One of the reasons...
  • November 14, 2006

    Talking About Music - Amy Welborn Blog Post

    A USCCB moment:

    They just voted on the Music Directory issue (approved w/88% yes) but before that considered an amendment from Bishop Vigneron of Oakland. He proposed a process similar to the conformity guidelines for catechetical textbooks. His point was "what we sing at the liturgy is a liturgical text." He said the bishops should take a serious approach to these texts, and proposed a central conformity review process. If something like that didn't happen, he said, he feared that the music directory idea, as proposed, would be inadequate to meet the call of Liturgiam Authenticam.

    Bishop Trautman said no. The committee decided it would be better to give any guidelines to the bishops of Portland (OCP) and Chicago (GIA) and let them determine what content was appropriate or not. A centralized process would present an insurmountable amount of work.

    They took a voice vote, and Bishop Vigneron's amendment was not approved.
  • miacoyne
    Posts: 1,805
    "The committee decided it would be better to give any guidelines to the bishops of Portland (OCP) and Chicago (GIA) and let them determine what content was appropriate or not. A centralized process would present an insurmountable amount of work."

    I don't think they haven't done their job, approving all the questional songs in the hymnals with their name on it. Do they know that music is the integral part of the liturgy, and we sing what believe? Do they take our litugy seriously? No wonder majority of the faithful can't and feel the need of the priests.

    "A centralized process would present an insurmountable amount of work."

    What else is more important for priests than feeding the faithful truths and guarding them. I'm sure they can come up with better ideas, if they try. What's their priority? Counting the number of people who come to churches on Sundays? I sent emails to USCCB about this "approved Hymnals", of course I don't get any response. But this is very very disappoting for catholics, who go to mass to renew their faith and hungry for truths. Some might say, well you don't have to sing, if you don't agree with certain songs, I don't think that's a right solution. The responsibility of the issue is on the church authorities. That's why we have our church, and we rely on them.
  • I've been harping about this for three years now! Jeffrey can testify.
    As was said in the other thread, how to artfully deal with the connundrum or tyranny of Option 4 versus that of 1 will be the biggest challenge we face as we move towards visible/audible uniformity.
  • miacoyne
    Posts: 1,805
    I hope Bishop Vigneron bring this to Rome. Can he?
  • Wasn't this the alleged "Directory" that was sent to Rome for recognitio that hasn't been heard about since?

    I got the distinct impression that the reason why they voted on SttL as an advisory document rather than an official one was precisely because much of what it contains is also to be found in the "Directory" which was apparently DOA in Rome.

    Things that make you go, "Hmm."
  • mjballoumjballou
    Posts: 989
    No, David. It makes you go, "Hymmm."
    Having OCP and GIA make decisions has been the fox and the egg salesman guarding the hen house.
  • miacoyne
    Posts: 1,805
    This cannot last too long. So many good musicians here are volunteering to help and bring sacred music to the liturgy, and here we are, we have people up there trying to make money? Did God ever mention to do this? Is our church worried so much about the money and poverty? I'll be so glad to be wrong and misunderstood about the whole thing.