Good way to get rid of that whole "charity" thing if you're plagued with it :P

If I may demonstrate what I mean: Fr. Gene Walsh likes to evaluate liturgy using the same criteria one employs in evaluating a party: Did I feel welcome? Was I "part of the action"? Did I have fun? How am I supposed to read these without yelling swear words? I'm reading as I type this... Is the pastoral musician a fad, destined to fade away? Well, if they define "pastoral musician" as one whose only goal is to make the congregation have fun, then yes, I'd say we're watching them fade away.

Always good to know what the other side is thinking

And the folly continues. Out of necessity (and not because I agree with even 1% of what they put forth) I am a registered member of NPM, although that may change.

I received the most recent issue of their propaganda, this time dedicated to "Foundations and Vision: Liturgical Prinicples from Sancrosanctum Concillium."

Of course, they get most, if not all, of it wrong. First, there is an article by Dom Bernard Botte, OSB (1893 -1980), extracted from his book, "From Silence to Participation" (published in 1988) where he states, "First of all, justice cannot be done to the twentieth century liturgical movement by judging it exclusively on the details of the liturgical reform. . . We must ask whether the movement has remained faithful to its early inspiration. It's the spirit that should be judged, not the letter." (I wonder what Dobszay would say about that?)

Then, in an article by Keith F. Pecklers, SJ (who, among other things, serves as an "on-air expert" in church affairs for ABC News, according to his bio) takes us on a circuitous and tortured excursion through the landscape of the German Enlightenment. Not unlike a rather sheltered tourist who, while amidst the splendours of Paris or Rome, seeks out a quick bite to eat at the closest McBurger's (or worse, a dog who returns to his own vomit), he shares with us this insight: "Prior to the Second Vatican Council, liturgy was often looked on as an object, a thing. The laity attended or "heard" Mass but largely as passive spectators." Those of you who frequent Fr. Z's blog will recognize this as part of the overly used "party line." Nevermind that STTL comments, as does everyone else with real insight, that interiority is as important as externals. Besides, haven't we beaten the bad translation of "actuosa participatio" to a bloody pulp? We'll get more of that later from another column.

There's a column by Karen Kane, who assures us that, "Contemporary hymn text writers such as Dolores Dufner, Sylvia Dunstan, Alan Hommerding, Fred Pratt Green, Bernadette Farrell, Mary Louise Bringle, and many others have written texts that are wonderfully poetic (like, say, Farrell's wonderfully crafted, "Come to Set Us Free" for Advent. Take a look at it and try to read through it like poetry without breaking into giggle fits. Go on, I dare you.), theologically and liturgically sound (!?!), and inspiring reminders to the faithful of their responsibility as baptised Christians to be people of the Gospel, people of just living, people missioned to go forth and live as Christ in the world."

M. Peggy Lovrien quotes Bugnini, who according to her is "one of the key architects of the postconciliar liturgical renewal." Yes, too bad his architecture couldn't pass local building codes. Let's not forget, he was rewarded for his good deeds by being named papal nuncio to Tehhran, Iran. Within the text of her article is a great picture of a pony-tailed female teenager banging away on a drum set during a Mass. The caption reads, " 'Hardcore Catholic' drummer . . ." (I've withheld her name and location, although she's named in the picture.)

That's just a small sample of the conventional wisdom being held up by one of the wealthiest and most visible Catholic Music ministry associations in the U.S. Doesn't it make you wonder just who is being referred to in STTL at paragraph 51, where it says, "Preparation for music ministry should include appropriate human formation, spiritual formation, intellectual formation and pastoral formation . . .offered by . . . national ministry associations"?

David,

Don't throw out the baby with the bath-water. It isn't necessarily damning to the reputation of a hymn-writer to be be quoted with approval in the annals of the NAPM. Fred Pratt Green has an honourable place amongst 20th-century hymn-writers. His work is all the better for his background as a poet, well before he turned his hand to hymns.

People should watch out for personal attacks. Fr. Gene Walsh was my seminary choirmaster and spiritual director. He was an expert in Gregorian chant who one day got the word that next Fall's masses would be in English. There was almost no music written to use. He got Robert Twynham to write much beautiful music which we sang at St. Mary's Seminary. A few years later another translation came out and instantly Twynham's music was obsolete. How well would you have done in the circumstances? The thing that impressed me about Fr. Walsh's workshops, at which I sometimes assisted, was that people sang and prayed as never before at the Mass which followed. The Spirit of the Lord was there. I didn't care much for his writings; he was at his best as an extemporaneous but very well prepared speaker. Fr. Walsh was a giant of a man who does not deserve to be insulted. It is too bad that Church music has declined so badly since the 60's, but it wasn't his fault.

There is a lesson in all things. You have to know the devil to fight the devil.

IanW

I understand your call for discrimination in our criticism but let's be fair here. My criticism was not of Fred Pratt Green, nor of his texts, it was of their suitability for use in the Catholic liturgy, and the NAPM columnist's attempt to suggest that they were.

Once again, I point out that he was a Protestant, writing for the Protestant Church. Also, my points regarding "ecclesiastical approval" and the lack of a "nihil obstat" and "imprimatur" are certainly valid and valuable points of discussion on this blogsite. I hardly see that my comments constitute a "blunderbuss" approach.

(If it's not permitted to infuse our discussions and commentary with a bit of sarcastic vinegar on this blog, such as in my first entry - a review of the articles in NPM- then we are a very dismal bunch indeed!)

Can one person do the research and report in synopsis to the rest of us?

David, your comments have been perfectly civil and intelligent. no need for apologies.