Posted on 03/01/2007 9:06:23 PM PST by Alex Murphy
An Anniston man has filed a federal lawsuit against the Salvation Army, contending he was illegally passed over for a position because he is Catholic.
The suit filed on behalf of Anthony J. Clark contends he sought a social work opening in spring 2005 after already having worked for the Salvation Army for almost two years.
The Salvation Army is a charity that operates as an evangelical effort of Christians. Its Web site says its mission is to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ and to meet human needs without discrimination.
Salvation Army officials in Anniston declined comment and referred calls to the organization's Jackson, Miss., office.
Mark Jones, a spokesman for the Salvation Army Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi divisional headquarters, said it's the organization's policy not to comment on personnel matters.
The suit said Clark sent a letter to his supervisor on May 17, expressing his interest in filling the position in Anniston. Clark, the suit said, had worked as a part-time social worker from November 2003 to December 2003. He subsequently worked full-time from January 2004 to May 2004 because of another worker's illness.
The suit said despite having three letters of recommendation, another person who had only part-time seasonal experience was hired when a full-time position came open.
The lawsuit said when Clark asked why he wasn't hired, his supervisor, Maj. Larry Hambrick, replied he was not a practicing Christian.
When asked if he was a Christian, Clark said he was a Catholic and was then informed that was why he was not selected for the position, according to the lawsuit. The lawsuit said Clark complained to the Salvation Army's national headquarters, and left the organization on Aug. 19, 2005.
Birmingham lawyer John Saxon called the Salvation Army a wonderful organization that does faith-related work. But Saxon said the social work position was a non-ministerial position.
"They are not exempt from civil rights laws," Saxon said.
You still haven't said "yes". :-)
Be that as it may, if you had simply said "yes" at the beginning, you would have won the promotion. But while you were busy bickering over definitions, we had to fill the position and the promotion went to the other guy. (you know... the one who simply said "Yes").
So, are you going to sue?
No? :-0
So, are you going to sue?
Where do I have the papers served? ;-)
tee-hee
Campion: Anyone is a valid minister of baptism.
sitetest: ...any human being may be the valid minister of baptism (at least in the Latin Rite).
Message received. I profess I still don't understand why that's the case for baptism, but not for the Eucharist, but message received. If either of you can explain it, please feel free to.
Dear P-Marlowe,
"Be that as it may, if you had simply said 'yes' at the beginning, you would have won the promotion. But while you were busy bickering over definitions, we had to fill the position and the promotion went to the other guy. (you know... the one who simply said 'Yes').
"So, are you going to sue?"
If you're really that poor of an interviewer - and couldn't clear up the difficulty in about five minutes, then perhaps the lawsuit is justified.
;-)
sitetest
Are you on time? Are you dressed appropriately?
Are you familiar with the company and its goals?
Mr. Clark obviously missed the last one or he would have known that the correct answer to the question of "are you a Christian" was "yes" and not "I am a Catholic". The goals of the Salvation Army are eccumenical and not denominational. He would not have gotten the promotion if he had answered "I am a methodist" or "I am a Baptist" or even "I am a Salvation Army member".
The problem was not with the Salvation Army, it was with Mr. Clark. He didn't understand the goals of the company he was interviewing with. Maybe he didn't consider himself a "Christian" or maybe he just didn't want the Salvation Army to think he was idenifying with their idea of what it means to be a Christian. That's fine, but then if that were true, then he was not the man for the job.
The short answer is "sacred tradition".
The questions have been asked and answered before. The conclusion has always been that anyone could baptize, but a valid Eucharist requires a validly ordained priest. Similarly, any priest can confect the Eucharist, but a bishop is required to ordain.
There's basically a rank order involved:
Dear P-Marlowe,
Sorry - from my perspective, the interviewer asked a question analogous to, "Do you own a motor vehicle," and got an answer of, "I own a Ford."
The answer gave more specificity than was asked, but actually answered the question.
The answer may have been over-specific in an effort to impress the interviewer, as the added specifier becomes an intensifier, as in, "Of course I'm a Christian - I happen to be a devout Catholic."
I've had folks do this with me all the time in interviews.
"I see on your resume that you were at Humblebumble University from 1994- 1998. Did you achieve a degree?"
"I graduated Magna Cum Laude and Phi Beta Kappa."
That wasn't a yes or no answer, even though the question as phrased was meant to elicit a yes or not response.
Yet it accurately, if overspecifically, answered the question.
As did the answer, "I am a Catholic," to the question, "Are you a Christian."
The only reason why this wouldn't be an acceptable answer (unless the job requirement specifically stated that only evangelical Protestants need apply - but then that should have been made clear BEFORE application for the position was made) is because the interviewer does not accept that Catholics are Christians.
Which is anti-Catholic bigotry.
sitetest
If you were applying for a management position at General Motors you would be wise to simply answer "yes".
Mr. Clark was not applying for a leadership job with a Catholic Charity, he was applying for a leadership position at a non-Catholic and more or less non-denominational Christian charity.
His parochial answer of "I'm a Catholic" would be the same as an idiot who would proudly answer "I own a Ford" when he was applying for a management position with GM.
If you don't understand that, then I can't help you, Sundance.
Dear P-Marlowe,
"If you were applying for a management position at General Motors you would be wise to simply answer 'yes'."
I thought you just got through telling me what an ecumenical and non-denominational crowd the folks over at the Salvation Army?
The better comparison is to a multi-brand car dealership. Thus, the question of, "Do you own a motor vehicle," is quite properly answered by, "I own a Ford."
Conversely, even if the Salvation Army folks are really quite uptight about having folks of their own denomination, then the gentleman's answer is still appropriate, as a matter of complete disclosure. If these folks are going to have a problem with a Catholic in the position, he ought to be upfront about it.
If he suspects that Catholics aren't welcome in the position (as apparently they aren't), then if they ask, "Are you a Christian," the RIGHT thing to do is to answer, "I'm a Catholic." Otherwise, if he's hired under the mistaken impression that he's NOT a Catholic, it'll be ugly the day someone in his office sees him leaving Mass on a Sunday.
If they didn't want Catholics, they could have made it clear from the start. They didn't. Furthermore, the assumption that the answer "I'm a Catholic" is a "no" to the question "Are you a Christian?" is anti-Catholic bigotry.
All that being said, I think that the Salvation Army has the right to refuse to hire Catholics.
If you don't understand that, I'd be happy to continue to try to enlighten you.
;-)
sitetest
Do you consider the Salvation Army to be "Christian"?
Are they part of the Church of Christ?
Are Salvation Army members legitimately members of the Body of Christ universal?
Are you an Anti-Salvation Army bigot?
Dear P-Marlowe,
"Do you consider the Salvation Army to be 'Christian'?"
It doesn't matter what I consider, but rather what the Catholic Church teaches. She teaches that all validly baptized persons to be Christians.
Whether they are Methodists or Episcopalians or Salvationists or whatever. If they're baptized, their Christians.
"Are they part of the Church of Christ?"
As individuals, yes, by virtue of their baptism, they have some partial communion with the Church of Christ.
That's why we call you guys "separated brethren." We are brothers in Christ, but separated by our very real differences. We acknowledge the Christian identity of baptized non-Catholics.
"Are Salvation Army members legitimately members of the Body of Christ universal?"
If they're baptized Christians, they have some partial connection to the Body of Christ universal.
Certainly, if they wind up in Heaven, their communion with the Church of Christ, the Body of Christ, the Catholic Church, will have been made perfect.
"Are you an Anti-Salvation Army bigot?"
Why would I be an anti-Salvation Army bigot? Because I believe that Salvationists are Christians?
LOL.
sitetest
"Among the Christian churches, only the Catholic Church has existed since the time of Jesus. Every other Christian church is an offshoot of the Catholic Church."
No, all Christian Churches are part of the catholic church, just not part of the Roman Catholic branch of the catholic church.
There is no similarity between the questions "are you still beating your wife" and "are you a born-again Christian."
The first is a trap with a lose/lose answer built in.
The second is a legitimate question. There is no down side to answering "yes."
Dear xzins,
In terms of their content, there is no similarity.
In terms of their logical structure, there are deep similarities.
Both sentences include imbedded unspoken premises.
To answer "yes" or "no" to either question is to confirm the unspoken premise.
At least the unspoken premise of "Have you stopped beating your wife?" is relatively straightforward: the premise is that the person queried has been beating his wife.
In the second question, when a Catholic is speaking to a non-Catholic, there is not only an unspoken premise - what is meant precisely by "born again," and that premise may vary from non-Catholic to non-Catholic.
Thus, to avoid misunderstanding, when a Catholic answers this question to a non-Catholic, he should take care to explain what he means by his answer.
To do otherwise is to very possibly foster misunderstanding, and potentially to induce another to believe that which is false. These are sins against the truth.
sitetest
Unless he thought he was answering the next question that would be coming. Interviews are a discussion, questions are frequently open-ended, and it's not foolish to answer more fully.
Are you a Christian?
In the Eucharistic Celebration, the priest acts as Alter Christus (I think that's the Latin) - namely he acts as the stand-in for Christ. This is necessary, in our beliefs.
While it is preferred that baptism be performed by a priest, it is not 100% necessary, because one is not acting as Christ. I don't know why that is exactly, my guess would be that if it was OK for St. John the Baptist to do it....
Indeed. This was an interview, not an interrogation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.