Legally - What is the Catholic Church?

pH

I was reading this thread in Christianity
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054872649

and was wondering about the rights of Homosexuals and women in the church.

I'm not looking for a debate on the wrongs or rights, I'm after some information on the legal status of it all.

Is the Church subject to normal employment legislation?

If I set up a company (ie I'm an employer) can I openly prohibit gays and women from employment in my company?

If I set up a club/private organisation (say a tennis or Golf Club) could I prohibit women/homosexuals from joining?

If the answer to the above is no, is there a special piece of legislation that exempts the church? Does it apply to all religions?

Could the church (if it wanted, and I'm not saying it wants to) preclude say black people from being priests if it wanted to, and be on the same legal ground as with homosexuals and women?

Like I said, I'm not looking for a debate on the wrongs or rights, whether gay people should be allowed be priests etc, I'm looking for information on what legally (as in what type of entity) the church is, and is it specially protected in legislation?

Asiaprod

pH wrote:

was wondering about the rights of Homosexuals and women in the church.

Thats an interesting question. I have always assumed that the church pretty much followed its own rules.

samb

I think it is related to the grey area left in the equality acts and equal status act. Organisations can descriminated if an individual is not in accordance with the 'Ethos' of that organisation. I'm not sure but I think it is related to this.

Zombrex

Asiaprod wrote:

Thats an interesting question. I have always assumed that the church pretty much followed its own rules.

Yeah I often wondered about that with relation to the sexual abuse scandals.

The Catholic Church was always going on about Canon Law. At the time I wondered is Canon Law actually a valid legal system in Ireland or other European countries like Italy. I mean does Canon Law over-ride the state legal system, if a priest breaks a state law but the church protects them based on canon law is that actually still illegal.

I would hope it is still illegal, but considering the very close ties with the Catholic church we had in the passed i wouldn't be surprised if the church was allowed run its own internal system.

coffee_cake

As far as I know, there are golf and tennis clubs that prohibit women from joining...that's about as much as I can help
I always assumed the church did what they liked as well

Dades

AFAIK our common law is based on the original canon law.
But the latter no longer has any legal grip.

I would imagine there exists legislation for religious bodies in the same way there is for companies, partnerships, clubs, trusts etc. There may not be 'terms of employment' for priests that fall under employment law, but certainly an individual priest(s) criminal actions would be subject to the same laws as everyone else.

I presume before you can be ordained there are written and oral exams to be passed. That would enable any candidates to weeded out at will by the higher powers.

Zombrex

bluewolf wrote:

As far as I know, there are golf and tennis clubs that prohibit women from joining

They are allowed stop women joining on the basis that it is a private club (similar to a residence) and you can decide who you want to join and who you don't want to join (just like you can decide who you want to come into your house).

But, afaik, it is different when they fall into the role of employer, they cannot discriminate on who works there. You can't not hire a female because of that fact

pH

They are allowed stop women joining on the basis that it is a private club (similar to a residence) and you can decide who you want to join and who you don't want to join (just like you can decide who you want to come into your house).

So it would be equally legal to have a club which refused to allow a Gay person join?

Does race trump all these, ie is is a special form of discrimination that has extra legislation? Is it legal to refuse all black people admittance to a club?

Zombrex

pH wrote:

So it would be equally legal to have a club which refused to allow a Gay person join?

As far as i know because it is a private club they can refuse to allow anyone to join for any reason, from something general "women, gay, black" to something specific "slept with owners daughter, called a member a dick, don't like the car he drives" etc etc. It works in the same way that if you hold a party in your house you can refuse to allow anyone from entering your house

Might be wrong about this though, it is just my understanding.

pH

As far as i know because it is a private club they can refuse to allow anyone to join for any reason, from something general "women, gay, black" to something specific "slept with owners daughter, called a member a dick, don't like the car he drives" etc etc.

Yes, I agree everytime someone turn up at my door I "discriminate" on the grounds of familiarity and friendship as to who gets in.

At the other end, I believe a sign "No Blacks or Gays" above say a cinema or restaurant would be illegal (though I can't cite the legislastion).

So a tennis club or other "private" or semi-private club must fall somewhere between those 2 extremes, and a the legal body "The Catholic church" must fall somewhere in there also.

Also you have to take into account that the church receives public funds (and was bailed out legally recently) so its position as a private members club must be fairly suspect.

Dades

Not to delve too far off topic, but this case is somewhat relevant to the OP.

http://www.equality.ie/index.asp?locID=135&docID=300

It seems basically the right to discriminate as to who can become a "member" of a club is somewhat protected under the Irish Constitution's "Right to Association". What the ruling in the above case suggests, however, is that this right could be successfully curtailed by legislation without contravening the consititution. In the meantime clubs can "associate" in whatever way they choose it would appear.

This "Right to Association" is unlikely to be relevant to the policies of the Catholic Church, however.

Below are the relevant constitutional articles for Religion:

Article 44
1. The State acknowledges that the homage of public worship is due to Almighty God. It shall hold His Name in reverence, and shall respect and honour religion.
2. 1° Freedom of conscience and the free profession and practice of religion are, subject to public order and morality, guaranteed to every citizen.
2° The State guarantees not to endow any religion.
3° The State shall not impose any disabilities or make any discrimination on the ground of religious profession, belief or status.
4° Legislation providing State aid for schools shall not discriminate between schools under the management of different religious denominations, nor be such as to affect prejudicially the right of any child to attend a school receiving public money without attending religious instruction at that school.
5° Every religious denomination shall have the right to manage its own affairs, own, acquire and administer property, movable and immovable, and maintain institutions for religious or charitable purposes.
6° The property of any religious denomination or any educational institution shall not be diverted save for necessary works of public utility and on payment of compensation.

The text hightlighted in the above is very possibly the key to the OP's question.

On an aside, there is a lot of mention of God in our constitution. The secular Americans who complain about the non-separation of church and state would have a fit if they saw ours. Full PDF of constitution here.

pH

Wow, there are islamic states that would be proud of article 44!

1. The State acknowledges that the homage of public worship is due to Almighty God. It shall hold His Name in reverence, and shall respect and honour religion.

That reads that atheism is unconstitional, being that public worship is due to God. And we have to not only respect but honour religion.

But back to the point ...

5° Every religious denomination shall have the right to manage its own affairs ...

And I suppose this is where constitutional lawyers make their money, as to whether this clause trumps or overrides another clause. I'm presuming (though after reading this anything is possible) that an Archbishop couldn't execute a PP under "managing its own affairs".

Stephen

article 44 of the constitution wrote:

1. The State acknowledges that the homage of public worship is due to Almighty God. It shall hold His Name in reverence, and shall respect and honour religion.

I cannot believe that bullsh1t is in the constitution :eek:
Isn't a republic, by definition, a nation or territory where the PEOPLE are the supreme power, not whichever ****ing imaginary deity is preferred by the largest proportion of them?

archdukefranz

Stephen wrote:

I cannot believe that bullsh1t is in the constitution :eek:
Isn't a republic, by definition, a nation or territory where the PEOPLE are the supreme power, not whichever ****ing imaginary deity is preferred by the largest proportion of them?

ugh... how disgustingly offensive

people are supreme power in the republic, if they want "whichever ****ing imaginary deity is preferred by the largest proportion of them" to be included in the constitution then they are perfectly entitled to.

archdukefranz

The christian Union in NUI Maynooth had a similar issue, we were told we wouldn't be allowed to request that each member of the comittee be a Christian, course under EU law we were allowed to as it makes no sense to have a Christian organisation run by people who don't believe in the ethos of such an organisation.
How could an actively gay guy believe in the ethos of the church when his lifestyle contradicts it?

Stephen

archdukefranz wrote:

ugh... how disgustingly offensive

people are supreme power in the republic, if they want "whichever ****ing imaginary deity is preferred by the largest proportion of them" to be included in the constitution then they are perfectly entitled to.

I find article 44 of the constitution disgustingly offensive.

You seem to miss the point of a republic. People of all faiths (includig no faith at all, god-squad) are supposed to have equal status, which obviously is not the case in our constitution. "Almighty God" and so forth has distinctly Christian overtones.
Egalitarian society my hole.

Dades

archdukefranz wrote:

people are supreme power in the republic, if they want "whichever ****ing imaginary deity is preferred by the largest proportion of them" to be included in the constitution then they are perfectly entitled to.

The constitution is for everyone, however, not just a majority.

That said, the only thing that bothers me about it are the contradictions between article 44.1 and the subsections suggesting that no religion will be treated favourably.

It should be noted however that the 5th amendment to the constitution removed catholicism as the preferred religion of the State. It appears they instead left only references to "God", which (assuming your beliefs are monotheistic) could be interpreted as your god no matter what religion you subscribe to. Of course as atheists or agnostics we are assumed to simply ignore this article.

archdukefranz wrote:

The christian Union in NUI Maynooth had a similar issue, we were told we wouldn't be allowed to request that each member of the comittee be a Christian, course under EU law we were allowed to as it makes no sense to have a Christian organisation run by people who don't believe in the ethos of such an organisation.
How could an actively gay guy believe in the ethos of the church when his lifestyle contradicts it?

I agree with you regarding your right to have only Christians on your committee, but your other nefarious selection practices suggest to me you would build a committee of righteous bigots given the choice. Whatever happened to "he who is without sin cast the first stone?"

Stephen wrote:

Egalitarian society my hole.

Erosion is a slow process.

robindch

> and was wondering about the rights of Homosexuals
> and women in the church.

WRT Canon Law -- Unlike many more recent legal codes, I don't believe that canon law is a rights-based system, so asking what "rights" people "have" is really the wrong question to ask. My understanding is that it's simply a series of declarations of what the different members of the church can and cannot do, not a set of laws derived from a basic understanding of the needs of a human, so it's free to say whatever it likes about wimmin and gays (while, I suspect, ignoring lesbians + pedophilia).

WRT Irish Law -- While church power seems to be exercised through the "Irish Bishops' Conference", I've no idea what the church's official status is (and it seems to be a pretty vague area in many countries). In the UK, churchmen are 'office holders', not employees, so the CofE is conveniently not bound by the usual employment legislation:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/2408675.stm

...I'd imagine that it's probably quite similar in Ireland, though again, as with what I've written about Canon Law, I'm open to correction here.

archdukefranz

Stephen wrote:

I find article 44 of the constitution disgustingly offensive.

You seem to miss the point of a republic. People of all faiths (includig no faith at all, god-squad) are supposed to have equal status, which obviously is not the case in our constitution. "Almighty God" and so forth has distinctly Christian overtones.
Egalitarian society my hole.

You miss the point of a democracy, the majority have more say than the minority, therefor the majority decide what happens.
Holding a Gods name in reverence especially when the majority of your citizens worship him is not denying anyone else any rights.

archdukefranz

The Atheist wrote:

The constitution is for everyone, however, not just a majority.

Applies to everyone, decided upon by the majority

The Atheist wrote:

That said, the only thing that bothers me about it are the contradictions between article 44.1 and the subsections suggesting that no religion will be treated favourably.

Not really, it basically says that we are not going to insult God or deny people's right to worship him

The Atheist wrote:

I agree with you regarding your right to have only Christians on your committee, but your other nefarious selection practices suggest to me you would build a committee of righteous bigots given the choice. Whatever happened to "he who is without sin cast the first stone?"

Erosion is a slow process.

My nefarious selection practices??
Righteous Bigots? I assume you mean self righteous, surely you are not using righteous as an insult?

And how does your quote from Jesus relate to your argument in any way shape or form?

I'm alarmed and confused by your post...

I've only been on this board a week or two and you already think I'm a bigot?

coffee_cake

archdukefranz wrote:

I've only been on this board a week or two and you already think I'm a bigot?

You mean you aren't, archy?

archdukefranz

bluewolf wrote:

You mean you aren't, archy?

I'm just surprised he knows already

Firewalkwithme

archdukefranz wrote:

I'm just surprised he knows already

Well it's not like it's that hard to tell is it? I think you would be much more at home on the Christianity board archdukefranz.

Dades

Despatch wrote:

I think you would be much more at home on the Christianity board archdukefranz.

I disagree. The heathens spend enough time bothering the Christians in that forum, and we're all up for debate. A closed shop does little business.

archdukefranz wrote:

I've only been on this board a week or two and you already think I'm a bigot?

Come on archduke, you know what I'm referring to.

The christian Union in NUI Maynooth had a similar issue, we were told we wouldn't be allowed to request that each member of the comittee be a Christian... How could an actively gay guy believe in the ethos of the church when his lifestyle contradicts it?

I don't really want to send this thread spiraling out of control, so lets just agree on this: You believe a gay cannot be a Christian, no matter how strong his/her faith because according to certain interpretations of the bible they choose to be at odds with Jesus. I believe that to be bigotry disguised as religion. I'm not going to chance your mind, and vice versa.

Whatever happened to "he who is without sin cast the first stone?"

And how does your quote from Jesus relate to your argument in any way shape or form?

You seek to disbar a person from actually being a Christian because you have judged him/her to be a sinner. Are there now no sinners on your committee?

pH

I was fairly sure it would degenerate into the rights and wrongs of the church decisions/rules, rather than my original interest in legally what allows them do it!

robindch

> fairly sure it would degenerate into the rights and wrongs of the church

Even worse, it spiralled into "gays" and bloody "ethoses" again!

Dades

robindch wrote:

Even worse, it spiralled into "gays" and bloody "ethoses" again!

I'll take a bag of otter's noses and packet of ethos, please.

You've got an ethos robindch whether you like it or not!

Thomas_S_Hunterson

Didn't the church deny responsibility for the actions of priests at one stage during the sex abuse scandals o the grounds that they were not a legal entity and the priests were not employed by them?

patrickvancleef

I would think that all churches are covered by the same type of "legalities" that cover Politics and Politicians. Has anyone ever sucessfully sued a political party for not delivering on election promises.? After all, you can be sued in every other arena for going back on your word, not apparently in Politics!!!!!

UU

Actually this is all very interesting! In America, many Ex-Scientologists tried to sue the Church of Scientology for robbing them financially and mentally and many haven't succeeded yet on the grounds that if it were Christianity or Islam for example, the State wouldn't be able to do anything due to each religion having it's own laws and rules. I find it all very annoying! I think that the State should have more control over religious institutions (especially Scientology, Opus Dei and many other oppressive cults). If religions want to set up in a particular state then they should have to abide by the laws but unfortunately there is always loopholes, eh?

archdukefranz

The Atheist wrote:

I disagree. The heathens spend enough time bothering the Christians in that forum, and we're all up for debate. A closed shop does little business.

fricken heathens
coming in here taking our jobs...

The Atheist wrote:

Come on archduke, you know what I'm referring to.

I didn't actually, another misjudgement on your part, I'm less intelligent

The Atheist wrote:

I don't really want to send this thread spiraling out of control, so lets just agree on this: You believe a gay cannot be a Christian, no matter how strong his/her faith because according to certain interpretations of the bible they choose to be at odds with Jesus. I believe that to be bigotry disguised as religion. I'm not going to chance your mind, and vice versa.

I didn't say that someone can't be a Christian and be attracted to members of the same sex or even acting on that attraction.

The title of the post was about the Catholic Church and how they hire people, how can someone be a leader of a catholic church when their lifestyle contradicts what they have to teach?

The Atheist wrote:

You seek to disbar a person from actually being a Christian because you have judged him/her to be a sinner. Are there now no sinners on your committee?

Heh, no way not a single one... *cough*
Course there is, everyone of us
Again I didn't say that gay people can't be Christians...
All we request is that anyone who is gonna become a committee member would believe this IFES Doctrinal Basis