"It's not technically illegal" is the weakest possible justification for action --- like defending you being a jerk to people because of constitutional freedom of speech.

The USCCB does not judge the quality of, or approve, the musical component of hymns, psalms, and Mass settings. The only concern of the USCCB Liturgy Secretariat is that any texts from liturgical books that have been approved for liturgical use by the Latin-rite members of the USCCB are presented faithfully in their musical settings. It is the responsibility of users and potential users of musical settings to judge whether the music is good or appropriate.

Diocesan bishops in whose dioceses hymnals intended for use by Catholics are published must grant permission for publication (formerly called an imprimatur). That permission is based upon their judgment that there is nothing contrary to Catholic faith and morals in the texts contained in the hymnal. They do not review the texts taken from approved liturgical books (the USCCB Liturgy Secretariat has already done that).

A permission to publish is not the same as an approval for liturgical use. Only the Apostolic See and the Latin-rite members of the USCCB can approve something for liturgical use.

The USCCB does not judge the quality of, or approve, the musical component of hymns, psalms, and Mass settings. The only concern of the USCCB Liturgy Secretariat is that any texts from liturgical books that have been approved for liturgical use by the Latin-rite members of the USCCB are presented faithfully in their musical settings. It is the responsibility of users and potential users of musical settings to judge whether the music is good or appropriate.

Diocesan bishops in whose dioceses hymnals intended for use by Catholics are published must grant permission for publication (formerly called an imprimatur). That permission is based upon their judgment that there is nothing contrary to Catholic faith and morals in the texts contained in the hymnal. They do not review the texts taken from approved liturgical books (the USCCB Liturgy Secretariat has already done that).

A permission to publish is not the same as an approval for liturgical use. Only the Apostolic See and the Latin-rite members of the USCCB can approve something for liturgical use.

This explains everything.

Francis, presuming the Parousia is nigh upon us, and we're both relegated to the same existential locale, I'd wager you're wrong. ;-)
However, given the two plus millenial history of the Church, your prognostication is an easy call.

* Hymn texts must be approved explicitly by the Bishops' Conference, see GIRM #48 etc; this has been discussed numerous times.

But for the USA the USCCB has decided that diocesan bishops who grant the permission to publish hymnals will have the responsibility for judging the doctrinal soundness of hymn texts. And this decision of the USCCB has been confirmed by the Apostolic See.

* Psalms must be taken verbatim from the lectionary (GIRM #61.; Lectionary Intro. #111), although in the US apparently other psalm settings have been approved. (The OP is in Canada, though, where currently the CBW Grail psalms are allowed in practice, along with the approved NRSV lectionary.)

For the USA the USCCB has approved for liturgical use the Revised Grail Psalms. And so that psalter may be used in addition to the psalms from the New American Bible.

That said, we should remember that *sung* responsorial psalms in the USA may use other translations than those two, to which *recited* responsorial psalms are limited. GIRM 61 for the USA prudently grandfathers translations previously approved for liturgical use, which helps avoid bigger ruptures in repertoire. Until such translations are abrogated for such use, which to my knowledge, such as it is, has yet to happen (especially now that we know that abrogration requires more than merely publishing a new edition of something...).

Could someone write this out in simple English? [not kidding]

So, while texts must conform to those approved by the USCCB, the published and marketed musical settings thereof are strictly up to our mendacious and unprincipled publishers, who will print literally anything that will add a dime to their coffers.

The import of this is that our bishops care (as they should) about the words we sing, but quite a few of them, seemingly, couldn't care less (although they should) about the quality of music to which we sing them. This is endemic in our culture: most people care about what they wear, how they look, what they look at, what they eat, having the best of this, that, and the other, what they read, knowing the 'right people', and on and on, but they are astonishingly undiscriminating about what they listen to and clueless as to its mental and moral worth, or lack thereof.

In a culture such as this, one can only argue the liturgical appropriateness and quality of this music over that, and hope that he is talking to a person who is capable of comprehending the truth of his premise. Some are, some aren't.

melo

the only question i will have for God at the end is, 'why did I have to live through this nonsense?'

of course God will probably say, 'I picked you for this time'.

true

we may be "martyrs" for authentic worship and liturgy,

Yes.

Wow, Aristotle, that's deep.

My old pastor's answer in response to the question about something being in a hymnal:

"They are all about money, not the Faith."

ronkrisman:

"But for the USA the USCCB has decided that diocesan bishops who grant the permission to publish hymnals will have the responsibility for judging the doctrinal soundness of hymn texts. And this decision of the USCCB has been confirmed by the Apostolic See."

There was a recent dispute on the issue of the GIRM requiring that other suitable songs (in place of the proper for entrance, offertory, and communion) be approved by the ordinary, and in the responses from the USCCB liturgy office, the claim you make was not made, which seems curious if in fact it is true, rather the defense offered by the liturgy office relied on tacit permission as being equivalent to explicit permission.

I do not dispute that the bishop of the place has the authority to authorize the publication of hymnals (and that such approval is good for the entire USA), what I question is that such authorization also authorizes the liturgical use of all of the contents of that hymnal at the pure discretion of the musicians of every parish in the land.

(I have had the odd experience of frequently hearing the Gospel Canticle from the Liturgy of the Hours replaced with an alternative version taken from the hymnal, with the defense being that it is published in an approved hymnal and is in the section of the hymnal labeled as being for use in morning/evening prayer, so clearly the USCCB has approved the substitution.)

It seems to me the ideal is that hymns are not just to be approved as being free from error, rather the ideal seems to be that bishops and conferences of bishops should create something like the hymn version of a Gradual, something that specifically approves hymns as liturgically suitable for a particular season or day or liturgical action. The "we approve every hymn for any such use as you choose to put it to so long as said hymn is not blatantly heretical" seems rather alien to the Church's tradition of liturgical music. (I am mindful of MS's provision that hymns in liturgical use should not be "merely Eucharistic" but should be suited to the liturgical action or season as memory serves.)

I agree it would be unrealistic to expect an immediate creation of some list of which hymns are approved for which specific liturgical use, but if bishops are to truly be the chief liturgists then they must at some point take up such a task. I am willing to accept state of necessity arguments for continuing the present situation for now, but not indefinitely.