Catholic sisters in New York sue state over ‘preferred pronouns’ mandate

[IwantToRetire]

The Dominican Sisters of Hawthorne have filed a lawsuit against the State of New York, claiming that new gender identity requirements for nursing homes violate their constitutional rights and would force them to act against their Catholic faith.

In a statement, Mother Marie Edward, the congregation’s superior general, said: “We Sisters have taken care of patients from all walks of life, ideologies and faiths. We treat each patient with dignity and Christian charity. We have never had complaints. We cannot implement New York’s mandate without violating our Catholic faith.”

The lawsuit argues that the law compels the sisters to “act against central, unchangeable and architectural teachings of the Catholic faith”. It adds, “The implications are so much greater than whether to utter the words ‘he’ or ‘she’. Indeed, to demand that a Catholic deny another’s sex is to require him or her to affirm another religious worldview.”

The sisters also argue that the law is applied unevenly. The complaint notes that facilities operated by the Church of Christ, Congregationalist, Scientist are exempt, as the statute does not apply to those “whose teachings include reliance on spiritual means through prayer alone for healing”. This, the sisters contend, amounts to unconstitutional discrimination between religious groups.

Full article at https://thecatholicherald.com/article/new-york-sisters-sue-state-over-preferred-pronouns-mandate (behind paywall and not on archive.ph)

You can't get mych more anti science than religion!

Have you missed all the people losing their jobs and being prosecuted for saying humans can’t change sex?

You do not have to subscribe to gender ideology in order to treat with respect those who do. Why? they believe in something that is manifestly stupid, why do we have to
But for many people people the beliefs of many religions are " manifestly stupid" ... that does not mean they cannot treat others who do believe these things with respect.
It harms no-one to respect someone's wish to be designated say "they", any more than someone entering g a catholic church might cover their head out of respect.

I don’t think you have to cover your head to enter a Catholic Church in New York State.

Again Why?

If you don't respect the belief why do you have to respect the person who believes it.

I'm afraid that I strongly disagree with you.
Trump is not a radical or even evangelical Christian.
The Canadian government has caused so much more harm with gender ideology, the removal of women's rights to free speach, the right to freedom of religion or having none, single sex spaces including prisons, the right to protest and then theres MAID which basically kills any poor disabled person (can't afford to live well kill yourself) same for homeless people, thr mentally ill and anyone who has any treatable illness that they cant get the care required.
Canada is a warning to the whole world of what happens when you let the religion of choice for so called liberals unfettered free reign

When a Christian or any other traditional religion asks for respect it doesn't involve demanding that you put your faith aside and participate with theirs.
When a gender idealog demands respect they are demanding that you follow their religion and partake in acts of religious observance by referring to them with their chosen pronouns and behave as if they are the opposite or no sex, even when it goes against your own beliefs.

1 of these is different to the rest and deserves no respect as it respects nobody else

I’m another “Catholic atheist” and have many reservations about the Church and its actions. The nuns who educated me caused me great emotional distress that it took many years to recover from.

But in this, I am wholly on the side of the nuns and the Church.

That’s not true. Religion and science have long co-existed, many scientific advances were made by religious people whose faith supported and drove their investigations , and many scientists today have deeply held religious beliefs.
I don’t personally believe in God or miracles. But religion and religious belief isn’t inherently anti-science, or vice versa.

You do not. Lots go in blue jeans and T shirts as well.

Thank you! I visited St Patrick’s in NYC as a tourist and have been to mass in a French ski resort (not in New York State but also in a liberal western country) and everyone seemed to be dressed in an ordinary way.

“which requires care homes to house residents according to their gender identity, allow access to bathrooms on the same basis and use preferred names and pronouns.”

“You do not have to subscribe to gender ideology in order to treat with respect those who do.”

But you’d have to go along with it as if you do.

My exact response. Its retirement home, not a fecking brothel.

I find it interesting that you’re taking more issue with the nuns and their faith than you are the obvious and long standing problem that in the US the healthcare system is still so reliant on hospitals and other forms of care that are funded, and in this case directly provided, by religious communities and weird clubs like the Shriners.

Thanks - but have no idea what it was!

There are far too many 'theys' and 'thems', etc, bandied about, it becomes confusing.

Thanks for this input.

I had to sign up to the Catholic Herald or whatever to read it!

So if you hear any updates please do post.

I'm a bit surprised by some of the comments as to me it was or is along similar lines to the man working for the prison services who didn't feel he has to affirm someone's assumed "gender" and pronouns.

But the difference here is that an organisation (admittely faith based) has been providing a service of benefit to the state and the individuals needing care.

I assume that the service they provide is good and many have benefitted. And also that it isn't newly set up but something they have done for years.

And just as in health care here in the UK, they do not accept that because somepeople say you can change sex or identify into it, they should now provide mixed sex care. And use pronouns that they do not see as valid, and go against their believes.

Obviously this is the US, but many of us in the UK often quote the Forestater case that employers (and by default the funders) have to give genuinely beheld believes equal status.

It is inconceivable that in a health care scenario the state should have imposed conforming to one set of (narrowly held) believes.

It isn't that they are Catholic, they are saying they have a set of beliefs. If these beliefs are as a result of a religion, rather than a GC feminist position, that says you can not change sex no on has the right to tell them otherwise.

And as always, if there really are people who feel that having their beliefs about identity, or whatever asserted, they should get off their backsides and set one up, knowing that in this instance they will get state support.

This endlessly negative destructive narrative from TRAs is on one level so childish, and on another so arrogant and negative. Everything seems to be about denying other people their right to an autonomous way of life, and dictating to them.

I’ll certainly keep my eyes open for any further reporting on this and post it here.

Treating people with respect, regardless of their beliefs, and regardless of whether theirs conflict with yours. That does not mean bowing to them, neither physically nor linguistically. Neither does it mean challenging them and requiring them to justify their position. To me it means following the Golden Rule: treating others as I would wish to be treated. If a man wants to be considered a woman, don’t refer to him as ‘he’ in his presence. Doesn’t mean you have to use ‘she’. On the other hand, use the correct pronoun when not in his presence. He can’t hear to be offended and it is not disrespectful to use clear language so that when you are talking about him - especially in a medical context - you can be as clear as possible about what he needs.

Do you fancy explaining how you care for people without reference to sex?

Male bodies need specific catheters.

They need specific urinals to pee in if they cannot leave their bed.

They need different process for a bed bath.

If a male takes a patient takes a turn it will be handled with sex in mind because, spoiler alert , it actually matters.

Advance organisation and planning is very important when dealing with patient care.

What is the conceit here? That a nurse will arrive at the bed of the patient, see then and only then what sex they are, then leave the bedside, get the equipment and come back?

Watch them sue when it goes wrong because they tie everyone up in knots over their desire to be a big swinging... dick?

And people being treated by other people should have the decency to accept that help with politeness and good grace and not use it to prozletise their perosonal beliefs.

The arrogance of thinking a care giver has no rights and should not only provide services but negate their own sense of their self.

This mealy mouth approach oh but it is only nice to "be kind" is equally true.

Once TRAs start acting with decency and accpetance that their view of the world is only for them and NOT to be imposed on others, then they might start getting some respect.

So long as they go on demand that they should have respect but not be required to give it they will go on being seen as a negative presence who is obsessed with getting others to think like them.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

When TRAs stop saying we have rights but nobody else does then they minght get a more empathetic response.

I am someone totally opposed to organisation religions.

I think that how they are being treated is grossly disrespectful and arrogant.

How about a bit of self reflection by TRAs and wonder why so many people seem hostile.

It is because they are having reflected back on them their behaviour.

Only people who behave with respect get shown respect.

If I’ve got this right, the letters to the nuns about “potential violations” didn’t refer to this. The nuns’ lawsuit points out that under the law they are expected to accommodate patients’ desire for extramarital relations. I hope very much that this is a theoretical point - I’ve had both parents be extremely unwell (my father died, my mother is now recovered). I can’t imagine cancer patients in a hospice wanting to sleep with each other.

it is Catholic doctrine in a fairly recent encyclical.

In this case, whilst the nuns clearly have beliefs and rights that should be upheld, the state should not have the power to consent on behalf of all patients to change from single sex care to mixed sex care.

If they want to do this, organisations need to be given time to generate the impact assessment to the services they provide and confirm if compatible. We have seen in the UK some groups or fractions choose to close rather than remain single sex (like the Women’s Institute ) and that’s their choice - run it in accordance with the law or don’t run it at all.

it goes back to how deep and far reaching Gender ideology has breached governing institutions. And how much work remains for it to be undone - when Nuns providing voluntary service are threatened over a hypothetical situation that hasn’t actually occurred yet. It is state coercion through force.

Its despicable. I really hope they win this case and set a precedent. A woman’s right to single sex care is imperative to her safety and dignity, especially when vulnerable.