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.

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.

PS - Kathy's examples are crimes that should be dealt with by the civil authorities. Comparing apples and oranges.

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."

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.

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.

Palamas was a medieval theologian.

Palamas was a medieval theologian.

Medieval Latin theologians deserve to be ripped.

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.

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.

Chonak , Agreed!!

fcb: J'accuse!!

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.

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.

@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!!

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.

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.

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.

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.