Where I'm from, the family of the deceased gets first say at who sings what at the funeral.

Really? Anyone could get up and be a cantor? What if it was someone who openly dismissed and ridiculed the Church?
Your parish has zero input on who can be a cantor or soloist?
Besides, no one said he couldn't SING at the funeral, just cantor.

The widely prevalent notion that the family of the deceased have untrammeled choice of the music at the funeral of their deceased is as absurd as the parallel and widely assumed notion that the bride and groom have absolute say in the music for their wedding. It is the Church, through authority delegated to clergy and musicians which has always the final word on any music for any rituals or services that IT performs in ITS churches. If people want music that the choirmaster and priest deem unseemly for its rituals there is nothing at all to prevent these folk from listening to it all they want at their receptions, gatherings, and homes. This applies not only to choices of music but to musicians involved. No one who is not a staff musician at any given church is in any way entitled to sing for weddings or funerals. If non-staff musicians perform, they do so with the approbation and at the pleasure of the choirmaster and pastor.

But! That is not what this letter is about, is it! This letter is preposterously judgmental in that it makes assumptions about the young gay man that its author is in no position to make - namely that the young man's 'orientation' means that he engages in sex that the Church, rightly, deems wrong. He very well may, but forbidding him from singing an Ave Maria at his grandmother's funeral is a mean act which rather trumps in nastiness any presumed sexual activity by the young man. Has this nasty priest somehow failed to be aware that large numbers of gay priests (many of whom are not faithful celibates) actually say mass and perform other sacraments of the Church - including forgiving sins?! There are other sexual sins which are the equal ('equal' meaning 'on a par with', not in any way 'inferior to') of any this young man may or may not have engaged in - fornication, sex out of wedlock, adultery, cheating on husband, cheating on wife, unnatural 'birth control', sexual practices in or out of wedlock that are not open or conducive to pro-creation - all these (and our churches are full of them!) are quite as awful as gay 'sex' for the simple reason that they are all equally disgusting perversions of Christian sexuality and make moral cretins out of those who practice them; but, I 'somehow' feel very safe in saying that it is highly unlikely that anyone who is guilty of them will be forbidden to sing an Ave Maria at his grandmother's funeral. This priest deserves to be sat down and set straight in no uncertain terms by his bishop. He has willfully inflicted an incredibly mean, judgmental, and holier-than-thou act of nastiness on this young man who loved his grandmother and had a desire to sing an Ave Maria at his grandmother's funeral. How crass and callous! How loveless!

I think it was really mean and an intentional jab at someone to make them feel bad. And I didn't mean to imply we use Death Metal music in our community's funerals! They get first say, not final say. Please.

Clearly, this letter is a response or follow-up to a previous conversation between, at the very least, the priest and this young man. ("As pastor, I have every right" sounds like a response to, "you have no right to say that I can't sing at your church," of which it doesn't sound like he's a permanent member, as the priest mentioned the man's "returning" to Decatur.)

I disagree that it is intentionally "mean." Singing his grandmother's funeral (Mass?) is included in a list of things he is unable to do - as though he had already been told that he cannot be a cantor at their parish because of his chosen lifestyle.

What it absolutely does not say is, "Hi, I've been made aware that there is a gay member of this deceased woman's family, and that that person is you. Please don't try to come to my church and sing during her funeral. Sorry for your loss, though. Still love you, anyway."

-----
Somewhat unrelated, but I was asked to sing my brother's wedding at his bride's home parish in TX. Later, I was told I couldn't actually do so, because their church only allows its own cantors to sing any liturgy. While I thought it was somewhat silly, I didn't start complaining that they thought their musicians superior to me, or anything like that.
-----
Anyway, we can't know every bit of their conversation.

The letter looked very well thought out except the part where his bishop has to publicly apologize for it!

Interesting.

God removes the rose-colored glasses off our face.

Nope I'm in California.

To me, this issue has something in common with the thread from a few weeks ago, where a young saxophone player wanted to play with the choir. Is the liturgy under the direction of the church, or is it a participatory event akin to a talent show?
I have a friend whose father died, and they were planning the funeral arrangements. My friend was very upset because her 10-year-old niece, was not allowed (by the priest) to play a few pieces before the funeral. I realize that in the original case discussed here, the grandson was a vocal performance major at IU, and may be a very accomplished singer, so it's not quite the same. But I think there are some parallels.

I didn't want to get involved with this, but, perhaps it stems from a mistaken idea about our "rights" and that everyone has a "right" to do what they want to do in the Liturgy. No one has a "right" to do anything except that which they are commissioned/ordained to do, especially anything ministerial. And yes, liturgical music is a ministry, just because laymen have been acting on behalf of missing ordained/instituted lectors and cantors for the past umpteen years, doesn't mean that that role is no longer ministerial, and no one has a "right" to a ministerial position in the liturgy, it is up to ones superiors to help discern if one ought to be a minister.

Frankly, I find this whole idea about "questioning (legitimate) authority" within the Church to be appalling -- it's one thing to question if a superior over-steps their authority -- like certain bishops regarding a certain recent encyclical -- it's another when a superior is within their authority. In my personal opinion, the pastor was acting prudently to avoid giving scandal by not allowing a person who is, it seems, publicly living contrary to the teaching of the Church from exercising a ministerial role within the liturgy. I may or may not agree with his choice in this particular incident, but he was well within the bounds of his authority as pastor to make such a choice to regulate the Liturgy at his parish. This is all I will say on the matter.

P.S. CCooze mentioned some of this in the above post, which appeared before I finished typing.

I do see the parallels to all these other incidents, except the grandson was being medicinally punished, and I think the holy fathers have been clear there should not be discrimination.

it's one thing to question if a superior over-steps their authority -- like certain bishops regarding a certain recent encyclical

So St Paul should have shut his mouth? Check your Canon Law about who has what 'authority.' Others, who are Canon Lawyers, have already done so.

Does that mean he self-excommunicated?

If simply being gay were enough to disqualify one from making music in the liturgy, there would be a lot of vacant posts and silent choir lofts

And a lot more still if being in any kind of irregular relationship, or any state of serious sin, was included.

Yes! If you read the letter, the priest specifically says that this parish is consistent across the board, divorced and re-married, people who are openly living in relationships that might cause scandal. Etc.
Once again, we don't have the whole story, we don't know if this about more than one FB post.

dad29, I think you misunderstand me. St Paul was correct: it was St Peter who over-stepped his authority by teaching error -- he needed to be corrected, just as certain bishops who shall remain nameless have over-stepped their authority, trying to change things that cannot be changed, and they ought to be corrected, too.

If the pastor is consistent in his policy as regards the regulation of the liturgy within his parish, then I don't think that there is much to complain about other than having hurt feelings.

And let them retire in the lap of luxury.

Imagine if Pope Francis were, suddenly, inexplicably, to speak out against liturgical abuse?

That's a good one, Chris. Best laugh I have had today. LOL

Again, I think the singer involved bringing the story to the media has actually hurt his credibility: now he's just trying to build community resentment towards the priest as a revenge tactic. And that's exactly what I think he intended to do.

"Ordained priests" are in persona Christi. This assures the sanctity of the Mass and sacraments, no matter how creepy, cretin-like or d-baggy his behavior.

There are awful priests. And no, they shouldn't be 'protected' when they are acting contrary to their collars, but despising them When they are doing their job is wrong. God will deal with them as He sees fit.

Not to question or suggest mitigation of the Church's understanding and teaching of priests being in persona Christi, one might suggest that, in the case of some unfortunate ones, the normal lionisation, deferential treatments, near worship, etc., should be pointedly avoided in the case of those whose manner leaves much to be desired in the Imitation of Christ. Some of these are, but for a mere legality, neither subjectively or objectively definitely not 'in the person of Christ' outside their performance of ritual obligations. We have a right (and obligation) to expect better from many who are un-priestly and blatantly un-Christlike. One might also suggest that there are others, who from time to time and place to place, whose lives and acts should be noted as having been lived or performed in persona Christi though they lack the good fortune of having been ordained. One thinks of many of the saints, goodly non-saints, some even not Catholic, and of many whom we all know in our daily lives. One really does not have to be ordained to be in persona Christi. Is not being so the calling of all Christian folk? Is not the whole Church itself, ordained and not ordained (all of us who are the Church), in persona Christi? I think so. We are supposed to be and are called to be. When I approach a priest I do so as the approaching Greeks who famously came saying 'Sir, we would see Jesus'. Many times has my desire been fulfilled. Many more times have I been sorely disappointed by a callous and utterly shameless lack of love. And where there is not love there is not God, nor Jesus.

It is notable that passages such as that quoted just above from the Catechism give a very wide berth and much 'wiggle room' (one might even say 'loop holes') to the ordained. Some of them really need it!

I edited this thread to take the priest's name off the title.

It's not really fair of us to discuss individuals and private communications on the forum; rather, it's better to focus on policies.

We are all called to be the person of Christ to all, but only some are called to act in persona Christi (capitis).

Thanks for posting that, francis.

Sometimes I hear people express themselves as though they thought the Church claimed an "in persona Christi" status for a priest 24 hours a day.

How dumb of me! I guess I can also break the law in front of a policeman when he's off duty and out of uniform.

If you want to specify that a priest can take off or put on his faculties like that, well I think that is playing a silly game. And no I never said I thought they were always "in persona Christi," but the fact that they EVER are sets them apart.