As I understand it, the court ruled that the Church was wrong to deny Dusauchoit's application on the basis that she was a woman, but it wouldn't rule on the general question of whether a candidate was suitable to be admitted to the course. I don't if that makes sense...
As I understand it, the court ruled that the Church was wrong to deny Dusauchoit's application on the basis that she was a woman, but it wouldn't rule on the general question of whether a candidate was suitable to be admitted to the course. I don't if that makes sense...
Thanks for trying to re-explain it to me. But, I'm still not getting it. The court doesn't make sense. It's saying that the court cannot rule on the question of suitability for candidacy. When the Church says that women are not suitable candidates because women cannot be ordained, then the court says, No, that's not a sufficient reason for suitability. Ergo, the court is actually ruling about suitability.
I willing to admit that I might be too dense to understand this one, but I don't think there is a way to make it make sense. But, thanks for trying anyway.
Maybe an analogous situation: a US court might say "We can't say 'Harvard must admit John Doe from Poughkeepsie', but we can say 'Harvard isn't allowed to admit or not admit John Doe from Poughkeepsie because of his race'
I understand your analogy. It makes sense. But, that's not how this Belgian situation reads to me. However, I'll just chalk it up to one more of life's mysteries that will be revealed to me at the end of time (the Lord knows there are a lot of them).
Yes, in Belgium, Catholic priests and other recognized religious ministers, including those from Protestant, Orthodox, Jewish, and Muslim communities, are paid by the state. This arrangement is part of a broader framework in which the Belgian government provides financial support to recognized religions. This support includes salaries for clergy members and funding for religious activities and buildings. The system is rooted in the Belgian constitution, which ensures freedom of religion and provides for state support of recognized religious groups.
As I understand it, the court ruled that the Church was wrong to deny Dusauchoit's application on the basis that she was a woman, but it wouldn't rule on the general question of whether a candidate was suitable to be admitted to the course. I don't if that makes sense...
Thanks for trying to re-explain it to me. But, I'm still not getting it. The court doesn't make sense. It's saying that the court cannot rule on the question of suitability for candidacy. When the Church says that women are not suitable candidates because women cannot be ordained, then the court says, No, that's not a sufficient reason for suitability. Ergo, the court is actually ruling about suitability.
I willing to admit that I might be too dense to understand this one, but I don't think there is a way to make it make sense. But, thanks for trying anyway.
Maybe an analogous situation: a US court might say "We can't say 'Harvard must admit John Doe from Poughkeepsie', but we can say 'Harvard isn't allowed to admit or not admit John Doe from Poughkeepsie because of his race'
I understand your analogy. It makes sense. But, that's not how this Belgian situation reads to me. However, I'll just chalk it up to one more of life's mysteries that will be revealed to me at the end of time (the Lord knows there are a lot of them).
This (from ChatGPT) may help explain things:
Yes, in Belgium, Catholic priests and other recognized religious ministers, including those from Protestant, Orthodox, Jewish, and Muslim communities, are paid by the state. This arrangement is part of a broader framework in which the Belgian government provides financial support to recognized religions. This support includes salaries for clergy members and funding for religious activities and buildings. The system is rooted in the Belgian constitution, which ensures freedom of religion and provides for state support of recognized religious groups.
// I don't if that makes sense... //
It must make sense to them. Therefore, since they're law experts certified to decide what their law means, they're right. Logic is easy.