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.

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.

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.

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?

Kevin,

Just so I'm not confused, you're not declaring Cardinal McCarrick some kind of Traditionalist, are you?

Of course not: that would ruin his reputation. ;-)

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.

"If thou, O Lord, wilt mark iniquities: Lord, who shall stand?"

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

>> 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!

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.

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.

In my experience over the decades, I would say Chonak's impression has been borne out much more often than not.

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.

"discreet"
"celibate"
"adulterous... drunks... frauds"

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

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.....

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?

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?"

madorganist,

No, and you are pointing to a very important distinction. The Catechism clearly distinguishes between the attraction and the action.

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.

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.