Do the atheists have a right to tell the Catholic Church how to conduct its religious freedoms within its own domain. Do the Baptists have a right to tell Muslims and Jews that their women should be able to worship beside men. If Babs Hall dictates that out-of-the-closet homosexuals must be able to serve on the alter, then that means out-of-the-closet homosexuals must be able to conduct Friday Prayers in Ontario Mosques -- that'll be a hoot to enforce. Fun and Flames for all. And where's the local media? They're in full DUH!
====================================
Peterborough Bishop Nicola De Angelis and 12 parishioners at St. Michael’s parish in Cobourg, Ont., face an Ontario Human Rights Commission complaint that could cost the parishioners $20,000 each and the diocese of Peterborough $25,000 plus legal fees.
Jim Corcoran brought the complaint after he was asked to give up his position as an altar server at Sunday Masses. Corcoran was dismissed from all duties on the altar after 12 parishioners wrote a letter to De Angelis questioning the presence of a gay man serving at the altar of St. Michael’s.
Read all about it in The Catholic Register.
====================================
Peterborough Bishop Nicola De Angelis and 12 parishioners at St. Michael’s parish in Cobourg, Ont., face an Ontario Human Rights Commission complaint that could cost the parishioners $20,000 each and the diocese of Peterborough $25,000 plus legal fees.
Jim Corcoran brought the complaint after he was asked to give up his position as an altar server at Sunday Masses. Corcoran was dismissed from all duties on the altar after 12 parishioners wrote a letter to De Angelis questioning the presence of a gay man serving at the altar of St. Michael’s.
Read all about it in The Catholic Register.
Posts
9 comments:
What a heartbreak for all concerned. Bigotry hiding behind religion is always so distasteful.
Mr. Corcoran is demonstrating real courage in proceeding with his HR complaint. Let's hope mediation will work for this case and everyone can go away happy.
Actually, Deb, it requires little courage at all. Mr Corcoran doesn't have to pay a cent towards the prosecution of his complaint.
Mediation with Human Rights Commissions means paying the complainant some cash, to avoid a drag-out knock-down tribunal hearing. No justice is ever achieved from that.
I really don't know how The State can tell a church to act against its own fundamental beliefs.
There is the ludicrous case of Pastor Stephen Boisson found in violation of the hate speech provisions by the Alberta Human Rights Commission, because he wrote a LETTER asserting that homosexuality is wicked and the letter was published in the Red Deer Advocate.
He was ordered to write a letter of apology to homosexuals to be published in the Red Deer Advocate. Mr Boisson has declined to do so.
Imagine a government agency ordering the privately-owned Red Deer Advocate to publish a letter or else be held in contempt of court. The newspaper has defied the Commission's orders. Imagine a government agency ordering a pastor to apologize for his sincerly-held religious beliefs.
That's not all. The pastor was fined several thousand dollars. A heterosexual man laid the complaint. The Human Rights Commission clearly stated that it had no testimony from any homosexual claiming hurt dignity/feelings, so it couldn;t award damages to a specific person; instead, it directed the pastor to pay several thousand dollare to Egale, Canada's largest gay organization.
Egale turned down the award, reminding the Commission that Gay people had suffered at the hands of The State censorshit for decades, so they know the dirtiness of such State Power. They clearly stated that they disagreed with what the pastor said, but they defended his FREE SPEECH RIGHTS to assert that homosexuality is wicked.
The Alberta Human Rights Commission went even further. They ordered that the pastor is forbidden to make "disparaging" remarks about gays in public, in his parish, in his private emails for the rest of his natural life.
Please note, that the pastor was forbidden to make "disparaging" remarks. So now in Alberta is it not only illegal to make "hateful" remarks, or remarks to "incite violence", but disparaging remarks.
What business does The State have in telling a church which has existed on this planet longer, who it can have as an "alter server". It's not a paying position, so there is no issue of employment here, nor of housing.
The Human Rights Commissions have corrupted themselves to such an extent that they are not about human rights at all -- quite the opposite.
I have picked up USAmerican attitudes, but likely, I have picked up Irving Layton attitudes. Put it back in your pants, Wally. Mustn't upset the landed gentry.
I'm not Roman Catholic, so what is my stake in this issue of a chaste homosexual man prevented from serving as an alter server?
The Catholic Church has taken a lot of flak in recent years for its laxity concerning sexual proclivities of its cleric and laity within the church. Zero tolerance and all that. We, the public, have demanded it be uber-sensitive about such matters and the church has responded accordingly.
My life has not been one of 100% heterosexuality, so I have never had a problem from the get go with homosexuality. I received epithets myself from somew unpleasant individuals. This permits me to commisserate with Mr Corcoran.
I'm also an avowed atheist. I regard religion overall to be harmful to society, so I couldn't care less about the Catholic Church in that regard.
But I do have a concern with the Ontario Human Rights Commission, a state bureaucracy, with extraordinary enforcement rights, expanding its turf into every aspect of society, to coerce society into being uber-nice.
Shut up and sit up straight. Behave like a Canadian and stop dressing in vivid colours. Here's some suitable grey to put on.
William Hayes asserts, "Your use of the word "mediation" and your suggestion that everyone might "go away happy" seems to have upset the digestion of our blog owner."
Where is the upset? Are you fantasizing again? I didn't oppose mediation. I simply described what mediation meant in human rights circles and triangles based on my immersion into their activities.
Are you suggesting that I was way out of line to suggest that mediation is not likely to result in happiness for all? Really William, you've become uber-touchy these days.
I just wish the Ontario Human Rights Commission was half as powerful and effective as Mr. Keeler seems to think it is.
It may be far from perfect but it is still a major weapon in fighting bigotry in this province and must be protected from those who would destroy it.
Yes, it appears that you are a believer in State Power, forcing the citizens to be good and nice. I don't trust The State. I have been a victim of State Power too many times to want it to have even more power over my life, including what words and ideas I can utter. I don't trust Big Brother.
"Since when does a reporter have to be born and raised in a community to be employed by the local media?,
This is a total red herring. Show me in my own words just where I suggested that a reporter has to be born and raised in any given community to be employed by the media serving that community.
Show me Deb, where I made that suggestion. Go ahead.
Get it straight -- I absolutely made no such suggestion and for you to inform people that I did, indicates that you have no respect for the truth. Your suggestion is, how is it put over the kitchen table? -- bullshit.
Wally, when you posted your first item about this altar guy story it was a simple link to the story, and I was consumed with curiosity to see which side of that fence you would fall onto.
I knew by posting something expressing my genuine sorrow that this clearly religious and pious man had been so badly abused by his church, I would lure you out of your den to expose yourself. But which way would you go?
As a self described artist and cultural bon vivant etc. you might side with the gay community. We all know the artistic set is full of those people, don't we? As you have confessed, some of them may be more than just your friends.
Perhaps you'd be outraged, even sorrowful like me, that he was treated badly by the paternalistic and status quo ridden catholic church. Thus, you would support his efforts to put an end to the discrimination he suffered.
On the other hand your hatred of the human rights tribunal, spoon fed to you by your right wing heroes, would preclude it from any restorative role it might play in this drama.
And no lover of freedom could possibly support the regressive, repressive catholic church, right?
But no, by maintaining your predictable stance against human rights, you have oddly come down against the altar guy and in favour of the fucking church!
Don't you have some underlying philosophical base that you operate from? It can't all be just situational can it, with your opinion depending on how much attention you think you can get?
There's more to you than that, isn't there?
"But which way would you go? As a self described artist and cultural bon vivant etc. you might side with the gay community. We all know the artistic set is full of those people, don't we? As you have confessed, some of them may be more than just your friends."
Back in the 70’s I went to witness the street demonstration protesting the police raids on the gay bathhouses. As they paraded up Yonge Street, I followed on the sidewalk. At Bloor Street the police drew a line. The gays sat down. The police approached with a fascinating display of intimidation using their batons – I’m still impressed with that maneuver. I stepped up close to the front to join the gays and say down with them. Yes I was scared. After considerable negotiation by others, the police relented and permitted the march to continue to police headquarters
"Perhaps you'd be outraged, even sorrowful like me, that he was treated badly by the paternalistic and status quo ridden catholic church. Thus, you would support his efforts to put an end to the discrimination he suffered."
I can empathize at the level of feelings, however, I don’t want The State to rectify everything that makes someone feel bad. The State does not exist to protect me or anyone else from hurt feelings. I am not Catholic so I have no stake in this affair, and I don’t know that I have the right to impose my cultural values (secular, atheist) on how a church conducts its ceremonial matters within its own domain. Obviously you believe The State should have the coercive power to tell religious institutions how they should conduct their internal ceremonies.
"On the other hand your hatred of the human rights tribunal, spoon fed to you by your right wing heroes, would preclude it from any restorative role it might play in this drama."
I will have you know that I was not ‘spoon-fed’ by anyone, let alone right wing heroes. Your obnoxious insult belongs in YOUR garbage. I am an adult man, and my opposition (not hatred) to the human rights orgs goes back further than some of the ‘right wing’ allies I have concerning Free Speech and severely restricting HRCs to matters of discrimination in housing and employment.
"And no lover of freedom could possibly support the regressive, repressive catholic church, right?"
As I say, I am an atheist. I ridicule, insult, blaspheme, mock, criticize, denigrate all aspects of religion, including clerics and believers. However, I do not want The State to use its coercive power in every nook and cranny of life.
"But no, by maintaining your predictable stance against human rights, you have oddly come down against the altar guy and in favour of the fucking church!"
One of my best friends is a draft-dodging Quaker Jew. He and I both concur that Mein Kampf has a right to be published and distributed in Canada and elsewhere.
If I was the alter guy, I would conclude that the Catholic Church is not for me. Way back in time, groups of people who opposed the Catholic edict, protested and became protestants. The Catholic Church stands for what it stands. If one doesn’t like it, then change it within the organization; if that seems impossible, then go elsewhere where one’s concerns are respected.
"Don't you have some underlying philosophical base that you operate from? It can't all be just situational can it, with your opinion depending on how much attention you think you can get?"
I don’t like coercive state power, not one bit. Your assertion that you want them to have more coercive power puts us in opposite camps. I certainly don’t want an imperfect bureaucrazy, as you admitted, to have more power.
Post a Comment