Is singing for a homosexual "wedding" sinful?

My cousin is a professional singer. Yet, more so, he is also a devout Catholic. We were discussing today how he sings for weddings at some Protestant churches. He even does it for Jewish and Muslim ceremonies. Then I asked him if he has ever sung for a homosexual “marriage” at any of the Protestant churches. He eluded to answering in the affirmative, but seemed uncomfortable with admitting it.

Would it be considered participating in a homosexual “wedding” if one were to be a cantor for such a ceremony? And would this participation be a sin, even if it were for monetary compensation?

God bless,

I order you, O sleeper, to awake. I did not create you to be held a prisoner in hell. Rise from the dead, for I am the life of the dead. Rise up, work of my hands, you who were created in my image.

Depends.

archphila.org/HHS/pdf/CoopEvilChart.pdf

That is an incredibly straightforward explanation of where the chips fall, thank you!

According to this, a singer isn’t proportionately necessary for the act to occur, so if he were to sing for the ceremony anyway, it would be a sin?

I order you, O sleeper, to awake. I did not create you to be held a prisoner in hell. Rise from the dead, for I am the life of the dead. Rise up, work of my hands, you who were created in my image.

Maybe. Maybe not. We really can’t say.

Is there a proportiately serious reason to do so? Is there scandal? Does this person actually support same sex marriage?

These are rhetorical questions, but where the person ends up on the tree depends on their answer to many questions. Questions we cannot answer in their stead.

I am a stand-in organist and also get paid for funerals or weddings, within our Catholic Church.

Even though I am paid I am also there for God that’s the primary reason I am there, does God want gay marriages … No. Sorry it is a hard message for some people, but love the sinners as alway, and pray for their conversion

I think it is beyond doubt both a sin and a potential cause of scandal for a Catholic to sing at a “gay wedding” (whether for a fee or not) as it could reasonably be seen to endorse such an act. The purpose of singing at such an event is to celebrate it, is it not? How could one possibly celebrate such a thing so contrary to Catholic teaching yet be considered a “devout” Catholic? It could only be that one is either woefully ill-informed of Catholic faith and morals or else wilfully disobeying such teaching? I would not apply the term “devout” to either of those two categories as we have an obligation to know and uphold the faith in our daily lives.

The Catholic Church’s teaching is clear on this matter. Confession and a firm resolve to not repeat such behaviour is required.

This in no way is to imply disrespect or animosity to gay people who are to be loved and respected as children of the one Father and loved by Christ. It is the sin that is the problem, not the sinner. We are all sinners in need of God’s grace and mercy.

Seems to be objectively- yes.

Even if they are against it as I assume they are and are only singing as their “job”.

As someone who is directly involved in creating the “celebration”…of that which is objectively gravely sinful…indeed contrary to the natural law and revelation.

That said - that does not mean that the particular person sinned - for people can make honest mistakes honestly thinking that something is"ok" to do …though uncomfortable. It is possible to have honest error in judgment -but we are to correct such errors in thinking in ourselves and not make them again…

If being there or not being there makes no difference to the ceremony taking place then its not essentially gravely disordered to participate if it s work related.

Being there for work obviously means you are indifferent to any sense of “celebration”.
To think it literally means you are “celebrating” by attending a “Celebration” makes as much sense as opining that “Blackboxes” by that reason must be black. In fact they are and always have been orange.

In doing so, one is actively taking part in the grave sin and showing approval of it. You cannot participate in homosexual weddings under any circumstance…unless…maybe…your processional was Highway to Hell emphasising the being on a Highway to Hell…

Catechism:

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

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a8.htm#V

and also from the Catechism from the section dealing with the sins of homosexuality:

“They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.”

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm#III

See more in my post above.

And yet I’ll warrant you cannot reference a single Magisterial quote to support your somewhat extreme view ;).

This is not unreasonably judged remote and therefore indirect participation.

Glad we solved this one.

Cantoring could be said to be rather a direct role in the “wedding”…

Also note the rest…it can be “approving” of it for it is part of the very “celebration” of it…

Catechism:

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.

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a8.htm#V

and also from the Catechism from the section dealing with the sins of homosexuality:

“They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.”

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm#III

It would seem rather approving - for one part and partial of the “celebration” (to celebrate is to show approval).

I for one would certainly judge that I ought not do such …(though I cannot sing and so my singing too would be harmful in itself to the ears of those there…)

If one is replaceable then its “remote cooperation” and therefore not the type of cooperation the Catechism speaks of.
Therefore its a prudential judgement, therefore different people of differing common sense can come to different judgements on this matter and both sides will still be Catholic.

There is no single “objective” correct answer to this question as circumstances are widely varied andf the actual person involved is best aquainted with those complete circumstances.

My experience is that some of us find it hard to distinguish material causes from formal causes, just as some people are born unable to see some colours.

No attempt at semantic sleight of hand can justify what is sinful behaviour. Our Lord Himself criticized the Pharisees for such behaviour noting that while they adhered rigidly to the letter of the Law they completely ignored its spirit. The Magisterium/ Church cannot possibly be expected to legislate for every possible life event, in this case a Catholic singing at a same-sex wedding. Instead it issues (usually via the Catechism) broad principles that can be applied intelligently to a wide range of scenarios. Just because singing at a gay wedding hasn’t been officially condemned by the Magisterium doesn’t mean that it is right.

Trying to perform semantic gymnastics to justify what is wrong behaviour is absurd. By the logic of some, a Catholic could perform (by singing or some other public act) at the opening of an abortion clinic, or euthanasia clinic, free from sin. If our faith is to mean anything and be truly “alive” then it means walking the walk and not just talking the talk. If that means refusing paying work as a matter of conscience then so be it. Semantic gymnastics, evasion, doublespeak, hair splitting etc can be used to justify wrong actions; such as “it wasn’t theft, I was merely redistributing wealth”.

Such moral relativism is largely responsible for much of the confusion and immorality of modern times and has been condemned by a number of Popes. A doctor performing an abortion is “replaceable”. Everyone is. Just because this is so means nothing. If he (or she) did the act (performed the abortion) then he/she did the act. End of story. And no amount of linguistic gymnastics can alter that fact.

Some people may be fooled but be sure God is not.

That would be to overly (mis) simplify a rather more complex principle…and not reflect the correct course here.

It would rather seem that the person in such a position is helping other persons directly to celebrate and thus to approve that which the Church Teaches can never be approved under any circumstances.

Catechism: “They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.” (see link above).

Yes. From his perspective you are simply expressing a secular opinion. That is, religions and states having their own jurisdiction and laws. When there is a non infallible teaching(De Fide), we are always advancing the Catholic view. We are to avoid the semblance of approval in every way. Not being there says it all nicely.

Spritus1, I think you’re right. What if a Catholic videographer was asked to film an abortion? No amount of verbal or intellectual gymnastics, no chart showing levels of cooperation, could justify doing do.

I’ve been a professional wedding photographer for 37 years. I emailed the judicial vicar of our archdiocese to ask about gay “weddings.” He replied that the wedding would take place whether or not I was there, so it wouldn’t be formal cooperation for me to photograph it. After much thought, I’ve decided he is wrong. I wouldn’t photograph an abortion, and won’t photograph a gay wedding.

I’ve suspended my wedding photography business until the supreme court makes a decision on religious freedom as it pertains to this issue. If the court decides against us, that will be the end of my career. These days, there is a price to be paid for being a Christian.

Remote cooperation cannot be conclusively ruled out.
Therefore valid participation is a legitimate possible choice.
Clearly you prudentialy judge otherwise for yourself.
Others may validly judge differently in prudential matters in their own case.

Your opinion that the Church sees this matter as objective is itself subjective interpretation :eek:.

Yes I understand you think that…

The Church is quite clear regarding approving of homosexual sins - such can not in any circumstances be approved.

Catechism: “They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.” (see link above).

I do not see how such a participation in a “gay wedding” can get away from such approval…one is directly celebrating and leading others in celebrating (which is a high degree of approval!) such…

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.