Once Catholics couldn’t hold office – now it’s different Catholics can’t hold office

A devout Christian thrown off a social work course for “anti-gay” Facebook posts will argue in the High Court this week that the ruling puts 6m professionals — including doctors and teachers — at risk of disqualification for their beliefs.

Felix Ngole, 40, from Barnsley, who was doing a two-year course at Sheffield University to become a social worker, quoted the Bible to state that “homosexuality is a sin” and said “the devil has hijacked the constitution of the USA”.

The university’s lawyers said they had to consider the mature student’s “fitness to practise” and warned that his posts would damage public confidence in social workers.

Time was when Catholics couldn’t hold office in Britain. For their religious views meant they couldn’t. We changed that, had Catholic Emancipation. So, now Catholics can hold office but only if their views don’t mean they can’t.

Haven’t we come a long way? It’s only the nature of heresy that has changed.

Yes, I know, he’s not a Catholic but homosexual acts are sinful is still standard Catholic teaching, isn’t it?

35 comments on “Once Catholics couldn’t hold office – now it’s different Catholics can’t hold office

  1. and warned that his posts would damage public confidence in social workers

    Social workers calling little English girls being passed around by kebab rape gangs “prostitutes”, handing them condoms and refusing to take any action that might protect innocent children is one thing, but the public would lose confidence in social workers if they believed in Jesus Christ.

  2. homosexual acts are sinful is still standard Catholic teaching

    It’s rather broader than that, I think. Sex outside marriage is a sin and marriage is a sacrement rather than a civil construct.

    It makes the whole issue less contentious in the sense that it doesn’t engage with the whole alphanumeric spectrum with or without punctuation marks.

  3. IF your views stop you doing your job, and it looks like this guy’s views will definitely stop him doing his intended job, you need to find a different job.

    How is this different to how RoP adherents refusing to sell sausages and beer at supermarkets _should_ be treated by their employers?

  4. TMB – weirdly, the proggies tell us the Bible-reading men in dresses are bigoted weirdos for preaching sexual continence, hold raucous street carnivals where they celebrate the joys of sticking your todger or lady-todger in any available hole, but then categorise any form of heterosexual intercourse that wasn’t authorised, witnessed and notarised by at least three Gender Studies professors as “rape”.

    It’s almost as if they’re not actually in favour of “sexual liberation” at all, just perversion and degeneracy. Was the story of Gomorrah a cautionary tale, or what?

  5. Social workers are the left’s mutaween so it’s hardly surprising that you can’t join if you’re not one of the faithful.

  6. It’s that “Render to Caesar” thing. Society says we are equal and must respect differences. In the privacy of your church or living room you may believe and say something different, but in order to keep the peace we adhere to the collective mindset. BiG is correct: choose a different career.

  7. Nope, BiG is incorrect on this.

    Enthusiastically approving of bum sex (or the Constitution of the United States) isn’t in a social worker’s job description.

    Society says we are equal

    Imagine believing this in 2019.

  8. Großer – why must social workers approve of homosexuality? This seems perverse to me and isn’t really comparable to refusing to sell sausages and beer.

    I grant that social workers need to deal with the cases that they are allocated irrespective of gayness, ginger hair or what have you.

    This case, though, would be better as an argument for getting rid of social workers rather than catholics if a mindset of the kind Steve describes is a pre-entry qualification (ahem) for getting the social worker gig.

  9. I’ve never understood why bum banditry is so prevalent in the Catholic church.

    I mean, What are nuns for ?

    As Alexei Sayle said “Save a London Child – kill a social worker.”

  10. “IF your views stop you doing your job, and it looks like this guy’s views will definitely stop him doing his intended job, you need to find a different job.”

    If he’s a good catholic, he will love the sinner, not the sin. Christians have always taken care of alcoholics, despite their general disapproval of excessive drinking.

  11. BnLIA – I dunno, but I reckon a lot of closeted gay guys were attracted to the celibacy thing (as a beard, y’know), and once they reached critical mass (if you’ll pardon the pun)… well, it’s like Mormons, or social justice warriors. They tend to promote each other.

    I think this sexual networking is the unspoken reason why MI5 used to go hard (ooh err) on closet homos – the spoken reason being their vulnerability to blackmail.

    There’s no particular reason why theatre should be a gay ghetto either (crossdressing boys aside, it wasn’t a lavender mob thing in Shakespeare’s day), yet here we are.

  12. Catholics could not hold office historically because of the suspicion, the likelihood, of divided loyalties. Not about what they believed in a doctrinal way but because they might owe an allegiance to the Pope. That’s not really a consideration now. We can now give the highest offices in the land to people who might have a religious allegiance and we don’t worry about that at all. What mugs we are.

  13. @BiG
    Moslems in general have little problem selling bacon or beer, it’s eating or drinking them that’s haram. It’s easy to buy an Egyptian-brewed beer in Cairo, and not just in Coptic cafes.

  14. That’s the theory, Chris, but the rules only require Muslims to eat halal when available and not starve when it isn’t, but they seem to have little trouble forcing their preferences on others.

  15. A social worker need not approve of bum sex any more than my doctor approves of my drinking, but to be taken seriously I think one at least needs to refrain from making public statements about how Jah will see all filthy sodomites burned in hell for eternity.*

    The prescriptivist part of the Christian spectrum is extremely misanthropic, and ill-suited to producing people who can effectively serve people and families who are sufficiently fucked up to need a social worker. This illustrates why.

    *:I’ve no idea what he said, but it will be read as such. If you put something on facebook you should assume you want the entire world to read it forever. So best not to say anything that might bring your future self into disrepute.

  16. In a comments thread one day I innocently enquired what Jesus had said about poovery. Judging by the hysterical reaction I infer he’s not reported as saying owt.

    Mind you, he did encourage his followers to abandon their families and to follow him. Scarcely “family values”, eh?

  17. Now what if he were an observant Muslim, would his Facebook posts matter?

    That’s easy to answer. However it is not an easy point to make, as the Times removed my comment pointing out that Ngole picked the wrong religion.

  18. Victimhood Hierarchy

    Headline soon:

    A devout Muslim Not thrown off a social work course for “anti-gay” Facebook posts will argue in the High Court this week he should have been and demand compo for religious discrimination

    Gay lobby silent in LGBT vs. Muslim rights showdown in UK
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TLH1klEIgc

  19. Social workers calling little English girls being passed around by kebab rape gangs “prostitutes”, handing them condoms and refusing to take any action that might protect innocent children is one thing, but the public would lose confidence in social workers if they believed in Jesus Christ.

    Today’s Britain in a nutshell.

  20. Dearieme,

    Jesus told the rich (those who counted as such in first century Palestine) to sell all they have, give it to the poor, and follow him.

    Funnily enough, it turns out that that is one of the many bits of the bible that modern Christians believe is allegorical, rather than one of the bits that should be taken literally.

    I can’t think why that might be the case. Clearly something to do with mysterious ways.

  21. @ BiG
    Jesus told *one particular* rich young man to sell all he had, give to the poor and follow him.
    He told all his followers to love their neighbours as themselves.
    Neither is regarded as allegorical by Christians, although it is not recorded whether the rich young man did as instructed.

  22. @ dearieme
    The Torah condemns homosexuality and all other “unnatural” practices. Traditional Christians assume that when Jesus said “I am here to fulfil the law …” that meant that he disapproved of homosexuality. There is no record that I have seen that anyone asked Him about homosexuality – it wasn’t a controversial topic in first century Palestine.

  23. is there any belief however weird- that the dwellers of the uk cannot be persuaded to support an eventually compelled to act on.

  24. I believe the rich young man asked what he would have to do to guarantee he got in to heaven.

    Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.

    Modern Christians (except in the US, or USian faux-Christian cultists, where they do stuff weirdly) believe that nobody is, or should be expected to be, perfect. We are all flawed, in our own ways. I know I am (and I’m certainly not a ‘good Christian’ to any great degree.)
    If the 2nd coming isn’t “in glory to judge the quick and the dead” but more like the 1st, I reckon that there are an awful lot of putative Christians that will be very, very embarrassed.

  25. Jesus told the rich (those who counted as such in first century Palestine) to sell all they have, give it to the poor, and follow him.

    Nowadays, Christians are encouraged to give all their worldly wealth to TV evangelists via the credit card hotline at the bottom of the screen.

  26. “although it is not recorded whether the rich young man did as instructed.” he went away sad, so it doesn’t sound like it, though I guess he could have changed his mind later.

    “it wasn’t a controversial topic in first century Palestine.” but that doesn’t tell us anything. It might have been non-controversial because the whole of society was universally anti.

  27. Nowadays, Christians are encouraged to give all their worldly wealth to TV evangelists via the credit card hotline at the bottom of the screen.

    Bloody hell, Henry, where do you live – a made-for-TV version of the American Bible Belt circa 1986?

    Pcar – Victimhood Hierarchy

    Yarp. Hence my incredulity at Bernie falling for the boilerplate that our society is based on “all are eekwulz” (see John Bercow’s little crest, a rainbow-coloured goblin flanked with dildos passant).

    We actually live under a #woke caste system.

  28. No one should be allowed to abuse children. But failure of social workers to tackle the evil grooming gangs is not a defense to allow social workers to hate gay people.
    I would not want people who hate gay people to be social workers.
    And I support christians being social workers, but not the bigoted ones, who hate other religions or those that hate gays.

  29. CleforTT: I clearly remember being taught that a Christian should hate the sin yet love the sinner. The current crop of woke social workers are required to be nonjudgmental/affirm the sexual activity of underage children and entirely indifferent to the fates of those trapped in self destructive behaviour.

  30. @ BenS
    “He went away sorrowful” implies that he hadn’t made up his mind.
    What I gather from commentaries on that period is that it was non-controversial because no-one had any arguments in favour (which may not mean that everyone was universally anti, but has the same lack of impact on debate).

  31. @ Clever Trefor Truth
    I have gay friends and friends who choose to be celibate rather than gay (and some friends who are ladies who would have married individuals in the latter group if they had been asked). So I *know* that there is a difference between hating gay people and disapproving of homosexual sexual predators.
    That you do not know that is a measure of your ignorance or, perhaps, bigotry.

  32. “Nope, BiG is incorrect on this. Enthusiastically approving of bum sex (or the Constitution of the United States) isn’t in a social worker’s job description.”

    Social workers are a ‘regulated profession’ by law (The Social Workers Regulations 2018), and have to be registered with the HCPC, a statutory body responsible for overseeing professional and ethical standards of behaviour of social workers (see section 11 of the statutory instrument).

    The HCPC publishes guidelines, which does cover things said on social media: “You must use all forms of communication appropriately and responsibly, including social media and networking websites” and “Do not post inappropriate or offensive material. Use your professional judgement in deciding whether to post or share something” and “When using social media you should apply the same standards as you would when communicating in other ways. Be polite and respectful, and avoid using language that others might reasonably consider to be inappropriate or offensive.”

    Retention of HCPC registration *will* be part of the job description, and part of the employment contract. You don’t *have* to sign any contract in which you agree to voluntarily curtail your speech, but if you do, you have to abide by it or you will breach the contract.

    And they might also reasonably think that if you can’t manage to read and follow *these* rules, there’s some doubt over whether you would be willing/capable of following any of their other rules, either. If you personally disagree with a rule they’ve set you think you should be free to ignore it? That could be a bit iffy in a social worker.

    I can’t say I like it myself – I personally think it’s unethical to set contractual terms alienating human rights regarding behaviour outside work this way, although by the principle of Freedom of Association it shouldn’t be illegal.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.