PJB: An Index of Catholicism's Decline

Speaking for myself only, I'm not proposing as a hard and fast rule that "Organ == Good" and "(Piano|guitar|???) == Bad". And I've no idea how the invention of the Organ was received. However, I've found that as a first-order approximation "Organ == Good" is fairly reliable. The modernists who run Oregon Catholic Press and its subsidiaries, and the National Association of Pastoral Musicians seem to prefer a) insipid, heretical music b) the use of any instrument(s) other than the dreaded organ, and c) any action or physical arrangement which draws personal attention to the various musicians. IOW, they think the Mass is a musical performance; a piece of theatre. I've even heard "Ministers of Music" use theatrical languange (Stage, House, etc.) to describe the interior of the Church building.

Desdemona, I'd really value your comments on this; you're a bit closer to the problem than I am.

I could suppose that Eastern branches of Christendom (the Orthodox and non Chalcedonian churches in particular) never fell under the cultural sway of Augustine like the Latin West did.

As a result, the Christian East didn't see such need to interfere in the marital bed, and saw sexual attraction as normal. Monks were monks, presbyters were presbyters, and the laity was the laity - each state being deemed normal and desirable.

Meanwhile, in the Latin West, the Augustinian concept that sex within marriage for any purpose other than procreative is sinful became part of the culture. In time, they went to a non-married clergy, which was bit strange considering that the doctrines regarding the validity of sacraments administered by sinful clergy had been dealt with.

Consider the fact that some Catholics on this board deem married clergy to be a sacrilege, yet there are Uniates (Catholics who worship according to the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom - the Eastern Orthodox way) which have a married clergy. Further, there are Anglican converts, also married, who serve in parishes. That seems rather incongruous to me - and as if the doctrine regarding married clergy in the Latin rite was never well thought out.

So is it sinful, or isn't it? Why is the rule OK as to the Uniates, but not OK as to Latin parishes, unless the pastor is a former Anglican?

The question then is:

Is the organ, guitar, lyre, harp or cymbal the problem...

or is it the music itself?

It's the music itself. I mean, take one of the great Christmas carols, for example. "Silent Night" was written originially for guitar (it was Christmas Eve and the organ was broken. Gruber had to do something). This, in any instrument, is viable and beautiful and moving.

The stuff in the current "hymnals" is so bad, the material used in Level I piano books surpasses it. It's that pedantic. Funny thing is, that people like me, who are pros, yes, go to Mass and sometimes even cantor, but actually work in the protestant churches because the music in the Catholic church is written by people who don't know what they are doing.

Not only that, the post Vatican II crowd took the music for the masses mandate off on a tangent and decided real musicians "performed" too much. So, we work in the protestant churches. Forget, even with the Catechism clearly laying it out, that musicianship is a profession. There aren't that many paid positions in the Catholic churches. We have to pay for development of skill somehow. It's a dirty secret that some of the best musicians in the protestant churches are actually Catholic. Just a little something to keep in mind and pray over.

PJ's conclusion is the following: "Vatican II appears to have been an unrelieved disaster for Roman Catholicism".

He backs his conclusion with United States statistics only.

He would have been more accurate to claim "Vatican II appears to have been an unrelieved disaster for Roman Catholicism in America".

However, this is not even accurate since he does not provide any kind of link between the implementation of Vatican II and the results he presents. Its sort of like saying "My brother in Louisiana died last year" then blaming it on the mosquitos. (Did your brother die of West Nile or was he hit by a car?).

IMHO, you have highlighted the problem. I will refine what I think is THE problem.

The modernists who run Oregon Catholic Press and its subsidiaries, and the National Association of Pastoral Musicians seem to prefer a) insipid, heretical music b) the use of any instrument(s) other than the dreaded organ, and c) any action or physical arrangement which draws personal attention to the various musicians. IOW, they think the Mass is a musical performance; a piece of theatre. I've even heard "Ministers of Music" use theatrical languange (Stage, House, etc.) to describe the interior of the Church building.

other than the dreaded organ = rejection of anything traditional!

Also I would add a lack of reverence and a distortion of what is sacred!

Correct this bolded stuff and I don't care what instrument is used. (I am an organist and have a bias, however, I am not a rigorist)

The stuff in the current "hymnals" is so bad, the material used in Level I piano books surpasses it. It's that pedantic. Funny thing is, that people like me, who are pros, yes, go to Mass and sometimes even cantor, but actually work in the protestant churches because the music in the Catholic church is written by people who don't know what they are doing.

I agree! It's unfortunate you have to play in a protestant church. Time to get the old hymnals together. Is your pastor adverse to that idea?

we are both wrong. From http://www.rpinet.com/ml/2510bi1.html:

The communion rail, or altar rail, was introduced into Catholic churches centuries ago to separate the sanctuary from the assembly and to provide a support against which communicants could kneel. After the Second Vatican Council, the rubrics no longer asked the faithful to kneel during communion. Consequently many churches removed their communion rails; others left them in place; new constructions generally do not include them.

The removal of communion rails caused great pain for many in the church. Since the Mass culminates in the sharing of communion, the rail became a place of the highest importance for the faithful. The removal of the rail disoriented many people, who feared that someone had compromised the very heart of Catholic belief.

In fact, the beliefs of the church remained intact. Although the posture for communion has changed, the Catholic belief in the real presence of Christ, the importance of reverence at communion, and the insistence that the Mass culminate in communion has remained the same, as it always will. By encouraging the faithful to stand for communion, the rubrics returned to a symbolic posture which stresses belief in the resurrection rather than one which promoted simple adoration.

Standing for communion demonstrates our belief that Christ is risen and that the eucharistic food we share is a foretaste of the life to come. Although the real presence of Christ deserves our adoration, standing emphasizes our participation in the mystery of the Mass, which is the point of communion. Since the range of belief we express at communion has opened wider, the rail has become inessential.

The other function of the rail, to separate the clergy from the laity, hindered the Vatican II church which had heard the universal call to holiness and which had affirmed that all the baptized together form the people of God. Now the rubrics just encourage that the sanctuary be identifiable by its elevation or the distinction of its design.

First off, see post #124.

Let me deal with this one first.

I've even heard "Ministers of Music" use theatrical languange (Stage, House, etc.) to describe the interior of the Church building.

It's the music business lingo, and frankly, since I speak the lingo, with this I don't have a problem. And, yes, we all use room, live, dead, reverb, mike, etc., just like in the regular business. Undisturbed, old churches are great live rooms. Lots of reverbs, you don't have to work too hard as long as they're not carpeted.

The modernists who run Oregon Catholic Press and its subsidiaries, and the National Association of Pastoral Musicians seem to prefer a) insipid, heretical music

Well, yeah, since they write it and can make money on the royalties. Hardly any of it is public domain. Seriously, look though a song book on Sunday and check out the copyright dates.

b) the use of any instrument(s) other than the dreaded organ,

This is a real hang-up of the people who lived through Vatican II who are currently between 45 and 65. I don't understand it myself.

c) any action or physical arrangement which draws personal attention to the various musicians. IOW, they think the Mass is a musical performance; a piece of theatre.

Uh-huh. It's a little hypocritical, actually, considering that "music ministers" are specifically told that Mass is not a performance. Well, only the ones, like me, who insist on polishing the material and using music written by such objectionable people Mozart, Bach, Verdi and the like.

Regards, Maximilian. I see that some of the posters are referring to that garden spot, Africa. See, no problems, just look somewhere else far, far, far away. Preferably a place where noone posting has actually lived.

Priests, Bishops Rape Nuns

"The women's orders are very poor in Africa," Yvonne Maes, a nun who worked in Africa for 21 years, told the Vancouver Sun. "If some priests want to target them for sex, they don't have a hope in hell. The bishops wouldn't listen to any of their complaints." Maes recounted that some Catholic priests had common-law wives and that some bishops had pressured nuns to have sex. Maes further noted that homosexual Catholic priests had sexually molested Innu men. Several lawsuits against the homosexual priests have been filed.

Sister Marie McDonald, who compiled a report on the abuse, noted that Church leaders rebuffed many nuns who sought help. It constituted a "conspiracy of silence," said Sr. McDonald in the report, The problem of Sexual Abuse of African Religious in Africa and Rome. "...[M]any of them [bishops] felt it was disloyal of the sisters to send reports. However, the sisters claim they have done so time and time again. Sometimes they were not well received. In some instances they are blamed for what happened. Even when they are listened to sympathetically nothing much seems to be done."

Cardinal Martinez Somalo, director of the Vatican congregation for Religious Life, set up a committee to look into the problem, reported the London Independent. This happened after the story the story first broke, although the Church has known of the sexual abuse for more than a decade. "But it [the committee] seems to have done little beyond 'awareness raising' among bishops." stated the Independent.

There reportedly are more than 2,000 documented accounts of clergy abuse in Africa alone. But the problem exists in at least 23 countries. It is rampant in Brazil, Columbia, India, Ireland, Italy, New Guinea, the Philippines and the United States said the Vancouver Sun.

"But it is an oversimplification to say that Shanley,Goeghan, and Birmingham were "caused" by Vatican II, when they clearly were not."

I think it is fair to say that those perverts were probably unleashed by Vatican II. Are there indications that they sexually preyed on boys prior to 1965?

I happened to go to a church meeting last night for parents of kids being prepared to receive the sacrament of reconciliation. The Director of Religious Education told us that in the dark old days there was a "legalistic" effort to define sin and to build lists of sins. But happily since Vatican II the Church has realized that a sin can not be so "legalistically" determined. A sin is now based on the concept of relationships. A sin is an act distructive one's relationship with God or with the community.

It not hard to imagine how, with such a Clintoneque defintion, predatory perverts like Shanely can justify their actions by saying, Hey, I'm not hurting any relationship, this is an uplifting spiritual experience bring me closer to God...

People need black and white rules: it is a sin to touch another boys weiner, etc.

Those are all good points. Does it address the roots of abnormal sexual urges? Whether one accepts Augustine and uniate vs. procreative, the fact remains in Christianity that licit sex was only for the married men and women.

Also it has never been addressed that some of our species have vastly stronger sexual urges than others. Some sexual urges emerge sporadically at different times in one's live; at other times they are quite amenable to self-control

Do the eastern Christians have a problem with homosexuality as prevalent as it has become in the west?

Is it a normal thing to segregate the sexes in society (although it certainly controls heterosexual attraction) with monks and nuns? How did that practice get started, do you know? Both east and west encouraged separation of unmarried singles and convents and monasteries were a good way to do so.

It seems to me that it has all gotten worse, as exemplified by our prisons. I don't think we had the problem in our prison populations in the past with same-sex acting out like we do now. What happened?

Nevertheless homosexuality is evidently here to stay and we are going to have to face it.

Has Christianity historically been so uptight about enforcing sexual morality and adding nuances to it that it has spilled over into perversions?

None of the above really has any meaning other than to conservatives of all cultures who wish to preserve healthy morality. It seems to me we will continue on our downward sexually promiscuous spiral.

And I guess I don't understand how most couples have lifelong sexual desires only for one another. That's where deeper bonding and true fidelity enter the picture.

Marriage doesn't necessarily seem to cure immorality (it sure helps); in bad marriages (sexually/spiritually incompatible) it is more likely to erupt in perverted desires perhaps.

See post 130.

I'm actually a soprano, which is really bad, in the current music disaster, because my range is so much higher than the what the music people have convinced themselves the congregation can sing.

As for my pastor, well, part of the reason I left the last parish is because the music director and I went round in circles over this. The new parish has a program in place and, yes, it's bad, but as a new person I'm not going to start there making waves. And as my voice is pretty big and does not blend well, forget the Cathedral. Romeri, the music director over there, likes the blendite straight tones for some dumb reason. And his soprano sections never sound supported.

You know, you opened a big can of worms. I'm on my soapbox. Although, being in SYmphony Chorus now is taking some of the edge off.

The Director of Religious Education told us that in the dark old days there was a "legalistic" effort to define sin and to build lists of sins. But happily since Vatican II the Church has realized that a sin can not be so "legalistically" determined. A sin is now based on the concept of relationships. A sin is an act distructive one's relationship with God or with the community.

Good grief, you are kidding, yes?

Note:

One monk who attended a Bella Dodd lecture in the early 1950s recalled:

"I listened to that woman for four hours and she had my hair standing on end. Everything she said has been fulfilled to the letter. You would think she was the world's greatest prophet, but she was no prophet. She was merely exposing the step-by-step battle plan of Communist subversion of the Catholic Church. She explained that of all the world's religions, the Catholic Church was the only one feared by the Communists, for it was its only effective opponent. The whole idea was to destroy, not the institution of the Church, but rather the Faith of the people, and even use the institution of the Church, if possible, to destroy the Faith through the promotion of a pseudo-religion: something that resembled Catholicism but was not the real thing. Once the Faith was destroyed, she explained that there would be a guilt complex introduced into the Church…. to label the 'Church of the past' as being oppressive, authoritarian, full of prejudices, arrogant in claiming to be the sole possessor of truth, and responsible for the divisions of religious bodies throughout the centuries. This would be necessary in order to shame Church leaders into an 'openness to the world,' and to a more flexible attitude toward all religions and philosophies. The Communists would then exploit this openness in order to undermine the Church."

From http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/804825/posts?page=1

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.