Adulterous mens choir sings at Church
When he made his way to Blessed Trinity Catholic Church on April 24, Michael Gillis didn't know he was doing anything radical.
The church's pastor, the Rev. George Reger, had invited the Buffalo Adulterous Men's Chorus to sing a concert that night. Gillis sings baritone with the group. "I used to sing tenor," he jokes, "but the voice starts sagging along with everything else."
The concert was intended as a fund-raising event for Habitat for Humanity and for the crumbling roof of Blessed Trinity, one of the most exquisite churches on Buffalo's East Side.
Even though hundreds of people turned out to enjoy the music, the concert turned out to be trouble. A few dozen protesters greeted the singers with signs and shouts. The battle lines were drawn, with scores of vehement letters later sent to The Buffalo News for Everybody's Column.
A few weeks later, the chorus found itself in the headlines again. The Buffalo Jewish Review decided that it wouldn't run the group's ads. In protest of that move, Temple Beth Zion pulled its advertising from the Review.
In short, the Buffalo Adulterous Men's Chorus, formed four years ago, has become the center of controversy. Gillis can't get over the flap that started with the concert.
"It was so innocent," he says. "We just wanted this poor guy to get a roof on his church."
He had thought that attitudes toward adulterers had relaxed.
Let's get this straight: Parts of the city are turning into the Wild West, with murders and robberies on a large scale. Our county is broke. Our schools are struggling. And the big problem is that there's a group of Adulterous guys singing Schubert?
"It's painful thinking that concert turned into something it never should have been," says Barbara Wagner, who directs the chorus.
"It was all done with great love, a great sense of justice and truth. We love to sing together. It was such a good cause. And it's such a gorgeous church."
There's a good side, though, to the ruckus. The singers see how many friends they have, often in unlikely places.
"That really is a bold stance that (Temple) Beth Zion has taken - not just on our behalf, but for adulterous people everywhere," says Dave Gannon, the chorus' president.
Gannon, a tenor, was also heartened by the Catholics who supported the church concert. "People were saying, "You boys hang in there.' These were people in their 60s and 70s," he says. "There was a nun there. (And) I said, "Thank you for your support.' She said, "No - thank you.' "
The protesters argue that adultery is sinful, so the singers should have been barred from Blessed Trinity. [Source]
To be honest I modified this news story - I replaced the word gay used in the story with adulterous or adulterer. It is a strange thing today that a group of men who identify themselves primarily by their same-sex attraction is seen as not a problem by so many Catholics. The story had gone on to say "(The official Catholic position is that homosexual behavior is not approved, but the orientation is accepted.)" Which isn't exactly right since the Church does not teach that same-sex attraction is an orientation only that it is "an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex" and that homosexual acts are contrary to the natural law and intrinsically disordered. Adultery starts with a predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the opposite sex when and Jesus considered even those who had adulterous thoughts as already committing adultery. Most Catholics still see adultery as wrong, though many have less of a problem with serial adultery where people are divorced and remarried without the Church declaring their previous marriage to have never in fact existed through a decree of nullity. If this same group of men had called themselves for example the Buffalo Men's Choir or other such name, there probably would have been no problem (depending on the extent of their advocacy). This has been a tactic of the gay rights movement to primarily identify groups by their sexual attraction and then when anyone complains to through the homophobe charge at them and this has been a very effective tactic in culturally a very short time. About a year ago there was a similar story except that time a "Gay Men's Chorus" was singing at a Catholic school.
Known as 
Wouldn't it be interesting to form a "Heterosexual Men's Chorus" and see how the feathers get ruffled?
You are evil! First I thought that the BAMC was a group of people trying to disrupt things a la "Communists for Kerry", and it took several paragraphs to realize that the joke was yours.
By the way, you forgot to change "gay" in paragraph 13.
One issue where I think faithful Catholics and other sincere Christians get in trouble is that they may see heterosexual adultery as wrong, but they treat homosexual behavior as a horrific step beyond plain adultery. This opens Christians to charges of hypocracy. Both sins may land the person commiting them in a very uncomfortable ever-after, and in both cases the sinner should be treated with a loving firmness for his own sake.
It's only hypocrisy if you only take into account that sodomy and adultery are both mortal sins and neglect the fact that sodomy is also one of the four sins that cry to heaven for vengeance. In fact, I have found that in almost every case where the Church is accused of hypocrisy, the problem lies not with the teachings of the Church, but rather with the accuser seizing upon one of the Church’s teachings and ignoring the rest.
I quite agree with John. Mortal sin is mortal sin. There is a distinction between adulterous relations and homosexual relations in the type of sin committed - a violation of a vow in the first case, and an objectively disordered act in the second - but the consequence is the same. Furthermore, the inclination to admit that I'm a sinner, but not nearly as bad a sinner as the next fellow, is fatal to humility and never a thing to be encouraged in onesself.
John wrote:
One issue where I think faithful Catholics and other sincere Christians get in trouble is that they may see heterosexual adultery as wrong, but they treat homosexual behavior as a horrific step beyond plain adultery. This opens Christians to charges of hypocracy. Both sins may land the person commiting them in a very uncomfortable ever-after, and in both cases the sinner should be treated with a loving firmness for his own sake.
--
My daughter who is 15 made me really proud of her a few months ago. It seems that an acquiaintance of hers let on that she was "bi", and drew down the ire of one of the local nasty girls.
When my daughter went to her defense, this nasty girl said: "You should be against her too! Catholics believe homosexuality is a sin!".
My daughter gently expained to this nasty girl that no, the Catholic Church doesn't teach that homosexuality is a sin, homosexuality just is. What *is* a sin is sleeping with people you're not married to, whatever the orientation (with a very pointed gaze in this nasty girl's direction). This was a "she who is without sin cast the first stone" moment. :)
So John, homosexual fornication is no more sinful than heterosexual fornication, but there is a certain "yuck factor" you really can't avoid.
Tony - Q. Your daughters statement to which it appears you conquer, "... homosexuality just is", confuses me. What do you & your daughter mean by this statement. Do you mean it is "born that way" as in a genetic component - genetic birth defect, gene oriented and/or environmentally induced, or a third gender?
If the "just is" is of the first two listed (or even the last), how do you and your daughter address the phenomena of fluid sexuality as seen in "one day I choose to be gay, and the next day I choose to be heterosexual". I see this more and more illustrated with the increasing androgenous attitude in the general press, in hollywood lifesytle coverage, college campus articles, gay press articles, website discussions, and in a variety of pluralistic & polyagmory lobby activititist statements.
I ask seriously. I do applaud your daughter's last statement, but I have yet to see any science or support for "homosexuality just is." With that stated, I would not doubt that there may be a "genetic" component to some same-sex inclination. In the last three weeks, there has been a few articles that I have read showing a possible cause for same-sex attraction to "environmental" pollutions [medicines & stresses & chemicals] of the womb while carrying the child.
I have read enough too also suspect that early childhood molestation can lead a young child to such attractions.
Another question, if this young woman who your daughter knows claims to be a lesbian, has your daughter offered any Catholic guidance? Would it even be appropriate?
Would your daughter say anything to the young lesbian lady if she was told by another classmate (heterosexual) that the other had sexual solicited her? How would she handle that situtation? How would you advise her? Suppose the young ladies are of age 11-years? Would it be handled/advised differently?
I ask because of three separate issues concerning the "nature" of homosexuality that has been dropped unsolitated at my doorstep which I am being forced to handle with Catholic diplomacy.
+JMJ+
The difference is that people are not going around insisting that we accept that heterosexual adultery is NOT sinful but a "lifestyle". Or are they?
What ought not be forgotten is that the Church also teaches that the homosexual inclination is an objective disorder - not a moral disorder, but nonetheless an objective disorder - and that this teaching is logically inseparable from the teaching that homosexual acts are morally wrong (an inclination toward a wrong act must by definition be in some sense a disordered inclination).
It's one thing to own up to having such an inclination. But when you start to "celebrate" it - e.g. by joining a chorus for people with that inclination - you are already at odds with the Church's teaching.
JMJ Wrote:
Tony - Q. Your daughters statement to which it appears you conquer, "... homosexuality just is", confuses me. What do you & your daughter mean by this statement. Do you mean it is "born that way" as in a genetic component - genetic birth defect, gene oriented and/or environmentally induced, or a third gender?
--
The Holy Father has addressed this on a number of occasions. Same sex attraction is objectively disordered, but it just is.
Is homosexuality able to be "cured"? Who knows. We just know that regardless of our illicit inclinations, we are called to be chaste.
But this gets away from the main point that I wanted to make. Unmarried (or extra-married) sex is sinful, regardless of whether it's homosexual or heterosexual. I don't see homosexual illicit sex any more sinful than illicit heterosexual sex.
That having been said, to those homosexuals who are looking for Church approval of their activity, I don't see that happening in my lifetime any more than I see Church approval happening for fornication or adultery. And if you continue to publicly live an unrepentent life of sin (as evidenced by rainbow sashes) don't expect to be welcome for Communion since you are obviously not *in* communion.
GFvonB brought up how sodomy was one of "the four sins crying out to Heaven for vegeance." I have heard of these and know that these sins are mentioned in the Bible, but not as a list. Rather, each sin had that tag attached to it as it was mentioned in different parts of the Bible.
Question: does anyone know whether the Church, anywhere in its teachings, likewise sets these sins apart; or are the "four sins crying out" just one of several hundreds of non-dogmatic Bible interpretations?
John, in answer to your question:
Catechism, section 1867: 'The catechetical tradition also recalls that there are "sins that cry to heaven": the blood of Abel, the sin of the Sodomites, the cry of the people oppressed in Egypt, the cry of the foreigner, the widow, and the orphan, injustice to the wage earner.'
Also, for any who might say that the sin of Sodom had nothing to do with sexuality:
'In Genesis 3, we find that this truth about persons being an image of God has been obscured by original sin. There inevitably follows a loss of awareness of the covenantal character of the union these persons had with God and with each other. The human body retains its "spousal significance" but this is now clouded by sin. Thus, in Genesis 19:1-11, the deterioration due to sin continues in the story of the men of Sodom. There can be no doubt of the moral judgement made there against homosexual relations.'
CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
LETTER TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
ON THE PASTORAL CARE OF HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS
The Church is quite clear on this:
CCC #1867:
he catechetical tradition also recalls that there are "sins that cry to heaven": the blood of Abel, the sin of the Sodomites, the cry of the people oppressed in Egypt, the cry of the foreigner, the widow, and the orphan, injustice to the wage earner.
"... We just know that regardless of our illicit inclinations, we are called to be chaste. ..." [Tony]
I agree with the point you made. However, I am still curious to hear your thoughts on the my other questions that dovetail for reason mentioned above. It is a subject that I am finding more parents w/children having to face:
Another question, if this young woman who your daughter knows claims to be a lesbian, has your daughter offered any Catholic guidance? Would it even be appropriate?
Would your daughter say anything to the young lesbian lady if she was told by another classmate (heterosexual) that the other had sexual solicited her? How would she handle that situtation? How would you advise her? Suppose the young ladies are of age 11-years? Would it be handled/advised differently?
And, I have thought of another to the "just is". How does the "just is" category explain that sometime children sexually explore and it does not mean they have same-sex inclinations?
Just wondering and trying to sort out all the chatter.
+JMJ+
As an older monsignor, who had spent most of his priesthood as a theology professor, said once to me regarding gay-rights, "What does it matter what rights they have? They're all going to Hell anyway!" (He was Irish, through and through, so forgive his bluntness!)
Fornication and adultery are illicit uses of a natural act intended by God to be shared by validly married spouses. Homosexual behavior is not intended by God in any circumstance. I often ask religious people who argue for the morality of "committed" homosexual relationships if what they envision is chaste dating in gay bars until the first night of "wedded" sodomy. That question is usually enough to make my point.
All very true. Now, are you all absolutely sure you want to be the sort of people who are very careful to point out that other people's habitual sins are much, much worse than their own? Having established Old Testament and Catechism authority for the peculiarly disordered nature of sodomy, let's all get back to being tough on ourselves. Remember the Pharisee and the publican.
I recognize that science is distinct from theology and moral philosophy but it is worth noting that Steven Pinker, a leading American biologist, and a committed Darwinian, has conceded there cannot exist a gay gene or chromosome.
Under the commonly accepted Darwinian theory of natural selection, a gene or chromosome carrying the trait of same sex attraction could not persist past a few generations before it was extinguished.
Now, please note, I am not making a Darwinian argument myself, but, I am merely pointing out that if a person accepts Pinker's world view, then, there cannot be a gay gene or chromosome.
I will refrain from boring the readers of this site but it is possible to demonstrate this with a few charts and graphs and a few logical/nathematical ideas.
I think it is very important to resist the concept that there is a congenital "gay orientation" which arises by the ordinary operation of human biology. I don't claim to be able to advance a fully satisfactory explanation of the existence of same-sex attraction, but, I suspect that in the end it will be seen as a pyschological disorder or even something in the nature of a birth defect. Children are occaisionally born with cleft palates or club feet but we don't "celebrate" cleft palates or club feet, we correct them when we can.
Maybe we could get some hooker singing group sent in to sing at a synagogue. Would someone stand up and take notice over that? I would think so, and the hookers would be ousted immediately. I don't understand why this wouldn't be done here. But Hey, I'll bet they're all a bunch of real nice guys...
Elinor: In all humulity... The issue isn't whether their sins are worse than mine. I am not proud of any of my sins; they are. They and their supporters are unrepentant and want to destroy the Church by corrupting the teachings of Christ.