According to TwinCities.com,
After decades of honing his musical skills, Charles Philyaw landed his dream job in 2004 as the full-time director of music liturgy at St. Andrew Catholic Church in Verona.
The church, with 1,643 adult members, was more than just a place to work for Philyaw. He and his partner, James Mulder-Philyaw, joined the parish and participated fully in the religious community.
Then in June, it all collapsed. Philyaw said he was told by the parish priest, the Rev. Dave Timmerman, that he would no longer be retained because he was living an openly gay life. He was given two weeks’ notice.
Far from attempting to obfuscate the issue, the issue was made plain.
“Absolutely, Chuck lost his job because he’s openly gay,” said Jo Ellen Kilkenny, one of the five whose inquiries triggered Philyaw’s dismissal.
She calls him a “wonderful music director” and said she feels horrible that he lost his livelihood, yet it became indefensible for him to be in a highly visible role as an active homosexual, she said.
“We are all sinners, but when you hold a leadership position, you’re held to a higher standard than people in the pews,” she said.
I must tell you that this is a very well done article as it states plainly the Church’s side of the issue with quotes like these:
Brent King, spokesman for the Madison Catholic Diocese, said Bishop Morlino does not comment on personnel issues. But the diocese made available the Rev. Monsignor James Bartylla, director of vocations, who is helping to coordinate locally a program called Courage, a national Catholic initiative that counsels people with same-sex attraction.
While same-sex attraction is considered a disorder by the Catholic Church, it is not a sin in and of itself, Bartylla said. “It is acting on the attraction that makes it a sinful act, a grave depravity,” he said.
People with same-sex attraction must control their desires and live chaste lives, he said. If they do so, they can participate fully in church life, including in leadership positions, he said.
Because of this distinction between same-sex attraction and acting on it, it would be a mistake to say the Catholic Church dismisses anyone from employment simply for their sexual orientation, King said.
As for parishioners who are sexually active homosexuals, Bartylla said the church would welcome them, then “begin dealing immediately” with the issue. “We’d encourage them and challenge them to come into conformity with church teaching, the same as with any parishioner dealing with sin.”
In this case, the article doesn’t say if any lawsuits are pending but sexual orientation is becoming a constant addition to anti-discrimination statutes across the country. How long until churches lose the right to discriminate at all? I think we’re a bit of a way off from the government stepping in and forcing women priests or gay priests on us but couldn’t you see it argued that when an employee’s main duties are not necessarily ecclesiastical or ministerial that the Church will no longer be able to say who it hires and fires. The government could just say, “oh he’s just the musical director” or “Oh he’s just a teacher.”
The government is already forcing Catholic hospitals to give out abortifacients. They’re forcing Catholic adoption centers to arrange gay adoptions. How long do we have before America and Catholicism are mutually exclusive?
September 19, 2008 at 1:54 am
Good posting, we are also keeping an eye on this as it is in a neighboring diocese
September 19, 2008 at 4:27 am
Clik for more blogs:
Not all discrimination is unjust.
Indeed, I have no doubt that many parishes would sack someone for hetero cohabitation in sin, or remarriage without an anullment. In that sense, I don’t even think you can call this discrimination; Church teaching is clear, you only “sink the sausage” in a saramental marriage, and even then the act has to be open to life. Certainly, to openly advocate use of the pill, or the recreational rubberware, even within marriage, ought to be a sackable offence – no discrimination there… Just as rabbis and imams don’t meet the job requirements for the sacred priesthood…
September 19, 2008 at 4:30 am
On the other had, a one- off “one night stand”, whilst sinful, is not a sackable offence, to my mind…it lacks the element of obstinacy, evidenced, in this case, by the hyphenated name of the partner.
September 20, 2008 at 5:57 pm
There’s an add on the left hand side with a link to “Gay friendly churches, Find Gay friendly religious organizations in your neighborhood.
Is that weird or what?
September 26, 2008 at 5:26 am
If you do a search on the web, they claim to be married and it shows their wedding picture.
November 17, 2009 at 12:18 am
The Catholic church should rememeber we are speaking of real human beings here, whom Jesus would have never created if he did not thing they were worthy a place on this earth. Above all else , he told us "Love one another."These precious people are wonderful, the church baptizes them, gives them first holy communion. cnfirmation But come out of the closet and that all no longer matters. These are the leopors of modern time, Jesus would not have passed them on the street.
A mom with love.
November 17, 2009 at 12:28 am
Anonymous:
The issue is not something over which the individual has no control (as in a leper), but in behavior which one chooses, followed by making that choice public. Our Lord spent a fair amount of effort admonishing public sinners. You know, all that talk about repenting and reforming our lives and stuff.
November 17, 2009 at 12:29 am
Did you bother to even read the post, or just drop in and shoot off on auto-pilot?
December 19, 2009 at 9:37 pm
Wow, this is still going on?
Scandal is the key word here.
Public knowledge is the key.
We are all sinners yes, but the difference is the public nature of the sin and espousing the legitamacy of it from his position of authority. Stating and acting in a public way that defies the teachings of the Church. It is no different for example, a nurse working at Planned Parenthood, professing pro abotion rhetoric and handing out condoms to teenagers. She too would loose a postion of authority and dare I add, she should also be unable to be an extraordinary Eucharitic minister. Mistakes abound by many in his parish. To me it was done in the love of Christ. To sit back and do nothing while a mockery was being made of the Catholic faith was just as big a sin as the couple who believed they were doing nothing wrong and the Church should be changing with the times. What would Christ have done? I venture to guess that He would have talked to the couple, tried to set them straight and would end by saying, "sin no more."
When one makes one's sin(s) public, one cannot complain and be surprised that we are called on them. And if it is true that the priest knew Mr. Phyliyaw was an "active homosexual" then yes, the responsibilty rests with him. It sure would give Mr P the indicaton that his active homosexual behavior was not a sin according to this priest and would further lead to expansion and openess of his relationship, which is exactly what happened.
Also a member of the Madison Diocese