nancy Danielson’s theories correctly, “homosexual persons” do not exist, and hence they cannot mow lawns.
Homosexuality is not inherent. Every inclinition that is not oriented towards The Will of God is disordered and in need of transformation.
Would you employ someone to mow your lawn if he had a homosexual inclination but was catholic and celibate and was doing his best to try to be transformed, as you suggest he should do?
And how in the world would you know that someone is gay anyway? Do you think that gays wear pink ribbons in their hair?
If someone came to cut the lawn—should we put them through the Third Degree and ask them about their sexual preferences or inclinations. I just want my grass cut. If the individual does a good and careful job, I wouldn’t care if they are a hermaphrodite.
Nancy, you had it exactly right “The Dignity of the Human Person is a Gift from God for it is in God’s Image that every Human Being is created.” Every human being. Every one. But as to your assertion that “Homosexuality is not inherent,” that is a question of science, not of theology or philosophy. And the science which is emerging does not support you. Show me a good, solid scientific study, or ten, which demonstrate(s) that homosexuality is a matter of choice or preference.
And by the way, have you ever noticed how Paul, who’s the only real gay-basher in the NT (certainly Jesus says nothing on the topic) was always travelling with some young companion?
Homosexuality is not inherent. Every inclinition that is not oriented towards The Will of God is disordered and in need of transformation.
While it is pointless to try to engage Nancy Danielson in a discussion of the issue of homosexuality, I take her to be implying that an “inclination that is not ordered toward The Will of God” cannot be inherent. From the Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church
I earlier posted the following on Mirror of Justice:
The bishops, it seems to me, are making a small (if meaningless) step forward here in offering to discuss ways to legally protect those with a homosexual inclination (but who do not engage in homosexual behavior) from “unjust discrimination.” As I read Some Considerations Concerning the Response to Legislative Proposals on the Non- Discrimination of Homosexual Persons (23 July 1992) by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, even legislation protecting those with a homosexual orientation is to be resisted by the Church, and even when the Church itself is exempt from such legislation.
But what are we to make of the kind of legislation which the bishops seem to envision — legislation that protects people from discrimination because of “inclinations” that they do not act upon? I am not a lawyer, so I have to ask those here to weigh in in whether there exist any other civil rights laws that protect individuals purely on the basis of an “inclination” to do something that they do not, in fact, do? Currently, as best I can tell, the EEOC protects against discrimination on the basis of the following: age, disability, gender (on the issue of equal pay), genetic information, national origin, pregnancy, race, and religion. I do not see how any of those can be interpreted to be “inclinations” that are not acted upon.
It does seem to me ironic that the bishops are offering to help congress devise a law that protects against discrimination based on homosexual inclination but not homosexual behavior, and at the same time apparently wish themselves to be exempt from the law. If they want to replace ENDA with meaningless legislation that meets with their approval, they should at least be willing to be bound by whatever they approve.
David, to be clear, we cannot transform Christ, The Word of God Made Flesh. It is Christ who transforms us.
We can support homosexuals without bashing Paul. Clearly, the passages against women were an interpolation. Jesus traveled with companions also. So that line of reasoning is specious.
Bill, the thing is I don’t think that observing Paul is “bashing.” It would only be “bashing” if I thought there was anything “inherently disordered” or morally flawed about being gay. As far as I’m concerned, it’s “don’t ask – don’t care.” But it is human nature to speak out most loudly against those things we perceive as failings in ourselves.
Little Bear: indeed, I was waiting for that answer. Now, same question, replacing “gardener” by “receptionist” or “personal assistant” or “doctor” or “accountant” or “teacher” or “babysitter” or “physical therapist” or “gym coach” or “your boss” or “your therapist” or “your pastor”. For which occupations does it make you squirm to think that the person is a Catholic celibate gay man?
For example, I would hesitate to hire a man as a babysitter, but if I did, it wouldn’t matter to me that he’s gay, unless he was celibate by principle, and then I would have to wonder if something’s wrong with him.
Paul has some weird stuff on lesbianism and male homosexuality in Romans 1. I think that his liberalism in embracing the Gentiles had shocked many, who went around saying, “Paul is a friend of those sodomites etc. What will we see next?” so Paul puts on a demonstration of holding the line against gays, copying his lines out of standard hellenistic Jewish apologetic of that time.
We are really back in the stone age if we have to argue that those homosexually inclined should have their human rights protected but not those homosexually active, or if we have to argue that homosexuality is just a form of concupiscence due to original sin.
Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori is the St Paul of today, and she has got it right: homosexuality is a godgiven disposition just like heterosexuality, and inscribed in it is a vocation to love, just as with heterosexuality. Intimate physical expression of such love and the consolidation of that love in public arrangements or marriage are matters concerning human rights. To forbid your neighbor to have a sexual life or a love life is a cruel crime against human rights.
Bill, I’m not sure that the challenge facing the church is to “support homosexuals.”
I think it’s the challenge of welcoming those of us who are gay.
Making us know and feel welcome–that we count.
Something that this document from the bishops certainly doesn’t do.
There are all kinds of ways to convey lack of welcome, from statements of outright discrimination to careless linguistic constructions that turn the other into a problem to be solved.
Not a human being to be embraced, included, affirmed–made welcome.
if we have to argue that homosexuality is just a form of concupiscence due to original sin.
Fr. O Leary,
That was not my point. Rather, I was saying that the Catholic concept of concupiscence implied that an “inclination that is not ordered toward The Will of God” can be inherent. I do not believe a homosexual orientation is “objectively disordered.” I don’t see how it can be denied that a homosexual orientation is inherent, although I suppose it depends on one’s definition of inherent. I don’t see how a homosexual orientation can be any less inherent than a heterosexual orientation.
Of course, exactly what original sin is I can’t begin to say. Certainly I do not think it is the result of a transgression by the two individuals who became the parents of the human race, since I don’t believe there were two individuals who became the parents of the human race. Catholicism, however, at least appears to “require” that belief: “The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents” [CCC 390].
Dear Claire,
You stated:
“Little Bear: indeed, I was waiting for that answer. Now, same question, replacing “gardener” by “receptionist” or “personal assistant” or “doctor” or “accountant” or “teacher” or “babysitter” or “physical therapist” or “gym coach” or “your boss” or “your therapist” or “your pastor”. For which occupations does it make you squirm to think that the person is a Catholic celibate gay man?
For example, I would hesitate to hire a man as a babysitter, but if I did, it wouldn’t matter to me that he’s gay, unless he was celibate by principle, and then I would have to wonder if something’s wrong with him.”
———————————————————
There are many people in my life who some people would feel uncomfortable with for various reasons. Being a Catholic (or any other religious profession) celibate gay man/woman does NOT make me squirm.
I’ve had friends ask me how I can go to a Muslim doctor—-according to some of my friends—they are not to be trusted. I trust him with my life. And we are also friends who swap books—including his Koran for my Catholic Bible.
David Nickol,
There was an unfortunate misprint in my posting, I meant to write: “if we have to argue that homosexuality is NOT just a form of concupiscence due to original sin.” Of course the whole idea of equating homosexuality with concupiscence, as in Homosexualitatis Problema, is absurd.
John Paul II apologized to the Jews but failed to apologize to gays. The result is that our bishops are now recycling against gays the same mental frameworks they used to use against Jews. The parallels are very striking.
There is a wonderful double bind: one Vatican document says no one would discriminate against gays if they did not draw attention to their condition, by being asked “what did you fantasize about when you last masturbated?” Bishops of course are never asked such questions. Jews were treated similarly, forced to wear identifying marks but assured that their salvation lay in disappearing qua Jews.
As to disappearing, the US Bishops approve of an outfit called Courage which links to the evil and abusive NARTH. The fierce antisemitism of a Richard Wagner came from the fear that he himself was tainted with Jewish blood. Those who want gayness to disappear often provide spectacular demonstations of its visibility in their affairs with consorts and callboys.
Oops, a few words dropped out in a sentence above. It should read: “one Vatican document says no one would discriminate against gays if they did not draw attention to their condition, yet bishops force candidates for seminary to confess the said condition by having assessors ask them “what did you fantasize about when you last masturbated?”"
“careless linguistic constructions that turn the other into a problem to be solved” — actually in the case of the Vatican a linguistic construction like “Homosexualitatis Problems” (aka the 1986 Halloween Letter) is not at all careless. It seeks to mark out gays as problematic in their sexual orientation (just as we talk of “the problem of pedophilia” in a climate that already demonizes people of that disposition).
Bishops claim to believe that homosexual acts are gravely evil, and Persona Humana actually cites Paul’s rant in Romans 1 to back up this claim. Thus they think that in practicing “just discrimination” against sexually active gays they are saving society from grave evil. Similarly, in the past, bishops upheld all sorts of civil penalties against Jews in order to save society from the taint of their alleged moral blindness etc.
I thought it was the Pope who claimed to believe that homosexual acts are grave, and shame on old St Paul for his “rants”.
Of course the USCCB would oppose such a law. The Catholic church in MA recently had to close its adoption services because gays insist of tweaking the Church’s nose every chance they get.
The matter is clear enough; the Catholic Church does not approve of the “gay lifestyle” and should not be coerced into acting against its own doctrine.
What would you have the good Bishops say or do? Should they simply toss aside the teaching of Rome regarding this?
Until the Vatican comes out and embraces the gay lifestyle, gay marriage, etc., of course Catholics must oppose such measures.
Ken: we do not follow the Vatican: the Vatican follows us. When has the Vatican led the way to a clearer understanding of what God wants for us on earth? Moreover, I am not sure that it’s in its role. Its priority is unity, and you don’t achieve unity between a very large number of people other than by being at or very close to the center. Some people try expressing new ideas, they are the ones who lead the way, if they are sound then more and more people are convinced, and it is only when the majority of the faithful has come around to the idea that it is time for the Vatican to make its move.
I don’t know how Ken can se things so black and white through his rose colored glasses.
it’s my view that the USCCB continues to do damage to its own credibility among a significant number of the faithful with their political approaches.(Of course, this ties into the question of selection of bishops we recently discussed.)
And so the Vatican should “follow” the US? Please.
Claire; the pope is the successor of Saint Peter; the Vicar of Christ on Earth, and the bishop of Rome.
Saint Peter’s job way back then and the job of the Pope today is the same; to guide (lead) the Church (people) to Christ.
The sheep do not lead the shepard; the shepard lead the sheep.
To be clear, “homosexuality” like “polygamy” or “adultery” is not a human being to be “embraced, included, affirmed-made welcome”. One cannot affirm homosexuality without denying God’s intention for Conjugal Love and denying the complementary nature of Male and Female.
Ken: no! Not the US!!!! But the faithful. Give me an example where the Vatican led the way.
“Saint Peter’s job way back then and the job of the Pope today is the same…”
Ken, I find your statement confusing, as St. Peter was never a pope. Furthermore, at a later point in church history, the bishops of Rome were known as vicars of Peter. The “Vicar of Christ” language, again if I recall, entered the picture only still later.
Bishops in other locales apparently were not the least reluctant to tell the earliest bishops of Rome (i.e., when Rome finally had a single religious leader) to mind their own business if/when Rome attempted to interfere in matters that other sees considered to be strictly local matters.
Finally, Jesus said, “I am the good shepherd,” the operative word here being the word ‘I’. History demonstrates that not all popes have functioned as genuine “shepherds”.
We have a better educated and informed Catholic populace today than in times past. Indeed, layfolk often know more about a subject than their bishops, including the bishop of Rome. If there’s a problem today, it’s the official teachers’ failure to keep up with advances in human understanding from the biological and social sciences.
Follow a Catholic “shepherd” today?
It all depends on his demonstration of competence.
If my own experience is any indication, I don’t recall the angel Gabriel appearing to me in a dream and telling me, “Joseph, you turn age 12 [or 13] next week and God wants you to decide if you’re going to be romantically, physically, and sexually attracted to boys or to girls. You must make a decision. You can flip a coin or use any other method to decide what will be known henceforth as your ‘sexual orientation’.”
And if Gabriel did not appear to me, I seriously doubt God would have sent his messenger to other guys instructing them to select their sexual orientation before attaining their 12th (or 13th) birthday.
The actual cause(s) of sexual orientation remains a mystery, but there’s more than enough evidence to an open mind that it is real, not something made up, selected, contrived, etc. It is real, not a fiction.
One of these days (hopefully), Rome will perhaps deal with reality, not fiction.
We are all called to develop healthy and Holy relationships and friendships in communion with one another and God.
F.Y.I.: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/apr/10042103.html
Claire – I stand corrected of course; I should have said the laity.
As for an example of when the Vatican led the way; how about most of the last 2010 years?
Nancy –
About your conviction that gay people choose to be gay. Given how gay people have been treated in Christian cultures, why on earth would anybody *choose* such marginalization, ostracism, contempt, rejection, insult, beatings, prison sentences, and even being murdered?
Why do you accuse gay people of acting so irrationally?
St Peter set a headline for all popes by surrendering to the pressure from St Paul and the Holy Spirit. On the Jews the papacy has at last conceded that Catholic treatment of Jews over the centuries has been sinful. The joyful effect of this capitulation to the Holy Spirit are much felt. On gays the papacy has insisted in a very stiff-necked way that the Church has not been a persecutor of gays through its false teachings and inhuman acts — including, let us remember, the judicial murder of thousands of gays over the centuries. The poisonous effect of this resistance to the Holy Spirit is much felt. Scapegoating gays has become the favorite sport of the decadent papal court and of beleagured bishops who have made their careers by ignoble toadying to that court.
Here is a magnificent statement from Sister Jeannine Gramick: http://clericalwhispers.blogspot.com/2010/06/nun-speaks-about-ministering-to-gay.html
Ann, my child suffers from a developmental problem that was greatly influenced by the trauma of a date rape in college. We were not aware for sometime what had happened to our daughter, including the fact that there were some who actually suggested, including her “friends” that part of her continued trauma was a result of not knowing “deep inside who she was”. Why do you accuse me of acting irrationally because I want my children to understand the Gospel of authentic Love and develop healthy and Loving relationships? I grieve for my daughter because I Love her.
Nancy, I am sorry to hear that. Your family has more than its share of problems related to sex. For me all those issues that are continually discussed here are sometimes more like a mind game than like reality, and I am sometimes flippant; my connection to the various problems is relatively distant. I can only hope that my children will be spared the traumas and tensions that the members of your family have to face. I will pray that you and your children find a compassionate and loving environment in your local church.
Thank you for your Prayers, Claire.
“Why do you accuse me of acting irrationally because I want my children to understand the Gospel of authentic Love and develop healthy and Loving relationships? I grieve for my daughter because I Love her.”
Nancy –
I am terribly sorry about your daughter, and it is obvious that you love your children deeply. I will pray for her and for you.
I didn’t say that you are acting irrationally because you love your children. What i asked was why you think that *gays* would be so irrational as to choose to be gay. My exact question was “Why do you accuse gay people of acting so irrationally?”