Mia,

You've hit upon the single biggest source of frustration for those of us who have tried in the past (or continue to try) to bring about reform in the music of the liturgy.

If you open any hymnal from the "big three" publishers (OCP, GIA, et al.,) you'll find a legend on one of the front pages that reads something like, "Printed under the ecclesial authority of the Archdiocese of ________ ," Chicago, in the case of GIA hymnals. This would appear on the face of it to suggest that from cover to cover the content has received the requisite "approval of the competent ecclesiastical authority." The reality however is that its more likely than not that nobody really did review the content, and the approval was simply granted for expediency and not with any real care, attention or due diligence.

But, I can cite a case that's even worse. I've just opened the hymnal used in my own current parish, The Collegeville Hymnal. It carries the Nihil obstat and Imprimatur, which are supposed to guarantee that the publication is free of theological inconsistencies or teachings contrary to those of the Church.

Unfortunately, contained within Collegeville Hymnal are numerous cases of texts that are quite clearly and plainly contrary to Catholic Teachings. One glaring example comes from the altered text of the hymn, "See Us, Lord, About Your Altar." I say altered because the text attribution and copyright legend bears the indication alt., which is an indication that the publishers have altered the text in some way. In doing some quick online research, there has been much discussion about the questionable theology contained in the text of verse three, which I believe was added in its entirety to the original: "Once were seen the blood and water,/ Now are seen but bread and wine;/ Once in human form he suffered; /Now his form is but a sign." There doesn't seem to be agreement in the discussions I've read about this text as to how egregious this distortion of Catholic Teaching is, but it is clear that the text raises many questions.

So one must ask, then, if there is this example of questionable text, how many more could be contained in this book, which has otherwise received a guarantee from a "competent authority" to be free of such inconsistencies? To be sure, there are many fine vernacular texts from the tradition (Catholic tradition, mostly devotional hymns) found in this hymnal, but that doesn't excuse the fact that the Nihil obstat and Imprimatur were granted to the whole of the book when it contains problematic texts.

I think this, more than anything else, presents the strongest case for singing the texts of the liturgy itself rather than relying on any vernacular hymn texts that have been freely composed in the last 50 years, especially when the text writers are well-known to come from or contribute their work to Protestant traditions, or have an easily recognizable heterodox, "social justice", or other political bent.

It is frustrating indeed. However, while the local diocese and bishops don't seem to check each song (I guess it goes with new traslations of the existing hymns and altered texts)in the 'approved hymnal,' so musicians have to avoid thsoe 'questionable songs,' the Church made it clear in the instructions that it's the Church who approves the songs, not the individuals. Therefore, even the 'pastoral care' of the priests cannot go beyond this authority, and new liturgical songs have to get approvals somehow before we use them for Mass.

So obviously we need to get some mechanism to get songs approved for liturgical use, even if you're a small publisher or a self-publisher. If there are forms you have to fill out and submit, perhaps CMAA could link to them?

However, it's clear from this that you don't need any permission whatever to do motets that aren't carrying out a specific liturgical function.

Congratulations, sounds really good.
I totally agree with your point in your previous post,

"Sing the Liturgy."

For some reason, people who were in positions focused on singing hymns in early days after Vatican II, and even brought 'Miachael Row your Boat," "Peter, Paul and Mary," and led us to have 4 sandwich hymns as standard in mamy local parishes (even to priests). I don't even remember singing so many hymns when I was a Protestant, (anyways, they don't sing liturgy) and feeling so much pressure on singing during service. Even with common sense, singing so many hymns instead of singing the Liturgy just don't seem right. (Of course, I didn't even think about that until a few years ago playing organ in my parish. I took it for granted assuming that music director and the pastor had it everything right.)
I'm glad Catholics are going back to singing the Liturgy now as the Church desires and instructs us, even if many have to do slowly and brick by brick.

(For the first time in this area we are planning to have a Sung Traditional Mass. We found a young priest who is interested in having it in his parish. We have to prepare and learn a lot more, but we are very excited.)

I needed a song for children for a devotion and wrote a rhyming text "after" the words of a saint.
But before teaching it, I asked my pastor to review it to make sure none of my paraphrasing had created something theologically inappropriate or misleading -- he looked at me as if I were crazy.
"Oh, it's just a song," is a phrase I've heard more than once when the suitability of a piece of music was discussed at Liturgy Committee meetings.

(Save the Liturgy, Save the World)

Btw, I've noticed two kinds of people have the attitude of "Oh, it's just a song." The first kind are just what you expect, wielding a rather dulled theological blade. The second kind champion chant-only, to the exclusion of serious consideration of hymns.

But let's have a little perspective here: unfortunately, what is being sung in 99% of all parishes? Hymns. So a little effort on the part of those who want Propers instead is not exactly a serious call for the exclusion of hymns.

Congregational Hymns
Solemnity of the Ascension
Basilica of tne National Shrine of the Assumption
Baltimore, Maryland
Novus Ordo Latin Mass

Cor Jesu Sacratissimum
Attende Domine
Adoramus te, Christe (Dubois)

The responsorial psalm and alleluia verse were sung in English from 'Respond and Acclaim'.

Or Adoramus te (Passion text), or a Sacred Heart hymn? And no Ascension hymn? Yup. That's what was on offer.

I am not sure the 19th century was any worse musically, than any others. I know we talk about the glories of earlier times, but were we actually able to hear how some of that music was performed, it might be an eye opener. I think we need to be careful in looking back to early centuries, lest we become as guilty of archaeologism as some of the post Vatican II reformers. I don't find any unbroken traditions of church music practiced everywhere in excellence. There were huge time gaps where some of those musical "traditions" nearly disappeared. As for the definition of "suitable," wouldn't we all like someone in authority to decide that? I have quit trying to figure out "suitable" and have gone with my pastor's definition of good church music. "It must be reverent and sacred." It works for me.

Of course it does. But then I don't do Latin language masses. At certain times of the year, we sing a Latin ordinary, but that's about it. A veteran musician told me she retired because the church couldn't seem to make up its mind what it wanted in the way of music. I understood what she meant. There's not much direction, at least in this country, from the bishops.

I couldn't agree with you more, Kathy.

(CharlesW, the 19th c. was hands down the best musical century--having produced William Henry Fry's lovely Santa Claus symphony)