Choir director living active gay lifestyle

[rpp]

Oh my, to what great lengths some will go to justify rudeness. Do some here truly believe that the homosexual will infect the congregation with his unnatural disorder? He chose to express it at a rally where it is sanctioned, a place which should be no concern of this church so long as he does not engage in immoral acts within its grounds. That’s crossing a line into job discrimination based on fear and superstition in my book.
Also, one cannot presume to call it seeking council after the deed has been done, IMO. One seeks validation, perhaps, but if one truly wanted wise council, the OP might have posted his dilemma before he attempted to resolve it in such an uncharitable fashion.
Keep in mind that I come from an Episcopalian background, (I work at a church which has in recent memory had both a homosexual priest and choir director, the latter is still here, so this is a hot-button issue for me.) As such, I’m used to the idea of being taught the reasons for my faults being wrong, not simply condemned and refused privileges because I happen to possess said flaws.

No, It is not a matter of being rude. You completely miss the poaint that has been made repeatedly on this thread.

The issue is not about homosexuality or anything of the sort. It is about caring for the soul of the person who appears to be sacreligiously receiving Holy Communion. Receiving Holy Communion when one is not properly disposed to receive it is a very grave sin that brings the judgment of God directly on a person. (See I Corinthians 11:27 - 34). It is out of love and a desire that our neighbor not imperil his immortal soul.

In addition to this, it is also about public scandal. Since a person receiving Holy Communion is presumed to be in a state of grace, to see a person whose grave sin are known to the public receive Holy Communion, or be in a position of responsibility in a parish, it brings scandal upon the Church.

It is not about being rude, it is not because we are afraid of a person, it is not motivated from hate but rather love of the person’s immortal soul and love for the Church.

To suggest otherwise is to be make a false and uncharitable assertion.

 

[pnewton]

Keep in mind that I come from an Episcopalian background, (I work at a church which has in recent memory had both a homosexual priest and choir director, the latter is still here, so this is a hot-button issue for me.) As such, I’m used to the idea of being taught the reasons for my faults being wrong, not simply condemned and refused privileges because I happen to possess said flaws.

Pehaps if the Episcopalian Church would have had a little more backbone and discipline in this area they would not be in the situation they are today. In Catholic moral theology, homosexuality is a grave moral sin. If a leader in the Church is living a life of grave moral sin, of any kind, then it is a stumbling block to the people. Lest this man get admitted into the millstone of the month club, it is important for his sake to limit his influence on people of God. Homosexuality is not the issue per se. If this man was living with a woman, sheep or some other gravely disordered relationship, then the action should be the same. If this man was a jewel thief or a mafia hit man and this was known as was the homosexual introducing his “partner” then the answer would be the same.

The Church says:

Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

This used to be the position of Christians everywhere.

 

[Trad_Julia]

I understand the regulations about not receiving the Eucharist in a state of mortal sin, especially for this man who apparently refuses to give up those things the Church considers morally reprehensible. I still object to the way this particular situation was handled by the OP, though. This man should have been consulted first; perhaps he had already spoken with the priest and been absolved? Or perhaps he is not Catholic, and should consider another denomination if he wants to continue in the unchaste life. I simply think he should have been accorded the respect of being spoken to, “man to man”, as it were. He could have explained his particular circumstances to the OP, then, and the priest could have been involved afterwords if necessary.

 

[rpp]

I understand the regulations about not receiving the Eucharist in a state of mortal sin, especially for this man who apparently refuses to give up those things the Church considers morally reprehensible. I still object to the way this particular situation was handled by the OP, though. This man should have been consulted first; perhaps he had already spoken with the priest and been absolved? Or perhaps he is not Catholic, and should consider another denomination if he wants to continue in the unchaste life. I simply think he should have been accorded the respect of being spoken to, “man to man”, as it were. He could have explained his particular circumstances to the OP, then, and the priest could have been involved afterwords if necessary.

This has already been directly addressed in this thread. Please see this post:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5470879&postcount=94

 

[mkingdomlvr]

Pehaps if the Episcopalian Church would have had a little more backbone and discipline in this area they would not be in the situation they are today. In Catholic moral theology,** homosexuality is a grave moral sin**. If a leader in the Church is living a life of grave moral sin, of any kind, then it is a stumbling block to the people. Lest this man get admitted into the millstone of the month club, it is important for his sake to limit his influence on people of God. Homosexuality is not the issue per se. If this man was living with a woman, sheep or some other gravely disordered relationship, then the action should be the same. If this man was a jewel thief or a mafia hit man and this was known as was the homosexual introducing his “partner” then the answer would be the same.

The Church says:
This used to be the position of Christians everywhere.

Just to be picky-the church does not say that Homosexuality is a grave moral sin. The director is not in a state of sin merely because he is homosexual. The Church says that Homosexual Activity is sinful. If the director was a homosexual, but living a chaste life, there’s no issue. In fact, if he was living a chaste life, it’s likely nobody would even know he was a homosexual unless he chose to disclose it.

I know it seems like I’m splitting hairs, but it’s really, really important that we be accurate here. It’s already a common perception that Catholics “hate” homosexuals because they are sinful by their very existence. The only reason I’m still IN the Catholic church is because I know that the Church has not deemed my orientation itself as sinful, and if I choose to remain chaste, I am not committing sin. What keeps me questioning why I stay is the attitude I encounter from some Catholics who hold the position that homosexuality itself is sinful, and might even be catching.

 

[Trad_Julia]

I’m still confused on one small point. Supposing this director is, in fact, not Catholic, yet was hired by this priest, he would be unable to receive communion, but would the parish in question still be at risk of scandal? And do we know for certain that the director and his partner are not trying to live a chaste life now?

 

[rpp]

I’m still confused on one small point. Supposing this director is, in fact, not Catholic, yet was hired by this priest, he would be unable to receive communion, but would the parish in question still be at risk of scandal? And do we know for certain that the director and his partner are not trying to live a chaste life now?

First question, it is unlikely that a non-Catholic person would be hired to be a choir director. Since he gets in line for Holy Communion, it is reasonable to assume that he thinks himself to be Catholic.

As for your second question, since he is living with his same sex partner and sports pictures of the two of them kissing in a public place and he introduces his partner to others by describing him as his “same sex partner”, it is reasonable to assume that he is not pursuing chastity.