Church Militant throws shade on CMAA AGAIN
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 2,478
    There are those drawn to scandal as a bee to nectar.

    (I.e., There are those who love to be scandalized.)
    Thanked by 1toddevoss
  • madorganist
    Posts: 536
    You wouldn't go around calling them openly gay, then, right? (Since they apparently have all those qualities and are still not "pious." )
    Right.
    I stand by my original comment:
    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.
    I'm much more concerned about the quality of music making than I am about my singers' personal lives. I'm their choir director, not their spiritual director, and I do my work ad majorem Dei gloriam, not in persona Christi. I have choir members who rarely receive Communion, and the reasons why are simply none of my business. Worthiness to be part of the choir is based on musicianship, attitude, attendance, punctuality, and the like, not interior spiritual dispositions, which I am not qualified to judge. Of course I want to help everyone get to heaven, but as long as nothing is a source of scandal within the parish community, I don't concern myself with it. People have crosses to bear that you and I know nothing about.
    Thanked by 1maestrodicapella
  • To clarify: I did mean a choir loft full of Catholics.

    If enough Catholics were both interested in our tradition and willing to contribute, either as an amateur or a professional, then the choir lofts would be filled with Catholics. For me, as a professional musician and devout Catholic, it was a no-brainer decision. Already, they are filled with merely secular professionals who couldn't care less about the Mass or what even goes on in it - they are drawn merely to the musical experience and to the pay. One never has issues finding singers willing to work for a fee here.

    Obviously the problem is not merely as simple as "hiring Catholics instead of non-", or it already would've been done. I do not see this problem when I work at churches of other denominations, which achieve equivalently spectacular work with choirs comprised of more than 50% members of that denomination.

    I do not see an issue with hiring a secular individual or a gay one to work in the choir loft. This starts us down the slippery slope of whether the choir member in question has gone to Confession lately, how well they are participating in the extramusical aspects of the liturgy, questioning how strong their personal belief in God is, and so on. It's meaningless, frankly, and seemingly endless. As others have said, keep your personal life out of the choir loft and you're as welcome as the others. I believe an exception could be made for those actually undermining the Church, eg. protesting outside one on Saturday and working there on Sunday - but that's not the majority of these cases.

    I find it concerning that CM is trying to crack down on outed homosexuals who are attempting to live a chaste lifestyle, most of all.
  • WillWilkin
    Posts: 27
    I can say that, without exception, the few people I've known who I had no doubt were gay --were very excellent people, kind and loving, gentle and good to others. I consider myself very Catholic (and very heterosexual), but in those instances where canon law or catechisms are cited chapter and verse to condemn the homosexual, I find the church to be grievously in the wrong. And I don't look forward to whatever condemnation will come my way for saying it, but that is from the depths of my conscience.
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,069
    Niceness isn't the issue. Neither is same-sex attraction.
  • dad29
    Posts: 1,747
    in those instances where canon law or catechisms are cited chapter and verse to condemn the homosexual, I find the church to be grievously in the wrong.


    The Church condemns SINS, not homosexuals. Further, it is a matter of fact, not "condemnation", that a homosexual (or lesbian) has an intrinsic disorder--until only 20 (?) years ago, the DSM of the psychiatrists agreed.
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 8,303
    I find the church to be grievously in the wrong
    It does not matter how 'excellent, kind and loving, gentle and good to others' WE judge others to be.
    Thanked by 1CCooze
  • Jeffrey Quick
    Posts: 1,529
    Re all this talk about interior disposition: I've been having a discussion at CM with a woman who claims to be able to detect the spiritual disposition of the musicians, and would rather have no music or bad music than music made by non-Catholic professionals. I don't understand this. And it makes me uncomfortable, because I began my church music career as a non-Christian, know that the exposure made my conversion possible, and would like others to have the same opportunity.

    I'm with madorganist. All things being equal, would I rather have a straight than a gay chorister? Eh ya you betcha. Would I rather have a loftful of competent devout volunteers? Sure... though they have a habit of being devout right when you need them to be ready to sing the Benedictus. But I get whom God sends, and am thankful for them. I might have to trim somebody if their personality disorders (and gayness is one) threaten the stability of the choir. But if they don't, and are competent.... And I don't get the gold star on my forehead just because the disordered sexuality of my youth involved women.
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,069
    I do wish "disorder" sounded different in English. In Church-speak, it means something like "aiming away from its end"--missing the target. Homosexual relations intrinsically miss the target, because sexual relations have a target of baby-making that homosexual relations (and many other activities) do not.
    Thanked by 1MNadalin
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,069
    (If all this arrow-talk sounds rather phallic, well...)
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 8,303
    But I get whom God sends, and am thankful for them.
    It is entirely possible that God did not send them...
  • melofluentmelofluent
    Posts: 4,160
    Well, if that isn't purple prose......
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 8,303
    Get real, yall... we are in an outright war and hell is very willing to infiltrate the ranks... escpecially the choirloft and the sacristy.
    Thanked by 1Ben Yanke
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,108
    I don't inquire into the personal lives of my choir members. My choir is an older group of people and I am no longer young, either. I remarked to a deacon who preached on sex a few weeks ago, "Stop preaching about sex to us old people. We no longer care." I mentioned that during the sermon I turned to a fellow member who is not that much younger than I, and said, "What's he talking about." My friend said, "I don't remember." We all had a good laugh over all that.

    I can see keeping someone out of the choir if they create a disruption. If they come, do their jobs, and are reliable, that's what is important. Trying to segregate out those not like us denies us the opportunity to set a good example, and they lose the opportunity to benefit from that example.

    My pastor mentioned during a conversation just last week, that people often seem to want to seem special or superior to others. No matter what they think they derive from it, it is a waste of time and effort.

    An afterthought. My friend of many years who is gay, drives a truck, is quite athletic, has muscles like you wouldn't believe, and could clean the floor with most folks any day. He is also one of the most honest people I have ever met.
    Thanked by 2CHGiffen bhcordova
  • GambaGamba
    Posts: 205
    I don’t think we should forget the spiritual benefits that singing the liturgy imparts. Is that not why we all are here, and why we spend our lives as we do?

    I am tremendously grateful to have welcomed and directed LGBT+ singers, both professional and volunteer. In many cases they have felt able to share with me their sense of belonging in the choir, after years of doubting whether God exists and loved them, and being certain the Church didn’t want them around.

    In certain cases, folks I hired as ringers for Holy Week or some other event decided they wanted to sing for me as volunteers every single week, even when it meant losing the usual Sunday-gigging income. I am almost certain that if I had banished anyone from the choir for being gay, they would not have appeared the next week in in the pews, and would likely never return to church, after yet another rejection.

    Some former Evangelicals who are gay eventually chose to be catechized and confirmed, and now live a joyful life close to Jesus and his gifts, having established a good relationship with the pastor and relying on his spiritual direction.

    As to the possibility of unworthy reception of the Eucharist, I can only worry about myself. Some of my singers receive the Lord; others don’t. I can’t practice during Confession, and I don’t have the confessional bugged, so I have no idea who goes there or what they say. I do try to expound the texts of the liturgy in rehearsal as best I can, so that the singers at least have an understanding of the Faith, if not a belief. That’s beyond my control, as is what they do or do not do in the other 165 hours of the week.

    We tell our singers all the time that choir is for learning and growing as musicians, and I hope with all my heart that it is a place for learning and growing as Christians.

    Isaiah 55:10-13

    For as the rain cometh down and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, and giveth seed to the sower and bread to the eater;

    So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

    For ye shall go out with joy, and be led forth with peace: the mountains and the hills shall break forth before you into singing; and all the trees of the fields shall clap their hands.
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 2,478
    Just popped over to CM to watch the conflagration. What sickens me is the attitude summed up in a recent comment: "How can a traditionalist be a sinner?" So only the perfect can attend the TLM now. OK. I guess the FSSP & ICKSP really don't need to exist because either everyone is a sinner (by virtue of fallen human nature) and are thus unable to be traditionalists, or everyone attending those Masses is already perfect and so no longer need the sacraments. It's this kind of hypocrisy that Bergoglio must have encountered that has made him so hostile to traditionalists...in which case, who can blame him?

    A number of years ago a contingent of the FSSP came to my parish for a week to celebrate a few Masses. In an interview with the Diocesan news, the priest said something that stuck with me. Namely: People shouldn't think of themselves as better Catholics for attending the traditional Mass; rather they should take a more humble path and consider that perhaps they need a better Mass in order to overcome their sinfulness and become holy.

    I have to agree with Jeffrey: I am Catholic today, and God willing, will so remain until my death, because of my involvement with music. I basically stopped practicing by the time I was in 6th grade, but I was offered a position as Assistant Organist at my parish while I was in Middle School--this kept me going to Mass. I never went to confession and never went to communion, but I was at Mass. When I was confirmed I went to confession (I trust it was valid--I didn't intentionally hide anything) and received communion, but after that, that was it (in my Sophomore year). Through the rest of High School (graduated in 2005) and beyond I did not practice: but by the time I took over as Director of Music, I was playing daily Masses (I was attending 8 Masses a week), had discovered Gregorian chant and the Old Mass -- Summorum came out. The year before my first Colloquium I went to confession for the first time since I was in High School, but I fell away again. But still attended those 8 Masses. The next year 2012, I attended my first Colloquium : it was as near a Damascus moment I could imagine: the whole thing so indescribably beautiful, and the example of the faculty so edifying, that I decided that I needed to make regular confession and communion part of my life. It hasn't been easy--I have fallen many times, some times dangerously so (and thankfully one year Colloquium and a good and thorough confession with Fr. Pasley came at the right time and saved me, seriously)--but I have been trying. If it wasn't for music and CMAA I honestly don't think that I would be a Catholic today.
  • Carol
    Posts: 481
    Salieri, beautiful example and thank you for sharing in such a personal way! Also, thank you for giving hope to this mother whose sons are currently away from the church. If they come back, it will most likely begin through music.
  • .
  • At the risk of getting Sulphur called down upon my head from both groups, may I suggest a way beyond the question of kind, or honest or whatever?

    Holy Mother Church tells us, even in the documents of Vatican II and following that those filling liturgical roles must be known to be upright in their lives. The divorced and re-married aren't supposed to be serving as lectors, extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion or, by logical extension, members of the choir. It's not because these people are unkind or have small biceps or are perpetually tardy or anything of the kind. Rather, it is because this is the public worship of the Church, and it is simply wrong (no matter how common) that those who live lives publicly known to contradict the teachings of the Church to participate in (thereby) hypocritically fulfilling a role in a faith they don't share.
  • melofluentmelofluent
    Posts: 4,160
    Get real, yall... we are in an outright war and hell is very willing to infiltrate the ranks... escpecially the choirloft and the sacristy.


    francis, I'd ask you to reconsider your rhetoric above. It seems to me that many of us have to "get real" every time we choose to lead folks in service to God. We "get real" by discerning where each of us has transgressed and repented, and then reference that to the presumption of truly sinful behaviors among those with whom we associate. Alienation by us against them in order to self-actuate some sort of remnant, orthodox and truly "faithful" Church is NOT tantamount to Christ's winnowing the chaff from the wheat; only He is Christ, we are not pantocrators. I "get" why the hyperbole is so urgent to you, and you're not wrong to witness to Gospel truths and values. But I am loathe to wonder if there's some odd component of throwing the baby out with the bathwater (pardon the pun) with a take-no-prisoners mindset in one's personal dealings.
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 1,554
    We have had a similar problem... A certain TLM schola over the pond had two excellent cantors, that happened to share a apartment. Having visited the apartment with a priest for dinner, all I can say is the food and wine was excellent, and that they had painted the flat with murals in the style of the old rock churches of the east.

    Sadly the gossip about these two men was always about how many bedrooms and beds they had in their flat. Although I got the impression there were separate bedrooms, I may have been mistaken.

    My view is that if we started banning sinners from choirs we would not have choirs, I also find it sad that so much ink is spilt over allegations of just one type of sexual sin. What about the others?

    While there is little harm in dressing and acting in a way that is associated with a homosexual lifestyle, it is of course totally different to display same sex sexual behaviour in public. While it is sad that we have such situations they are never helped by endless gossip, and any action about such situations is best dealt with in the confessional.

    We have a duty to avoid public scandal... now is it scandalous to have a homosexual running a church choir? Well in my experience most of the scandal comes from needless gossip! so if the gossips kept their morbid fascination with what goes on in other members of our communities lives we would have less of a problem.

    Having met Micheal Voris, I feel that only those who have suffered from same sex attraction can really understand how spiritually dangerous such inclinations and action can be. Also we have been shown by the data from the various child abuse scandals that the Church did not really have a pederast priest problem, (very few of the victims were pre-pubescent children) but more a homosexual priest problem with many victims being youths and young men. So it is not surprising that some catholics have a problem with homosexuals being in positions of authority.
  • ...just one type of sexual sin. What about the others?
    Hear, hear!
    They are all equally bad.
    None is more or less sinful and disgusting than any other.
    They all arise from an intrinsic disorder - lust.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,108
    I have had it with rabid TLMers who see everyone's sins but their own. There is nothing wrong with the TLM but some of its adherents give it a very bad name. As I mentioned earlier, there is a strong case to be made for minding one's own business when no scandal or disruption is occurring in the choir loft. It was an act of wisdom when the church put choirs in lofts where they can be heard but not seen.
    Thanked by 2Carol madorganist
  • Carol
    Posts: 481
    Remember that some of those "divorced and remarried" have gone through the long, arduous process of receiving an annulment. My brother and his wife both did this and it took a long time and a lot of patience and humility to see it through. These couples deserve our respect for not giving up and leaving the Church.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 7,907
    Speaking of censorious people, the pastor at one local TLM has to remind the congregation sternly a couple of times a year that they aren't there to correct other people attending the Mass in regard to what they wear or what their babies are doing. If there is any problem, people should inform the pastor about it, and let him decide whether anything needs to be done at all, and, if so, what.
  • Ben YankeBen Yanke
    Posts: 3,114
    I find it sad that so much ink is spilt over allegations of just one type of sexual sin. What about the others?


    What about them? If a parish's choir director is living with their girlfriend, they should equally be removed after being privately talked to and urged to repent. If any CMAA faculty you're aware of are in public adultery, I'd hope they do the same.

    Not understanding all the hypotheticals here, as if this is the only moral line anyone cares about. It's not.
  • By the logic expressed above, pornography addicts should not be allowed to sing in the choir.

    Let's not forget that CM has actually driven people away from the church. I am reminded of a particular call to Catholic Answers in which such a case is described.

    There's no such thing as a perfect church. If there were, join it; and it'd no longer be a perfect church.

    I'll have to agree with those who would permit those so-called "openly gay" people to their choirs. Unless they are creating some sort of scandal, we must also be open to the possibility that the experience of weekly Mass and beautiful music might change their hearts.
  • Despite the high emotions and hyperbole apparent at times throughout this thread, I suspect that most of us are in the same place. It isn't about condemnation of a particular sin / behavior / disorder in particular... it is about avoiding public scandal and doing the best we can to maintain high standards of liturgical music within our own sphere.

    "AND" means that having a good liturgical music program doesn't come at the expense of giving public scandal, regardless of the form. "Scandal" as in open actions against the Faith, not speculation on the part of arm-chair parishioners / media nor gossip from the peanut gallery.

    I believe that all of us would have an issue with someone in our loft who exhibited an agenda of any kind that we perceived as detrimental either to the Faith on the one hand or to the health / unity of our choir on the other. Regardless of whether the agenda is liberal or conservative in nature, if it gives scandal to the Faith or if it compromises the unity of our choir, I imagine we would all be potentially ruthless to protect our group, our family, our parish, our Church. I also seriously doubt that any of us would try to probe the spirituality or investigate things that are held privately... kind of hard to see "private" as maintaining an agenda.

    Maybe we should put aside our own prejudices - whether of liberal bent or conservative bent - and focus on what we really mean.
    Thanked by 3Salieri Carol Jenny
  • ViolaViola
    Posts: 321
    Trying to be positive: I see our choir as a means of evangelising. Most of us are committed Catholics, but some aren't. We hope and pray that those members who are faltering in their faith, or have no faith, may be strengthened through their membership of the choir. One member, at present with no religious affiliation, is currently considering becoming a Catholic.
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,069
    Incardination, I'm not sure we're all on the same page.

    Some people have said that as long as the situation is not public--that is, if scandal is avoided--that the person's relationship with the Church's teaching is not an issue.

    Some have said that everyone in the choir should be a practicing Catholic. I take this to be partly due to the fact that as being in some sense ministers of the Church, the persons ministering should have personal buy-in to the commitments the Church requires.

    Others take a laissez-faire approach, especially towards the elderly (!)

    Others feel that Church music is a good pathway to fidelity. No doubt it often is. (Is it possible, on the other hand, to be an enabling that causes all kinds of irony and hardening of the heart? Is the possibility of grace and change worth the risk of irony and obduracy?)

    Others, no doubt, would positively promote a policy of radical inclusion, including persons who are persistently living unchastity according to Church teaching, based on their own doubts or rejection of the teaching.
    Thanked by 1Salieri
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 2,478
    The tricky thing is that people are, well, people; we are all different, except that we are all fallen and all in need of salvation. Anything involving people and their baggage (of various sorts) need to be dealt with on an individual basis. And this isn't just about people with homosexual inclinations: it includes mothers with small children, hired instrumentalists, anything and anyone at all that poses the possibility of being a distraction or cause of scandal. It has to be dealt with case by case
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 8,303
    It is certainly a tricky thing. There is no one size fits all in our musical/pastoral situations. I think the real problem is in the extremes on both ends. Having musicians that are not Catholic can be an opportunity for some to enter the church. I have had that situation with paid section leaders in the past. Although, I did inherit them from the director that was there before me and I would've made more effort to enlist specifically Catholic choristers if I were filling the positions. Nonetheless, as said above, the church must avoid public scandal by including those in public ministry that could be the cause of such.
  • I'm not saying we all do things from the same end of the spectrum, but when push comes to shove, we are very much in the same boat. The original comments were about open and public scandal.

    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.

    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!

    there are also adulterous choir leaders (and members)--and drunks, and frauds.

    That's sort of my whole point of (once again, touting) the word "openly" being a problem.


    I think the real point is - let's not imagine that we are so very different in practice simply because our standards happen to be at different places. All of us (even those who apparently see themselves as "tolerant") would eliminate someone we feel was demonstrating an open agenda that was contrary to the ethos of the choir, or to the Faith as we understand it. There's no point in fomenting about "TLMers" or "libs". We would all of us act protectively when it comes to safeguarding the Faith (according to our perception) and the integrity of our own group in the loft.

    I think - if we read some of the original comments in that light, we might see that we are more closely aligned in practice than is otherwise apparent.

    We could discuss the standards that drive our responses - that might be productive. But what I'm seeing is devolving into "Trads are rabid hypocrites" or "Libs put music above the Faith".

    Thanked by 1Salieri
  • Ben, I haven't seen my choir director go to Confession in months, and I'm certain they have unconfessed sins, but I see them receive the Eucharist every week. Would you join me in kicking them out of the loft for their un-Catholic behaviour?
    Thanked by 1Casavant Organist
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,069
    Incardination, in my travels, I have seen persons with an "open agenda" in positions of Roman Catholic musical leadership.
    Thanked by 1Incardination
  • Indeed, the mere fact that confession lines are so short would likely preclude many ministers from exercising their ministry.

    I don't think Jesus told Peter that he would no longer lead the Church after Peter denied him three times.
    Thanked by 1madorganist
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,069
    People can go to confession to any priest. Nobody knows about that.

    People often do know about other peoples' relationships or other lifestyle decisions, due to self-disclosure.
  • CCoozeCCooze
    Posts: 737
    Yes, I've specifically heard people in our parish (especially in leadership positions) say that it would be too awkward to go to confession with one of our priests - and this isn't to fault any of our priests. Apparently, people like to hide their sins and failings from their employers.
    I'm not sure I understand this mindset, unless their confessions include speaking badly about the people on their committees / in their choirs?

    I've had to schedule time for confessions elsewhere, before, just because rehearsals run into the time of confessions before Mass, and I'd have to leave rehearsal early, or stay after for the next Mass's confession time.
  • Liam
    Posts: 3,822
    "Apparently, people like to hide their sins and failings from their employers.
    I'm not sure I understand this mindset, unless their confessions include speaking badly about the people on their committees / in their choirs?"

    Because employees don't owe employers a duty of confession of their sins and failings. It's that simple. Employees are not religious with a duty of public self-accusation before their superior.

    I can see why penitents, to whom the Roman Catholic Church guarantees the option of anonymity (unlike Eastern churches, where confession is normally in-person before an ikon), who regularly deal with priests might find their anonymity compromised by a much higher likelihood of having their voice recognized - a concern that can get in the way of a good confession.

    (Anyway, this thread offers abundant examples of why people volunteering for choirs should maintain a fairly high wall of discretion about their life outside of choir because someone at some point is likely to have a contrary opinion and think they have a duty to do something about it to fulfill the old adage that, when two or three are gathered in His Name - there'll be trouble. Musicians can be prone to personal drama, more especially when they believe they are underpaid and underappreciated. Much like other artists - and academics.)
  • CCoozeCCooze
    Posts: 737
    I'm fairly certain that our priests probably know my voice, as well. I'm not sure that it's worth purposely going out of my way to avoid their confessional, though. *shrug*

    When it comes down to it, though, I highly doubt that priests are trying to figure out who it is that is on the other side of the confessional screen. I'd imagine that they try their hardest to do the opposite. I think we all take ourselves a little too seriously.
  • Liam
    Posts: 3,822
    "When it comes down to it, though, I highly doubt that priests are trying to figure out who it is that is on the other side of the confessional screen. I'd imagine that they try their hardest to do the opposite. I think we all take ourselves a little too seriously."

    I might give myself that feedback if I were inclined to follow suit, but I would strain to avoid characterizing other penitents that way. It's not humble to throw shade on a seeming lack of humility in others. Besides, even assuming the good faith of the confessor in this matter, the very issue can be a prudent reason why a penitent would seek an alternative confessor where there is less risk of internal distraction in this matter.
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,069
    Priests technically aren't allowed to let knowledge gained in confession affect governance, but that might be difficult. I don't see any reason to put a boss-priest in that position.
    Thanked by 2Liam MNadalin
  • >>> I haven't seen my choir director go to Confession in months, and I'm certain they have unconfessed sins, but I see them receive the Eucharist every week.

    be careful here.
    firstly, the laws are:
    (a) one is *required* to confess grave sins only. Sure it's good to confess one's venial sins, but is not required.
    (b) one is *required* to confess once a year. Sure, more often, or much more often, is healthy and good, but not required.
    secondly, unless someone is at the church all day, all evening, 365 days a year, I wonder how they could possibly say how long it has been since any other person has been to Confession.
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 2,478
    [U]nless someone is at the church all day, all evening, 365 days a year, I wonder how they could possibly say how long it has been since anyone except he/she has been to Confession.

    Unfortunately, these people do exist: they are the parish gossips--sometimes there are networks of them.
    Thanked by 2CharlesW bhcordova
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 7,907
    [I think the topic has been covered pretty thoroughly, so I'm going to "sink" the thread now, and let other topics get some more attention.--admin]
  • Ben YankeBen Yanke
    Posts: 3,114
    Would you join me in kicking them out of the loft for their un-Catholic behaviour?


    If those unconfessed sins include public immoral relationships which they have not repented of, absolutely.


    What is it with all the seamless cloth people, pretending as if homosexual relationships are on the same level as any other petty sin? This is clearly heretical theology manifesting itself: 1 John 5:17.
  • melofluentmelofluent
    Posts: 4,160
    I thought the thread was sunk.....sigh.
    IIRC, I don't think either the concept of "seamless garment" or any reference to Cdl. Bernardin RIP was made evident in the thread, Ben. And I also cannot agree that there has been pretense of the supposed validity of homosexual physical activity on a par with other grave sin by a majority of posters here. Perhaps from the reality that such behaviors are not witnessed directly in the loft and elsewhere (including late night drink and gabfests at conventions) leads folks to conclude they have no jurisdiction in the deliberation of presumptive scandal. That is a clear lesson taught us by the account of the woman caught in adultery. And she was CAUGHT!
    I'm left to wonder if this whole thread will be misappropriated as proof of CMAA "duality."
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,108
    I never accepted seamless cloth and thought it a crock. However, as far as the personal lives of my choir members, whatever it is:

    I didn't cause it
    I can't fix it
    I probably don't even know about it.

    It's called doing your job and minding your own business. In reality, we are all getting too old to do anything scandalous or exciting. Those seeking scandal will have to look elsewhere.
  • madorganist
    Posts: 536
    They [sexual sins] are all equally bad.
    None is more or less sinful and disgusting than any other.
    They all arise from an intrinsic disorder - lust.
    St. Thomas teaches that there is a gravity among sexual sins. I believe his thinking on the matter is representative of Catholic teaching in general. Simple fornication, while objectively a mortal sin, is less grave than self-abuse, which is less grave than sodomy, which is less grave than bestiality. Sexual sins may be aggravated by marital status, consanguinity, lack of consent, age, violence, or other circumstances, or mitigated by habit, immaturity, psychological disturbances, or other circumstances. Behavior that is a venial sin between two teenagers may be a very grave sin when it involves a man and woman having an extramarital affair. The solitary vice of a single man with a twenty year habit may be venial, whereas the same action would be mortal in the case of a man who was neglecting his wife. Impure thoughts involving consent to something that is only a venial sin might not be sinful at all when engaged in by someone who is half asleep. Obviously, something that's not spoken of openly is unlikely to cause scandal.

    If a man admits openly that he is not attracted to women, in many Catholic circles there will be a presumption that he is sexually active (a "sodomite," as some like to say). It's very unfair, when single heterosexual men are not presumed to be fornicators, and women are only presumed to be immoral if they actually dress or behave immodestly. I think it is exactly the sort of discrimination the catechism speaks against, and it should have no place in our choir lofts. The vast majority of us here would be in agreement that someone who wears a rainbow flag T-shirt to choir rehearsal or announces his or her homosexual betrothal, either in person or via social media, should probably be excluded from the church choir because of scandal. Unfortunately, many also seem eager to exclude dedicated musicians who would prefer to keep their personal lives private, and that's wrong. Rash judgment is a sin, and so are calumny and detraction. Everyone has a right to his or her good name.
    Thanked by 2eft94530 CharlesW
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,108
    Good Lord, do the Latins ever like to split hairs when it comes to sin. In the east, we have sin. It's all bad. LOL.

    Unfortunately, many also seem eager to exclude dedicated musicians who would prefer to keep their personal lives private, and that's wrong. Rash judgment is a sin, and so are calumny and detraction. Everyone has a right to his or her good name.


    I completely agree on this. That exclusion you mention is wrong. People seem to love to jump to conclusions, even when they are not warranted.

    Thanked by 1tomjaw
This discussion has been closed.
All Discussions