Barry Manilow is a singer who has been popular since the 1970s. Recently he announced that not only was he gay, but he considers himself "married" to his accomplice in sodomy.
On page 9 of the Standard's print copy, and here online, we read that the choir from Saint Columba Church in Oxon Hill sang backup for Manilow when he performed at MGM National Harbor Theater on July 24 & 25. Apparently when he goes to his different venues to perform, he invites local choirs to sing with him.
Several choir members gave reasons why they thought this idea was so wonderful: "bring awareness of the church", "something out there bigger than they are". In striking hands with someone who is in fact living in objective mortal sin, they render moot all the lofty ideals that they enunciated. Would it not have been better for them to decline the invitation politely by stating that their partnership with him would have signaled to the world tacit approval of his deviant lifestyle? Might not preference for Christ's moral teachings over fleeting fame have been more of a powerful witness to the Church?
Instead this choir disgraced themselves for a mere moment of fame. The Standard is likewise to be ashamed of itself (once again) for crowing giddily about this moral compromise of this choir. I cannot imagine either this choir nor the Standard taking such stances had it been a white supremist outfit asking for the choir's singing abilities at some event of their's. They would have been indignant at the idea, and rightly so. So why the compromise in regards to Manilow?