"and one was devoured by a big wild beast"
http://www.hymnsite.com/lyrics/umh712.txt

One might consider buying the Lumen Christi Hymnal.... this has no objectionable hymns.

One might consider buying the Lumen Christi Hymnal.... this has no objectionable hymns.

As you see it - I know Catholics, and a few priests, who would probably find plenty of questionable material in it.

EXACTLY! So all we're left with are OPINIONS, formed out of people's own theological biases.

So - that brings me full circle - when someone is contemplating challenging a hymn as being "questionable" or "heretical," they should ask themselves what theological training they have to make that judgment, and whether they are truly "catching" something that the censors missed. The answer to the last question is almost always going to be "no."

one was slain by a fierce wild priest.

Kevin, do let us know if you've encountered one such cleric of late.
Outside of Frs. Keyes and McDonald, I've never met a true zealot in a collar*.
Heck, when they can bury Rutler in NYC, and send a SoAfrican zealot to the shanty houses, we're swimming in very efficient bureaucracies. Oops, my bad.
*Phleger meets criteria, Deo gratias I've never met 'im.

Btw I have 2 advanced degrees in RC theology and am working on a third.

Kathy, one doesn't have to read a lot of Catholic talk on the internet to find some people making erroneous complaints about heresy. To say so doesn't imply any confusion about objective truth; it's just a recognition that many complaints are based on personal opinions instead of a correct understanding of Catholic doctrine; or that they lack a correct understanding of what constitutes heresy.

Thanks, PGA, for your suggestion about the thread split; I re-merged the two.

Well, I don't want to say anything too identifying ...

But someone - actually a couple of folks - had a conversation with me around Lent this past year, about how a few texts were just bad texts and were not, as they put it, "good theology."

I have no doubt that most here would call the texts EXCELLENT theology. A couple were "What wondrous love is this" and "O Sacred Head Surrounded."

Their problem was with the emphasis on sin, and the "curse" of sin, as Wondrous Love calls it, and they cited some prominent theological minds who have recently opined about the fact that the Passion happened because of God's love, not because of some fairy tale notion of a curse from the garden of Eden (as they put it.)

So they called the theology of those hymns into question as vigorously as others call the theology of "Song of the Body of Christ" into question.

Is Wondrous Love or Sacred Head heretical? I'm sure they aren't. But I'm not so sure that Song of the Body of Christ or We Are Called are either.

It's not clear what the objection is about -- that is, the objection PGA is hearing from someone.

Let's look at the texts:

This hymn does not focus on sin but on the human suffering of Christ. It does make a point about sin, connecting Christ's passion with our sins. This is classic Catholic teaching from the Council of Trent, echoed in the current Catholic Catechism.

O sacred head, surrounded
by crown of piercing thorn!
O bleeding head, so wounded,
reviled and put to scorn!
Our sins have marred the glory
of thy most holy face,
yet angel hosts adore thee
and tremble as they gaze

I see thy strength and vigor
all fading in the strife,
and death with cruel rigor,
bereaving thee of life;
O agony and dying!
O love to sinners free!
Jesus, all grace supplying,
O turn thy face on me.

In this thy bitter passion,
Good Shepherd, think of me
with thy most sweet compassion,
unworthy though I be:
beneath thy cross abiding
for ever would I rest,
in thy dear love confiding,
and with thy presence blest.

Since this hymn is commonly sung on Palm Sunday and Good Friday, the mentions of sin do seem seasonally appropriate.

Here's the other hymn:

What wondrous love is this, O my soul, O my soul!
What wondrous love is this, O my soul!
What wondrous love is this
That caused the Lord of bliss
To bear the dreadful curse for my soul, for my soul,
To bear the dreadful curse for my soul!

When I was sinking down, sinking down, sinking down,
When I was sinking down, sinking down,
When I was sinking down
Beneath God’s righteous frown,
Christ laid aside His crown for my soul for my soul,
Christ laid aside His crown for my soul.

To God and to the Lamb I will sing, I will sing;
To God and to the Lamb I will sing;
To God and to the Lamb,
Who is the great I AM,
While millions join the theme, I will sing, I will sing,
While millions join the theme, I will sing.

And when from death I’m free, I’ll sing on, I’ll sing on;
And when from death I’m free, I’ll sing on.
And when from death I’m free
I’ll sing His love for me,
And through eternity I’ll sing on, I’ll sing on,
And through eternity I’ll sing on.

The word "curse" appears once, to designate what "the Lord of bliss" chose "to bear... for my soul".

The word also appears in the New Testament, in Galatians 3:13: "Cursed is he who hangs on a tree"; and St. Paul presents it as a quote from Scripture, and indeed it appears in the Old Testament at Deuteronomy 21:23, where it is part of directions for executions: the executed are to be buried quickly, because anyone hanged on a tree is cursed (whatever that means).

PGA's interlocutor mentions the thinking of some contemporary theologian, but his objection doesn't apply to this text. This text isn't about some premordial curse that would *cause* the crucifixion of Christ; rather it's about a curse arising out of the fact that someone is judged guilty and executed. In this case, Christ bore the status of being accursed -- judged guilty and executed on a tree -- for our sake. So the argument that someone is giving to PGA is misplaced.

I guess this illustrates PGA's point that sometimes people object to some hymns because of their own incomplete understandings about theology.

PS: Admitttedly, the second verse of "What Wondrous Love Is This?" is focused on sin, and it presents the unpleasant image of God's "righteous frown". This is a pretty mild expression, considering that the Catholic faith holds that God will judge the wicked at the end of time and give them more than a mere frown. But in any case, I have probably never seen that verse of the hymn in a Catholic hymnal anyway, so there's not much to object to.

And no, English facility and common sense are NOT good enough to decide if a text is heretical or not. Perhaps to decide if a text is "decent" in the common sense meaning, but not regarding any theological review.

Like I said, your mileage may vary. The Fisherman will be saddened to know that he might not cut the mustard.

I like the dyslexic version - our dog is an awesome dog...

This is why I always put the musical judgment first - is this good music? If it isn't, I won't use it, and I don't have to decide if the text is "heretical" or not.

Oh, I'm sure you can find them. Or just plain bad texts. Not going to name names, as that's been done before, but it seems to be a new obsession to put bad texts to classic tunes.

It's just a smaller pool to work with under my rubric.

I guess I'm less likely to seek out heresy than I am to ask "Does this have a theology to it, and if so, what?"

Whoa, Fr. Ron, you sound a bit testy here. My invitation wasn't intended to irritate.
No, I don't require actual documentation that approbation was formally sought as that doesn't clearly illustrate that the "censor" nor Msgr. Hilgartner actually culled through each title and content, nor would correspondence exchanged. However, if such correspondence was concerned with (remember I know OCP better than GIA) why "Let us break bread.....Anthem.....I, myself.....Change our hearts.....Peace is flowing.....Bread, blest and broken (symbol of your love from the grain so tall).....and pretty much all of Carey Landry's catalog REMAINS in these ubiquitous hymnals for decades, I'd like to see that. Which answers your last question- because these selections remain, they take up space that could be alotted to "better" hymns/songs/chants. No question about it.
I do believe, contrary to perhaps many opinions here, that GIA takes their editorial decisions with more attention than OCP. But that doesn't mean, as others have stated, that those decisions, for example changing texts for "inclusivity," has set well with everyone who still must use GIA sources.
I also believe, that in OCP's case, sheer "popularity" remains the principal criterium for much hymnal content. New content is then assessed by demographics, ie. "Spirit and Song" attraction.
Those are my contentions, not with you nor GIA, but with the process. Are we good now?

I sympathize with Fr. Ron: I didn't understand what "unless they need space" meant either.

Wow, this actually turned into an informative and interesting conversation! One of many reasons I love this forum :)

So - that brings me full circle - when someone is contemplating challenging a hymn as being "questionable" or "heretical," they should ask themselves what theological training they have to make that judgment, and whether they are truly "catching" something that the censors missed. The answer to the last question is almost always going to be "no."

We could just avoid the whole question altogether and sing the Propers like we're supposed to.