Just a PSA that calling into question the current policy is not "denying science."

We now go back to our regularly scheduled programming.

You really believe that we have a consensus? Not even close, The top Oxford University group has a totally different view to Imperial College... Who would be the 'expert'? Oxford has a higher research rank! Sweden is working to a different plan to say Italy, the U.K. is working to a different plan to France, Germany is different to Singapore. Who is right? which set of experts? We still have no evidence that lockdowns work, the theory is good but the evidence is absent.

Of course if we have experts that are always seen to be 'correct', only because they are 'experts'. This is the end of science and the beginning of a new religion. The scientific method and science in general only works if we question our knowledge and test it. We have to work by trial and error, we have to admit when we are wrong and correct the flaws in our theory. The scientific method is simple!
The big problem modern science has is it is easy for people to believe in science as a religion that can solve our problems. When that god fails it causes problems... this causes a build up of a distrust in experts. Blaming those that have lost faith in science is not the way forward.

Anyway tomorrow I will be back to the job that pays my bills, teaching science!

Many of you criticizing and denigrating the "experts" are first in line to strenuously object when your liturgical/musical expertise is questioned or overruled by a pastor or people in the pews.

Can't be a comparison... that wouldn't be scientific...

Reasons...

We have about 2000 years of study, history, tradition and organic development on the liturgy and billions of people who have been using it over the entire course of Christianity... the 'fools' (whether in the pews or in the rectory ignore it all... at their own peril).

The virus? It is brand spanking new.

Turns out some scientists (aka experts) interviewed in a recent article in Newsweek bring up some of the same concerns as tomjaw: "Forecasts predicting the total number of deaths from COVID-19 may be wildly inaccurate because we do not know key information about the virus. This includes how many people have had it, whether people who recover will develop lasting antibodies to protect from it, how well people are observing social distancing measures—and how long they will be willing to do it for."

As the article points out, the initial death estimates were in the 100,000 - 200,000 range and are now in the 60,000 range. So we don't need an expert to tell us that the expert opinion has changed. This is not belittle the experts, but simply to point out they are no all-knowing and don't have all the answers - as they themselves freely point out in the article. The data we have simply can't give us the certainty you seem to think we can put in what the experts are saying - and this according to the experts themselves.

Who on this forum is qualified to question this vast collective knowledge and expertise?

No one has to be - we're simply citing the experts who disagree with each other. Which ones are we supposed to believe? That's where our God-given reason come in . . . Your comment assumes a consensus where none exists.

Yes, it's generally a good idea to defer to experts where they have competence, but I think a sort of blind faith or universal deference to them is dangerous. Whether or not we should have a complete economic lockdown, when and how it should end, whether or not we should have confessions, etc. are policy questions that are not "scientific" (though science has a role to play in answering them). It's a matter of prudence and public discourse, not pure science. Reasonable people can disagree without name calling and labeling.

Many of you criticizing and denigrating the 'experts' are first in line to strenuously object when your liturgical/musical expertise is questioned or overruled by a pastor or people in the pews.

It's not my "expertise" they are questioning but rather the wisdom of the Church. (I didn't come up with the conclusion that Gregorian chant is the proper music of the Roman rite.) The science on COVID-19 is brand new and constantly being updated and changed, while the Church has a 2,000 year old heritage of sacred music (no one is questioning the germ theory of disease here.) So the comparison is hardly apt. Even in the case of the liturgy, prudence and required in the application of the Church's teaching. Simply quoting the documents and demanding obedience is a sure strategy for failure, not because the Church's teaching is wrong, but because you are demanding an absolute or immediate application of this teaching where it is not called for.

The natural sciences can tell us what is happening, and can predict what will happen under certain circumstances.

However, their methodology does not extend to values questions. That implies that they are unable, by themselves, to answer questions of what should be done, given the benefits and costs of the available options. Those trade-offs are prudential and moral judgments.

And a virus with a 0.01% death rate--like Flu-A or -B

People who say or write that covid-19 has a 0.01% death rate are spreading dangerous misinformation. It is irresponsible to do so, or to allow such information to remain posted. It's not even worth my time to post a link to a reputable source to refute this - responsible people can find dozens, if not hundreds of links to organizations with current, accurate information that show covid death rates that are rooted in reality, not anti-science conspiracy theories. Also - sowing chaos and confusion by spreading demonstrably false information can't possibly be a Christian thing to do, can it?

JPNZ71,

If it's true that a great many people are carriers of the disease than are sick with it or than die from it, the Dad29 may have a point. Published numbers of acknowledged cases gives a death rate of 3 percent or thereabouts, but if the number who don't even know they have the disease is much, much higher because the disease is so contagious and young people must be kept off the beach and others must be kept out of their churches, surely a 0.01% rate is, scientifically speaking, much more realistic?

To pick up Chonak's dangling thread: science may be able to tell us the course of action most likely to yield some result, but I don't think it's equipped to answer the question "what SHOULD we do?", since those aren't the same question.

[Jumping the tracks to try to comment on the thread's title]

We have (somewhere) a list of Catholic musicians who have died and who are remembered in a long prayer list. Are there any whom we know, personally or professionally whom this virus [or something else during the time of pandemic] has sent to his eternal reward? We've been discussing the big-picture damage to the arts, but would it be proper, also, to count deaths of individual musicians? Come to think of it, has any good come to the arts because of the current pestilence?

z z z z z z z z ....

I doubt I would see such a post if the topic were doing all we could to prevent abortions. This demonstrates that for so many, many Catholics, respect for the sanctity of life lasts from conception until birth, and after birth, in the words of another previous post, who cares.


[Admin note: please avoid cranking up the flames.]

JPNZ71,

Can you think of any good which has come (musically or artistically speaking) from the current pestilence or any nation's response to it?

Would cloistered clergy improve the situation of the arts?

"A vow of poverty, chastity and obedience, would do wonders for the Bishops." Amen

0.1% of the population has already died in New York -¿with/of this virus?-, I have no idea whether everybody in New York has yet been infected.

Two posts ago, I was the DoM out west in a church that had a split personality... one part, liberal left mentality (spiritual, political, social, etc.) who mostly strained after novelty, and when one wore off, another had to be quickly injected to keep the 'aura' alive... and then there another part that was emerging (longing for The Tradition which The Church once held in high esteem) that wanted the chant, the devotions of old, solemn vespers, etc.

It was my impossible job to serve up the two opposing musical entrees at each and every liturgy for this divergent mass. Often the blend was like eating a filet along with a side of cotton candy. That disintegrated into utter chaos over time.

My last post, I was the Cm&O of a well executed Novus Ordo parish, that yearned for the beauty of the past but attempted to graft that beauty onto the NO. It also suffered a schizophrenic mentality as the musicians had (previous to my taking up the post) been able to sing a large body of the chant there, had somewhat regular celebrations of the TLM and also a wonderful pipe organ to boot. Nevertheless, when I arrived, it did not take long for me to discover that upon my arrival, it began moving away from tradition, not toward it.

With that, I decided to never lend my talents to the cause of the NO from that point forward.

CONCLUSION

The 'State of the Art' in the Roman Catholic Church will never be restored until her theology and traditional practices are fully restored. This is because the NO (even when attempted in a 'beautiful and reverent way') is just putting lipstick on a sus scrofa.

SIDEBAR

Dr. K, whom you all know so well, says it best in this, one of his latest articles.

https://onepeterfive.com/reform-of-the-reform-doomed/

I know some of you will bristle at his reflection, but read slowly before making a judgement - he and I both have lived many years as the professional cosmeticians of the NO animal, and now, I believe God has had enough and is putting an end to the circus once for all.

STATE OF THE ARTS

So now, I spend my time composing music (only in Latin) (however, you might find some of my older compositions on the net from when I was composing for the NO). I am also in monastic mode, praying and interceding for the pope, bishops, priests, nuns, and the entire church.

I began making icons and sacramentals that support the traditions, some which we have lost over the past fifty years, and some which are still in tact (the rosary).

These are two pieces that I created in the last 24 - 48 hours. Once is a first communion rosary for boys, and the second is my own Rosary of Seven Sorrows. Both are crafted with hand made S-chain.

http://finerosary.com/boys-first-communion-rosary-seven-sorrows-of-the-blessed-virgin-mary

Blessed be the Hearts of Jesus, Mary and Joseph. Maranatha, CLJ.

I can think of a negative which is already coming from the pestilence, but (to be fair) it has been coming for a long time and the pestilence has merely intensified the problem. People are becoming accustomed to computer generated sound, and expecting to be able to play and replay the same sound -- thus driving us closer to an abrogation of the principle that recorded music has no place in the liturgy (which is, already, being sent across the airwaves instead of being experienced and entered into actually and proximately).

On the other hand, it's possible that chant, which doesn't need instrumental accompaniment or a diversity of parts, could see a resurgence.

@tomjaw - here (in Rio) the main weirdness I see on the livestreams is that they are designed to be social-media features, and thus have a chat window on one side for people to comment while they watch (lol! omg!). One can hide this by expanding the live-screen part, but the ongoing active use of this part during the livestream is rather, well, it's the same as chatting with your friends in Church, which most everyone here does. I've gotten so used to it that when I am in quiet countries I often forget to keep total silence and do something horrifying like ask an old lady where the bathroom is, and get scorched with withering looks of disdain by all around. Anyway, I think the context is really quite inappropriate, and I find myself more often shutting off the computer and just reading the Mass quietly to myself. But I suspect if you have kids at home or less quiet-loving people in the household it's very helpful and engaging to have the Mass onscreen.

The other unexpected effect on me is that whereas in regular life I was willing, albeit pained, to assist at whatever nearby Mass would satisfy my Sunday obligation, when I am relieved of the obligation I find myself happily reverting to being utterly unwilling to settle for bad liturgy and ugliness. I may with some shame say that I do pray that while God is tidying up our lives, He might also just drop a lightning bolt on each of the egregiously, agonizingly, offensively ugly church buildings around here, many of which don't even deserve accolades for any other purpose (auditorium, parking garage) to which they might be put. There is one I more recently discovered, in a nearby neighborhood, in which the chapel of the Blessed Sacrament is a moldy, dark, windowless, dirty room, in which Our Lord rests before a bizarre mural of jagged lines in orange and black, as if shining before a scene of post-Apocalyptic hell. I swear, it is so diabolical the architect must have been off his rocker to even consider it appropriate for Christian worship, no matter the era.

I do hope that this period of difficulty will shake the Church into a more adoring and loving engagement with Jesus, and shake out the 'dust' of corruption.

The older I get, and the longer I remain Catholic (may it be forever), the less I find myself willing to compromise and negotiate on doing the best we can. We can do very well! But we all have to help each other UP, not pull each other down.

I find this forum lovely for that, as people share their compositions, cool musical discoveries, and encourage each other to do more and better for Our Lord.

Tom,

Imagine being able to fast forward through the sermon, or the requests for money for the Archbishop's appeal.