The options aren't commands from on high vs. weak "invitations" or "guidelines," but education and support vs. directives in a vacuum. The end goal is good music in the parish, but this will only happen with a culture that supports this good music, which (in the absence of other factors), will only happen with the vigorous support of the diocese. This vigorous support, depending on the circumstances, may include vigorous directives from the bishop, but the latter without the former seems like an exercise in futility.

Having said this, I don't know what the support system for musicians is like in the Marquette diocese - is it as weak as people here seem to suggest? I don't see much discussion of no. 5.

A few things:

1. I believe that the 4th option of the GIRM is preferred by many priests because it is simply easier for them to make the congregation do all of the singing work during Mass than to do it themselves, i.e. singing the Mass (in lieu of singing AT Mass). Towards this end, it also supports two other goals that are erroneous in my view: A. that the spiritual health of a parish is measured by the quantity of its congregational singing, and B. that the Mass should be as short as possible (which stems from other options which are chosen seemingly for that reason), while maintaining a reasonable sense of A. From B, we get such practices as singing only two verses for the entrance or recessional hymn, or singing only enough verses to cover the "preparation of the gifts," so that the priest can just get on with it. Our very own Mr. Yanke would rightly point out that used as such, music is just a "window decoration" to the Mass.

2. I also believe that the 4th option of the GIRM is preferred by many priests because it serves to strip away the two keys to the TLM: the Latin language and Gregorian chant. This implies that parish politics and personal preferences and tastes are at the heart of the matter.

3. I do not believe that the so-called "options" of the GIRM are options at all: they are clearly the ordered wishes of the Church. If you take and synthesize SC with GIRM, this becomes clear: SC states that "...all other things being equal, Gregorian chant should have the first place in the liturgy," and in looking at the "options" of the GIRM, you see that Gregorian chant, indeed occupies the first place on the list. I do not believe it would have been listed that way given the language from SC if it wasn't clearly defining the ordered wishes of the Church in this matter.

4. I believe that the hyper focus on hymns and congregational hymn singing goes to the heart of the liturgical renewal efforts of V2: extending a hand to the Protestants and making the Catholic liturgy look more like a Protestant liturgy. As our dear Francis has said, "(Hymns) are not part of the Catholic tradition." This is true when it comes to the liturgy: the use of hymnody as the primary medium of liturgical music is a Protestant tradition. On a side note: I believe the liturgy was changed just enough to be able to tell Protestants that it's not a propitiatory sacrifice anymore, but not enough so that you can still tell the Catholics they're getting a valid Eucharist, which might just be a good example of the golden means fallacy.

The Bishop is the teacher, ruler, and sanctifier of souls in his Diocese. Even if you (and/or I) object to some of the music he wants, or hold that he does not want enough of the good stuff, he's the one who answers to God. Not we.

Eh? Are you having a laugh???

The Holy Spirit is the sanctifier - not some human being. And each individual is answerable to God for themselves. I most certainly do not abdicate responsibility for my own behaviour and spiritual well-being to anybody else.

Bishops, in particular, have not performed well in basic pastoral care of people (think keeping priests with a tendancy to abuse kids away from kids), far less other aspects.

Adam, when there's a problem, one should introduce the solution. In my parish, the MD is an ignoramus, so I've advised the pastor of solution(s).

You may well be right...but the Bishop has asked for, and will get, a solution to what is no doubt a problem.

Your move.

They will be included for "pastoral reasons."

I'm going to say it because it has to be said: I think "pastoral reasons" is a cop out. Period. I think it serves to allow pastors to veil their true motives and absolve themselves of the responsibility of having to explain their actions. Plus, I've never been able to get any priest to explain what "pastoral reasons" include.

Adam, as a practitioner and connoisseur of the fine art of pessimism, I stand in awe of your post. Well done, sir. Well, done.

Who knows how this will all play out in the realm of the practical. Give the bishop credit for trying to address the problems with American Catholic music. At least he's making an effort and should be commended for that. Like anything, modifications may have to be made as this goes along. This is worth revisiting in 6 months to 1 year to see how it develops.

Those who want to limit God's voice to their own favourite type of music do the world no favours.

But preference is the issue, isn't it? The GIRM gives bishops and priests the choice: the right to have their preferences. They exercise this right all the time, in many ways, including music.