Posted on 12/02/2016 8:28:13 AM PST by Morgana
Edited on 12/04/2016 11:59:41 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
FULL TITLE: Gay man is left stunned and hurt after Catholic pastor bans him from singing at his own grandmother's funeral because of his sexuality, insisting that it would 'cause a scandal'
A gay man has told of his shock and disbelief after a Catholic pastor banned him from singing at his grandmother's funeral because of his sexuality.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
However that doesn’t mean that people can’t appeal to their conscience to persuade it of something it may not have fairly weighed.
Often we fail to see opportunities to change pictures in a way that still honors time tested truths. And when we do, we wonder why we never seem to be getting off the dime.
It actually sounds like an accommodation was found. He wasn’t an official part of the church service, so nobody could even be confused.
The Baptist churches of old had something they called a mourner’s bench, for people who wanted to publicly say, right then and there without prearrangement, that they intended to let God remake their lives anew. Others have different methods of doing this. Is there such a thing in the Catholic worship system? It sounds like they want to keep it private. I’d think people should have the option. If I were a pastor approached by a person like this, I would ask him, would you like to dedicate your life to the Lord at the service for Him to make it new? And if he said yes... I might bring him into the service, have him give a testimony in accordance with what he had earlier said... and then let him sing, and the congregation would applaud at the end.
I don't mean this as a personal dig --- not at all --- but are you a Catholic?
I ask because this happens all the time at Catholic funerals. Somebody wants a clearly non-liturgical song at the funeral Mass (say, "Danny Boy" or "Thanks for the Memories" ) and the priest legitimately says, "No, this is a Liturgy of the Church. It is not something designed by me, or you."
And then the priest should helpfully suggest--- as this one did --- that they do the requested song at the funeral home, the parish hall, at the cemetery or at the post-funeral luncheon. These are the appropriate non-Liturgical venues.
This can be explained and arranged graciously. What people do not understand is that the Liturgy is not the "property" of ether the priest of the family. It can't be totally customized according to preference. It is a solemn worship-centered act of the Church.
Or at least it is supposed to be!
“Connor said the decision was made after the pastor leading the service at St. Mary Of The Assumption Catholic Church discovered a photograph of him at a gay Pride rally.”
This does not sound true to me.
I doubt a priest was looking for pictures of gay parades. There is probably more to the story.
He might be an active and aggressive homosexual who the family did not want singing at the service. They may have given the priest evidence including the photo.
The priest was then the decision maker.
I like the Mourners’ Bench idea. We Catholics don’t have anything like that now, but I think there was something similar in the past: a place where penitents would stand (maybe it was at the back of the church, I’m not sure) and ask others to pray for them.
If there were such a thing as a public penitential “group” I’d sure want to be in it.
That’s a valid issue, if the church expectation is that a fixed format be followed. That is a church discipline thing. Other churches have other disciplines that they keep. Some won’t play a musical instrument in the service, and bringing one in would get you tossed out.
Of course if I were considering such a thing, I’d study the format, to see what really could and couldn’t be fitted. And if it couldn’t, conducting the extra activity (in line with Francis’ “If they are of good will”) after the end of the official liturgy sounds like a winning formula, though. And that’s what they did.
Yes, and -— as you say -— that’s what they did: he sang at grandma’s gravesite. So I don’t see why the grandson thinks he has a legitimate gripe.
If he was in the parade then the question was what was he doing? I thought the catholic church said you can be gay, just don’t act on it sexually.
You are right on.
That’s the interesting thing. If he really DID want to “bring LGBT into the church” then that might be a clue. I’d grant that, wanting to ask some more questions though.
Funerals ought to be times and occasions of respect. They tell us that our lives are finite and are governed by a greater Power than ourselves. That Power has certain intentions that we heed to our blessing or reject to our peril. (Of course we know this in detail as God and Christ, but even intuitively it should make sense.) I’d respect someone at it who believed himself conscience bound to do something that wasn’t utterly antisocial, even if I disagreed that the Lord wanted it.
I pity the LGBT crowd because “they have been taken captive by the devil to do his will” and yet there are some who act “in ignorance and unbelief” i.e. would accept a deliverance if they knew all the facts including what grace the Lord can extend, rather than having a fixed total disdain for the Lord. This is why I seem to have a quasi-liberal take on the matter, but it’s only because I believe it’s the Lord’s take too.
And sometimes Jesus did upset those scandalized by looks. Not always — He didn’t make a career out of it — and the bible says that love does not behave itself unseemly — and yet when something was important enough, like the salvation of souls, Jesus gladly broke all the social and religious ceremonial rules for its sake.
He should have been allowed to sing. This was his Grandmother for crying out loud. He was not partaking in any church ritual nor was he advocating the Gay lifestyle. He simply wanted to sing Ave Maria to his departed Grandmother for he had every right to do that.
A church that claims to believe in God is to show Mercy, Love and Compassion. This is not the way to do it.
Finally there is one priest and one church with respect for Jesus
He did, graveside. Not in the church. The Catholic Church has every right to determine what is and is not appropriate in any of their services, as does any church.
But of course along with that comes the responsibility to deal with the consequences, to weal or to woe.
Maybe in an earlier era he wouldn’t have even been accommodated at the graveside, so that may be a relative blessing for his sake. It is fitting to be grateful to God for existing blessings at the same time that we seek to expand the range of those blessings. (And gays are not the only people who can be guilty of failing to do this.)
If he had really been a Catholic his whole life, he would have known that there aren’t any invited musical acts at a funeral Mass, or any other Mass. The actual music has to be church approved.
The Father told him that he can’t change the Liturgy, and gave him options to sing elsewhere.
I am going to go out on a limb here. This man probably spent years publicly bashing the church, the bible, Catholics, the priests, the congregation, and Christianity. Then he wants to do a “never mind” and be welcomed with open arms in a Catholic service knowing full well what he’s done.
And no I'm not a Catholic, but have been to enough Catholic weddings and funerals that I think I understand the tradition.
Btw, I can't stand "modern" performances in Protestant churches. Guitar strumming, drum circles etc. That silliness has helped to drive away the congregations of the old main line churches, leaving a vacuum that is now filled by the un-Godly Left.
“And actually it COULD be at least asked of the person what he had in mind.”
When I first heard this story I did make an assumption—I assumed the priest was acting in good faith, which means that he discussed this at least with family members if not directly with the sodomite in question.
If never occurred to me to think that the priest made his decision hastily, without due investigation of the matter.
“But if it does not, then the onus is on that person...”
You’re forgetting the scandalizing of the faithful.
“Some people ass-u-me without even thinking of the possibility to ask questions!”
And some people assume that others are doing that, without, apparently, even considering that what they’re seeing is a carefully considered judgment based on years of effort.
“and the church accommodated him by keeping respectful distances.”
A sodomite, in the absence of other crimes, retains his right not to be killed. One can respect that he is also a child of God, but must be mindful of the fact that he is a wayward and extremely dangerous child. He may deserve pity, but he doesn’t deserve respect.
“But certainly we would welcome seeing an explication of the process you used. If it was so thorough, it will stand on its own, and will stand up to all examination.”
You want me to type in 65 years of the intellectual processes of an autodidact?
Pull the other one, mate.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.