Lalemant Propers approved for Liturgical Use
  • Paul_OnnonhoaratonPaul_Onnonhoaraton
    Posts: 434
    Although not strictly required by current Ecclesiastical law, the USCCB recommends that all publications receive approval from the Diocese in which they are published. This approval, once given, extends to every diocese in the United States.

    - - -

    As of today, the Lalemant Propers have been approved for liturgical use by the Bishop of the Diocese in which they were published. You can see this by looking at the copyright page:

    Simple English Psalm Tones — Complete Sung Propers (391 pages)

    Thanked by 2Daniel Bennett Page hilluminar
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,216
    Congratulations, Jeff, on getting through the process, and on producing yet another useful, practical book for parish musicians!
    Thanked by 6Paul_Onnonhoaraton Daniel Bennett Page CHGiffen Adam Wood kevinf jpal
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,482
    PoJo = WiN
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,216
    [I've deleted a few comments from this thread. If people have questions about the technical details of the permission Jeff got, they can contact him privately. If anyone wants to have the text of his deleted comments for later use, feel free to contact me, and I'll be happy to send them.]
  • jpal
    Posts: 365
    Bummer! I was learning a lot from this thread.
    Thanked by 1Spriggo
  • kevinfkevinf
    Posts: 1,190
    While I know that there has been a lot of discussion in other threads, Fr. Krisman's comment and my query were useful in the context of this discussion. I confess regret that these comments were deleted.
    Thanked by 4Spriggo PaixGioiaAmor BruceL Gavin
  • BenBen
    Posts: 3,114
    Maybe they could be posted on another thread in a better context?
  • PaixGioiaAmorPaixGioiaAmor
    Posts: 1,473
    Would it be helpful to put the message board on a page with no identifying CMAA logos or links, since CMAA staff continually feels defensive about any content that could possibly be construed as negative, bickering, etc?

    You can ignore my opinion if you wish since I don't pay the bills, but I actually agree with something I heard the ACLU say years ago: "The antidote to offensive or annoying speech is not to try to limit speech; it is MORE SPEECH."
    Thanked by 2Ben Gavin
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,482
    I think the issue is relevance, not negativity.
  • PaixGioiaAmorPaixGioiaAmor
    Posts: 1,473
    Relevance? Fr. Krisman - whose contributions here I dearly value I might add - pointedly challenged the "approval" on canonical grounds ... the thread was ABOUT the approval ... and Paul bit back ... and no matter who was right, it was good natured challenges on both sides and I don't think it was unchristian. And it was relevant to the thread topic.
    Thanked by 1Ben
  • BenBen
    Posts: 3,114
    I always learn from discussions like this. I think it had value.
  • SkirpRSkirpR
    Posts: 854
    FWIW, I also agree. The issue of ecclesiastical approval is one which I feel people on all sides reference and ignore when it suits their purpose. This happens because the rules seem so muddy.

    For all the value that I feel CMAA (and CCW) provide to the Church, I feel like when the CMAA (or CCW) viewpoint is legitimately called into question on some minor point (reference my earlier thread posing an honest question about the Gradual in English in the Lalement Propers), it is responded to by some as if it is an attack against the same sacred music movement we're all a part of!
    Thanked by 2PaixGioiaAmor Gavin
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,216
    Consider what the forum etiquette guidelines say about copyright: if you have a concern about someone else's compliance, you can contact them privately.
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,482
    It's not really a copyright issue, though...
    Thanked by 1Gavin
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,216
    Analogy, baby, analogy. (Y'know, like when there's pollen.) And do Read The Friendly Guidelines, if you haven't.

    Critique principles, not people. Be discriminating but don't nitpick. Be academic not acerbic. Be principled not polemical.
  • SkirpRSkirpR
    Posts: 854
    It's not really a copyright issue, though...


    Exactly, and Jeff O. explicitly said in his first message that what he had done was not required. And if memory serves, nobody questioned that he had not done something he should, just that what he had done didn't mean anything. Really, given the circumstances, I don't know what means what.
  • PaixGioiaAmorPaixGioiaAmor
    Posts: 1,473
    Like I said before, we're so concerned about anything that doesn't paint a picture of everyone being happy together, holding hands, and skipping off into the sunset, that anytime anything like that rears it's ugly head, we shut down the threads, erase replies, and stop all conversation.

    Same thing that happened with the job postings. Now no one can even make observations such as "Wow, full time, electronic organ, 18 weekend masses plus weekdays, $12,000/yr salary? No thanks." God forbid anyone sound anything but happy and in agreement.

    And God forbid that people even LEARN by some disagreement, such as a priest who may see, candidly, what real musicians think of his offered salary and requirements. Or, in this thread's case, God forbid that we might learn about differing viewpoints on "approval."
    Thanked by 1Jahaza
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,216
    This thread is about Jeff's book. If you want to have a thread about me censoring that thread-- that would be another thread. I can split the relevant comments here off to do that: would people like that?
  • SkirpRSkirpR
    Posts: 854
    I would argue more precisely the thread is about the approval of Jeff's book, since the book has been finished for some time. Since we're apparently not able to discuss the approval of Jeff's book, I don't know that the initial post should have been made at all.
    Thanked by 3PaixGioiaAmor kevinf BruceL
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,216
    I found a helpful guide from the USCCB that answers a lot of questions on the subject of publishing permissions:
    http://old.usccb.org/doctrine/PermissiontoPublish.pdf
    Thanked by 1JonathanKK
  • ronkrisman
    Posts: 1,394
    @chonak: Thanks. I'll prepare a thread on canonical permission to publish. However, I cannot get to it until next week. This week I'm attending the convention of the Hymn Society of the United States and Canada at the University of Richmond.

    I'm not interested in a thread to discuss your censoring of comments I made on this thread yesterday. After all, it's your forum and your rules.
    Thanked by 1Gavin
  • Paul_OnnonhoaratonPaul_Onnonhoaraton
    Posts: 434
    Wow! I see a lot has happened in this thread since I last visited. I'm not really sure what else I can contribute, except to reiterate:

          1. Yes, the diocesan Bishop has approved our collection for liturgical use. If there is any doubt regarding this fact, I would encourage the doubter to simply pick up the phone and call the Chancery.

          2. I acknowledge that what we've done might be considered as "overkill" in the current situation where 90% of the music substituted for Introit, Offertory, & Communion (for example) does not have the approval required by the G.I.R.M. and I believe this has been treated thoroughly in other forum posts.

          3. It's probably worth repeating: the mere fact that a book has a statement in the front by the diocesan Bishop (or his delegates) saying it is free from theological error does not necessarily mean it can substitute liturgically for the Propers, as the current G.I.R.M. requires for the Entrance Chant, Offertory chant, and Communion chant.

          4. Different bishops have different phraseologies they use for the approval of books. For instance, some say "Published with Ecclesiastical Approval." I am not aware of any official Church statement that specifies the exact wording a bishop must use to give the approval demanded in the current G.I.R.M. (c.f. sections 48 + 87). If anybody knows of such, please cite chapter and verse. The local diocesan officials should be able to provide more information about the specific wording each bishop uses.

          5. If anyone can produce a specific Church document saying (for example) that "Printed with Ecclesiastical Approval" cannot be used to give the approval which the G.I.R.M. demands, please cite chapter and verse.
Add a Comment