Sad day. Prayers for the good Father.

Once again, I reiterate that chant cannot be "pre-Vatican II," since the purpose of calling it out in V2 was to ensure that its use would be more widespread.

Sorry to intervene but this story is much more complicated than the article professes. The media has failed to tell all of the story.

Sorry to intervene but this story is much more complicated than the article professes. The media has failed to tell all of the story.

Where do we find the rest of the story?

Part 1

When the music director was relieved of her duties, the article said, most of the choir resigned.

First of all, that's to be expected when you replace a music director: most of the time, the choir joined in the first place because of the people either running it or already in it. Also, it is sometimes necessary to relieve a person of their duties in order for the administration to further his or her agenda. I know this personally, as it happened to me, and has also happened to many others on this forum.

A group calling itself Appalachian Catholics in the Smoky Mountain Region said in a statement earlier this year that Riehl and some other conservative priests assigned by Jugis to small parishes in the mountains “seem to be more intent on taking the church back to pre-Vatican ll days rather than minister to the people."

1. The Mass is not about "the people."

2. The statement is begging the question, as it assumes that the pre-Vatican II days were worse for the Church than the years that followed. It is also begging the question because it assumes that the priest's sole purpose is to "minister to the people," but also does not define what that means. I propose that it means what is commonly seen in modernist parishes throughout the country: giving "the people" what they demand instead of what they need. As a colleague of mine is fond of saying, "You live in a democracy, but you don't worship in one."

Part 3

"They seem to be steeped in doctrine and theology, but are unwilling to participate in ecumenical activities, and are lacking in compassion, love and mercy. They are doing the job of the theologian, but not the job of the pastor. This is directly opposed to what Pope Francis and Vatican II are teaching us.”

2. Begging the question again, as it assumes that the definitions of "love," "compassion," and "mercy," are unequivocably understood by anyone reading the letter.

Here we go:

Love:

1.
a profoundly tender, passionate affection for another person.
2.
a feeling of warm personal attachment or deep affection, as for a parent, child, or friend.
3.
sexual passion or desire.
4.
a person toward whom love is felt; beloved person; sweetheart.
5.
(used in direct address as a term of endearment, affection, or the like):
Would you like to see a movie, love?
6.
a love affair; an intensely amorous incident; amour.
7.
sexual intercourse; copulation.
8.
(initial capital letter) a personification of sexual affection, as Eros or Cupid.
9.
affectionate concern for the well-being of others:
the love of one's neighbor.
10.
strong predilection, enthusiasm, or liking for anything:
her love of books.
11.
the object or thing so liked:
The theater was her great love.
12.
the benevolent affection of God for His creatures, or the reverent affection due from them to God.
13.
Chiefly Tennis. a score of zero; nothing.
14.
a word formerly used in communications to represent the letter L.

The first definition cannot be measured outside of a personal relationship. Unless the author(s) of the letter simply do not feel like the Pastor had "a profoundly tender, affectionate passion" for them, they have not used the term under the first definition. Also, it is a matter of feelings, which are by their very nature unreasonable (cannot be reasoned; illogical).

By the way, for "unreasonable," I am using the following:

1.
not reasonable or rational; acting at variance with or contrary to reason; not guided by reason or sound judgment; irrational:
an unreasonable person.
2.
not in accordance with practical realities, as attitude or behavior; inappropriate:
His Bohemianism was an unreasonable way of life for one so rich.
3.
excessive, immoderate, or exorbitant; unconscionable:
an unreasonable price; unreasonable demands.
4.
not having the faculty of reason.

I am using the first definition, for the statement "not guided by reason or sound judgment," because you cannot use rational arguments to defend or impugn a person's feelings.


The second definition also is a matter of feelings, which are by their very nature unreasonable (cannot be reasoned; illogical). If they are using the term under this definition, they are implying that the priest is there to be their friend, which I'm not entirely sure is in keeping with his professional office.

The third definition is inappropriate to the situation.

The fourth definition is inappropriate to the situation.

The fifth definition is irrelevant to the situation.

The sixth definition is inappropriate to the situation.

The seventh definition is inappropriate to the situation.

The eighth definition is inappropriate to the situation.

The ninth definition is exactly what the priest should be doing, and as we all do, per Christ's command: we care for our neighbors and their well being. This, however, sometimes means you have to violate other definitions of the term.

The tenth definition could have something to do with the situation, but it depends greatly upon what this priest acted "without love" towards, or how he showed them that he acted in this manner. What caused them to say this? That is why their statement is still begging the question: they haven't explained themselves, they have only made accusations.

The eleventh definition is in tandem with the tenth.

The twelfth definition is not relevant to this situation, as God's love is eternal. I am going to give the benefit of the doubt to the author(s) and assume they are not stating that God is not showing them His love.

The thirteenth definition is not relevant to this situation.

The fourteenth definition is not relevant to this situation.

So for "love" there are four different definitions that could possibly apply to the situation. Which definition did the author(s) intend? There is a 50% chance that it is feelings based, which again are not reasonable (unable to be reasoned; illogical).

Part 5

"They seem to be steeped in doctrine and theology, but are unwilling to participate in ecumenical activities, and are lacking in compassion, love and mercy. They are doing the job of the theologian, but not the job of the pastor. This is directly opposed to what Pope Francis and Vatican II are teaching us.”

It seems that the author(s) have used these terms carelessly, and without love, mercy, nor compassion for the priest, his station, his office, his life, nor his livelihood. These are very serious accusations to levy against a priest, as the terms form the core of his work. I sincerely hope that the author(s) have substantial proof and evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the priest and that this is not motivated by simple, irrational feelings.

3. It is very clear that the author(s) does not understand what the Second Vatican Council actually said regarding the liturgy. His Holiness has not to my knowledge issued any ex cathedra teachings that would require our obedience. However, it is very clear that people are paying attention to what His Holiness is saying, but it is also clear from the definitions above and how they have possibly been used that they don’t fully understand it.

“It is with a heavy heart that I must inform you that I have decided, of my own free will and my own instigation, to resign my position here at St. John’s,” he wrote. “I have found that I am worn out or burned out and for my own well being need to take a sabbatical. There was no incident or event, just a feeling that I need some time away from full parish ministry. I have absolutely no questions or doubts about my vocation to the Priesthood of Christ.”
It seems likely that Riehl will leave the Diocese of Charlotte, too. Asked if Riehl, who had previously been assigned to a diocese in Tennessee, will get another assignment from Jugis after his sabbatical, Diocese spokesman David Hains said, “I don’t think so.”
Hains was also asked whether Jugis had directed Riehl to resign. “What (Riehl) has in the statement is self-explanatory,” Hains said.

I left the names in because anyone could click the link for the article and have direct access to them.

I find this to be very telling. The statement made by the priest is an attempt to leave a positive impression as he leaves a negative situation. It’s a public relations move. The response from the diocesan spokesperson indicates that the bishop did ask the priest to resign over the uproar, as he will not be given another position in the diocese, and when directly asked if the bishop asked the priest to resign, the diocesan spokesperson avoided the question.

This appears to me to be a selfish attempt to upend a person simply because they want to have Mass their way. Sadly, I’ve heard many stories that are exactly like this. Consider the case of Fr. Robideau from a few years back. It was the same situation: the bishop placed a traditionalist priest in a parish which had experienced many of the problems of modernism. The priest did what he understood he was supposed to do, incurred the ire of much of the parish population, who wrote a letter to the bishop attempting to get him removed. The bishop initially refused, but Fr. Robideau was eventually moved to a small traditionalist parish elsewhere. As church musicians, we are all too familiar with this situation: any attempt to bring about traditional options results in one’s removal, because you incur the ire of parishioners who absolutely have no love, mercy, nor compassion for you, the Church, nor Her Sacred Traditions.

@afhawkins, good point. If I had the chance to speak with the author, I would ask about "adequate input from the family of the deceased," and what constitutes "a timely manner," in regards to funerals.

To adumbrate Kathy's first point: I would not encourage on-line dissections of situations of this sort, especially as grist to make larger points (however valid the larger points may or may not be).

As Kathy and Kevin say, we do not know the whole story. True, we don't. It may be that this priest has some very human shortcomings (don't we all?). These, it would seem to me, hardly make saints out of these charming people who hold the real Vatican II in contempt.

Well said.

Yes. It unequivocally only works one way.

...And, of course, guitar and combo leaders NEEEHVER become 'overconfident, blinkered, arrogant or insert another term...'. Why, they're so sure of (and full of) themselves that they couldn't imagine that 'pastoral approach' and 'going slowly' could ever apply to them. They are like the fellow my grandmother used to caution against having weed the garden - because he didn't know the flowers from the weeds. (Except that these fellows very often do know, and exhibit a distinctly mindless preference for the weeds.)

One can understand an apologetic that takes note of the imperfections which some church musicians (as opposed to combo leaders and 'contemporary music' types) may have, but not one that carries on as if they were alone in not having been immaculately conceived.

This, it seems to me, is more one way and non sequiturial illogic. By all means, let us (US, of all people) beat up on a musician who may (or may not) be somewhat exhilarated that he or she has developed a music program that resembles the vision of Vatican II - and conclude that he or she had it coming for being too happy with what she had.

I must be forgiven for detecting an inherent bias against any fellow who is accomplishing something noteworthy, feeling good about, being disliked for it, and is said, therefore, to be ipso facto blameworthy. All the moreso if a priest (or howling congregants) rids him or her of his good work and replaces him or her with a musical nemesis - just because, all along, that was what he and/or they wanted... the antithesis of Vatican II's vision.

Whilst not altogether agreeing that the discussion of 'specific cases' is a thing rigourously to be eschewed, I'll invite Kathy to inaugurate her 'focus on certain general trends', which focus we may then expound upon to our hearts' contentment.

(I'll not even mention that there is a 'general trend' for a certain sort of priests and un-Vatican II people to sack or make life miserable for musicians who are accomplishing what the council laid before us in order that they might impose what the council didn't lay before us... I shant mention that - maybe, even, it's not a 'general trend' but 'established widespread procedure' - of which this 'specific case' is but one example.)

I'll begin -
On a more positive note, though, I shall offer the observation that there does seem to be a 'general trend' toward a much more positive attitude about chant in some quarters than has been the case for decades. Who would ever have thought that even the NPM would give chant its blessing (though, admittedly, as a side dish). There does seem to be an impressive number of churches purchasing organs, and numerous choirmasters and organists who are making admirable headway in realising the vision of Vatican II. Scholas, both of rank beginners and old guard veterans seem to be a growing phenomenon. There seems to be a 'general trend' whereby people who hear chant done really well are more likely to 'like it' than in the recent past. (People who don't sing it very well are a poor advertisement for it.) Further, until very recent times, certain of our major publishers would have given no consideration to publishing chant introits and communions. This is a trend which we can only hope will blossom into complete sets of propers (all five of them!). While all this is praiseworthy, the 'general trend' of far, far too many of all ranks of clerics and lay (without a shred of authority to do so, one might add!) to obstruct and forbid the very musical and liturgical vision which Vatican II laid before us goes on with shameless determination. For the growing numbers who would fulfill the council's vision, though, enough Te Deums cannot be sung.

Hymn tune graduals? Not sure...

I'm not one to overwrite someone. Usually I go for the peaceable workaround.

I can think of one case several miles away from me where the bishop dealt with intra-parochial division (in part involving Neo-Cats) by assigning a more traditionally oriented priest who was orthogonal to the division, leaving everyone baffled for a while. A rather darkly wry sense of humor to that one....

I wonder whether bishops would be better off to (secretly) categorize parishes, (traddie, contemporary, etc), then distribute priests accordingly. That way no one has to get knickers in a twist,

One Faith, not multiple faiths.

Should people self-segregate, so that the faith they hear agrees with their own prejudices, or should they be taught the faith, as handed on by the Apostles and taught and practiced by the saints?

Well, it's an unusual time.

It is, indeed.
We aren't burning people at the stake for heretical views and behaviours any more.
If we were, the wood required to burn them all would leave the Congo, the Amazon, and the Black Forest treeless.
I, for one, am glad that we have advanced beyond such savage, hateful, and paranoid ways.

No, you're quite right: they really aren't.

It would encourage more people to buy both.

"Should people self-segregate..."
Irrelevant; they DO. This has always been an issue for the Church in America. Generally, the segregation has been on cultural lines (Irish at this parish, Poles at another). Segregation on the basis of orthodoxy is more problematic. But that's not primarily what we have here.As much as we love an advocate for them, ad orientem and chant aren't tenets of the Faith; they're cultural practices. Do I think the Church should have one liturgical culture? Sure. But it never has.

That they had to let go of the director of music... was that because she was upset or incapable of adapting? A change like that would completely devastate someone who has no knowledge of actual church music.

but I have never seen a garbage dump replaced by a cathedral.

Those are the ones God visits most frequently.

And further, Chris -
One could, had one a mind to, argue that such things as ad orientam and, even, chant, are inherited expressions of a profound bequeathed 'orandi', and that (as you say) 'intentionally' jettisoning them, negating their import, carries its own counter prayer, if not its own 'anti-prayer'.

Does it ever occur to those responsible for thumbing their noses at a profoundly prayerful two-thousand-year-old tradition pregnant with theological wealth and obeisance to God that if the people are (and they are) ad orientem then the priest certainly ought to be?