"Steadfast in the Teaching of the Church": Ohio Bishop Defends Gay Teacher's Firing

[Lochias]

I’m not Catholic myself, I profess no religion to be honest, but I have occasionally attended mass at St. Joseph Cathedral (where Bishop Campbell presides). In the past I have considered inquiring about RCIA but there is always one thing that forces me to reconsider; I’m gay. It is not the doctrine of the Church that concerns me; I find it rather balanced and reasonable.

What weighs on my mind is how people such as myself are treated and addressed by lay Catholics and clerics alike. It is not the message that I necessarily oppose, but the way in which it is delivered. There is frequently an air of contempt and callousness. I have always believed that it is not the written or spoken word which really defines a religion, but the deeds of those who profess it. Indeed, does not the Epistle of St. James say:

“Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only?”

And the second Epistle of Saint Paul To The Corinthians:

“For we must all be manifested before the judgement seat of Christ, that every one may receive the proper things of the body, according as he hath done, whether good or evil.”

I believe it is these words that inspire 2358 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

"The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition."

I do not see those words reflected in the treatment of my community and I think one of the greatest examples is in the recent decision of the Diocese to terminate Carla Hale. I do not see how that decision edifies the Catholic Church or, given the above, can be justified by its doctrine. If Carla Hale had been teaching students concepts contrary to the Catholic faith then this would be a justified action, but I have not seen or heard evidence that she had been. In fact, I have seen and heard evidence to the contrary.

I think this decision runs contrary to the call to treat gay men and women with “respect, dignity, and sensitivity” and to avoid “unjust discrimination.” It is such actions which keep me, and I believe many other gay men and women away from the Catholic Church. I hope that Bishop Campbell takes more time to reflect and changes his mind.

The actions against her were not unjust; she chose to hide her relationship knowing that the Church would not wish to employ her any longer if it was revealed.

Further, it is not a discrimination against gays, but a discrimination against sin (homosexual acts, in this case). I don’t have the time to find the links, but I know I’ve read of instances wherein heterosexual people lost their jobs at Catholic institutions because of scandal caused by their actions.

Further, I would gently say that your community, to use your own word, is so far revealing their own hearts by their actions, if they are the ones who are leveling threats of violence against the Bishop and the Church.

Our Faith is something we must live, day in and day out, and it cannot be set aside in order to cater to one person’s desire to live sinfully, however much compassion and love we show them. It is precisely that compassion and love that compelled Bishop Campbell’s actions; he does not want to see her choose Hell by actions that go against the teachings of God, and he does not want anyone else to think her actions are approved by the Church, by her own deeds and examples.

I hope you understand, even if you do not agree. And, for the record, you are loved, respected and cherished.

 

[NeedsMercy]

Ratted? Is that what we call it now? Someone with a tender conscience informed the proper authority of a grave violation. Children deserve better than to be exposed to this especially in a Catholic school. Up until very recently such a scandal would have been viewed a terrible thing. Now we have more concern for illicit conduct than for the ramifications on others souls in particular children in their formative years.

“Someone with a tender conscience”? Puh-leeze! You have absolutely no evidence of that. How do you know that it wasn’t a person with a grudge? You say that “children deserve better than to be exposed to this…” You can hardly say that children were “exposed” to her being gay: for almost 20 years, with the exception of a few very close co-workers, no one knew of her sexual orientation, except maybe the anonymous person with a “tender conscience”. Perhaps I shouldn’t have used the expression “ratted out”. But I could say that she was outed without anyone knowing she was in…

Oh, and by the way, will the Bishop do a hard-target search to find out the names of her friends who “enabled” Ms. Hale in her gayness? They, too, have sinned, have they not?

 

[NeedsMercy]

She taught AGAINST the Church in the same way that St. Francis ‘preached the Gospel’ that day, by quiet actions.

If we claim, as Catholics do, that St. Francis giving food to some beggar in an isolated street alley is a proclamation of the Gospel, then her entering into a relationship with a lover outside of marriage (hetero or homosexual) is an affront to the Gospel.

"If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?”

 

[NeedsMercy]

Here is a like to her mother’s obituary (Jeanne E Roe). Look under survivors and you will see:
Survived by her son, Charles (Alexis) Roe of Jamestown, KY; daughter, Carla (Julie) Hale of Powell;The names in parenthesis are her children’s spouses/partners. This obituary is in a public newspaper and lists Ms. Hale with a female partner. The fact that this was brought to the attention of the diocese by a parent is irrelevant as the information was already made publicly available.

Quick, give me a name enclosed in parentheses in one of today’s obits. (Just messin’ with ya, man) If I gave you the impression that I can’t read an obit, you’re in for a surprise. Seriously, the mystery letter was written—allegedly—by a parent. In an article on nbc4i.com, there appeared the following:

“According to Hale’s attorney, a student at the school had asked her mother to pray for Hale because she had recently lost her mother. The student’s mother then noticed the obituary, and wrote an anonymous letter to the Catholic Diocese of Columbus. Hale was later fired a week and a half later, on Holy Thursday, March 28.”

That’s even worse than just being “anonymous”! She (if there is a “she”) is simply a coward. If she’s so Catholic, why doesn’t she stand up publicly and witness the faith?

Morality clauses actually have been common in the entertainment industry and some custody agreements for several years. They normally will have a list of forbidden actions or more general statements such as “will not engage in actions that cause disrepute or scandal to my employer.” The conduct or actions do not have to be related to performance of their duties (i.e. singing, playing baseball, etc). Any action at anytime that causes scandal are grounds for termination.

In this case she was not require to become Catholic but I suspect the morality clause of her contract said that she would not act in a way contrary to Catholic teaching

This is not a 1930’s movie studio. Apples and oranges. That is why I wanted to see the morals clause that the Bishop referenced:

“He said Hale violated a teacher contract and Roman Catholic Diocese of Columbus policy that prohibits immoral behavior and requires employees to follow general church tenets.”

There should be a definition of “immoral behavior” in the contract. But “immoral” is so relative. What is immoral to the Diocese is not necessarily immoral to Methodists or anyone else. (I should add that the Methodists are split over this issue. There is no one teaching on the subject. But then the Methodists were split over slavery too.)

Now someone has to figure out exactly which of the Church’s tenets are “general”?

I can assure you living with someone you are not married to and listing them as your partner/spouse is acting in a way contrary to Church teaching. If I were not married and moved in with a girlfriend and called her my partner I would be violating Church teaching.

“Living with someone you are not married to” and “listing them etc.” are not ways of violating Church teaching. Oh, wait, am I to assume they are engaging in sex too?

The issue is if you have a clause in a contract and fail to act on those remedies then you can lose the ability to act on that clause in the future. If they disregarded the morality clause once it was found she was in violation, then it is possible that any direct action against Church teachings would be non-enforceable. In addition how is the school supposed to clearly teach that sex outside of marriage is a sin and then give a wink and a nod to Ms. Hale simply because she is a lesbian?

I think, in general, your first two sentences are true. I have a bit of a problem with that last sentence, though. The Church may adequately teach about pre-marital sex and lesbianism **without ** pointing fingers at offenders. We can teach that murdering 6 million Jews is an abomination before the Lord, but can we say that Hitler is in hell? Absolutely not! And that IMHO is the heart of this issue. I despise these finger-pointing exercises that the Church engages in, especially when it comes to sex. I swear the Church thinks more about sex than I have in 13 years of marriage! It is so unworthy of Her and such a waste of time.

No, you are not stating the obvious, but rather nonsense. She was not fired for being Methodist, a lesbian or failure to believe Catholic dogma. She was released for living in a relationship that included fornication which is clearly acting against Catholic moral teaching. This is no different then the coach I mentioned above.

Where exactly is the “nonsense” in my post? I **did not ** say that Ms. Hale was fired for being Methodist, etc. What I am saying is this: If the Diocese feels so strongly about its employees abiding by “the rules”, why don’t they explicitly say that in their contracts? If you don’t sign the contract, you don’t get hired.

 

[NeedsMercy]

I’m not sure where you get the bolded statement above. Homosexuality and fornication are two separate things. Having SSA is not a sin. Having sex outside of marriage is; period.

Prepare to withdraw your “shrug”. I know that “homosexuality and fornication are two separate things”. Homosexuality (an orientation) is not comparable to fornication (an act). What I am comparing is homosexual sex outside of marriage to heterosexual sex outside of marriage. Please see paragraph 2.B. of the following:

catechism.cc/articles/homosexuality-sin.htm

Note the last sentence of the paragraph:

“It is a heresy against the Catholic Faith to believe that homosexual acts outside of marriage are no more sinful than heterosexual acts outside of marriage.”

BTW, I know that, according to our Church, being gay is not a sin, while engaging in gay sex is. :sad_yes:

 

[Lucky7]

That’s even worse than just being “anonymous”! She (if there is a “she”) is simply a coward. If she’s so Catholic, why doesn’t she stand up publicly and witness the faith?

Maybe because she was protecting her son from some of the things that you have been saying about his mom.

I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that there is more to this story. This is not the first time they are hearing about this teacher and her gay relationship. She has been working there 19 years. It is the first time, however, that the teacher chose to make it public. No one twisted her arm to include her wife in the obituary. Therein lies the difference.

Sad story? Yes. However, the Church has an obligation to act.

 

[fix]

“Someone with a tender conscience”? Puh-leeze! You have absolutely no evidence of that. How do you know that it wasn’t a person with a grudge?

Because I am assuming the best without any other contrary evidence.

You say that “children deserve better than to be exposed to this…” You can hardly say that children were “exposed” to her being gay: for almost 20 years, with the exception of a few very close co-workers, no one knew of her sexual orientation, except maybe the anonymous person with a “tender conscience”. Perhaps I shouldn’t have used the expression “ratted out”. But I could say that she was outed without anyone knowing she was in…

She is living a life public and manifestly contrary to the Gospel and natural law. Only recently would people think that has no effect on other parts of our life.

Oh, and by the way, will the Bishop do a hard-target search to find out the names of her friends who “enabled” Ms. Hale in her gayness? They, too, have sinned, have they not?

I have no idea what this means? If others have caused scandal then I hope that too will be ended.

 

[catholictiger]

Way to stand strong bishop

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Way to stand strong bishop

Agreed. This whole kerfuffle, is yet another anti-Catholic slam by the media. This feeds into the general anti-Catholic bigotry one sees everywhere today.

If this causes lukewarm Catholics to fume in outrage, all the better. If a politically correct religion is what they want, then they are in the wrong religion. It’s time they either get in step with the rigors of the Gospel, or go find another church that will “tolerate” and “embrace” and “include” every immorality, depravity and idiocy that modern society, television, movies, and newspapers say they should accept.

 

[manualman]

…
What weighs on my mind is how people such as myself are treated and addressed by lay Catholics and clerics alike. It is not the message that I necessarily oppose, but the way in which it is delivered. There is frequently an air of contempt and callousness. …

I think one of the greatest examples is in the recent decision of the Diocese to terminate Carla Hale. I do not see how that decision edifies the Catholic Church or, given the above, can be justified by its doctrine. If Carla Hale had been teaching students concepts contrary to the Catholic faith then this would be a justified action, but I have not seen or heard evidence that she had been. In fact, I have seen and heard evidence to the contrary.

Your first point above is a genuine problem that needs to be addressed by catholics. But it’s a HUMAN problem, not a peculiarly catholic one. We all like having a class of sin that horrifies us and that we can cluck about and feel “oh so righteous” because we don’t do that and aren’t even INCLINED to do that. How holy we are in comparison. The evidence that this is a human problem is visibly present in the gay activist community. Most can’t conceive of a genuine conscience objection to homosexual actions, so anyone opposed to inclusion of gay persons in legally protected classes for all issues must be a hateful bigot. Their prejudice is motivated by the same need to feel superior, no? That doesn’t excuse it on either side, but we ALL would do better to feel a bit less smug about our own righteousness.

I can’t agree on the second point. She wasn’t fired for her inclination, she was fired for personally living a testimony to her values which are at odds with catholic teaching. Contrast her case with the support here at CAF recently for a teacher with a gay inclination who is chaste, but was being harassed by a student’s mother who “suspected” him of being gay. That fellow got nothing but support here at CAF because his decisions and values were 100% in accord with the church. He wasn’t living an example contrary to what he was being paid to teach, he was living PRECISELY the example he was being paid to teach. And he got total respect here for it (if not from his student’s mother, I’m afraid. See my above paragraph on that one…).

 

[manualman]

I think, in general, your first two sentences are true. I have a bit of a problem with that last sentence, though. The Church may adequately teach about pre-marital sex and lesbianism **without **pointing fingers at offenders. We can teach that murdering 6 million Jews is an abomination before the Lord, but can we say that Hitler is in hell? Absolutely not!

Bad analogy, nobody has damned this teacher to hell.

If you want a valid analogy, try this on. The church teaches that racial discrimination is unjust and immoral. If a catholic school administration is informed by a parent that one of it’s teachers is publicly a member of a white supremacist group and refuses to repudiate that affiliation, would it be reasonable to keep that teacher on staff? Why not if said teacher mouthed the stipulated words during social studies lessons? You don’t see how that would undercut church teaching and give totally the wrong message to anyone aware of the teacher’s personal racism?

 

[Elizium23]

Is it really so private to cohabitate with someone? First you both make a definite choice to move in together. Then, together, you sign public documents: rental, lease, deed, whatever is needed to reside in a living space. Then you mingle all your belongings; your neighbors see you going in and out every day. You change the address on all your correspondence; anyone who sends you snail mail will know where you live.

No, this kind of sin meets the very definitions of public, obstinate, and freely chosen. There is no point in pointing fingers at who finally let the cat out of the bag. The only question is why she got away with it for so long.

 

[NeedsMercy]

Maybe because she was protecting her son from some of the things that you have been saying about his mom.

I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that there is more to this story. This is not the first time they are hearing about this teacher and her gay relationship. She has been working there 19 years. It is the first time, however, that the teacher chose to make it public. No one twisted her arm to include her wife in the obituary. Therein lies the difference.

Sad story? Yes. However, the Church has an obligation to act.

And maybe Ms. Hale was protecting her children from some of the things that gay bashers are now saying about their mom.

Who are the “they” in your paragraph 2, 2nd sentence and what was the prior instance of “their” learning about this teacher and her gay relationship? No, no one twisted her arm to write the obit as it appeared; however, it was written by her and her brother within minutes of Ms. Roe’s death.

And yes, it is indeed a sad story.

 

[Lucky7]

And maybe Ms. Hale was protecting her children from some of the things that gay bashers are now saying about their mom.

Who are the “they” in your paragraph 2, 2nd sentence and what was the prior instance of “their” learning about this teacher and her gay relationship? No, no one twisted her arm to write the obit as it appeared; however, it was written by her and her brother within minutes of Ms. Roe’s death.

And yes, it is indeed a sad story.

Who are the gay bashers you are referring to? And what are they saying about “the mom”?

I guess my point was that your remarks about how the mom was a coward, etc are uncharitable. There could be other reasons why she chose to remain anonymous and it could very well have been because she was protecting her son from any backlash.

When I say “they” I am referring to the school/the Church. If anyone here thinks that the school knew nothing about her gay relationship for the 19 years she had been working there I have a bridge to sell them. It sounds like it was overlooked for a long time. That’s why I say there is more to this story. I would also say that the obit just gave them the “proof” that was needed to take the next steps.

 

[Lucky7]

There is no point in pointing fingers at who finally let the cat out of the bag. The only question is why she got away with it for so long.

Exactly. 19 years folks. 19 years.

 

[manualman]

In fairness, I’ve been at my current employer for over a decade and I can count on one hand how many have met my wife. It’s a long commute and our personal life is close to home. It’s not impossible to keep work and home personal and private. Speculation is not worth much here, so don’t. It’s not helping, nor does it change the question of the propriety of the current school decision.

I see nobody wants to argue my racism analogy. Why is it that when church teaching and secular values line up, nobody questions the scenario, but when church teaching and secular values are opposed the church is expected to yield even in her own teaching institutions? That’s tyranny. This is America.

 

[Lapey]

"If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?”

Yes it does make a sound…and what is even louder is a quiet Church when us Catholics do not live by the ways of the Truth in the Church.

Actions are very loud, even though people do not hear them.

 

[fix]

I see nobody wants to argue my racism analogy. Why is it that when church teaching and secular values line up, nobody questions the scenario, but when church teaching and secular values are opposed the church is expected to yield even in her own teaching institutions? That’s tyranny. This is America.

Well I think because it is obvious many self identified Catholics do not think “gay” behavior is that wrong.

 

[Usige]

Yes it does make a sound…and what is even louder is a quiet Church when us Catholics do not live by the ways of the Truth in the Church.

Actions are very loud, even though people do not hear them.

Thank you, Deacon Gary.

It is not the hearer that cause a sound, but rather the act of the tree falling. Said tree also makes a sound when we stick our fingers in our ears and refuse to hear it.

 

[NeedsMercy]

I see nobody wants to argue my racism analogy. Why is it that when church teaching and secular values line up, nobody questions the scenario, but when church teaching and secular values are opposed the church is expected to yield even in her own teaching institutions? That’s tyranny. This is America.

Would you like to continue? :ehh: