Those who nitpick will nitpick, but basically, yeah, it's fine.

That's the short answer; the long answer involves heated arguments about the Episcopal conferences authority, what it means for a hymnal to be published with approval, and all sorts of other things.

There's obviously better options out there; but if, say, a wedding couple is requesting it for their wedding, I'd probably just do it, and I wouldn't feel guilty about it.

I've also seen documents stating the same that just because a hymnal is approved does NOT mean that it's "responsorial psalms" (even if they are called that) are actually approved for use as responsorial psalms.

Marty Haugen's "Psalm 128: Blest Are Those Who Love You" was included for the first time in a GIA hymnal in the 1988 first edition of Gather. The ascription states that the text is a "paraphrase by Marty Haugen."

I don't think the "paraphrase" is very great, but it's sufficient enough to make the text different from the NAB text and able to be copyrighted by the composer.

For those opposed to the use of psalm paraphrases, even if the paraphrases are very minor, there's now this to consider: the new Tony Alonso/Marty Haugen projected 3-volume The Lyric Psalter (only years A and C are presently available) replaces all of Haugen's paraphrased/adapted psalm verses in his various psalm settings with verses from The Revised Grail Psalms. So psalm 128 can be found at Holy Family (ABC), 27 OT (B) [when year B is published], and 33 OT (A) with un-paraphrased verses.

By the way, the 1988 Gather (as well as all subsequent GIA hymnals) was "Published with ecclesiastical approval, Archdiocese of Chicago." That means that (usually upon the recommendation of his book censors who have done the actual work of plowing through all the page proofs) the archbishop has judged the texts within the book (even psalm paraphrases!) to be free of doctrinal error. It does not mean that he approves of the music, nor that he even judges the texts to be great literature. Nor does it mean that the hymnal is an approved "liturgical book," such as the 1974 Latin Graduale Romanum is. A diocesan bishop's permission to publish (formerly called an imprimatur in canon law) simply means "no heresy discovered."

And I agree with what everyone else says about weddings. In fact, recently I had a cantor singing for a wedding that does not normally sing at our church. The couple had not picked a Psalm. She said "what Psalm?" I said "What do you know?" The reply was "Blest are those who Love You."

I said, "OK sounds good."

Life is too short and if I'm going to fight "abuses," there's far bigger ones out there to put my foot down on.

Thank you all for these very helpful answers and comments.

Chris,

I did it in a humorous way, but the statement itself is still true.

You're asking the wrong question....rather, by what authority does the USCCB publish documents? That is the real question, and the simple answer is, they have no authority to do this sort of thing, unless their document is approved by Rome, which the USCCB curiously did not do.

This puts it in a state of faux-law where people see it as authoritative because it is under. The USCCB heading, but has no authority. And because they didn't submit it to Rome, they can get away with stuff a roman document never could, such as advocating for direct disobedience to the missal.

I have to ask how carefully a diocese looks at any of those hymnals. Like they don't have anything else to do.

Even that claim is rather questionable with some GIA books...

You're having quite a day, aren't you, Ben? Even had a comment of yours deleted from PTB. What are you smoking?

Fr @ronkrisman

While I think each of those texts is problematic, and would not use them, we should be a bit more prudent about throwing around the H-Bomb.

For something to be "heresy," it has to mean something that is heretical.

HERESY: Jesus was adopted as God's son after his birth as a human.

NOT HERESY: pickles the slowly typewriter 4987693. my favorite sport is mayonnaise.

I'll agree the third one is, at best, nonsensical, and maaaaybe the second.

But the first one seems rather clearly against the scripture and the mission of the church. Our mission is specifically to spread our creeds.

I do agree with you on the first one and I suspect that is why the text has been changed in Worship IV and Gather whatever number they're up to.

Thanks for bringing up the Ruth Duck text, Ben. (I should add, I think she writes superb texts, and if I were also a Methodist I'd have no problem.)

Glad to hear that it has been changed in more recent editions, but that doesn't help those of us in parishes that won't be buying new hymnals any time soon, or with liturgy committees that insist "any text in the hymnal is de facto approved for our use by the diocese." (That was verbatim, when I declined to use responsorial psalms with texts credited to any individual other than King David...)

Save the Liturgy, Save the World!

Ben, re: For the Healing of the Nations, I agree with PGA. Again, I think you need to read the line that you consider to be problematic in context:

All that kills abundant living, Let it from the earth be banned:
Pride of status, race, or schooling, Dogmas that obscure your plan.

If you've ever flipped through the TV channels of the televangelists, you will hear lots of dogmas that obscure God's plan. And what about the radical Isalm dogma of jihad? Closer to home: the former Catholic teaching which permitted human slavery. Yes, Lord, ban them all!

re: For the Healing of the Nations

Fair enough. Makes sense.

In the meantime, let's remember that this is an OCP text.

That explains it.

Some statements are heresy, some achieve heretical status, and some have heresy thrust upon 'em. Nuff said.

However, I would repeat that I have said if Pope Francis doesn't start taking security a little more seriously, he may not last long.

I've thought this, too, and it's probably not going to happen (Francis ramping up security, that is). I get the impression that he's going to evangelize the best way he knows how, and if someone takes a poke at him, then he will become more powerful than they can possibly imagine.

Star Wars...nice.

Thank you, Obi-Wan.

(Save the Liturgy, Save the World)

I agree with Chonak that a discussion of the morality of slavery is a side issue to the subject of this thread (Haugen's Psalm 128). But so was Ben's questioning of a Fred Kaan hymn text.

Of course, there is no doubt whatsoever that the Church, from the time of Saint Paul, accommodated the Roman imperial institution of human slavery and did not condemn it. And, yes, it is true that, beginning in the fifteenth century, there have been papal bulls condemning the slave trade, if not the actual owning of slaves, on the average of perhaps one per century.

But was this papal teaching truly received by the Church? If it was, how does one deal with the Catechism of the Council of Trent stating that slaves are not fit for holy orders? (Wasn't slavery already condemned more than a century earlier, according to the apologists?)

And why did the first bishop of the USA own slaves? And what evidence is there that bishops in the USA preached often and strongly against racial slavery prior to the lead up to the American Civil War?

The Church is always in need of repentance and reconciliation. If we cannot even admit our corporate sins from the past, the sins of our co-religionists, how can we be an evangelizing force in today's world, which faces often quite different corporate sins?

"In the Roman Catholic Church, a dogma (plural dogmata) is an article of faith revealed by God, which the magisterium of the Church presents as necessary to be believed if one freely chooses to be a Catholic." wiki

The REAL problem with the "heretical" leanings of texts in these "faux worship aids" is that they are in what are supposed to be CATHOLIC hymnals, in CATHOLIC church pews, and sung by CATHOLIC congregants during the HOLY SACRIFICE OF THE MASS.

For a Catholic, the word "dogma" means only one thing as defined above, and that is why Ben and many others in his Church are strongly offended and even scandalized to see these words used at Mass.

This is one of the many ways the Church has succumbed to a "diabolical disorientation".

What's worse is his support of things anti-Catholic.

Fr. Krisman, thanks for the note about Haugen revising the psalter. His stuff is not my cup of tea, but the big reason I always shut it down when people asked for it for ritual Masses was that I couldn't abide by the paraphrases...I think the People of God deserve his Word...if it has to be filtered through anyone, I'd rather it be a competent ecclesiastical authority, not Marty Haugen (pax). I'm glad to hear that he and Tony Alonso are on board. Any idea about David Haas?