Is it a sin for a Catholic to hire a gay person?


#21

Right: the issue isn’t “is this person a potential sinner?”, since we all are. But, in the case of someone who takes a position that entails being a role model – especially to Catholic youth – then that person is held to a higher standard in all of the ways that they image behavior as a Catholic in the public arena. “He might sin publicly” is one thing; “he is sinning publicly” is quite another…


#22

My point exactly. exnihilo was proposing that people not be hired for something they might (or might not) do in future. That is a ludicrous position, since, as you say, everyone is a potential sinner. Nobody could ever be hired at all.

“He might sin publicly” is one thing; “he is sinning publicly” is quite another…

Agreed. Though I would also point out that a remarried divorcee who refers to “my wife” or “my husband” is in exactly the same position and should be treated in the same way.

rossum


#23

No. There’s a huge difference between saying a Catholic institution has a right to not hire open homosexuals and saying to do so is a sin.

From a Personal standpoint I have hired many homosexuals over the years and it was never a problem either for them or their coworkers .


#24

A ludicrous position? You really think employers don’t or shouldn’t consider what their employees might do in the future? You really think employers don’t consider whatever facts they have about the potential employee including past actions and inclinations? So schools should hire convicted child molesters because they shouldn’t consider what an employee might do?


#25

There’s a pretty big difference between hiring someone with SSA vs. talking about hiring a convicted child molester. Using that comparison in your argument is a pretty bad false equivalence and will only hurt your argument.

Secondly, no one here is saying that you shouldn’t consider other factors when hiring someone. For example, not hiring someone as a cashier because they have a conviction for stealing money is a whole heck of a lot different than not hiring a person because they are attracted to others of the same sex.


#26

False equivalence? It was nothing of the sort. I didn’t compare the two at all. I presented a case that I assume and desperately hope would demonstrate the invalidity of the claim that was made.

I didn’t list the situations where I thought you shouldn’t hire someone with SSA but such situations obviously exist as with any serious disorder. For instance you might not want to hire an airplane pilot with severe depression as the recent German incident demonstrated. SSA is a disorder. I truly feel sorry for anyone who suffers from it but that doesn’t change that fact. There are plenty of jobs I’m disqualified from due to various disorders I have.


#27

Well, you referred to “convicted” child molesters, who have already shown they have, in the past, actually yielded to one’s impulses to sin in a particular way.

But you stated that “A person who has same sex attraction but is resisting it is at risk for later embracing homosexuality.”

This is not really the same concept.

If you had referred to someone who is a pedophile, but has so far been successful in resisting their attraction to children, and asked posters if they’d want to hire that person to work with kids, that would be more of an “apples to apples” comparison.

I didn’t list the situations where I thought you shouldn’t hire someone with SSA but such situations obviously exist as with any serious disorder. For instance you might not want to hire an airplane pilot with severe depression as the recent German incident demonstrated. SSA is a disorder. I truly feel sorry for anyone who suffers from it but that doesn’t change that fact. There are plenty of jobs I’m disqualified from due to various disorders I have.

Now you’re changing the rules again. You did not refer to SSA as a disorder in your first post.


#28

If the homosexual exhibits doubts or weak belief in the teachings of the Church regarding homosexuality, then I would say that it would be imprudent to hire them. .

I agree. After reading the comments, it struck me how few of the commenters seemed to appreciate the importance of teaching Catholic children and young adults the truth of the Catholic faith.

Look, this isn’t hiring some insurance agent or tire salesman. This is a matter of the souls of little children. They have to know the truth.

The first question posed to anyone applying for a job teaching at a Catholic school should be about whether or not they would be able to teach the truth in its fullness.

So of course anyone living out the homosexual lifestyle should never be considered for a job teaching in a Catholic school.

And so of course any homosexual who is not living out the homosexual lifestyle should be able to state, clearly, truthfully, that they would be able to tell their students that living out homosexuality was gravely wrong, and that it could damn the person to hell for eternity.

God bless, Annem


#29

Yes. Please state which people you would hire who will not sin in future. You are not allowed to hire anyone who might sin in future.

rossum


#30

But, it seems that exnihilo is taking it a step further. He’s not talking about someone who is publicly “living out the homosexual lifestyle”; he’s talking about someone who merely has SSA.

(This seems to raise the question – if such a candidate weren’t actively sinning, how would his potential employer know that he has SSA? Ask him? Spy on him? Oh, no… :nope:)

And so of course any homosexual who is not living out the homosexual lifestyle should be able to state, clearly, truthfully, that they would be able to tell their students that living out homosexuality was gravely wrong, and that it could damn the person to hell for eternity.

Which is what “Cardinal’s clauses” tend to do, both in terms of personal (but publicly visible) actions and promises to teach what the Church teaches.


#31

I am not saying they are the same. Again, I was just giving an example where hopefully people agree you would not hire someone for certain jobs. I was refuting a specific claim.

Homosexual acts are obviously preceded by attraction or desire. So in and of themselves they represent a certain risk. How much of a risk depends on the job in question.

That is not the argument I’m making. This is what I am saying:

  1. Certain disorders disqualify people from certain jobs.
  2. SSA and an active homosexual lifestyle are both disorders.

I assume most people will not disagree with the first claim. Many people will disagree with the second. But tradition and reason say otherwise.

The military did not allow homosexuals for many years. They did in fact ask. Later they amended the policy to not ask, but to still bar homosexuals if their activity was revealed. So it is possible and not an outlandish idea. Again, the Catholic church says that men who have deep seated SSA should not be ordained. How do they find out about this?


#32

Please look back at your post which started this sub-thread:

Your initial post covered everyone with SSA, including those who were resisting it. It was that aspect I was criticising. Your argument leads to the reductio ad absurdum of not being able to employ anyone because anyone may sin in future.

At least you appear to have recognised your error, and have stepped back to merely not employing people with an “active homosexual lifestyle”.

It would be polite to explicitly acknowledge that you were initially in error, and that you are now puling back from your incorrect statement.

rossum


#33

No, my position is there are some jobs for which one should not hire a man with SSA. I might have been unclear but at this point that should be perfectly clear. Of course there are degrees as with any disorder.

There is no reductio ad absurdum problem with my position. I am saying that certain jobs (and I haven’t specified any particular) should not be filled by a man with SSA. There are certain jobs that should not be filled by a man with severe depression. There are certain jobs that should not be filled by a man with colorblindness. I am not saying there is any particular job that should not be filled by anyone who has sinned or could sin. There is no reductio ad absurdum problem.


#34

To further clarify one point regarding those with SSA is that there is a much greater risk of them later embracing the homosexual lifestyle. This is particularly a problem because so much of our modern society encourages this. Someone who doesn’t have SSA isn’t as likely to live the homosexual lifestyle. They’d first need to develop SSA. So obviously the person who already has SSA is a greater risk.

It would also be more of a concern to hire a person who is lustful. Anyone could become lustful, but the person who is already having these problems is more of a risk.


#35

Why select SSA over any other sin? Why no adultery, or even potential adultery – i.e. any heterosexual person.

Adultery is up there in the Ten Commandments. SSA is not included in the Ten, so is obviously a lesser sin.

You are not being consistent here. Do you think that any potential adulterers should be employed in Catholic schools? Anyone with Opposite Sex Attraction is a potential adulterer.

rossum


#36

What jobs besides the vocation of priesthood do you think a person with SSA can’t hold?

That seems like a pretty uncharitable position. It very much feels like the expectation is that the SSA person will eventually give up. That is a terrible attitude to have. Also feel a slight double standard as its not applied to other sins equally. Why is a chaste SSA Catholic viewed as prone to failure and treated as threat and danger?


#37

I agree. This thread saddens me.
Sin is sin, and we all have the potential to commit some doozies.

Many attitudes here do not reflect what the Church teaches, which is sadder still.
Everyone, including those who are gay, deserves our love, compassion and respect.


#38

I’m not selecting SSA. The thread is about it. I mentioned that it might not be prudent to hire a lustfull person for certain jobs. Please, pay attention to what I wrote. Any disorder could be a cause to not hire someone for a certain job.

What about it is uncharitable? All disorders are not equal. For instance I doubt most people would want a man who has strong sexual attraction to children to be their kids teachers. They’d probably not want that even if the man has not acted on it. Is that uncharitable? Is that a double standard?

Are you misunderstanding and thinking that I’m saying anyone who has any amount of SSA is disqualified from any job? Because that is certainly not what I’ve written.


#39

From the Vatican.

  1. There are areas in which it is not unjust discrimination to take sexual orientation into account, for example, in the placement of children for adoption or foster care, in employment of teachers or athletic coaches, and in military recruitment.

vatican.va/roman_curia/co…ersons_en.html


#40

I have the same question, exnihilio. You seem to believe that, for some reason, someone with SSA is at higher risk of acting on that attraction than someone with OSA. While this is a common stereotype, that homosexuals are more lustful, more promiscuous, etc., AFAIK it is not Church teaching.

Indeed, the general feeling I get from your posts, is that you see homosexual sexual sin, to be obviously “worse” than heterosexual sexual sin, and as bad as pedophilia, since you keep making this comparison. Again, AFAIK it is not Church teaching.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.