I didn't see the thread that was "disappeared," but on the whole, I think the environment on this forum is quite open and tolerant, and that one can receive a fair hearing on most liturgical/music subjects. For example, I was very pleased with our recent SSPX discussion, a controversial topic if there ever was one, and thought some real breakthroughs were made--- in my understanding at least.

BTW, if you want to have a lively discussion, take a look at this article from NCR, Fr. Thomas Reese's wish list for the next prefect of the CDW, and we can get some fur and feathers flying. : )

Speaking personally, I was happy to see that the post had been removed.

The email strikes me as improper and strangely composed.

It strikes me as both of those things too. Let's discuss it instead of pretending it doesn't exist.

I didn't see the thread that was "disappeared," but on the whole, I think the environment on this forum is quite open and tolerant, and that one can receive a fair hearing on most liturgical/music subjects.

You are mostly correct - until someone touches a third rail that admin believes is too dangerous.

I didn't see anything wrong with the NPM e-mail. It presented facts, not gossip, and I thought the comments to it were reasonable.

I agree with you, although I question how much of what it contained were "facts." But either way, I don't see why it can't be discussed and debated.

There were rumors, speculation, hearsay, and opinions, as well as facts.

Thanks for asking, PGA.

I took out the post because it contained a bunch of talk about individuals who work for NPM: about their personal lives and salaries and job stability. Whether the claims turn out to be accurate or false, that's not what this forum is for.

On the other hand, it is fine to talk about matters of substance and the organization's performance, and to express disagreements, or even the occasional congratulations. :-)

So if you want to discuss the issues in the letter and the response, that's OK. Can you please leave the individuals out of it?

By the way, if anyone feels inconvenienced by having their innocent comments deleted, I saved a copy of the thread as it stood before I deleted it; If anyone would like to have their deleted text back, to re-use it in some way, please send me a private message through my profile page, and I will send back the deleted comments that belong to you. Not everything on the thread was inappropriate, and I'm sorry to inconvenience people by deleting the whole thing.

On the other hand, nobody is ever sorry for taking the high road, and I'm not today.

Apparently someone felt they needed to take drastic action to bring some transparency to that organization, and that's a good impulse. Since I'm not a member of it, I don't know whether members get routine disclosure of the organization's finances and top salaries, but if it's not done, maybe that sort of transparency would be a healthy step. Of course I'm just giving a personal opinion here.

Interesting. Is that stated publicly somewhere? Do you mean that NPM has some status as an agency of the bishops' conference? I'm not aware of that.

Thanks. From what is listed on-line, some of these organizations file Form 990 and some don't. Apostleship of the Sea does; so do Catholic Library Association and Worldwide Marriage Encounter. On the other hand, I don't see any filings for CTSA, CLSA, or NPM. There doesn't appear to be a consistent pattern about it.

I have said the same on another post, Heath. Not being an NPM member, I haven't seen the letter. Some of the original post here on future personnel actions was rumor. If the marriage between the two individuals took place, that is public record in most states and is not rumor. It would have been a clear violation of Church teaching and losing a job in a supposed Catholic organization would be an expected outcome. As for the financial problems, I have no way of verifying that.

If the "story" content at the heart of this "issue" is what I think it is, the forum could debate it from time immemorial 'til the cows come home and the parousia, but it will be to no avail, and certainly to no one's advantage. So, I must disagree (agreeably) PGA with your position. In no way does this extracted distraction affect either the conduct of our our individual souls or our responsibilities as servants of sacred music.
Blessings and prayers to all during trying times.

PGA, got it from another person, thanks. Yeah, that was ...something.

My opinion is that the public programs of any organization influencing liturgical music not only can but should be discussed in a forum like this.

The email is not about public programs but about internal matters.

I still think there is a distinction between rumor and public record. Some parts of that original post were true and verifiable. Others, not so. If you go and do something that leaves a trail of legal documents in its wake, it is no longer private information. When you are head of a religiously affiliated organization, your personal behavior is public rather than private, and you have no right to expect it to be otherwise. It is not scandal, calumny, or detraction to expect such individuals to be accountable for their actions.

I'm more concerned about the various other individuals mentioned in the letter, people of whom most of us have probably never heard. What about them?

Yes and that is a valid critique - directed at the person who originally wrote the letter.

However, even so, if you really read it, most of the people named in the letter are named as victims, not perpretators.

I think this thread should probably disappear...

I concur. Those good folks without affiliation in the LitWars who monitor sites such as this and PTB anonymously could too easily decide that "our side" is more than comfortable with schadenfreude, something that is anathema to me. YMMV

Actually, PTB is anathema to me!

And I didn't need to know that. That is clearly detraction.

Sadly, that information has been printed in the Washington Post. As the Catholic Encyclopedia says,

If a person's misdoing is public in the sense that sentence has been passed by the competent legal tribunal or that it is already notorious, for instance, in a city, then in the first case it may licitly be referred to in any place; in the second, within the limits of the town, or even elsewhere, unless in either instance the offender in the lapse of time should have entirely reformed or his delinquency been quite forgotten.

Both exceptions apply here, since it has been recognized by the state and published widely.

While the email confirms to many here what they always suspected about NPM, this very thread will confirm to many what they always suspected about CMAA.

I think this has been a useful thread, no matter what mjm says.

Good night sweet Tennessee prince, we all do, and they all shall.

The McMahon "thing" is seemingly common knowledge, so he has no reputation left to protect.

NPM: I mentioned above why I don't want to deal with another professional association.

CMAA reputation: We have reputations? And here I have been really trying to be good. At my age a reputation is a good thing. ;-)

I don't mind difficult discussions. At all.

I do mind the lines of public and private, fact and speculation, being blurred.

I made it through all the years without ever watching a Seinfeld episode. Now that is "high brow, virtuous, and respectable." ;-)

Of course I clicked on the video. Love me some Seinfeld.
Kinda perked up my day- thanks Matthew!

There's not really much to say about the top guy leaving his job, is there? There was a WashPost article in April with all the information. He was dismissed from his parish job; It appears that he negotiated a departure from his association job, but neither side made a statement. No one can be reasonably surprised that it happened.