Is buying music from a pro-gay marriage musician sinful? This is really causing some distress

[Castello]

Lady Gaga or Elton John supporting gay marriage is not a sin, full stop. They may be misinformed and we may rightfully disagree with their reasoning but it’s not a ‘sin’ to support something.

There will be Catholics women that support abortion; that’s not a sin. They may well be misinformed but we do not know their hearts and it’s not for us (you!) to accuse people of sin.

Yes, it is a sin to support abortion. Supporting gay marriage is a sin.

We as Christians are called to admonish the sinner. It is for you and me and every Christian to help our brothers and sisters get to heaven.

As a student, you may want to study the Catechism and the other official teachings of Holy Mother Church.

 

[Castello]

Fortunately even Catholics are entitled to a private life and we don’t (or at least should not) be fearful as to what the next Catholic might think of our CD or magazine collection…I like Lady Gaga for example, I also happen to like her pro-gay line that she takes and I enjoy the fact that she probably encourages a lot of young gays to feel confident/ comfortable with who they are.

We should not be embarrassed of what is in our music or book or DVD collection. God does see everything, and we know that at the judgement everything we have ever done will be revealed to everyone.

We are Catholics, we know we are not an island - my sin impacts every other member of the body of Christ.

 

[LP4H]

Here’s a link to Jimmy Akin’s site. The article itself is interesting, although Jimmy doesn’t really touch on this particular subject (some of the comments do, however).

jimmyakin.org/2005/07/bad_music.html

I also sent this question Bro. Ignatius Mary. I’m seriously confused now, and my scruples are getting a bit of a workout (something I know I warned against earlier).

 

[JM3]

As the Church says (well, I thought said), it’s a personal call. You’ve got to see what effects you

When do you say no?

1. A man asks for $5.
2. A man asks for $5 to get a sandwich.
3. A man asks for $5 to get a sandwich and give $2 to his friend, so he can hire an assasin to kill his wife.

#3 is the man’s intent, but you cannot know this from #1 or #2.

Thus, I said ‘once you know, you are required to act’.

Perhaps I should have added the next paragraph.

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

144 references this

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_02121984_reconciliatio-et-paenitentia_en.html

Personal Sin and Social Sin

1. Sin, in the proper sense, is always a personal act, since it is an act of freedom on the part of an individual person and not properly of a group or community…

Hence there is nothing so personal and untransferable in each individual as merit for virtue or responsibility for sin…

To speak of social sin means in the first place to recognize that, by virtue of human solidarity which is as mysterious and intangible as it is real and concrete, each individual’s sin in some way affects others…

The whole document is worth the read.

 

[iHeartThe60s]

Here’s a link to Jimmy Akin’s site. The article itself is interesting, although Jimmy doesn’t really touch on this particular subject (some of the comments do, however).

jimmyakin.org/2005/07/bad_music.html

I also sent this question Bro. Ignatius Mary. I’m seriously confused now, and my scruples are getting a bit of a workout (something I know I warned against earlier).

Thanks for the link! It really helped clear the air on a number of things. I’d feel better if it was coming from an Orthodox priest, but I will get on that soon. And by the way, all of this back and forth “it’s a sin”/“it’s not a sin” business has now given ME a headache and I think my own scruples are coming back to haunt me so I feel your pain/apologize for starting all this

 

[LP4H]

When do you say no?

1. A man asks for $5.
2. A man asks for $5 to get a sandwich.
3. A man asks for $5 to get a sandwich and give $2 to his friend, so he can hire an assasin to kill his wife.

#3 is the man’s intent, but you cannot know this from #1 or #2.

Thus, I said ‘once you know, you are required to act’.

Perhaps I should have added the next paragraph.

144 references this

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_02121984_reconciliatio-et-paenitentia_en.html

The whole document is worth the read.

Okay, I can see your POV. Basically, that paying the artist for this music enables them to go out and be pro-LGBT in some capacity, correct? And that that in turn will lead others down a bad path. That’s a legitimate concern. I agree we are required to act once we know, but what exactly are we acting on here? We don’t know (unless the artist says specifically) that the money from that CD is going towards LGBT causes. They’re being paid for their product, they’re being paid to perform onstage, but beyond that, we don’t know what they’re using the money for. For all we know, they could be anonymously donating it to a charitable cause. All we know is their view, which they’d likely have whether they’re famous or not.

Now, if the artist is using their CDs or concerts as a soapbox, then yes, there’s a case for boycotting, but it still seems like that’s a personal call. I could go to a concert, listen to a diatribe I’m opposed to, but still enjoy the music, provided it’s not immoral.

The arts are a liberal field. Music, TV, movies, there’s a lot opposed to our faith in any of them. But, there is some good out there, too. Do I stop watching a TV series because there’s one scene or one actor I don’t agree with? Or can I enjoy the good without falling for the bad? I’m being serious here. It seems like you can’t do anything without it being a sin.

 

[LP4H]

Thanks for the link! It really helped clear the air on a number of things. I’d feel better if it was coming from an Orthodox priest, but I will get on that soon. And by the way, all of this back and forth “it’s a sin”/“it’s not a sin” business has now given ME a headache and I think my own scruples are coming back to haunt me so I feel your pain/apologize for starting all this

No need to apologize, if there’s a potential sin here I’d rather it be aired so it can be rectified. Honestly I can see it from both sides of the “is it a sin?” fence. I’m sorta taking the side that it’s morally neutral until it leads you to sin (as I had believed for so long), but I see where JM3’s coming from, too. I’m more confused than anything right now.

As for Jimmy Akin, he’s a pretty smart guy. I always feel better having my questions answered by a Priest as well, but Jimmy’s no slouch at what he does .

 

[Student26]

Yes, it is a sin to support abortion. Supporting gay marriage is a sin.

We as Christians are called to admonish the sinner. It is for you and me and every Christian to help our brothers and sisters get to heaven.

As a student, you may want to study the Catechism and the other official teachings of Holy Mother Church.

No it’s not and you have no idea of what ‘support’ may mean in individual cases. We also have no idea of the reasoning behind any one persons’s ‘support’.

One doesn’t suddenly incur a sin the moment one intellectually assents to an idea. If one were to help procure abortions that might a different matter but the term ‘support’ is vague and cannot be universally qualified as to what it means for different individuals.

You might want to read the part about charity and not assuming the worst in our fellow brothers in Christ…

 

[Student26]

Okay, I can see your POV. Basically, that paying the artist for this music enables them to go out and be pro-LGBT in some capacity, correct? And that that in turn will lead others down a bad path. That’s a legitimate concern. I agree we are required to act once we know, but what exactly are we acting on here? We don’t know (unless the artist says specifically) that the money from that CD is going towards LGBT causes. They’re being paid for their product, they’re being paid to perform onstage, but beyond that, we don’t know what they’re using the money for. For all we know, they could be anonymously donating it to a charitable cause. All we know is their view, which they’d likely have whether they’re famous or not.

Now, if the artist is using their CDs or concerts as a soapbox, then yes, there’s a case for boycotting, but it still seems like that’s a personal call. I could go to a concert, listen to a diatribe I’m opposed to, but still enjoy the music, provided it’s not immoral.

The arts are a liberal field. Music, TV, movies, there’s a lot opposed to our faith in any of them. But, there is some good out there, too. Do I stop watching a TV series because there’s one scene or one actor I don’t agree with? Or can I enjoy the good without falling for the bad? I’m being serious here. It seems like you can’t do anything without it being a sin.

No! This is such a scrupulous attitude towards life. There is no direct or causal relationship between buying the music of a particular artist and their own particular political campaigns.

 

[JM3]

I’m sorta taking the side that it’s morally neutral until it leads you to sin (as I had believed for so long)

One doesn’t suddenly incur a sin the moment one intellectually assents to an idea.

There is no direct or causal relationship between buying the music of a particular artist and their own particular political campaigns.

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_02121984_reconciliatio-et-paenitentia_en.html

Again, from #16

The third meaning of social sin refers to the relationships between the various human communities. These relationships are not always in accordance with the plan of God, who intends that there be justice in the world and freedom and peace between individuals, groups and peoples. Thus the class struggle, whoever the person who leads it or on occasion seeks to give it a theoretical justification, is a social evil. Likewise obstinate confrontation between blocs of nations, between one nation and another, between different groups within the same nation all this too is a social evil. In both cases one may ask whether moral responsibility for these evils, and therefore sin, can be attributed to any person in particular. Now it has to be admitted that realities and situations such as those described, when they become generalized and reach vast proportions as social phenomena, almost always become anonymous, just as their causes are complex and not always identifiable. Hence if one speaks of social sin here, the expression obviously has an analogical meaning. However, to speak even analogically of social sins must not cause us to underestimate the responsibility of the individuals involved. It is meant to be an appeal to the consciences of all, so that each may shoulder his or her responsibility seriously and courageously in order to change those disastrous conditions and intolerable situations.

Having said this in the clearest and most unequivocal way, one must add at once that there is one meaning sometimes given to social sin that is not legitimate or acceptable even though it is very common in certain quarters today.(74) This usage contrasts social sin and personal sin, not without ambiguity, in a way that leads more or less unconsciously to the watering down and almost the abolition of personal sin, with the recognition only of social gilt and responsibilities. According to this usage, which can readily be seen to derive from non-Christian ideologies and systems-which have possibly been discarded today by the very people who formerly officially upheld them-practically every sin is a social sin, in the sense that blame for it is to be placed not so much on the moral conscience of an individual, but rather on some vague entity or anonymous collectivity such as the situation, the system, society, structures or institutions.

Whenever the church speaks of situations of sin or when she condemns as social sins certain situations or the collective behavior of certain social groups, big or small, or even of whole nations and blocs of nations, she knows and she proclaims that such cases of social sin are the result of the accumulation and concentration of many personal sins. It is a case of the very personal sins of those who cause or support evil or who exploit it; of those who are in a position to avoid, eliminate or at least limit certain social evils but who fail to do so out of laziness, fear or the conspiracy of silence, through secret complicity or indifference; of those who take refuge in the supposed impossibility of changing the world and also of those who sidestep the effort and sacrifice required, producing specious reasons of higher order. The real responsibility, then, lies with individuals.

 

[iHeartThe60s]

Okay and just HOW does buying Elton John’s or Lady Gaga’s or The Indigo Girls’ or Bruce Springsteen’s music fit that criteria? I seem to recall something about buying morally neutral products, etc. from a morally corrupt source as NOT being sinful UNLESS the intention is to support their corruption and/or use them in a sinful manner. AKA check Catholic Answers apologist Michelle Arnold’s post on such a situation.

Now correct me if I’m wrong, but not everyone is in a position to do EVERYTHING to stop all injustice. Heck, if it were up Catholics in America in January 1974 casting a vote instead of a letting selected group of men and women in Washington D.C. hand down a ruling I don’t think abortion would have been made legal in this country. But we can’t do much, if anything, unless we’re one of those select men and women who can say “No, this is wrong and I’m gonna make some noise about it until it is illegalized.”

Now when it comes to someone like Elton or Gaga surely a member of their crew, band, management, etc. could have FAR more leverage on their pro-gay marriage donation choices and so on than the average music buyer who just might find such an artist’s work inspiring in a morally acceptable way. If a specific record (like a charity album, single, etc.) is released SPECIFICALLY to raise money for pro-gay marriage, pro-abortion, or any anti-Catholic cause it would most certainly be a sin to buy it knowing EXACTLY where your money is going. But my original post (4 pages ago…) was NOT about that specific a situation.

By the way, musicians can make money (sometimes A LOT) off of many little things such as airplay royalties, music publishing, usage of their songs in movies/TV and then donate to whatever the heck they so choose. Can you or anyone of us average joes say that you can control what they do with how much they make off of something that is completely out of your control to begin with? I know my original post was about actually buying one’s music, but I thought I’d throw that fact out there.

 

[markomalley]

Okay and just HOW does buying Elton John’s or Lady Gaga’s or The Indigo Girls’ or Bruce Springsteen’s music fit that criteria? I seem to recall something about buying morally neutral products, etc. from a morally corrupt source as NOT being sinful UNLESS the intention is to support their corruption and/or use them in a sinful manner. AKA check Catholic Answers apologist Michelle Arnold’s post on such a situation.

I know you weren’t specifically addressing your post to me, but…

That is the reason why, way upthread, I tried to delineate the idea of formal vs material cooperation, immediate vs mediate, proximate vs remote.

You are cooperating with the evil of homosexual marriage. You are doing so by giving musicians who are activists for the homosexual movement a voice (the more popular they are, the more the media will give them access allowing them to pontificate).

But how immediate is that cooperation?

If you were the program director of a radio station that selected the music to be played, your cooperation would be a whole lot more proximate than that of a single user who buys tracks from iTunes (or, shudder, buys physical CDs from your local music store).

So your cooperation, in of itself, is really, really remote. Almost, by itself, imperceptible. As I said above, it only becomes a factor when your actions are combined with millions of others.

So is it sinful? Well, honestly, that depends upon your intent and your degree of scrupulosity. I only know what you’ve said here, not what is really going on, but it would seem to me that if you approved of their message and wanted to help spread it through increasing their popularity, that would clearly be sinful. But if you didn’t care for their message, but loved their music so much that you felt it necessary to buy their tracks, that would be another situation altogether. But then you have the issue of scrupulosity: which is not a bad thing in of itself. It becomes a bad thing when it starts causing you to freeze up and not be able to make decisions. In other words, do you realize that you are helping provide them a platform…by supporting their increased popularity, which, in turn, gives them significant media access?

Let me give you two examples of where not buying products from an artist actually did make a difference:

• Sinead O’Conner. She was a up-and-coming artist that was growing in popularity back in the 80s. Her popularity came to a screeching halt when she decided to, as a part of her act on Saturday Night Live, rip up a picture of Pope John Paul II. People, spontaneously, stopped buying her albums…as a result, radio stations stopped playing her…and she lost her voice almost immediately. Only now are the media even mentioning her…and usually in a historical context (because of the current crisis in the Irish Church).
• The Dixie Chicks. Again, a very popular country band. Then they let their politics slip out and started using concerts as a venue to badmouth President Bush. Whether you agree with them or not on this, among country fans, that was not a good (or smart) thing. Again, people stopped buying their albums and country music radio stations around the country stopped playing them. It was funny, because the only venue they had for their message was with left wingers who didn’t like country music, but felt that they wanted to support the political message. Only when President Bush left office did they gain any of their previous popularity back and they still are nowhere near as popular as they were beforehand.

Those were a couple of fairly recent examples of where people decided to stop supporting the artist not because of the music, but because of the message they were sending out.

You, as an individual music lover, won’t influence your artists by yourself. But if you are sufficiently offended by the message, your actions, along with those of others, can actually make a difference. But it’s your conscience that is going to be your guide in this.

I personally wouldn’t bring something like that up during a confession, unless I, after examining my conscience, believed it to be a violation of the teachings of the Church. After monitoring this thread, it seems like you are trying to justify your actions. I can’t read your mind, but if buying music from those artists doesn’t bother your conscience at all, why did you ask the question in the first place (not only here, but why did you bring it up with a priest during confession)?

 

[markomalley]

One other thing, as far as being activists, I would not put Elton John in the same league as Lady Ga Ga.

 

[divinefaith]

Okay and just HOW does buying Elton John’s or Lady Gaga’s or The Indigo Girls’ or Bruce Springsteen’s music fit that criteria? I seem to recall something about buying morally neutral products, etc. from a morally corrupt source as NOT being sinful UNLESS the intention is to support their corruption and/or use them in a sinful manner. AKA check Catholic Answers apologist Michelle Arnold’s post on such a situation.

Now correct me if I’m wrong, but not everyone is in a position to do EVERYTHING to stop all injustice. Heck, if it were up Catholics in America in January 1974 casting a vote instead of a letting selected group of men and women in Washington D.C. hand down a ruling I don’t think abortion would have been made legal in this country. But we can’t do much, if anything, unless we’re one of those select men and women who can say “No, this is wrong and I’m gonna make some noise about it until it is illegalized.”

Now when it comes to someone like Elton or Gaga surely a member of their crew, band, management, etc. could have FAR more leverage on their pro-gay marriage donation choices and so on than the average music buyer who just might find such an artist’s work inspiring in a morally acceptable way. If a specific record (like a charity album, single, etc.) is released SPECIFICALLY to raise money for pro-gay marriage, pro-abortion, or any anti-Catholic cause it would most certainly be a sin to buy it knowing EXACTLY where your money is going. But my original post (4 pages ago…) was NOT about that specific a situation.

By the way, musicians can make money (sometimes A LOT) off of many little things such as airplay royalties, music publishing, usage of their songs in movies/TV and then donate to whatever the heck they so choose. Can you or anyone of us average joes say that you can control what they do with how much they make off of something that is completely out of your control to begin with? I know my original post was about actually buying one’s music, but I thought I’d throw that fact out there.

I recall that post by the apologist Michelle Arnonld saying what you just said. She answered a question about purchasing a products from businesses which support Planned Parenthood.She said no it won’t be a sin on our part.

Same principle applies here, we wont be sinning by purchasing music off a pro gay activist artist.

 

[iHeartThe60s]

I know you weren’t specifically addressing your post to me, but…

That is the reason why, way upthread, I tried to delineate the idea of formal vs material cooperation, immediate vs mediate, proximate vs remote.

You are cooperating with the evil of homosexual marriage. You are doing so by giving musicians who are activists for the homosexual movement a voice (the more popular they are, the more the media will give them access allowing them to pontificate).

But how immediate is that cooperation?

If you were the program director of a radio station that selected the music to be played, your cooperation would be a whole lot more proximate than that of a single user who buys tracks from iTunes (or, shudder, buys physical CDs from your local music store).

So your cooperation, in of itself, is really, really remote. Almost, by itself, imperceptible. As I said above, it only becomes a factor when your actions are combined with millions of others.

So is it sinful? Well, honestly, that depends upon your intent and your degree of scrupulosity. I only know what you’ve said here, not what is really going on, but it would seem to me that if you approved of their message and wanted to help spread it through increasing their popularity, that would clearly be sinful. But if you didn’t care for their message, but loved their music so much that you felt it necessary to buy their tracks, that would be another situation altogether. But then you have the issue of scrupulosity: which is not a bad thing in of itself. It becomes a bad thing when it starts causing you to freeze up and not be able to make decisions. In other words, do you realize that you are helping provide them a platform…by supporting their increased popularity, which, in turn, gives them significant media access?

Let me give you two examples of where not buying products from an artist actually did make a difference:

*Sorry for cutting out your examples of Sinead and the Dixie Chicks, but I did read both and Sinead’s really shocked me

Those were a couple of fairly recent examples of where people decided to stop supporting the artist not because of the music, but because of the message they were sending out.

You, as an individual music lover, won’t influence your artists by yourself. But if you are sufficiently offended by the message, your actions, along with those of others, can actually make a difference. But it’s your conscience that is going to be your guide in this.

I personally wouldn’t bring something like that up during a confession, unless I, after examining my conscience, believed it to be a violation of the teachings of the Church. After monitoring this thread, it seems like you are trying to justify your actions. I can’t read your mind, but if buying music from those artists doesn’t bother your conscience at all, why did you ask the question in the first place (not only here, but why did you bring it up with a priest during confession)?

Before I give my answer to your question, your comment about shuddering about buying CDs made me chuckle a little I too have stopped buying CDs as best I can and have switched almost exclusively to vinyl It just sounds better! Plus I love having having the large album cover art on my shelf

But to answer your question, I originally asked my question simply because I simply wanted to know if buying music from an artist with let’s just say a not so good sense of morality was sinful. And in trying to live as holy a life as I can, whenever something potentially sinful comes to mind I just feel the need to get confirmation on whether or not it is sinful from someone on good authority or from someone who’s heard from someone Orthodox within the Church otherwise I feel like I’m in limbo for lack of a better term. In addition, I’ve begun to wonder how many other musicians (either now or in the past) have either vocally or financially supported any causes that are not in keeping with the Church’s teachings. But in doing so I’ve begun to refuse to listen to almost all of the music on my iPod out of fear that I’d be sinning just by listening to music that I’ve already bought (mostly 60s and 70s classic rock) even if their message in their music is still either honest, truthful, inspiring, etc. Perhaps I’m being too scrupulous about this, but I’m just trying my best to avoid committing any kind of sin.

I guess I should just lay out what my own intentions are just for the sake of it. I do not agree with a number of things that some of the artists I like say they support. However, I like their music for their sound, lyrical quality, emotion, etc. Being an aspiring musician myself I love nothing more than a record that hits “just the right note” so to speak and inspires me to try and write music like theirs (while keeping the lyrical content morally acceptable). I can get past certain artists supporting things like gay marriage, etc. since I know in my heart would never be influenced by their decisions or even their lyrical content if it’s questionable.

Btw, if I were a pop…ehhh more like “folk rock star” lol (that’s really my kind of music ) I would have no problem telling the press that I don’t support gay marriage, abortion, etc. while at the same time NOT saying that homosexuals are sinning just by being gay. The Church itself has said that simply being gay is no sin at all and, if anything, they’re not much different than single heterosexuals like myself. And if making such a statement would cause outrage and controversy, so be it. I would try my best to not feel afraid to publicly make a statement like that. Like a wise man once said, “There’s no greater fear than fear itself”.

Sorry for making this such a long answer

 

[iHeartThe60s]

One other thing, as far as being activists, I would not put Elton John in the same league as Lady Ga Ga.

I’ll keep that in mind next time

God Bless

 

[iHeartThe60s]

I recall that post by the apologist Michelle Arnonld saying what you just said. She answered a question about purchasing a products from businesses which support Planned Parenthood.She said no it won’t be a sin on our part.

Same principle applies here, we wont be sinning by purchasing music off a pro gay activist artist.

If it were an Orthodox priest (I apologize for repeating myself ) I probably would be more at peace, but then again if it were a priest I probably wouldn’t so I guess I just have to trust somebody. Ms. Arnold seems, to me, to be well versed in all things Catholic so I suppose I should take her response to heart and not feel so uneasy.

And for what it’s worth, I have a feeling that the people at Liguori Publications, in particular Scrupulous Anonymous, would agree with Ms. Arnold. It’s not sinful unless it influences you immorally or you purchase something for the sole purpose of supporting one’s stance of gay marriage, abortion, etc. I guess my only remaining question would be if Liguori and Ms. Arnold are approved/certified/etc. by the Vatican, etc. I just want to make sure I’m not leading myself down the wrong path by taking what they say to heart if they’re incorrect. I’m truly one of those “Live By The Book Or Burn In Hell” types :sad_yes:

 

[tvdxer]

During confession today I (out of simple inquiry) asked the priest of buying music from a musician who was pro-gay marriage was a sin and without batting an eye said yes and proceeded to ask me “Why do a man and a woman get married?” I was going to say to have kids AND be in a monogamous, loving relationship, but I let him answer and, as expected, he only said the first part and that buying music from an artist who supports gay marriage causes is a sin because you’re giving them the funding to do so. I did not wish to get into a disagreement since time was limited to the others waiting to confess. I would like to add that he was very pleasant and put me at ease regarding other sins I had to confess so I DO NOT want to make him look like the bad guy in this situation. To me he just came across as being very conservative and I remained obedient to him nonetheless.

But in regards to the issue of buying or owning music (or any form of entertainment for that matter) from artists who are pro-LGBT/pro-gay marriage, etc., is it really sinful at all to buy, say music by Elton John, The Indigo Girls (who I mostly like for their rich acoustically-textured folk-ish sound), Lady Gaga, etc who have all supported some form of gay rights. Now for some being pro-LGBT is NOT about marriage/civil union rights, but about having the same rights as say straight single men and women (employment, housing, healthcare, etc.). Therefore, upon hearing that an artist is “pro-LGBT” is a very general term and doesn’t automatically or necessarily mean “pro-gay marriage”.

Lastly, if it is sinful, do we as Catholics have an obligation to try and find out if each and every one of the artists we have in our music collection, etc. (I have hundreds according to my iTunes library btw lol) has contributed in any way to any causes that are in direct or even indirect contradiction to the Catholic faith (even if they’ve also given very generously to other very worthy causes)?

Thank you for any answers/help/assistance/etc.

No, it isn’t necessarily a sin to buy music from artists who disagree with your rightly held viewpoints.

A great number of companies donate a small part of their profits to immoral organizations. Unless you will their donations, you do not sin by buying their products. It’s called “remote cooperation in evil” and permitted for a just reason. There’s generally no obligation to boycott here.

 

[LP4H]

I asked Michelle Arnold directly about this. Here was her response:
Michelle Arnold:

**Please forgive me for not having time to plow through the whole thread. I will only answer what stood out for me in your question and the thread.

In the OP’s original question, both the OP and the priest were not entirely correct. The OP was incorrect to say that one of the purposes of marriage is to be “in a monogamous, loving relationship” (that would justify same-sex marriage), and the priest left out the first purpose of matrimony, more important than even procreation (which may not happen for every married couple): to form the couple (and any children they may have) in sanctity.

The priest also was unfortunately dogmatic where the Church is not by claiming it to be sinful to buy music (or any other product) from someone who supports same-sex marriage (or any other immoral act). The Church simply doesn’t make such a claim and those who say it does should be asked to provide evidence to support that claim.

CCC 1868 cannot be pressed into service here. To buy music from someone who supports an immoral act is not direct participation in someone else’s sin. I would hesitate to say that it is even remote material participation if the music in question has nothing to do with same-sex marriage. If we take this assertion to its logical conclusion, then an argument could be made that Catholics should reject the artwork of Caravaggio** and the plays of Christopher Marlowe. Even if they are no longer alive to reap financial rewards, patronage and study of their works lend them legitimacy and fame. (At least under this theory, which I hope can now be seen as risible).

The confessor the OP spoke with sounds like a good, well-meaning priest. Unfortunately, when good, well-meaning priests are not well-formed in moral theology or are willing to present their own preferences as the teaching of the Church, they can do much harm to souls (especially the scrupulous, who are all too desperate to trust them). St. Teresa of Avila once said in her book Way of Perfection:

Give great praise to God, daughters, for this liberty that you have, for, though there are not a great many priests whom you can consult, there are a few, other than your ordinary confessors, who can give you light upon everything. I beg every superior, for the love of the Lord, to allow a holy liberty here: let the bishop or provincial be approached for leave for the sisters to go from time to time beyond their ordinary confessors and talk about their souls with persons of learning, especially if the confessors, though good men, have no learning; for learning is a great help in giving light upon everything

. It should be possible to find a number of people who combine both learning and spirituality, and the more favors the Lord grants you in prayer, the more needful is it that your good works and your prayers should have a sure foundation.

 

[bearer]

When you support the musician, you support his or her message, whether actively or passively. I believe that buying from artists who promote sin through their art is indeed sinful.

I’ve lost track of how many hundreds of dollars of CDs I’ve thrown away and deleted from iTunes since coming back to the Church. Even still, it can be difficult to get that music out of my head sometimes. If I’d known in the past what I know now, I would’ve never bought it.

Music should bring glory to God, not Satan and his minions.