Church Militant throws shade on CMAA AGAIN
  • Jeffrey Quick
    Posts: 1,368
    https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/gay-traditionalists
    Furthermore, to show how widespread this issue is, it even extends into the annual CMAA Sacred Music Colloquium. One individual in particular is an extremely well-known, flamboyant, active, practicing homosexual who is frequently described by others at the colloquium as "absolutely oozing gayness." His lifestyle and flawed beliefs are known to all involved. Yet he is invited to play, conduct, sing and teach at this colloquium regularly. Others at the colloquium just shrug it off because he is such a talented and respected musician who leads the music program at one of the nation's largest Episcopal parishes.


    I posted a comment there. I really don't know what their issue is. Posting the correspondence seemed unnecessary to make their point.
    Thanked by 1StimsonInRehab
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 9,283
    I don't know where they were hoping to go with this. I have found as many sinners at TLMs as I have found at NO masses. My own observation is that the ritual and dress can attract the "costume party" crowd who are likely not very different from the folks who participate in Civil War reenactments and other theatrical displays. I have even been to TLMs where the priests parading around in finery gave the appearance of just another drag show. It is, at times, just theater and some are attracted to that. Holiness is not determined by singing, "Twice around the flagpole with Palestrina," or even good chant. Maybe great music, but not really the basis for genuine faith and practice.

    I tend to look at the little lady or gentleman praying quietly in the pews as the essence of what is really important at either form of mass.
  • Schönbergian
    Posts: 137
    Only a tabloid would make a statement like that under the guise of a "correspondent" and without any semblance of fact-checking or attempting to correlate the information. They continue to smear individuals who openly describe themselves as celibate, and speak of a CMAA "civil war" which I don't quite remember.

    In an ideal world, the choir loft would be filled 100% by Catholics who support their own musical tradition and work to continue it. Obviously, that is far from reality, with the majority of prominent Catholic musicians focusing on the garbage that OCP and the like churn out, leaving secular musicians to pick up the slack. If we purged all those that CM considers "heathens" from our ministry, (in my experience) each parish with a formerly ample choir might optimistically have merely enough for a single cantor and organist, perhaps enough to handle chant and leading hymns if he/she is skilled enough. Perhaps that's what CM is wishing for after all?
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 7,279
    The discussion on that panel went in a strange direction: parishes with little to no interest in the sacrament of confession are letting their people go to perdition; while parishes with many penitents are bad because they have so much sin going on.

    I think the panelists are overlooking something.

    Speaking of possible sins, I'm not sure that anonymous gossip and detraction are going to be counted as virtues.
  • Liam
    Posts: 3,417
    Eponymous Flower blog also picked up story without crediting it to CM.
  • Jeffrey Quick
    Posts: 1,368
    I'm not sure that anonymous gossip and detraction are going to be counted as virtues.

    "But we weren't mentioning any NAMES". No, just the one detail that makes it obvious who you're talking about.
    Thanked by 2CharlesW Salieri
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 9,283
    I don't know who he was talking about. Maybe everyone doesn't.
  • Jeffrey,

    I don't know any of the details, but I find myself asking: why would an active sodomitical lifestyle be promoted (if it is) by the CMAA?
    Thanked by 1Ben Yanke
  • kevinfkevinf
    Posts: 1,029
    I know exactly the party in question, not that that it is important. However, it does go to the heart of what has become the open question,particularly with the Cardinal McCarrick affair. Those who lead, what should they be in terms of relation to the Church and to the states of life assigned by the Church.

    I leave that for you to answer. I know where I come down, after McCarrick's debacle, which I had a personal stake in.
    Thanked by 2MarkB Jeffrey Quick
  • Kevin,

    Just so I'm not confused, you're not declaring Cardinal McCarrick some kind of Traditionalist, are you?
  • kevinfkevinf
    Posts: 1,029
    No...none whatsoever.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 7,279
    Of course not: that would ruin his reputation. ;-)
    Thanked by 1Jahaza
  • MarkB
    Posts: 58
    Those who lead, what should they be in terms of relation to the Church and to the states of life assigned by the Church.


    At the very least, those who lead should not present 1) manifest/public, 2) prolonged/enduring, 3) obstinate/unrepentant, 4) grave/objectively serious, 5) sin or 6) witness contrary to Catholic doctrine or morality. Anyone who does should not lead and should be removed if he won't voluntarily step down.

    It gets thornier when the circumstances are not manifest/public, only known to other leadership such as bishops or pastors. As in the McCarrick affair that went on for decades, clerics in positions of authority had full knowledge but did nothing. Silence and inaction are not the answer, but neither is a public outing. Internal channels for addressing the personnel incongruity should be used to the full extent available to anyone with knowledge of a bad apple, always with respect for the reputation of the persons involved when the matter is not already public.
    Thanked by 1hilluminar
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 2,181
    CM is really, at this point, little more than a Catholic (not sure whether I should use inverted commas or not) version of The Sun. They really don't care about people and their salvation, they just rant on and on about their vices, condemning everyone who doesn't agree with them and their "magisterium" to eternal perdition. To their mind charity is some type of "effeminate" weekness, all that they seem to be interested in is gossip and destroying the reputations of good people.

    I have an inkling of who(m?) they are speaking, and it's a shame (assuming my thinking is correct). I am sure that there are plenty of people who attend CMAA events, or who belong to CMAA, who are in various places in their conversion (which is a continual process) and who experience same-sex attractions, but who are trying their best to live a Christian life, and who may fall more or less frequently. It's not up to me to assume anything, least of all to condemn them. Apparently, praying for someone's conversion is "effeminate", too, for the CM people--the only solution is total war: Love the sinner, hate the sin? Nah, kill 'em all, and let God sort them out.

    Read the comments at CM: apart from nonsensical debates about married v. celebate clergy in the Latin & Greek rites, there are people waffling on about how they are more masculine than anyone else and how the clergy fear them for it (give me a break!); they are castigating Bp. Fulton Sheen and Card. Burke for being "feminine".

    Frankly, I think that V***s has gathered unto himself a group of men who, for whatever reason, are obsessed with homosexuality. They see it everywhere. It's almost pathological.

    I'm going to stop now, before I start foaming at the mouth.
  • Kathy
    Posts: 4,946
    I haven't seen the panel before. What a bunch of dopes.
    Thanked by 1Salieri
  • melofluentmelofluent
    Posts: 4,158
    "If thou, O Lord, wilt mark iniquities: Lord, who shall stand?"
  • madorganist
    Posts: 380
    A witch hunt, pure and simple. The whole thing is infuriating. First they try to associate the CMAA with the lavender mafia via Weakland, now this. It really doesn't take much detective work to find out which CMAA presenter "leads the music program at one of the nation's largest Episcopal parishes." I note that some of the commenters didn't read carefully and think this is about an Episcopalian who works for a Catholic church, not vice versa. I can't stand Voris and would be delighted to see a libel suit come from this. (The guy could use a good psychologist too. Lots of projection going on.)

    Any scandal here was caused by Church Militant, not the musician in question. I would rather have some of the excellent openly gay singers I've known over the years in my choir than a lot of the pious people who think the parish life revolves around their homeschooling family of nine. The former are often much more dependable. Just keep your sexuality and your politics out of my choir loft!
    Thanked by 1Olivier
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 9,283
    Just keep your sexuality and your politics out of my choir loft!


    That's what I said. I have enough distractions without anyone bringing more with them.
    Thanked by 1madorganist
  • TimTheEnchanterTimTheEnchanter
    Posts: 128
    I hate to say just ignore CM, but... seriously, they are just nattering nabobs of negativism. They are incredibly harmful to Holy Mother Church. Ignore them.
    Thanked by 2Salieri Carol
  • Ben YankeBen Yanke
    Posts: 3,112
    In an ideal world, the choir loft would be filled 100% by Catholics who support their own musical tradition and work to continue it.


    How is this an unreachable ideal? If you only have one actual Catholic singer, then propers and ordinary by a single cantor it is. If there's none, you have low mass.
    Thanked by 1CCooze
  • Gamba
    Posts: 78
    MV himself admits to having had relations with men, before deciding on a life of celibacy. It’s a tale as old as time; angry closeted man directs the rage of his cognitive dissonance at someone he perceives to be less closeted.

    As to the person being slandered, is it any wonder, with abuse like this, that he wants to work in a safer environment?
    Thanked by 2madorganist BruceL
  • madorganist
    Posts: 380
    If you only have one actual Catholic singer, then propers and ordinary by a single cantor it is.
    Ben Yanke, I could be mistaken, but I doubt a solo cantor was what Schönbergian had in mind when he used the word filled. I suspect he meant just that - a choir loft full of Catholics. Would you agree that that's a nobler ideal than a solo cantor?
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 2,181
    I never really followed Voris much; but I know people who do. Once he outed himself I noticed a change: CM seemed to be focusing 110% on homosexuality--it's as if he's trying to prove his own Catholic street cred.

    I'll be honest: rewatching the video, some on the panel did make my 'gaydar' go off a bit.

    (Chonak: not sure if this comment meets forum guidelines--feel free to delete if not. No hard feelings.)
    Thanked by 1madorganist
  • Ben YankeBen Yanke
    Posts: 3,112
    Would you agree that that's a nobler ideal than a solo cantor?


    No - it's absolutely not a nobler ideal to have people who are actively undermining the church through their lifestyle compared to a single faithful cantor.


    Let's not forget that to have a high Mass, the loft only need be "filled" with a single cantor capable of reading chant notation. I'd love to see more than that, but not at the expense of undermining our own teachings.

    This direction the discussion has gone has really surprised me, to be perfectly honest.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 7,279
    The Gospel gives us instructions about how to deal with a grievance against a brother. If I remember right, the procedure prescribed by our Lord does not include public denunciation as step #1 or #2. It doesn't say to denounce the person anyway, even after the grievance is resolved.
  • madorganist
    Posts: 380
    In an ideal world, the choir loft would be filled 100% by Catholics who support their own musical tradition and work to continue it.
    No - it's absolutely not a nobler ideal to have people who are actively undermining the church through their lifestyle compared to a single faithful cantor.
    Where did you get the part about "actively undermining the church through their lifestyle"? We are talking about a solo cantor versus a choir loft filled to capacity with faithful Catholics committed to the musical tradition of the Church. The former is doing the absolute minimum in order to meet the requirements for a Sung Mass. It is very far from ideal, not only in my personal opinion but in what has been articulated in Church documents.

    Granted, I stated above that I would prefer dedicated openly gay singers to unreliable pious ones, provided they keep their sexuality and politics out of the choir loft, but in no sense am I arguing for that as some sort of ideal. You have completely taken these comments in a different direction than intended. I don't think most TLM choir lofts are occupied by people intent on "actively undermining the church." I see no evidence of it whatsoever.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 9,283
    I am more concerned about losing my religion than what singers believe on some Sundays. The basses are leaning against the back wall, half asleep. When it is time to sing they MAY become more alert. The sopranos follow the lead of a loud and gossipy soprano who continually shares her soap opera life with anyone within earshot. She never seems able to cut off on time, either. She has two tempos, drag and slower drag. The altos are few, but make a valiant effort. Wish I had more of them. The tenors? What can one say about tenors? Some days, there is a light on but no one is home.

    Gah!! They can sleep with doorknobs for all I care. It's the singing, or lack of it, that drive me nuts. When I am ready to give up, that rare day comes when all falls into place, the pitches are perfect, and a sound like angels singing flows from the loft. Must be the Holy Spirit at work.
    Thanked by 3Jenny CHGiffen igneus
  • mmeladirectress
    Posts: 497
    >> When I am ready to give up, that rare day comes when all falls into place, the pitches are perfect, and a sound like angels singing flows from the loft. Must be the Holy Spirit at work.

    hold that thought!
    Thanked by 1CharlesW
  • Ben YankeBen Yanke
    Posts: 3,112

    I would prefer dedicated openly gay singers to unreliable pious ones


    At least you're honest about this.
  • madorganist
    Posts: 380
    I'm honest about everything. You can't have a decent choir with people who don't show up. It makes NO difference how holy they are (or think they are). Piety is no substitute for hard work.
  • Kathy
    Posts: 4,946
    Well, hopefully there are hardworking, talented musicians who also live a sacramental life.
  • CCoozeCCooze
    Posts: 713
    You can't have a decent choir with people who don't show up.


    That's debatable (if all you're talking about is rehearsals), but you definitely can have a not-so-great choir, even if everyone always shows up.

    I'm not sure how touting "openly" = obstinately sinful people in one's church choir could help to attract dedicated, Catholic musicians.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 7,279
    My impression is that skilled, dedicated Catholic musicians are more attracted by the quality of a choir's performance (which they can perceive at a distance) than by the virtues of the choir members (which they cannot).
  • Liam
    Posts: 3,417
    In my experience over the decades, I would say Chonak's impression has been borne out much more often than not.
  • madorganist
    Posts: 380
    I'm not sure how touting "openly" = obstinately sinful people in one's church choir could help to attract dedicated, Catholic musicians.
    I'm not sure either. Openly gay means just that: open about one's attraction, nothing more. I said nothing about practicing, active, flamboyant, civilly married, militant, etc. Please quit confusing the comments here with the Church Militant piece. Maybe this thread needs a reminder about official Church teaching?
    CCC 2358 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.
    How does excluding people from the choir on the basis of their attractions alone not constitute "unjust discrimination in their regard"? If you don't accept this Church teaching, that's your problem, but you don't have a right to discriminate on the basis of attraction alone (or presumed "obstinate sinfulness") or to force outdated, bigoted views on others.
  • CCoozeCCooze
    Posts: 713
    The point is that that isn't the connotation that the phrase "openly gay" implies. And, once again, touting that type of attraction is still not helpful if you then try to claim that you didn't mean anything other than attraction, to begin with.

    1867 The catechetical tradition also recalls that there are "sins that cry to heaven": the blood of Abel,139 The sin of the Sodomites,140 The cry of the people oppressed in Egypt,141 The cry of the foreigner, the widow, and the orphan,142 injustice to the wage earner.143

    1868 Sin is a personal act. Moreover, we have a responsibility for the sins committed by others when we cooperate in them:
    - by participating directly and voluntarily in them;
    - by ordering, advising, praising, or approving them;
    - by not disclosing or not hindering them when we have an obligation to do so;
    - by protecting evil-doers.

    1869 Thus sin makes men accomplices of one another and causes concupiscence, violence, and injustice to reign among them. Sins give rise to social situations and institutions that are contrary to the divine goodness. "Structures of sin" are the expression and effect of personal sins. They lead their victims to do evil in their turn. In an analogous sense, they constitute a "social sin."144


    Also, disagreeing with others doesn't make one a bigot... though, by your usage, I could technically call you bigoted for disagreeing with my views, but whatever.
  • dad29
    Posts: 1,537
    So happens I have a number of years' experience singing under the baton of a homosexual, in a Catholic church.

    The language "....undermining the Church through their lifestyle" is important. I suggest that there are many homosexuals who do NOT 'undermine....through lifestyle' because either 1) they are extremely discreet, or 2) they are celibate.

    In the second instance, of course, it is impossible for that individual to 'undermine the Church.' In the first instance, it is highly unlikely.

    Let's now think about how a homosexual choir leader COULD "undermine.....Church."

    I'll start: clear, active, homosexual affections in the presence of members of the church.

    That's one instance. Any others?

    Reminder: there are also adulterous choir leaders (and members)--and drunks, and frauds. There's a reason for the silence of the Jews while Christ was scribbling in the sand.
  • CCoozeCCooze
    Posts: 713
    "discreet"
    "celibate"
    "adulterous... drunks... frauds"


    That's sort of my whole point of (once again, touting) the word "openly" being a problem.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 7,279
    Just for the sake of promoting correct terminology: I believe the right word is not "celibate" (which merely means unmarried) but "abstinent" or "chaste".
    Thanked by 1eft94530
  • melofluentmelofluent
    Posts: 4,158
    The conceit of the CM piece making the rounds here puts us all between a rock and a hard place. We are obliged not to suppress free discussion of its charges, but by engaging in dialogues we necessarily find ourselves either on one side of the line in the sand holding rocks ready to launch, or the other as abject sinners considering repentance. I prefer to identify with the Author, who alone knows and offers the path towards salvation. And in no way does that absolve me of my own sins.....
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 2,181
    Ok, so, we seem to have a problem with language. The problem here is that the usage of these words and phrases is still changing, and depending on various things imply meanings.

    For some, to describe someone/oneself as 'gay' implies acceptance of the lifestyle/agenda; to others it can simply be a convenient way of describing the attraction/condition, because it uses fewer characters (after all, we live in the Twitter Age). Too, with open: it could denote the "out and proud", or it could just mean a person who has, like an alcoholic or anyone else with a lot of baggage, openly acknowledged that this is something that they struggle with.

    Age and culture, I think, has to do with a lot of these differences in meaning. It's like living in the 15th century and not knowing whether to use "egges" or "eyren": the language hasn't settled yet.

    I think we need to remember that we are talking about PEOPLE, not merely an abstract concept. What worries me with all of this, is the blanket condemnation of anyone whom anyone else thinks is "gay" or "effeminat", regardless of hard evidence. It reminds me of McCarthyism. Just because a watcher of CM thinks that his Music Director is "effeminate", does that mean he has the duty to destroy his career, and possibly his faith in order to purge the Church?
  • madorganist
    Posts: 380
    The point is that that isn't the connotation that the phrase "openly gay" implies. And, once again, touting that type of attraction is still not helpful if you then try to claim that you didn't mean anything other than attraction, to begin with.
    @CCooze, what would be your preferred terminology for someone who is:
    1. single
    2. exclusively attracted to adults of the same sex
    3. striving to live a chaste life
    4. not discerning a religious vocation
    5. not remotely interested in Catholic "singles" events or other social interactions geared toward courtship or marriage?

    "Straight"? Confirmed bachelor/spinstress?
  • Kathy
    Posts: 4,946
    I'd call that person a Catholic.
  • madorganist
    Posts: 380
    But would you want to ban that Catholic from your choir when he said, "I'm not attracted to women" or she said, "I'm not attracted to men?"
  • M. Jackson Osborn
    Posts: 6,074
    Flamboyance and what appears to be effeminate behaviour are not infallible signals of gayness. There are gay truck drivers and straight ballet dancers. I have heard more than one teen-ager moan that 'everyone is always thinking that I'm gay' just because he didn't walk like a stevedore, used educated language, was very nice, and was maybe a little bit delicate. What does a gay person look like? Go and look in the mirror. They are as varied as is the normal population. They should be as accepted by us as are adulterers and adultresses, fornicators, spouses who cheat, those who practice any sexual intercourse outside of wedlock and/or that isn't open to the pro-creation of children. The sin is not in to whom one is or isn't attracted erotically, the sin is the practice of any intercourse by anyone that isn't open to pro-creation. It's that simple. One size, in this case, fits all.
    Thanked by 2Salieri a_f_hawkins
  • Kathy
    Posts: 4,946
    madorganist,

    No, and you are pointing to a very important distinction. The Catechism clearly distinguishes between the attraction and the action.
    Thanked by 1madorganist
  • Kathy
    Posts: 4,946
    An old moral theology prof of mine used to try to take some of the emotional content out of discussions of this topic by talking about other disordered attractions that people can have. An example was "drinking paint." It's harmful, and it doesn't have as its goal or result the nutritive goals that drinking normally has.

    If you're drinking paint, and not repenting of drinking paint, you probably shouldn't be a nutritionist.
    Thanked by 1Ben Yanke
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 7,279
    But would you want to ban that Catholic from your choir when he said, "I'm not attracted to women" or she said, "I'm not attracted to men?"

    Discussing the topic at all in the context of the music apostolate of a parish is unwarranted. Depending on diocesan policy, it might be considered a form of misconduct.
    Thanked by 3madorganist Kathy Gamba
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 2,181
    Yes, Jackson; it's like the old joke: Is he gay or English? (Particularly if the person in question is posh.)
    Thanked by 1M. Jackson Osborn
  • CCoozeCCooze
    Posts: 713
    someone who is:
    1. single
    2. exclusively attracted to adults of the same sex
    3. striving to live a chaste life
    4. not discerning a religious vocation
    5. not remotely interested in Catholic "singles" events or other social interactions geared toward courtship or marriage?
    I'd call that person a Catholic.


    You wouldn't go around calling them openly gay, then, right? (Since they apparently have all those qualities and are still not "pious." )
    Right.
  • Kathy
    Posts: 4,946
    Aside from all the other things that the video gets bizarrely wrong, two stand out: their smackdown of prominent Catholics who are trying to promote chastity among those who have same-sex attractions by publicly admitting these feelings themselves, and their extremely weird comments about traddie confessions.

    In both of these cases, people are doing difficult and righteous things, and in order to add to the scandal laundry list these people throw them into the blender and give it a whirl.
    Thanked by 1Salieri
This discussion has been closed.
All Discussions