Church Militant throws shade on CMAA AGAIN
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,033
    You can't ever say "St. Thomas Aquinas" without the Palamites ripping medieval theology ;)

    In this discussion, the voice in favor of the strictest observance has been Ben (has Ben been?), and I'm sure he has not suggested any kind of inquisition squad subjecting all single men in the choir loft to thumbscrews and the rack to root out any potential homosexual tendencies.

    I'm not sure where all the overstatement is coming from.

    The question is what ought to be done when unrepentant, ongoing, serious sin (embezzlement, grand theft auto, etc etc) is publicly known to be committed by anyone in the category of liturgical minister.
  • Ben YankeBen Yanke
    Posts: 3,114
    The question is what ought to be done when unrepentant, ongoing, serious sin (embezzlement, grand theft auto, etc etc) is public known to be committed by anyone in the category of liturgical minister.


    This is indeed the question at hand - one which seems to have been, for the most part, hand-waved away, primarily through a false comparison of artificially limited options, such as....

    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.


    Why this false dichotomy? You could say that about anything:
    • "I'd rather have a tricycle than a car with a leaky gas tank for my 50 mile commute!"
    • "I'd rather have a lazy wife than one who beats my children!"
    • "I'd rather live in a cardboard box than be thrown in jail for trying to break into someone's house to sleep in!"
    • "I'd rather give a kleptomaniac my house key instead of leave it unlocked while I'm gone!"


    I'll pull out the world's smallest violin as we think of more contrived, terrible decisions to pick between. We can do this all day.

    When in the meantime, there is of course another option: hire musicians who are both hard working, AND fully Catholic (or hire no musicians at all - keeping in mind music is not a strict requirement for the liturgy - this coming from someone who avoids low Masses at all costs).

    And by the way, you really believe it makes no difference how holy liturgical ministers are? I shutter to think at the theology of that one...(no, I'm not talking about validity - I'm talking about witnessing to those people they serve).
    Thanked by 1Incardination
  • TCJ
    Posts: 636
    After reading this, I perceive another problem.

    Mr. O' Donnell (I think that's the name) at the Colloquium was speaking about the language game and how the meaning of words are always being changed on us to place the opposition in a more favorable situation.

    Well, one of those situations has taken place in regard to discussing people who have same sex attraction. Those who push a perverted lifestyle as just one of many legitimate options would have us start identifying such people in a special way. We have become accustomed to refer to them by their inclinations. Why? It gives them a certain credibility - it is WHO they are. Or at least, that is how it is in their minds. But do we engage in such manner of speaking when referring to other people? What about a person prone to bouts of anger? "Hi, I'm Bob and I often fly into fits of rage. Accept me for who I am."

    People should never identify themselves by their sinful tendencies and neither should we. If such a person is openly telling others "I'm gay" then that is certainly a red flag that this person wants the attention and desires to be seen as such and likely isn't trying all that hard to be chaste.

    Let's stop playing the word games with the liberals.
    Thanked by 1Ben Yanke
  • madorganist
    Posts: 519
    Ban Yanke, I don't see the false dichotomy you're trying to point out. You give several examples, but it's unclear what the point of reference is. You can't rehearse or perform with people who don't show up for whatever reason, regardless of whether they're living saints, mass murderers, drunks, or queer as a football bat. And yes, it makes absolutely no difference how holy liturgical ministers are when they can't be counted on to show up. Shudder all you want, but I think you would be much better off with a scoundrel who took his appointed duty seriously. I have the impression that you're replying to some argument that hasn't actually been made in this thread.

    Getting back to the concrete situation at hand, I'll now address Kathy's comment:
    The question is what ought to be done when unrepentant, ongoing, serious sin (embezzlement, grand theft auto, etc etc) is publicly known to be committed by anyone in the category of liturgical minister.
    Although giving enough information to identify the person in question (whom I happen to be friends with), Church Militant claims to have proof of an active homosexual lifestyle, which is still pretty vague. Photos with guys in tank tops drinking cosmopolitans with a rainbow flag somewhere in the background, although indiscreet, are not quite so indicting as other evidence I can imagine. This man is employed at an Episcopal church where I'm sure his talents are very appreciated (I happen to be acquainted with one of his clergymen as well). In other words, he is no longer in regular liturgical ministry in the Catholic Church, yet the Donatist Sanhedrin has decided to go after him anyway. The last time I saw him and spoke with him, he was still very much a practicing Catholic and made a point to go to Mass regularly. I find this "exposé" very troubling, mean-spirited, and unchristian. Sickening really. These sanctimonious hypocrites don't deserve to have musicians of his caliber in their churches.
  • madorganist
    Posts: 519
    PS - Kathy's examples are crimes that should be dealt with by the civil authorities. Comparing apples and oranges.
  • Unfortunately, many also seem eager to exclude dedicated musicians who would prefer to keep their personal lives private,


    I didn't see anyone advocating this.

  • madorganist
    Posts: 519
    Back on the first page: "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" in response to a comment ending with, "Just keep your sexuality and your politics out of my choir loft!" I don't know that "Get real, yall... we are in an outright war and hell is very willing to infiltrate the ranks... escpecially the choirloft and the sacristy" is the most "inclusive" comment posted in this thread either. Also "If a parish's choir director is living with their [sic] girlfriend, they [sic] should equally be removed after being privately talked to and urged to repent."
  • .
  • Jeffrey Quick
    Posts: 1,502
    But I get whom God sends, and am thankful for them.

    It is entirely possible that God did not send them...

    Oh sure. Occasionally, I even hear hellish sounds. But things work better when I do not delude myself that I am in control.

    Like, for instance, of the CMAA's reputation.

    Having finally heard the Download episode in question, I realize that I am guilty of rash judgement, as they give us high praise for doing a "right thing" that apparently many did not think was the right thing. Such moves are always ugly even when right. I regret starting this thread.
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 2,437
    The thing is, the CM piece actually mentions TWO people.

    One of whom is 'married' to another man, now, obviously this is a problem, as this is a public act, rejecting Church teaching, and should have been dealt with internally in CMAA without getting V***s involved. What angers be about this particular case is the CM presentation.

    The other person doesn't appear to have actually done anything, except "ooze gayness", which I can only assume means that he is 'effeminate' (whatever that may mean to anyone at any given time), wears designer clothing, and uses the word "fabulous". This is the bit that has gotten my dander up, and it appears, has gotten many others here annoyed as well. Dragging good people (and this includes, to my mind, ALL members of CMAA, but especially Dr. Mahrt, whom CM mentioned by name) through the mud because of someone's rash judgment of someone else, seemingly based solely on their mannerisms, is uncharitable.

    This seems to be the bit that most people here are discussing.

    Also, some of the comments over at CM are very revealing of their constituents: thankfully, one of the worst, which named some names, has been deleted.

    JQ: I listened to this piece when it was first released (I find it, erm, interesting that they released a show normally reserved for Premium members to the general public), and was highly annoyed by the CMAA bit. (As an aside, I don't think they were giving us praise for "doing the right thing"; they were congratulating themselves that their "investigation" forced the president of CMAA ("who we're told is a good man") to oust someone from an organization that NO ONE at CM belongs to. Having said that, some things in the episode are good, but many things are strange. My problem with this whole affair is, and shall ever remain, CM.) I don't regret you starting this thread: this is something that affects all of us, and it needed to be discussed.
    Thanked by 1BruceL
  • kevinfkevinf
    Posts: 1,078
    I, for one, am happy to see this conversation happen because, it needs to happen and we need to discuss this as part of our relationship to the Church.

    The two poles that I have begun to see in this context (and again,as part of the business of McCarrick) is that Holy Mother Church should not in any way,shape or form, ordain SSA men to the priesthood, and disallow any people who have SSA from any leadership position. This presumes that putting these men ( and I do mean men) into positions of leadership is like putting sharks among the feeding fish. This is in many ways, an over-reaction to what has happened.

    The other pole is to say, we don't care what you are and what happens is what happens. I believe,this also to be an over-reaction.

    Whether you do or do not believe in the Lavender mafia is up for grabs. McCarrick's affair, which I had known ( along with many others) for years but was asked not to say anything, brought back to me the reality that leadership is as much a moral imperative. McCarrick profoundly wounded a dear friend of mine and that friend was lost to suicide because of him.

    So one might assume that there is a lot of reaction for and against the question of leadership by SSA people.

    We all know (or at least I do) gay clergy. In my 30+ years of work I have had the good fortune to know good priests who happened to be gay. They were good priests first.
    I know that they served God and the Church with profound love and service. They struggled, but much in the same way I struggle as a married heterosexual person. We all bear our crosses.

    In my mind, leadership in a Catholic group by a non-Catholic is more bothersome than having a person living a SSA and living in that state according to the Church's understanding. Being no longer Catholic is a public statement. SSA is a state that the Church recognizes and prescribes a response. Overt disregard for SSA attraction in terms of civil marriage,etc is a point of conflict.

    This is one of the more useful conversations I have seen in this forum. Hard subject, dealt with some reason and not too much flame. It is a reality we will continue to deal with for a long time.

    Thanked by 2Salieri CharlesW
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,031

    You can't ever say "St. Thomas Aquinas" without the Palamites ripping medieval theology ;)


    Medieval theology deserves to be ripped.

    The two poles that I have begun to see in this context (and again,as part of the business of McCarrick) is that Holy Mother Church should not in any way,shape or form, ordain SSA men to the priesthood, and disallow any people who have SSA from any leadership position.


    I think a couple of recent popes have agreed with this statement as far as ordination. As far as leadership, other factors can apply depending on the individual. A chaste musician with SSA is no more a threat to anyone than your crazy uncle. Maybe not as much. Now, if they could just stop ordaining the social workers who want to be priests to do - no surprise - social work.
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,033
    Palamas was a medieval theologian.
    Thanked by 1eft94530
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,033
    A chaste musician with SSA is no more a threat to anyone than your crazy uncle. Maybe not as much.

    Right. But orientation is not what is being discussed. It's a matter of lifestyle.

    Unlike priests, DMs with SSA don't get thrown into random living situations with other DMs.
    Thanked by 1Ben Yanke
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,031
    Palamas was a medieval theologian.


    Medieval Latin theologians deserve to be ripped.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,031

    Right. But orientation is not what is being discussed. It's a matter of lifestyle.


    Church teachings on avoiding scandal would seem to apply here. Avoiding a scandalous lifestyle would make the difference.

    I think a couple of posters were discussing orientation.
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,033
    I don't think orientation is the issue.

    This is a distinction, between tendency and act, that the Catholic Church (and its saintly medieval theologians) consistently makes, and the secular world never does. The tendency to be drawn to evil is a result of the Fall is left to us to struggle with after Baptism. All of us. Thus saith the Council of Trent:

    But this holy synod confesses and is sensible, that in the baptized there remains concupiscence, or an incentive (to sin); which, whereas it is left for our exercise, cannot injure those who consent not, but resist manfully by the grace of Jesus Christ; yea, he who shall have striven lawfully shall be crowned. This concupiscence, which the apostle sometimes calls sin, the holy Synod declares that the Catholic Church has never understood it to be called sin, as being truly and properly sin in those born again, but because it is of sin, and inclines to sin.
    Thanked by 2CharlesW CHGiffen
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 8,250
    Get real, yall... we are in an outright war and hell is very willing to infiltrate the ranks... escpecially the choirloft and the sacristy.
    Don't even go there. If I told you my story, ALL of you would agree.
  • fcbfcb
    Posts: 267
    Medieval Latin theologians deserve to be ripped.


    While I am a medieval Latin theologian in terms of my theological orientation, I am not a practicing medieval Latin theologian.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 7,796
    As a personal opinion, I am not very grateful to CM for saying that CMAA "did the right thing". It would have been better to leave us out of their tawdry story altogether.
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,033
    Chonak , Agreed!!

    fcb: J'accuse!!

    image
    Thanked by 1eft94530
  • dad29
    Posts: 1,722
    we are all getting too old to do anything... exciting.


    Speak for yourself. I regularly exceed the speed limits and often wear cargo-shorts in public.
  • dad29
    Posts: 1,722
    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.


    Are you able to cite authoritative sources for these remarks, such as Denziger, TA, (or comparable)? From the limited instructions in Moral Theo that I've had (admittedly in the middle of the last century) your remarks may be inaccurate.
  • dad29
    Posts: 1,722
    Church teachings on avoiding scandal would seem to apply here. Avoiding a scandalous lifestyle would make the difference.


    Yes.

  • madorganist
    Posts: 519
    Are you able to cite authoritative sources for these remarks, such as Denziger, TA, (or comparable)? From the limited instructions in Moral Theo that I've had (admittedly in the middle of the last century) your remarks may be inaccurate.
    Yes. How about CCC 2352:
    "The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose." For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of "the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved." To form an equitable judgment about the subjects' moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety, or other psychological or social factors that lessen or even extenuate moral culpability.
    I make no claims to be a moral theologian. Take the catechism's word, not madorganist's, to form your moral judgment.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 7,796
    [I think the conversation has started to wander, so it may be time to wrap this up soon.]
    Thanked by 1Liam
  • dad29
    Posts: 1,722
    @mad: '....lessen or even extenuate....' does not mean that mortal sin becomes venial. I understand such amelioration due to alcohol, or even the half-asleep thing, and some psychological trauma....OK.

    "Moral responsibility" is one thing. The gravity of the offense is another.

    Thanks for the reference!!
  • StimsonInRehabStimsonInRehab
    Posts: 1,558
    I can say from experience that the highers-up in the CMAA certainly don't approve of this sort of practice in public, regardless of their personal views. I remember one Colloquium where Fr. Pasley asked a non-Catholic presenter and his partner to leave cocktail hour when they become overtly affectionate in public. (God bless Fr. Pasley.)

    If CM wants to call out Colloquium attendees for a particular vice, they'd be better off pursuing Intoxication than SSA.

    "Stop preaching about sex to us old people. We no longer care."

    You don't know how incredible lucky you are. (Sort of purple.)
    Thanked by 2madorganist Salieri
  • madorganist
    Posts: 519
    Agreed, @chonak. I'll conclude my comments on this thread with a reply to @TCJ
    Those who push a perverted lifestyle as just one of many legitimate options would have us start identifying such people in a special way. We have become accustomed to refer to them by their inclinations. Why? It gives them a certain credibility - it is WHO they are. Or at least, that is how it is in their minds. But do we engage in such manner of speaking when referring to other people? What about a person prone to bouts of anger? "Hi, I'm Bob and I often fly into fits of rage. Accept me for who I am."

    People should never identify themselves by their sinful tendencies and neither should we. If such a person is openly telling others "I'm gay" then that is certainly a red flag that this person wants the attention and desires to be seen as such and likely isn't trying all that hard to be chaste.

    Let's stop playing the word games with the liberals.
    Just as it is might be prudent for your alcoholic tenor with three years' sobriety to inform his friends about his proclivities to avoid the awkwardness of being offered drinks on social occasions, it might be equally prudent for your lesbian alto who is trying to live according to the teachings of the Church to advise those who keep trying to set her up with single gentlemen about her proclivities. There's something to the adage about honesty being the best policy. Saying that there are no homosexuals (or at least no Catholics who should be identified as such) is like saying there are no alcoholics. Word games indeed!

    And @dad29
    '....lessen or even extenuate....' does not mean that mortal sin becomes venial. I understand such amelioration due to alcohol, or even the half-asleep thing, and some psychological trauma....OK.

    "Moral responsibility" is one thing. The gravity of the offense is another.
    Mortal sin requires three qualities: grave matter, full knowledge, and deliberate consent. Objectively grave matter without full knowledge or deliberate consent is not mortal sin because all three conditions are not simultaneously present.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,031
    It doesn't help matters that too many things are couched in euphemistic language to make them more acceptable. It seems we are destroying the precision and descriptiveness in the English language. A spade is still a spade no matter what you call it.
    Thanked by 1Carol
  • dad29
    Posts: 1,722
    MadO, I am well aware of the three simultaneous conditions for mortal sin. Thanks.

    The question I posed remains un-answered, and this is not the place to settle it.
  • teachermom24
    Posts: 305
    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?


    Are you certain they have committed mortal sins that require Confession before receiving the Eucharist and/or that they have never gone to Confession when you didn't witness it? If we don't really know, just suspect, even with good probability, we CANNOT judge this. If we KNOW, then it is our charitable duty to counsel them not to receive the Eucharist so as not to incur condemnation of sacrilege. But how often do we really KNOW?

    St. Francis said, "The best criticism of the bad and the hateful is the practice of the good and the better." This helps me to keep my eyes on my own paper.
  • TCJ
    Posts: 636
    MadOrganist,

    Ordinarily when I see that someone has quoted my post, I expect him to talk about it. You went off on a tangent only loosely related to what I was speaking about. Either you completely misread my post or you didn't read it at all.

  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 7,796
    It's not unusual that conversations get sidetracked into incidental points.

    It may even be a sign that discussion of the main topic has been more or less completed.

  • fcbfcb
    Posts: 267
    I think the conversation has started to wander, so it may be time to wrap this up soon.


    I'm just glad Kathy got a plug for my book in before the whole thing got shut down.
This discussion has been closed.
All Discussions