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.

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.

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.

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.

(If all this arrow-talk sounds rather phallic, well...)

Well, if that isn't purple prose......

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.

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.

.

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.

...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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

[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.

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.

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.

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.