Father Fox, et. al.
I wrote this letter for my pastor back in 2007 when I was agitating for us to lose our RITUALSONG hymnal. ................. 05
JUL 07
......... A couple of months ago you asked me if there was something wrong with
our hymnal, RitualSong. It has taken me
a while to put my thoughts on the subject in order, so please bear with me.
I will begin with a recent quote by the Pope regarding
church music and Gregorian chant: ( I colored the red portions myself, not His
Holiness)
"In the course of her two-thousand-year history, the Church has created, and still creates, music and songs which represent a rich patrimony of faith and love. This heritage must not be lost. Certainly as far as the liturgy is concerned, we cannot say that one song is as good as another. Generic improvisation or the introduction of musical genres which fail to respect the meaning of the liturgy should be avoided. As an element of the liturgy, song should be well integrated into the overall celebration. Consequently everything – texts, music, execution – ought to correspond to the meaning of the mystery being celebrated, the structure of the rite and the liturgical seasons. Finally, while respecting various styles and different and highly praiseworthy traditions, I desire, in accordance with the request advanced by the synod fathers, that Gregorian chant be suitably esteemed and employed as the chant proper to the Roman liturgy."
To RitualSong’s credit, it does have a section of Gregorian
chant. It also includes the proper
readings for each Sunday.
On the down side, I briefly surveyed RitualSong’s ratio of
old hymns to new (i.e. those composed after Vatican II) and the balance seems
to be about a 1 to 4 ratio (old to new).
Given the perspective of 2000 years, RitualSong’s compilers opted to
weight the hymnal heavily in favor of hymns most of which had yet to pass the
test of time. A huge number of
RitualSong’s new hymns have already fallen into disuse and it has only been ten
years since the hymnal’s release. The
compilers decided to do this at the expense of having us forget Catholic hymns
which are 100, 200, 1500 years old, which have passed the test of time and have
appealed to the Catholic Church throughout the ages and throughout the entire
world and not just to American baby-boomers.
Secondly, on the issue of altering the lyrics of old
hymns: Whatever advantage there might be
for doing that, there seem to be at least two negative things going on,
i.
dumming us down so we won’t have to deal with “Thee’s
and Thou’s” of the original, and
ii.
Altering the
meaning of older hymns to match the editors’ modern problems with traditional
Catholic doctrine. Below I show examples of older hymns being edited to avoid
mentioning Christ’s Death as well as being edited to avoid mention of Christian
Martyrdom. Ironically we get spared Thee’s
and Thou’s of old Catholic hymns, presumably we cannot understand old English,
but then we are expected to understand Amen Siakudumisa, (698), Bwana
Awabriki (720), Mayenziwe (725), Jesus Tawa Pano (806), Thuma Mina (796) All these are more unintelligible than
archaic English, yet they are all in RitualSong, while “Sweet Sacrament we Thee
adore”, “Panis Angelicus”, Ave Verum, the Te Deum … et.al. are not.
I feel the easiest way to illustrate my point is in the form
of the table, below, which presents some of the hymns which I feel have
problems and what I specifically see as a problem. This is not exhaustive. However it did
exhaust (and exasperate) me compiling it.
J
You will see, I concentrate on RitualSong’s “Eucharistic”
section. It seems to me, in the future,
if a hymnal we consider for adoption has a preponderance of its “Eucharistic”
hymns being penned by protestants who don’t even believe in the Eucharist, then
that should be a red flag for us, indicating that the compilers were more
interested in being stylish and modern than in helping us to worship and pray
as Catholics. Earlier I forwarded to you
an email from our former pastor, Bishop Flores, where he also mentions being
irked by modern Eucharistic hymns, therefore I don’t think I am alone in this
arena, and this raises the whole question of why we ever would want to sing
hymns that irk people, like Bishop Flores, who are simply trying to be true to
Catholic tradition and teaching. Lex
orandi lex credendi. Aside from
doctrinal considerations, I think it is just insensitive.
I hope and pray you will not be offended by what I have
written here, and I ask forgiveness in advance
if I what I have written here seems brash or angry. (I have stopped
being angry and have ‘moved on’ to just
being puzzled) I certainly think it is
the role of the committee formed to look around and make sure we have enough
options to choose from (which don’t offend any Catholic believers) before we
decide on our next hymnal selection.
|
Page
#
|
First
Line
|
Idiosyncracy
|
For
Example
|
|
911
|
Let Us Break Bread Together
|
No hint of Transubstantiation
nor of the sacrificial nature of the Mass
|
|
|
916
|
In Christ There is a Table Set for All
|
Ambiguous and confusing Eucharistic statement. However if
it is remembered that the author is Methodist, then there is no real
ambiguity. The song is about the
protestant “Lord’s Supper” and not about the Holy Eucharist.
|
“Here he gives himself to us as bread”
|
|
917
|
Draw Us in the Spirit’s Tether
|
No hint of Transubstantiation
nor of the sacrificial nature of the Mass
|
|
|
919
|
Taste and See
|
Though it is loosely based on Psalm 34, the only thing having remotely hinting of
the Eucharist is the word “taste”
|
The tune is a fake gospel style complete with swaying to
the music
Francis Patrick O’brien is not an. African
Amercan Baptist. Just an Irish Catholic priest from Boston “tryin’ to get
down”
|
|
921
|
As the Grains of Wheat
|
Though loosely based upon the Didache, the Eucharist’s
Sacrificial emphasis which is central to the Didache, has been edited out
|
|
|
922
|
At That First Eucharist
|
This beautiful hymn has been butchered to change “Thou”
into “You”, I have to wonder why
RitualSong didn’t update the protestant “How Great Thou Art? Are only old Protestant hymns too holy to
alter?
|
Somehow “grant us at every Eucharist to say with longing
heart and soul, ‘Thy will be done’” becomes:
“At this our Eucharist again preside and in our hearts
your law of love renew”
It just doesn’t have the same meaning
|
|
924
|
Song of the Body of Christ
|
This song seems to be all about “us”, not about Jesus, and
has no hint of Transubstantiation
nor of the sacrificial nature of the Mass
|
|
|
925
|
Take the Bread, Children
|
No hint of Transubstantiation
nor of the sacrificial nature of the Mass
|
I believe we are to RECEIVE the Holy Eucharist, not
TAKE it. Singing “take the bread” over and over, manages to simultaneously
perpetuate two misconceptions in one little phrase.
|
|
926
|
All who hunger
|
The closest this gets to Eucharistic teaching is the
statement “Jesus is the living Bread”, yet any protestant who denies
Transubstantiation would make the identical statement
|
The author is the Canadian Protestant Union’s first
self-avowed lesbian priestess
|
|
927
|
Bread to Share
|
No hint of Transubstantiation
nor of the sacrificial nature of the Mass
|
|
|
929
|
Let Us Be Bread
|
No hint of Transubstantiation
nor of the sacrificial nature of the Mass
|
|
|
930
|
Jesus Is Here Right Now
|
No hint of Transubstantiation
nor of the sacrificial nature of the Mass
|
“with this bread and wine, his peace you’ll find”
contributes to an deficient understanding of the Eucharist
|
|
933
|
Now In This Banquet
|
It does say “Christ is our bread”, (as would any
Protestant hymns,) but that is as far as it goes.
|
“bring us dancing into to day” hearkens back to the 70’s
and liturgical dancing
|
|
|
A Mighty Fortress
|
Besides being The ‘battle hymn’ of the Reformers because
it was written by the man who split the Church. Martin Luther believed many
odd things, e.g. there is no free will, God hates the vast majority of
humanity, the souls of the blessed sleep until Christ returns, mentally
retarded people are “changelings” and should be euthanized, polygamy is ok,
and many other errors.
|
|
|
850
|
Gather Us In
|
|
“Not
in some heaven light-years away” (last verse)
seems to be sneering at the Catholic teaching on the Four
Last Things: Death, Judgment, Heaven, Hell.
Maybe it is only sneering at #3.
|
|
809
|
I Danced in the Morning
|
Flippant lyrics, which put rhyming and cuteness above
reverence
“I danced on a Friday when the sky turned black
It’s hard to dance with devil on your back”
|
The author, explains his pithy lyrics as follows:
"I see
Christ as the incarnation of the piper who is calling us. He dances that
shape and pattern which is at the heart of our reality. By Christ I mean not
only Jesus; in other times and places, other planets, there may be other
Lords of the Dance”
|
|
|
Faith of our Fathers
|
Unrecognizable when compared to the original.
|
The martyrdom verse has been edited out and replaced with
a trendy “faith of our brothers and sisters”
|
|
626
|
Crown Him with many Crowns
|
The changes made to this beautiful hymn seem to be made
just for the sake of change but then again……….
|
Changing “Of
Him who died for Thee”
to
“Of Him who set
us free’ seems to be doctrinally driven by the modernist reluctance to
mention Christ’s Redeeming Death.
|
If I had been a never-Trumper--as many in my family were. Goodie-two-shoes to a man/woman!! --, I think the third debate would have brought me around to his side. (http://kneelingcatholic.blogspot.com/2016/10/never-trumpers-are-being-willfully_20.html) Mr. Trump stated his pro-life stance without apology and more emphatically than any Republican candidate I can recall...
Thought experiment: Do you think applying a pro-life litmus test to Supreme Court candidates--Mr. Trump's promise-- might eventually save even one poor child's life? perhaps tens of thousands? I had this discussion with a sister of mine. She was of the opinion that because it wouldn't save ALL unborn lives, then she felt justified in not supporting Trump. I wish I had had the acuity to simply ask her if she meant that if you could not prevent all evil, then it is OK not to try to prevent any, i.e. if you cannot accomplish everything worthwhile, then it is best not to try to accomplish ANYTHING worthwhile.
Thank God, Mr. Trump has been elected. I fully expect him to be the first and only Republican president ever to fulfill their promise of getting Roe v Wade overturned. When this happens, many unborn lives will be saved. I feel sorry for her and for you, that you both felt that that was not a worthwhile goal and that both of you, when you were needed, stood on the sidelines and did nothing.
You accuse me and your sister of not thinking saving babies to be a worthwhile goal. I hope you give some thought to that, and realize you owe me an apology for certain, and perhaps your sister as well.
I will give you a full apology, if you can explain why Mr. Trump's promise to appoint only prolife Justices to the Supreme Court did not compel you to support him.
I apologize in advance!
kc
That's not an apology. When you apologize for accusing me of not thinking saving babies to be a worthwhile goal, then I'll be happy to discuss the matter further.
I do apologize.
Help me see what I am missing!
Trump's pledge to get Roe v Wade overturned is huge, no?
Even if I detested Trump and thought there were a 99% chance he would backtrack on his pledge, wouldn't I still be obligated to hope for that 1% versus Hillary's zero? If one of my children were drowning and I had only a 1% chance of rescuing him, wouldn't I still be obligated to try something as opposed to nothing?
Thank you for your apology!
Trump's pledge to get Roe v Wade overturned is huge, no?
When did he make such a pledge? I know he released a list of possible Supreme Court appointments that look promising; he also said he wouldn't limit himself to that list.
Also, Mr. Trump supports some abortions. He thinks babies whose fathers are rapists or who commit incest should not be protected. That is both morally and intellectually incoherent.
And, Mr. Trump endorses torture. And, he called for the deliberate killing of non-combatants who are related to terrorists. Another word for that is murder.
Those are three grave evils that Mr. Trump endorsed, not counting his appeals to bigotry and his execrable behavior (admitted) toward women.
Even without these, no one -- repeat, NO ONE -- is "obligated" to vote for him. No such obligation arises from Catholic teaching. This is because each and every voter is called upon to make a decision about the fitness of a candidate. Catholic teaching never tells voters, you MUST vote FOR Candidate "X"; but it does sometimes say, you CANNOT vote for candidates who endorse grave evil.
The exception to the latter being, when there is no candidate who does not endorse grave evil.
Conclusion? Catholics could, morally, vote for Trump, not to endorse his many embraces of grave evil, but as a way to limit Clinton; or they could vote for a third party candidate; or they could leave that race blank. But absolutely no one was obligated to vote for Mr. Trump, or any other candidate.
You are entitled to think your vote for Mr. Trump was the right move; but you are not entitled to think others who disagree with you are bad Catholics, or lack zeal for righteousness.
Pardon this splayed response but I do want to briefly address each of your responses....
1.<<>>
I referenced his 3rd Debate remarks in my first comment. It has a link which has a short youtube video. He says he will only appoint pro-life justices and that after appointing 2 or 3 of these, then Roe v Wade will be overturned.
2.<>
Trump's position is only as incoherent as Mitt Romney's, John McCain's, and every Pro-life Republican President's and candidate's since Roe v Wade. Forgive me for bringing this up if you likewise have refused to support any of these others for that same reason. Regardless, your objection here seems to be the same as my dear sister's...which I understand as...'because we cannot save every life, then we are justified in not trying to save any", i.e. voting for McMullin, or for Ronald McDonald....
3) <<>>>
This sounds to me like Bernardin's seamless garment'. i.e. trying to erase any weighting of issues. It's kind of like when Protestants say that all sins are of equal gravity. I totally disagree. If Mr. Trump would like to water-board the San Bernadino shooter, Syed Farook's, friend who helped him buy armaments, to see if there is anyone else he helped to arm and to plot impending attacks, you see that as just as bad as supporting Roe v Wade? Did you still support Pres. Bush in 2004 after we found out that he was for "torture"? (The Abu Gurayb scandal(May2004) was well aired by the time of the Nov. election).
It is sad that after Pres. Obama's righteous condemnation of Bush's torture interrogations of captured enemies, Obama's solution was then to go for out and out death squads and death drones which kill many more innocent people than actual bad guys. Who's approach was better? I think there is some gray area here that you are not recognizing. like for instance, the definition of torture. Is water-boarding torture in the medieval sense? Pres. Bush was waterboarding a few individuals to prevent another 9-11 like attack...You don't believe in double effect? not in war-time?
4<>>
Certainly whoever told you that, Father, was being dishonest. Let me give you missing context. Trump backed off that here (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-terrorists_us_56e0d7cde4b065e2e3d4d82d) He clarified his remark. I hope this is genuine good news to you.
very respectfully
the quotes for each section did not print...
They should be...
1. Where did Trump pledge to overturn Roe v Wade?
2.Trump's abortion position is incoherent
3. Trump supports torture
4. Trump wants to kill innocent family members of Terrorists
Thank you for the link; I did not see that debate, so I didn't see those comments by Mr. Trump.
Trump's position is only as incoherent as Mitt Romney's, John McCain's, and every Pro-life Republican President's and candidate's since Roe v Wade.
No, that's not true. Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984 was completely prolife; no exceptions, except "for the life of the mother," which really means, banning abortion won't mean banning life-saving measures that unavoidably lead to an abortion. When he ran in 1988 and 1992, President George H.W. Bush took the same position. I can't recall Bob Dole's position in 1996, but prior to that, his was the same position -- i.e., 100% prolife.
The decisive change -- which perhaps you didn't notice -- took place in 2000 with George W. Bush. He adopted the morally and intellectually incoherent position that it was wrong to kill babies, except when their fathers' commit a grave crime; then it becomes ok to kill those babies.
You don't understand why this is morally or intellectually incoherent?
Regardless, your objection here seems to be the same as my dear sister's...which I understand as...'because we cannot save every life, then we are justified in not trying to save any", i.e. voting for McMullin, or for Ronald McDonald....
Nonsense! I don't know your sister, or what she says, but I strongly suspect your characterization of her views is as bizarre and, I'm sorry, blockheaded as your characterization of mine! I strongly doubt your sister says "we are justified in not trying to save any" babies from abortion. Rather, I suspect she agrees with me that when a candidate says s/he is ok with killing any babies, that's evil -- which is precisely what the Catholic Church says. You claim to be Catholic -- do you not agree with the Church that the killing of babies, because their father's committed rape and incest, is evil?
Can you really not understand why someone would want to refuse to support a candidate who embraces evil? Or, is it your position that so long as one candidate embraces somewhat less evil, Catholic must vote for the less-evil candidate? Is that actually your position?
I caution you to re-read that last paragraph, and think long and hard about your answer. Because if you say, yes to that last paragraph, realize you are saying yes to the following:
Candidate A: embezzler; Candidate B: rapist -- Catholics must vote for one of these.
Candidate A: racist; Candidate B: advocates legal abortion -- Catholics must vote for one.
Candidate A: supports abortion 100% of the time; Candidate B: supports abortion 90% of the time -- Catholics must vote for one.
Now, contrary to your view that Catholics must vote for an evil-endorsing candidate, as long as there is someone worse, the Catholic Church never teaches that. The U.S. bishops stated very clearly that embracing grave evil disqualifies any and all candidates, and when faced with a situation in which both are disqualified, there are several moral options, one of which is to vote for an otherwise disqualified candidate as a way to limit harm; but they never said "must."
Now, it's worth noting that not that long ago, we reasonably expected GOP candidates to be 100% prolife; now we have self-described prolifers (such as you) who think that's unreasonable to expect. How did this happen? It happened precisely because, too many "settled" for W. Bush's position, which became the default position.
That deals with your comments on abortion. I'll respond to your other comments next.
No, that's nonsense. First, I never claimed all evils are of equal weight. Please read what I actually wrote, rather than read into it what it suits you to find there. I was simply pointing out instances where Mr. Trump endorsed grave evil. Do you not consider torture intrinsically evil? Perhaps not, but the Church does. From Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, paragraph 64:
Our 1998 statement, Living the Gospel of Life, declares, "Abortion and euthanasia have become preeminent threats to human life and dignity because they directly attack life itself, the most fundamental good and the condition for all others" (no. 5). Abortion, the deliberate killing of a human being before birth, is never morally acceptable and must always be opposed. Cloning and destruction of human embryos for research or even for potential cures are always wrong. The purposeful taking of human life by assisted suicide and euthanasia is not an act of mercy, but an unjustifiable assault on human life. Genocide, torture, and the direct and intentional targeting of noncombatants in war or terrorist attacks are always wrong.
This statement is echoed by the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 2297, and various statements by Popes John Paul II, Benedict XVI and Francis.
I totally disagree. If Mr. Trump would like to water-board the San Bernadino shooter, Syed Farook's, friend who helped him buy armaments, to see if there is anyone else he helped to arm and to plot impending attacks, you see that as just as bad as supporting Roe v Wade?
False. I never said "just as bad." Why do you insist on putting words in my mouth?
Did you still support Pres. Bush in 2004 after we found out that he was for "torture"? (The Abu Gurayb scandal(May2004) was well aired by the time of the Nov. election).
No, I didn't support him in either 2000 or 2004, precisely because he endorsed the grave evil of abortion when the child's father had committed rape and incest.
You don't believe in double effect? not in war-time?
I do believe in the principle of double effect, but it doesn't apply to evil actions, but rather, to morally good or neutral actions. This is a critical distinction. The principle of double effect can only be applied where the action in view is neutral or morally good. For example, advocates of legal abortion have tried to use the principle of double effect to justify killing an unborn child because of the good that will result. But Pope John Paul II said very clearly: we can never (NEVER!) do evil that good may come of it.
And wartime doesn't justify what is otherwise evil.
Finally, as regards Mr. Trump's intention to kill non-combatants, no one "told" me: I heard him say it, on TV, during one of the debates in the primaries. And, I am aware of the comment you cited, in which he backed away. However, he wasn't being honest there. When he was asked, during the primaries, about "targeting" family members, the person asking him the question specifically referred to killing them, and asked, is this what you mean? And Mr. Trump stood by his intention to "target" them, even when he was asked specifically about killing "non combatants," which is what we're talking about.
The fact that he later saw the need to "clean it up" doesn't mean he didn't say it in the first place, and mean it. You are free to believe he never meant it in the first place; I see no reason why I'm obliged to believe that.
I do apologize, again, for assuming that you supported George W. Although I think your clarification shows that your strategy is flawed. Your uncompromising 'prolife'presidents -- Reagan and Bush I-- still managed to appoint prochoice supreme court justices, Oconnor, Kennedy, Souter, whereas W solely appointed prolife justices, Alito and Roberts. Perhaps I am again presuming too much in thinking you would like to see Roe v Wade overturned.
Mr. Trump is the first candidate--now president-elect-- to pledge to apply a pro-life litmus test to Supreme Court candidates. I don't understand why that didn't 'move the needle' for you. Making pie-in-the-sky pronouncements about 'no exceptions', without revealing a course of action, seems to be a guarantee that Roe v Wade will stand. It certainly worked out that way for 12 straight years of Reagan Bush, whereas at least the partial birth abortion ban was passed under W.
So, I need to back up and please do not be offended...I have to ask...do you think reversing Roe v Wade, will save ANY lives?
Your uncompromising 'prolife'presidents -- Reagan and Bush I-- still managed to appoint prochoice supreme court justices, Oconnor, Kennedy, Souter, whereas W solely appointed prolife justices, Alito and Roberts.
The first part of your statement is true, but the second one assumes facts not in evidence. Justices Alito and Roberts have yet to rule on whether Roe and Planned Parenthood v. Casey should be upheld, modified or overturned. So I suggest you are counting your chickens before they are hatched.
Perhaps I am again presuming too much in thinking you would like to see Roe v Wade overturned.
Of course I would like to see it overturned! It boggles my mind that you are confused over this. I fail to see how supporting candidates who are weak on the abortion issue is somehow better than supporting those who are strong. Mr. Trump has answered the questions the right way on some occasions, which is great, but I cannot understand overlooking the many other troubling facts in his record.
Mr. Trump is the first candidate--now president-elect-- to pledge to apply a pro-life litmus test to Supreme Court candidates. I don't understand why that didn't 'move the needle' for you.
May I suggest you read what follows very slowly, since you seem not to be getting this:
I.
Do.
Not.
Trust.
Mr.
Trump.
Get that? Clear?
Largely because...
Mr.
Trump.
Supports.
Grave.
Evils.
Get that? He endorses evil things. Abortion in some cases. Torture. Killing non-combatants.
Saying the right things about abortion during the GOP primary does not wipe all that away.
What I don't understand is how you can wink at all this (not to mention his loathsome behavior toward people who he did business with, his wives, his family, women, veterans and their families, former POWs, illegal immigrants -- it's a really long list). Apparently, none of this matters to you. Mr. Trump said, he could murder someone in the middle of 5th Avenue and his supporters would still vote for him. That seems to include you. Apparently, Mr. Trump could say and do anything, anything at all, and as long as he claims to be pro-life, you'll support him. Apparently, simply saying the magic words about abortion make any and all other positions irrelevant.
Is that not true? Then please tell me, what precisely he would have to do for you to say, "That's too far; I cannot support him." What would that be?
My argument for supporting Mr. Trump is kind of related to my understanding of doctrine 'ex opere operato'.What I understand that to mean is: 'it would be nice if your plumber is a saint, but it's not necessary for him to be a saint to be a good plumber'. The same holds true for many professions, Trump's and yours included.
My own experience has biased me to think that people who expect you to cut them some slack because of their personal holiness--we had a president like that once--generally aren't very good at their jobs, nor are they especially holy unless you count preening as one of the acts of mercy. But let's say President Carter is on his way to heaven for his virtues and Trump to hell for his lack thereof. If Trump gets Roe v Wade overturned, it will still save thousands of babies lives, just as instituting Roe v Wade surely has cost millions.
Well, I seem to be repeating myself. It has to be time to let you have the last word
So, to be clear, you are willing to vote for any candidate, no matter what other evil things s/he advocates, no matter what other problems, as long as that candidate utters the words, "I will overturn Roe v. Wade"?
You would vote for former KKK grand wizard David Duke, as long as he was for overturning Roe v. Wade. Correct?
In short, your position is, any amount of cooperation with evil is justified if you can overturn Roe in the process.
That's called consequentialism, and it is not Catholic.