The name of the current problem in the American Church?
MONEY.
Too much, or too little, or merely badly spent?
All of the above.
Chris, why don't you explain how money works in the liturgical music world? How the dollar signs go up as the quality goes down, and vice versa?
Then I can draw the analogy to almost every other aspect of Am Church life.
Kathy:
I'll take a stab at what you intend to see here. The details are true, and the names have been retained so as not to provide loopholes for the willful.
About 10 years ago I called up Oregon Catholic Press, hoping to have a piece of music published. I was pleasantly informed that the company would happily consider any publication I wished to submit, but that I needed to follow certain guidelines. This seemed an entirely reasonable request -- of course I want to be accepted for publication of music which is considered quality by someone other than the composer himself. I asked for the guidelines. They included that the texts be free of archaisms (thee, thou, so-called sexist language, any meaty content). I decided not to send any music to OCP since I was absolutely convinced that the guidelines could not be met by serious Catholics and serious musicians.
When I enquired at GIA, in Chicago, about the submission guidelines I received a high-sounding version of exactly the same criteria. How sad that these two houses control so much of the music published nowadays.
The issue, however, is worse than this. There is a powerful incentive for unsuspecting parishes to buy "the whole programme", as it were, since those who know nothing about Catholic liturgical sense or even the content of the faith can use programmes to help plan music for any Sunday Mass throughout the year. Amazing only to the willfully blind, all the latest hits somehow figured in the recommendations for songs to be used in the near future.
The disposable missalette is by far the worst aspect of this pyramid scheme. Every time a new season approaches, new missalettes are mailed -- purchased in advance, but mailed just in time for the new season -- so that the strong impression is that our faith and the music which supports it is entirely disposable. Somehow the same trash, musically speaking and theologically speaking, keeps rearing its ugly head, giving the impression to the more than casual observer that this stuff is intended to last, while all that other, older, churchy stuff should go by the boards.
Texts are edited not merely according to the drunken whimsy of some powerhungry editor, but for the express purpose of eliminating archaisms (see above). Sometimes this produces comically bad results. "Let all mortal flesh keep silence" comes to mind, because the editors decided to remove "descendeth" and similar archaisms, only to replace them with "descending", which kept the meter, but destroyed the meaning. "At the lamb's high feast", which ends each verse "God in man made manifest" is send to the re-education camp, only to return with "God in flesh made manifest" or sometimes "God in us made manifest".
To no one's surprise, the music publishers send their stable of presenters to conduct "workshops" -- and so the National Association of Pastoral Musicians (NaPalm, to its detractors) hosts both a yearly lovefest and w
A Catholic friend of mine had the same experience with OCP and GIA. He sent some of his compositions to them for publication, but they were rejected because their musical quality and Catholicity were too obvious not to notice. OCP and GIA only favor the insipid, banal, politically-correct, and/or heretical. There ought to be an interdict placed on every one of their employees until they find gainful employment, and their missalettes ought to be burned.
Chris, the problem you describe is one we're both familiar with, as doubtless Kathy and other readers. Your detailed involvement in it and description of it brings home the harsh reality of it as a reminder that these things are far from being merely academic. But what sort of problem is this, I wonder? Is it a problem of money? Perhaps. But I wonder whether there aren't less proximate problems closer to the base of this pyramid, if less ultimate than sin or the devil. When we have an official Lectionary from which all passages referencing homosexuality have been expunged, or when we have whole dioceses subscribing to hymnals from Catholic publishing houses openly defiant of the canons of ecclesial music mandated by the most recent Ecumenical Council of the Church, is there not a problem with somebody failing to mind the shop? Is there not a problem with somebody in authority failing to enforce Church law? What is this? A failure of nerve? Corruption? Oblivion? Or, Kathy, are you suggesting that the AmChurch bishops have simply been bought off by kickbacks and bribes from the North American Gay Lesbian Association, in the first place, and the International Association for the Promotion of Political Correctness and Haugen & Haas Hymns in the Liturgy, in the second?
"an official Lectionary from which all passages referencing homosexuality have been expunged"
To be fair, those passages have not all been expunged, but I think they've been "bracketed" as optional -- just like the verses that teaches that wives must submit to their husbands.
But in our parish we never use the shorter versions of the lectionary readings anyway. Still, it is wrong for the Church to give the heterodox and heretical and dissident permission to bleep over the "hard sayings" of the Lord.
Thanks, Chris. Furthermore, the royalty potential for each song they publish is very large: 10% of every copy, including promotional or discounted copies. That adds up, between the snazzy marketing and the captive audiences.
Would I be tempted to write the Da Vinci Code? No. Would I be tempted to write a mediocre hymn and make some money? Lightly tempted, yes. Dumb it down, for fun and profit.
Not to mention the frequent hymn contests, which usually specifically aim at liberal causes, glossing over the differences among the Christian communions, celebrating the modern city, or diversity, etc. etc. Those pay out $500-$1500 a pop to the winner. And once you've won a few, commissions roll in.
This is partly the groaning of every starving artist who values "integrity" over "money" but still has to pay "rent" or a "mortgage." But it's more than that, because a whole lot more is at stake with religious art.
(Very slick trick there, PP, trying to get me to subscribe to your conspiracy theory!)
To be fair, those passages have not all been expunged, but I think they've been "bracketed" as optional -- just like the verses that teaches that wives must submit to their husbands.
No, Mr. Potter, revisit the texts. Unless something's radically changed, they're neither in the shorter nor in the bracketed longer readings anymore. Read and see for yourself. Vree called his readers attention to this some time back, and there was a whole article devoted to this in NOR as well.
Kathy, I know of no conspiracies, but I do see pervasive patterns and trends. To deny seeing these, I would say, would be to have his head in the sand.
His or her head in the sand, presumably?
I think that some bishops are very concerned about money. Some are much too deeply concerned about public appearance, and about the relationship of PR to the collection plate.
The people who can afford to make big donations to diocesan capital campaigns are not traditionalists with dozens of children. They're young cohabitating people with computer engineering degrees, young lawyer couples who contracept, middle aged business types and politicians with trophy wives--2nd or 3rd marriage types. All of whom have friends or family members in "stable, loving, long-term homosexual relationships." Wouldn't want to say anything too offensive.
At the very least, some bishops bought into the "wisdom" of 20th-century sociology, which says that the religion that veers too far away from the accepted societal culture is doomed. Which is bad luck for us as Catholics, being as how we were founded in opposition to "the world." So we can be ourselves and be poor, or we can be popular and undemanding. I think some bishops have chosen the popular route.
Money and the Church go back to the beginning according to Reimarus as referenced in R.B. Stewart in his introduction to the recent book, The Resurrection of Jesus, Crossan and Wright in Dialogue, http://www.amazon.com/.
"Reimarus (1774-177
posits that Jesus became sidetracked by embracing a political position, sought to force God's hand and that he died alone deserted by his disciples. What began as a call for repentance ended up as a misguided attempt to usher in the earthly political kingdom of God. After Jesus' failure and death, his disciples stole his body and declared his resurrection in order to maintain their financial security and ensure themselves some standing."
See the book for added clarification of Reimarus views.
And St. Paul's ability to collect rather large sums of money from the Gentiles for Jewish relief, probably went a long way in "greasing" the Gentile entrance into the movement.
So add Gentile money to JC, the whims of Pilate, Paul and Constantine to the list of the foundations of the Catholic Church?
"Where there is no enforcement there is no law"
Well we just hit the nail on the head!
As long as the Church waits to enforce its own rules, people will simply eventually think that the Church has no authority whatsoever. Which is of course heresy.
Thank you, Andrew. Bingo.
His or her head in the sand, presumably?
Of course, Kathy. That's what "... his head in the sand" means.
"No, Mr. Potter, revisit the texts. Unless something's radically changed, they're neither in the shorter nor in the bracketed longer readings anymore. Read and see for yourself."
If that's what Vree said, then Vree was mistaken, because the current Lectionary includes I Cor. 6:1-11 as the Epistle for the Tuesday of the 23rd. week in Ordinary Time in Year Two of the cycle of readings for Daily Mass.
It's true, however, that St. Paul's famous discourse on the origin of homosexual perversion in Romans chapter 1 is not included in the post-Vatican II Lectionary.
But then neither I Cor. 6:9 nor Romans 1:26ff appeared anywhere in the pre-Vatican II Lectionary. So we've actually gone from a Lectionary that quoted none of the New Testament teaching on homosexual perversion to a Lectionary that quotes some of the new Testament teaching on homosexual perversion.
Was the decision to omit Romans 1:26ff from the new Lectionary due to discomfort with what God says about homosexual sin? Maybe, maybe not. Maybe it was just thought that many would be scandalised to hear such frank sexual talk during a Mass. I don't know the answer. But I do know that St. Paul's doctrine that homosexuality can be overcome -- "Such were some of you" -- is included in the new Lectionary.
"But then neither I Cor. 6:9 nor Romans 1:26ff appeared anywhere in the pre-Vatican II Lectionary. So we've actually gone from a Lectionary that quoted none of the New Testament teaching on homosexual perversion to a Lectionary that quotes some of the new Testament teaching on homosexual perversion."
Here is some real food for thought. Is it possible that the moral climate in which the Church finds herself makes some difference? After all, if Cardinal Arinze can go to Georgetown, and His Holiness can speak on the violence of Islam ....
PP, thanks, ma'am!
As I understand things, the Lectionary went from being a one-year cycle to being a two-year daily Mass cycle PLUS a three-year Sunday Mass cycle--so there's room for triple the readings now. Anything that the liturgists consider important enough could be included. (For what it's worth, I doubt the current homocelebrando climate raged in 1971, even among liturgists, haha.)
Less than triple the readings, come to think of it, but still plenty.
Sure, there is plenty of room in the new lectionary for additional readings, and certain passages not included could have been included. But I don't think we can draw any definite conclusion from a text's absence that there was an effort to expunge what God says about homosexuality back around 1970. Like I said, the Pre-Vatican II Lectionary said absolutely nothing about homosexuality.
I am curious, what church law are you guys thinking about in particular?
Who do you think are the biggest 'law breakers'?
A top 10 List of catholics no no's perhaps.
Contraceptives and divorce certainly must be pretty high up - right.
Or is it more about the proper political and social attitute?
Or is it more about the proper form to enjoy mass - Post Vatican II being the bad one I presume - everything before PiusXII being good and holy?
By the way, what would be the top'enforcement'component ?
Excommunication?
10 Pater Noster?
Back to First communion lessons?
Brainwashing for all those liberal Dummkoepfe that do not want Church to go back to ~1950.
'no enforcement - no law...The single major problem of authority in the church today...?
Did anyone else find Grega's comment incoherent?
"I am curious, what church law are you guys thinking about in particular?"
Judging from the comments in this commentbox, it doesn't appear that we're really thinking about any church law at all. We've really not been discussing "sine poena nulla lex," but have gone off on a few tangents.
But the crisis of discipline in the Church today affects all areas, so I guess you could refer Dr. Blosser's observation to all kinds of things.
Grega doesn't see the weeds, so he can't recommend anything useful to the gardener.
I am copying this from the Vree combox, where I accidentally placed it:
Oregon Catholic Press!!
About a year ago I ran into an item on another blog (Ipsissima Verba, a good one that no one ever visits except Joe, the lonely liberal from Louisville). It concerned the cover of the new missalette offered by that very outfit.
It pictured the Pentecostal gathering, the apostles gathered around the table, tongues of fire in place, bearded faces, eyes heavenward -- OOPS! WHAT'S THIS?? There's a g-g-g-girl at the table! Could this be a mistake? Beardless, slim, feminine features, boy it sure looks like . . . .
The wife of this blog's proprietor went so far as to contact Oregon Catholic Press, and enquire about this seeming faux pas. The response was printed on the website, one of the sniffiest, snarkiest notes I've ever read from a businessman (that's essentially what these guys are) supposedly concerned with not upsetting the public: we do not interfere with artistic interpretation, the figure in question is John, who was after all, a lad, a comely unisex stripling, at the time, etc, etc.
Busted!!
The whole thing was absolutely hilarious. I just finished searching the Ipsissima Verba archives for this item. I couldn't find it. How I wish I could!
One of the other apostles looked like Jerry Garcia, too.
Chris,
granted I certainly would not deny that many of my contributions here frequently dabble on the shallow end of the pool - quite a few are quick personal opinions 'published' without much contemplation or research.
And yes I would not want to claim to be a decent gardener - indeed I seems to see sometimes flowers were you see weeds. Thanks god that we both are not in charge, and that the collective of gardeners in this world -while gladly taking our suggestions into account somehow in the end probably take a middle road.
Some weeds stay, some flowers go- but overall the garden seem to work out just fine.
I see you as a dedicated hardworking family man that raises I am sure an impressive bunch of kids as good as he can - I can deeply respect that.
If you however think that this gives you superior insights and secure claims on the truth - I bulk.
Say your part - but be not surprised if others say theirs.
And yes as Jordan noted we seem to all going off tangentially in this thread - the above written being yet another such tangent.
I by the way found Kathy's tangential contribution noteworthy:
"The people who can afford to make big donations to diocesan capital campaigns are not traditionalists with dozens of children. They're young cohabitating people with computer engineering degrees, young lawyer couples who contracept, middle aged business types and politicians with trophy wives--2nd or 3rd marriage types. All of whom have friends or family members in "stable, loving, long-term homosexual relationships." Wouldn't want to say anything too offensive.
At the very least, some bishops bought into the "wisdom" of 20th-century sociology, which says that the religion that veers too far away from the accepted societal culture is doomed. Which is bad luck for us as Catholics, being as how we were founded in opposition to "the world." So we can be ourselves and be poor, or we can be popular and undemanding. I think some bishops have chosen the popular route.. "
I do not think on second of us catholics/christians as opposition to "the world" at all -
to the contrary many of our values clearly dominate this world.
In that context I found Benedicts Regensburg lecture right on. While I personally find it unfortunate that he keeps bringing up his firm believe that muslim religion is inherantly a violent one - I can appreciate the willingness of our Pope to be an academic and to discuss everuy subject very freely.
Our faith is indeed very much intertwined with reasoning. Has been will be. For nothing else - since science and reasonsing are the true driving forces behind our economies, most all aspects of our daily life and many of our aspirations and dreams as humankind we would be foolish as catholics/ christians to untie us from the rational leading edge of discovery and innovation.
Our religion is indeed not shy and rationally disects even our most sacred texts - as Pope Benedict also demonstrate in the September
"It pictured the Pentecostal gathering, the apostles gathered around the table, tongues of fire in place, bearded faces, eyes heavenward -- OOPS! WHAT'S THIS?? There's a g-g-g-girl at the table! Could this be a mistake? Beardless, slim, feminine features, boy it sure looks like . . ."
I know the OCP said that it was "supposed" to be John, but if you're talking about Pentecost, Mary the Mother of God is traditionally included in many portrayals of that event, there with the other apostles, sometimes even in the center of them, and with the tongue of fire on her head.
That being said, I would not put it past the OCP to sneak in something like what you're implying.
Megan,
Alas, no Mary. I'm sure that if the OCP flak could have taken refuge in that dodge, he would have, as it would have been much more convincing than John. But the head count was twelve: ten men, one wispy young thing, and Jerry Garcia.
I don't claim to be some fountain of wisdom and truth, Grega. I claim that the Catholic Church is, and that I acknowledge such a thing as binding on me. If you argue with my positions on many issues, your real argument is with Holy Mother Church and, ultimately, with God Himself.
Holding the positions you have enunciated here, it would be reasonable to ask if you are, in fact, Catholic. I don't see evidence of such a thing. This isn't MY standard, but God's and His Church's.
the current Lectionary includes I Cor. 6:1-11
That's great, Mr. Potter. I'm delighted you discovered that gem. I do notice that the relevant Greek terms, malakoi and arsenokoitai, are translated as "boy prostitutes" and "sodomites" in the New American Bible. I suppose I may trust that most "pew peasants," as Realist calls them, understand that the translators are here referring to those engaging in homosexual acts?
You make a fine point, too, about the pre-Vatican II Lectionary. However, I disagree with the inference you draw about our own lectionary. If you examine all the passages that those with politically correct sensibilities would find "sensitive," I think you will agree that they have been doctored in some way. Start with the passages about male headship, for example. These are bracketed and reserved as part of the optional longer readings that may conveniently omitted. As Kathy notes, there's ample space in a 3-year cycle in our Vatican II Lectionary for everything, as you will agree. The lone Sunday reading about Sodom and Gomorrah is Genesis 18:20-32, which deals with Abraham bargaining down God's wrath against Sodom. God states that because "their sin is so grave," He must deal with it. But what exactly is that sin? The Mass reading doesn't say; nor do any of the others in the Lectinary. God Himself calls homosexual acts an "abomination" (Lev. 18:22, 20:13) -- His strongest expression of moral revulsion. But Catholic congregations would never hear that either, at least, not from their Lectinaries. For a detailed analysis, read F. Douglas Kneibert's "Homosexuality Is Bad? But Where's That in the Lectionary?" This is the tip of the iceberg. I wonder who decides what is bracketed for the longer readings and what is left out? Anyone know? When are/were these decisions made? In conjunction with ICEL committees, USCCB committees, ... what? It's difficult IMHO to simply assume that our Lectionary has been utterly untouched by revisionist ideologues. Certainly our hymnody has not been immune -- call to witness the widely subscribed Oregon Catholic Press (God help us)! What would make us think our Lectionary was?
"If you examine all the passages that those with politically correct sensibilities would find 'sensitive,' I think you will agree that they have been doctored in some way."
I don't disagree. In going through the Lectionary, I've gotten the distinct impression that there's been a bowdlerising tendency in certain passages. Sometimes you find some of the verses mentioning God's wrath or eternal punishment are skipped over. The Genesis story of Sodom and Gomorrah is a good case too, and on that subject, Jude 7 does not appear in the new lectionary. In fact, Jude appears only once, on the Saturday of the 8th week in Ordinary Time, and it's only Jude 17, 20-25 (but because Lent and Easter interrupt the cycle of Ordinary Time, sometimes that Saturday's usual readings do not appear at all).
Saturday in the 8th week in Ordinary Time in Year Two of the two-year weekly readings cycle, I should have said.
#God Himself calls homosexual acts an "abomination" (Lev. 18:22, 20:13)#
Apparently, the reference is to Canaanite sex rituals and not to what we today call homosexuality.
http://www.libchrist.com/other/h.../
leviticus.html
If it was just Canaanite sex rituals that God was objecting to, then how come He had Moses issue a ban on homosexual acts, not just homosexual acts during religious rituals? (And yes, I know all about JEPD and all that bilgewater, but please tolerate my "fundamentalist" blinkerdom, evidently shared by Jesus, that the Pentateuch is actually a historical document. If it wuz gud enuf fer Poap St. Pie-us X and the PBC, it's gud enuf fer me.) Anyway, I trust the historical Magisterium and the consensus of the Fathers on the interpretation of texts such as Lev. 18:22 and Lev. 20:13 over the modernist ravings of the pro-homosexualist crowd. But, you know, I am a Catholic, after all. Hier ich stande, ich kann nicht . . . oh wait, wrong version of Christianity.
Hier stehe ich. Ich kann nicht anders. Gott hilf mir. Amen. -- great Christian words that still stir our hearts.
Listen for such words on Christian lips today and you will find them.
Oh duh, of course it's "stehe," not "stande." (Ich kann nur ein bischen Deutsch.)
Assuming he really said those words at all, that is. Makes a nice story anyway.
For those of us not versed in the subtleties of German theology -----?
"Here I stand. I can do nothing else. May God help me (or, So help me God). Amen."
Which version of Christianity?
Luther's version of Christianity is deeply respected by the Church today. Why create false problems? The ecumenical vision of Vatican II was a source of deep joy to Paul VI -- and it is deeply to be regretted that so few Catholics have experienced any of this joy. Closing one's ears to the message of Vatican II is a formula for a morose and discontented Catholicism, as the dismal career of sects like the Lefebvrists shows. It is time for the Church to renew its embrace of the horizons so boldly opened up by the Council.
But pursuing ecumenism doesn't mean you have to let your brains all fall out.
Luther's version of Christianity is and was a mistake. Ecumenism which tries to paper over that fact isn't being honest or fair to Luther or his spiritual descendants.
What about a more realistic ecumenism--one that sees the differences and obstacles but still keeps contact, in hopes that one day all will be one?
Commenting by HaloScan
