Erie, Pa., Aug 15, 2018 / 04:59 pm (CNA).- Bishop Donald Trautman responded Tuesday to the Pennsylvania grand jury report on allegations of clerical sex abuse of minors, saying he did not condone or enable such abuse during his tenure leading the Diocese of Erie.
Abuse victims “should understand that neither this Statement nor my Response to the grand jury Report is intended to diminish the horrible abuse inflicted upon them and the immense suffering they have endured. I desire only to clarify that I neither condoned nor enabled clergy abuse. Rather, I did just the opposite,” Bishop Trautman said in his Aug. 14 statement.
A redacted version of the report had been released earlier that day, following an 18-month investigation into thousands of alleged instances of abuse spanning several decades. The report detailed allegations made in the dioceses of Allentown, Erie, Greensburg, Harrisburg, Pittsburgh, and Scranton.
Trautman was Bishop of Erie from 1990 until his 2012 retirement, at the age of 76.
The grand jury report’s section on the Diocese of Erie recounted priests’ sexual contact with minors, and said that “Diocesan administrators, including the Bishops, had knowledge of this conduct and yet priests were regularly placed in ministry after the Diocese was on notice that a complaint of child sexual abuse had been made. This conduct enabled offenders and endangered the welfare of children.”
The report also said the Erie diocese made settlements with victims which contained confidentiality agreements, and that diocesan administrators, including bishops, “often dissuaded victims from reporting abuse to police, pressured law enforcement to terminate or avoid an investigation, or conducted their own deficient, biased investigating without reporting crimes against children to the proper authorities.”
It identified 41 offenders from the diocese, and gave lengthy accounts of what it called three “examples of institutional failure”: the cases of Fathers Chester Gawronski, William Presley, and Thomas Smith.
Bishop Trautman’s statement indicated his “prayerful support to all victims of clergy sexual abuse” and “a sincere apology to all who have been harmed by clergy abuse.”
“My time spent as Bishop of the Diocese addressing sexual abuse has been the most demoralizing, trying and pain-filled experience of my priestly life. I have seen first-hand how the terrible acts of clergy abusers devastate the lives of innocent victims,” he said.
He commended the grand jury’s efforts to help abuse victims, saying its report “rightfully chastises clergy who committed horrible crimes against children. Unfortunately, the grand jury Report neglects to also emphasize the concrete steps some Church leaders took to correct and curtail abuse and to help victims.”
The bishop said that his record “includes disciplining, defrocking and ultimately laicizing pedophiles in the Diocese.”
He added that it “also includes efforts to provide care and support for victims,” which statement he supported with appended letters from victims expressing gratitude for his pastoral care.
“As a pastor of souls, I shepherd the good – the innocent victims of abuse – as well as the bad, the abusers who undeniably engaged in despicable acts and were rightfully removed from ministry,” Bishop Trautman wrote.
Noting the report’s lengthy discussions of three priests whose situations it called “examples of institutional failures”, the bishop emphasized “that I removed each of them from ministry and had each laicized. All of their improper conduct with children pre-dated me becoming Bishop of Erie.”
He maintained his faithful fulfillment of the Charter for the Protection of Childen and Young People, adopted by the US bishops in 2002, and his faithful fulfillment of all Pennsylvania laws on sex abuse.
“From the day I took office as Bishop of the Diocese of Erie, I did my best to correct the sin of sex abuse,” Bishop Trautman said. “I personally met with and counseled abuse victims. I removed sixteen offenders from active ministry … As early as 1993, I established new guidelines concerning clergy abuse.”
He also recounted the several measures he took from 2002 onwards regarding clerical abuse.
“These are not the actions of a Bishop trying to hide or mask pedophile priests to the detriment of children or victims of abuse,” he wrote. “I did not move priests from parish to parish to cover up abuse allegations or fail to take action when an allegation was raised … There simply is no pattern or practice of putting the Church’s image or a priest’s reputation above the protection of children.”
Bishop Trautman said that the report “does not fully or accurately discuss my record as Bishop for twenty-two years in dealing with clergy abuse. While unfortunate, these omissions are consistent with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s findings that the grand jury process that produced the Report suffered from ‘limitations upon its truth-finding capabilities’ and lacked ‘fundamental fairness.’”
The bishop concluded that “In the end, the focus should be on the victims and helping them heal. I send my prayers and deepest support to all victims of abuse, not just those abused by clergy, but victims of abuse across all segments of our society. Hopefully, the grand jury Report, despite its flaws, aids in the healing of all victims and furthers the just cause of stamping out abuse. Let God’s law prevail; let healing continue.”
Attached to Bishop Trautman’s 923-word statement were his June 20 response to the report, with several appended exhibitory documents, and an Aug. 2 joint stipulation to dismiss appeal, from the bishop and from state attorney general Josh Shapiro, in which the attorney general agreed that several statements in the report are “not specifically directed at Bishop Trautman.”
The bishop’s 15-page response to the report focused on his desire “to clarify, contrary to the tenor of the Report, that he neither condoned nor enabled clergy abuse.”
The response noted that “While the Grand Jury adopted and issued the Report, under typical grand jury practices, the language of the Report was drafted by the [Office of the Attorney General] not the Grand Jury.”
It mentions that the report made no mention of letters sent to Bishop Trautman by abuse victims expressing appreciation for his pastoral care (which letters were provided to the grand jury), and that written testimony submitted by Bishops Trautman and Persico, his successor, “is not substantively discussed in the Report, let alone included in it in full.”
“What these examples demonstrate is that the OAG, via the Grand Jury, with an agenda, has selectively chosen the words in the Report, what words to include in the Report, and how to portray those words in a manner – often a misleading one – that best suits their agenda.”
The response also noted that Bishop Trautman met personally, or attempted to do so, with each abuse victim. And, “when victims would permit him, he personally provided pastoral counselling for the victims’ well-being. He also helped ensure that victims had appropriate mental health treatment paid for by the Diocese.”
“Certainly, with hindsight, some isolated decisions made by Bishop Trautman concerning certain priests … might be subject to critique. But, what is clear from his overall conduct – and complete actual record – is that he cared deeply about the victims of abuse, did his best to help the victims both pastorally and financially, did not condone the horrific conduct of priests who abused minors, and consistently took action to remove abusers from active ministry.”
Since the report detailed the cases of Fathers Chester Gawronski, William Presley, and Thomas Smith, Bishop Trautman’s response addressed these at length.
The response explained that “New allegations against priests made while Bishop Trautman was in office resulted in the priest being taken out of active ministry.”
The exceptions to this rule were priests who “had been sent for a psychological evaluation” under Bishop Murphy, Trautman’s predecessor.
Each of these – including Gawronski, Presley, and Smith – were “already on a monitoring/aftercare program that had been recommended by psychiatric professionals. While in hindsight he might now act differently, given the recommendations and plans made before Bishop Trautman came to the Diocese from Buffalo and out of deference to Bishop Murphy, Bishop Trautman continued the monitoring/aftercare plans and assignments recommended by the professionals and put in place by his predecessor.”
And according to the response, “In several instances, even though mental health professionals advised that a priest could be returned to ministry, Bishop Trautman kept the priest out of public ministry.”
The response also noted that neither Gawronski, nor Presley, nor Smith “is known to have reoffended. During the time period each of these priests remained in active ministry after initial allegations were made, no allegation that they offended while in such ministry was or has been made.”
“When allegations of prior (usually decades old) abuse by each priest were raised while Bishop Trautman was in office, he acted to take each priest out of any ministry that would include contact with children and ultimately took each out of ministry all together,” the response stated.
Each of the three priests were dismissed from the clerical state in processes which were initiated by Bishop Trautman.
The bishop’s response included examples of potentially misleading writing in the grand jury report, authored by the Pennsylvania attorney general’s office.
For instance, it noted the report’s mention that Bishop Trautman allowed Fr. Gawronski to hear confessions for persons with disabilities in 1996.
The report stated: “By 1996, there was no possible doubt that Gawronski had spent most of his priesthood preying on the vulnerable. However, even as complaints continued, on November 6, 1996, Gawronski was notified that Trautman had approved his request to hear confessions for persons with disabilities.”
“What the Report does not include,” the response states, “is that this was a one-time event, with multiple priests and church personnel participating, that the event would take place at the St. Mark’s Center (the building where the Diocesan offices, including the Bishop’s office, are located), and that Gawronski’s participation was at the request of a religious sister who served as Coordinator for the Ministry to Persons with Disabilities. Why not disclose the full facts about the request? Does the request lose its sensational nature when put in actual context?”
The response also pointed to potentially misleading statements in the report regarding Fr. Presley.
The report mentioned an April 2003 press release from the Erie diocese regarding the removal of Fr. Presley’s faculties, in which the diocese stated it had “no information to provide on other possible allegations against the priest.” The report called the press release “false and misleading.”
The response noted that the press release quoted in the report, while “inartful … is simply a statement of ‘no comment.’ Contrary to the allegation in the Report, this was not a false statement.”
The response also addressed the report’s presentation of a 2005 diocesan investigation undertaken with a view to having Fr. Presley, who had retired in 2000, dismissed from the clerical state.
The investigation was led by Msgr. Mark Bartchak, who wrote to Bishop Trautman Aug. 25 of that year indicating he had gathered sufficient evidence for Presley’s dismissal, and asking if he should continue to follow up on further potential leads. Bartchak indicated that Trautman said that would be unnecessary.
The report called this a “curb” of the diocese’s investigation intented “to prevent finding additional victims.”
“When read in context,” the response says, “Bishop Trautman is simply answering an inquiry from Rev. Bartchak and, using the same words from the inquiry, telling him that, if the Diocese had enough evidence to succeed in the laicization process (which they did), he need not further investigate facts that likely would not lead to a violation of Cannon law [sic] because of the age of the victim. Again, this simply is not an effort to somehow hide Presley and his conduct.”
The report also read that with regard to Presley, “The truth was that Murphy, Trautman, and the Diocese of Erie intentionally waited out the statute of limitations and curbed their own investigation to prevent finding additional victims.”
The response called the allegation that Bishop Trautman had “intentionally waited out” the statute of limitations “baseless.”
“The allegations brought to Bishop Trautman’s attention in 2002 – on which he quickly acted – concerned conduct that occurred in the 1960s and 1970s. The statute of limitations had, unfortunately, expired long ago,” the response said.
“Despite their artful (and sometimes misleading) construction, a close reading of the summaries found in the Report’s Appendix reveals the same course of action throughout Bishop Trautman’s 22 years in office,” the response concluded: “Bishop Trautman consistently acted to protect children and remove priests from ministry.”
[…]
I lost IQ points reading this pointless article.
If Catholics want music and to sing, here’s what I’d suggest parishes do. Designate a weekday evening for a Parish Community Worship & Praise gathering. At this weekday gathering, host a ‘bring your favorite dish’ meal, have a short talk by the pastor and invite all your non-Catholic friends and those you meet on the street. It would be an excellent evangelizing tool, especially among protestants who are used to shared suppers and Worship & Praise sessions. Then, any outsiders who wish can be invited to explore the Catholic religion further. But let the central act of our worship of God – The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass – remain wholly sacred.
I was at a “reverent Mass” last week, most of it was chanted. There were both incense and bells (and a younger crowd, hmmm….)
But they also used several somewhat “choice” pieces out of the OCP hymnal, including “We Remember” by Marty Haugen.
Quite the Liturgical whiplash
MrsHess writes:”Liturgical whiplash”
Now I know the cause for the chronic pain in my neck since 1965.
Or back to the future whiplash.
🙂
I don’t know about a ban but I wish they’d put the current hymnals with these songs on a 50 year rest.
Test everything, keep what’s good.
In Christ Alone…. “The wrath of God was satisfied”… This was the cross?
Yet it’s sung all over & included in hymnals…. Try to talk to music minister and you get a “what’s wrong with you”…
Are you familiar with the concept of propitiation?
The author doesn’t mention the fact that our hymns originate with non-Catholic sources. Look it up. It’s true. It’s an “industry”, and does not reflect a desire to forward Catholic theology at all. [what do Jews know about Catholic theology that they would favorably reflect it?] Further, I have been to NO masses that try and incorporate Gregorian Chant; it doesn’t work. It’s incongruous at best and possibly worse. The Mass that lends itself, completely and unequivocally, to the glories of Gregorian Chant in harmony with what is taking place on the altar is the Latin Mass. We have to return to it in the universal church if we are going to hand on our faith to the generations to come. If we don’t return, we seriously run the risk of extinction. The Gates of Hell will not prevail against her; but, if you’re asking me, we’re a much bigger threat to her survival at this point than Satan.
Jews? Please. 😣
Why does this sort of thing always find its way into every conspiracy?
Most of our hymnals need to be put to rest. Period.
It’s an exemplar. Please be assured Israel and the Jews in general don’t need you patrolling this site for inadequate expressions of Judeophilia.
Do you think Irving Berlin wrote “White Christmas” or Johnny Marks wrote “A Holly Jolly Christmas” or “Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer” to advance the reality Incarnation or just to sell pleasant jingles?
Much the commercialized, secularized flotsam and jetsam that has been attached to Christmas is why my local bib-box store had had several dedicated aisles of lights and decorations none of them even even making a passing reference to the birth of Christ.
There is no phobia involved in recognizing that it is rather shallow to cite generalized broad based Christmas decorations and music recordings, mostly manufactured by businesses owned and run by individuals who identify as Christian, as in any way a threat to the Sacred devotions that focus on the incarnation. It is Catholics who have personally decided such things that only a small percentage of us will attend Mass, even on Christmas.
Yet you singled out Jews, who, as far as I know, have written very few of the hymns in use in the Catholic Church. You could have said Lutherans or evangelicals.
Folks of Jewish ancestry have written Christian works: Mahler, Mendelson, Adam, etc. but I think the original comment was about copyrights or publishing. Which doesn’t really signify.
Were you addressing me, Mr. Pitchfork? It’s hard to tell from the way the format shows on my phone.
Non religious Christmas season music has been composed by all sorts of people. Why focus on Jews? Jingle Bells was written by a Unitarian I think. I’m not 100% sure what Unitarians believe, but I’ve been to the church where the Jingle Bells composer played the organ.
You’re not well informed. The jews do a very fine job defending themselves: why do we have to contribute that effort ourselves? https://www.lepantoin.org/wp/the-hymnal-industrial-complex/
I was informed by that same article some time ago Mr. Tabish & I wasn’t convinced back then or now.
My children went part time to a non-denominational private Christian school. One day the elementary children were singing a very common hymn routinely sung in our Diocese. (I think it was On Eagles Wings). And I was absolutely shocked that that song could actually sound really good!
Our old parish used to sing the Alleluia to this Haitian change (I think it was Haitian). And it was awful.
Catholics should best stick to the “old world” hymns
We used to hear that Harry Belafonte Alleluia at Mass also. Thankfully not recently though.
I’ve attended the March for Life for almost 40 years. The best speech I ever heard heard, and most Catholic in principle, was from Ben Shapiro, one of your dreaded jews, just a few years ago.
Tell me it’s not so Mr. Baker. They’ve infiltrated the March for Life as well as our hymnbooks? What will be next? Christmas?
I used to know someone who was convinced there was a plot for Hanukkah to takeover Christmas celebrations. They swore that each year the dates between the 2 holidays were getting closer. They worried that my mother’s choice of blue & white Christmas lights looked too Jewish.
Last year Hanukkah actually began on December 25th. So maybe they were on to something after all.
🙂
what would we do without conspiracies?
I heard you were the one who was secretly behind all the recent changes at Cracker Barrel, that were quickly scuttled after the outcry!
(just kidding!!)
I’d definitely be on the other side of that equation, knowall.
🙂
I’m glad Cracker Barrel saw the light.
About a Novus Ordo not being suitable for Gregorian chants, it is not ideal compared to the Vetus Ordo masses. I have been in choirs for both and understand the concerns. However the congregation can certainly learn the chants for the ordinary parts such as Kyria, Gloria, etc and even Credo. The proper chants can fit easily especially Introit, Offertory and Communion. Alleluia can work also, just without congregational participation. The Gradual is the most awkward but if appropriate words and beauty are more important than time, that can work also. It needs the right priest and a reverent congregation.
A good place to start is to begin implementing the Antiphons. They are usually short and can be sung in English in a “call and response” style similar to the Responsorial psalm. They are located in the Missal at the Entrance and Communion. They allow a congregation to actually pray the Mass, and there are resources available with simple plainchant melodies.
As for hymns, they are meant to beautify the Mass, and must be sacred, i.e. “set apart.” But they should not have questionable theology and they really should be real metrical hymns, not praise and worship style secular sounding melodies. Hymn lyrics usually focus on the greatness of God, are easier for congregations to sing, and don’t emulate music you might hear on the radio. Praise and worship songs often focus on how we feel about God, or what we’re going to do when we leave Mass. So they may be religious, but not sacred. And they don’t encourage one to focus on the altar while at Mass. Music during Mass should always support the liturgical action taking place, not distract or call attention to itself.
Short answer – yes.
Slightly longer answer – if not banned outright, ignored until they die of neglect.
Mark, your excellent comment reminds me of Hilaire Belloc’s famous quip:
“The Church must be divine, since no merely human institution conducted with such knavish imbecility would have lasted a fortnight.”
Totally true that TLM is the last hope of Catholicism to survive the knavish imbecility of the Post-Conciliar auto-destruct.
Porter Girl above (10:55 a.m.) – Thanks for these comments. I find them helpful in pinpointing what we need and don’t need in our hymns.
Interesting that my church’s choir has just started doing those antiphons.
My parish and the next one nearest do chant, some Latin propers, and generally good English hymns. The most singable older hymns often turn out to be by Issac Watts, the Wesleys, or German Lutherans. Spare me Marty Haugen and treacly Irish Marian hymns.
Cleo, many parishes, including mine, have begun using them. It’s a good sign.
There is a momentum shift and I believe it’s a waiting game until we get more younger younger pastors, who are quite orthodox, and the older liberal generation fades away.
However, many seminaries spend little time instructing future priests on sacred music, with the result being that pastors often rely on a music volunteer to choose music. While well-meaning, these folks are often unqualified to discern what is actually sacred music They haven’t read the Church’s documents concerning music and it’s relationship to the liturgy. In fact, they often turn to publishers OCP and GIA liturgical guides to plan music for Mass. Of course, the music suggested is always their cheezy songs. This is to promote their second-rate composers who earn money through their copyrighted material that parishes pay for Every. Single. Year.
So, the “generational trauma” continues.
Indeed, anything composed after the 12th century or so should be under the interdict.
Some of the better/hymns are around Good Friday service and Easter timeframe masses. Alleluia, sing to Jesus type hymns, or mournful hymns like Were you there? Devotional songs to our Lady like Sing of Mary or Hail Holy Queen. Angels we have heard on high etc.. at Christmas resound the joy of our Saviour’s birth. As Mrs. Cracker Barrel noted, many of the current hymnal selections are questionable. I defer the Gregorian selections to those who have experience from current or prior worship.
Mark my words, I think he’s just saying that since Jews don’t believe in the Trinity, then they shouldn’t be consulted on Catholic doctrine as applied to our hymns? Should our hymns be based going forward from the Gospels and other New Testament books and Golden Rules versus the 10 commandments?
We pray for the Jews during the Good Friday service.
Yes, we pray for the Jews on Good Friday as well as for others, but at a local TLM we were instructed in advance to not genuflect for that one prayer. So I chose a different parish for that service & haven’t been back.
If they did that (but not for them rule) at our parish it would mess us old peoples up!
But the prayers on the only non mass day are quite beautiful.
Yes, the prayers we use today are beautiful.
“I am the Bread of Life” is objectionable? Would someone explain why? I always liked it.
For one thing, I am not the Bread of Life and shouldn’t be singing as if I were.
Such a huge, deep and important topic…
It is good to read many of the above comments.
However, as so much else does, this question leads to the shallow, emasculated, (almost) Faithless-ness of our western episcopate. We are indeed obligated to obey them, as Our Lord said… but it cannot be denied by any authentically educated, catechized and formed Catholic, that, as Ratzinger himself sadly declared, many of our leaders are “practical atheists” The Mass and other parts of the Liturgy of the Church are Her very Source and Summit… and yet they treat It, and allow It to be treated, as a plaything of their own and of their priests and “faithful.”
Music is not “of the Essence” of the Liturgy, but is nonetheless integral to It. This is a pretty deep statement, and truth.
Vatican II said (paraphrasing) that “all are to go more deeply into the Mass and other parts of the Church’s Liturgy… and this will be done through deeper education, cathechesis, etc.”
We all know what happened, however — Vatican II was hijacked after the Council, the bishops (authentic teachers and protectors of The Faith) were ignorant and silent as The Mass and everything else was torn down and tossed aside, and the shephers and guardians of the Church foolishly ushered in every foolish and even evil spirit from the world that was out there.
This bishop did the wrong thing. Rather than continue “on course” of defending his flock and his diocese (AND The Blessed Ears of Our Lord Himself, His Father, and all the holy angels and saints, too) against the watered-down, wimpy, error-filled tyranny of the USCCB and their ilk, like a saint, he cowered and yielded to “the spirit of the age.”
He knew this was the Right Thing To Do. Someone leaned on him, and very, very, very quickly — see the “walking with the spirit” synodality garbage filling his mind in his responses, after being cowed.
He did the wrong thing.
See how fast Truth and Orthodoxy — Reality — are attacked and suppressed.
Paul VI was blasted for Humanae Vitae…he stayed the course. John Paul I was intent on reforming the Vatican, and died quickly. John Paul II was lambasted for just about everything, and never turned back. Ditto for Ratzinger/Benedict XVI. The list goes on, and on… Padre Pio… Mother Teresa… Mother Angelica… Cardinal Sarah… Bishop Anthansius Schneider…
Precious few can enter into a real discussion about this precious topic because not one real step has been taken, in any diocese, to truly, authentically do what Vatican II said. Our people do not know about It. Our priests are not allowed to know about It in seminary… because our bishops do not know about It, and do not want their boat “rocked,” some because of politics, some for (mediocre) collegiality, and some, sadly, because they seem to serve…someone other than Our Lord (“…by their fruits you will know them…”).
Yes…certain hymns — MANY — should be banned. OCP (who prints these non-Catholic hymnals that our parishes buy) should be denounced as a threat to The Sacred Liturgy…and as a danger to the harmony of Heaven!!). EVERYONE in the Church needs to learn A LOT more about The Mass and the Liturgy from real, credible sources (Ratzinger, JPII, Vatican II, etc).
And everything should be related on a personal level to Our Lord Himself and His Father and The Holy Spirit — They are not adherents of “synodality” and/or “what the majority of people think/want,” we can all be certain of that…
The Hymnal Industrial Complex!….Everyone needs to read this: https://www.lepantoin.org/wp/the-hymnal-industrial-complex/
Absolutely every Catholic I have told that WE pay recurring fees all the time to the “owners” of this muzak to sing these ditties is shocked and asks WHY? Of course there is absolutely no reason why we should pay a dime. Does Jesus charge a fee for us to use the Our Father at Mass???
ONLY Public Domain hymns should be even considered for Mass. And any contemporary “composer” should donate any contribution of theirs to the Public Domain if they even want their work to be considered for use in the Mass. The non-Catholic Haugen’s and the abuser Haus’s and the publicly gay Schutte’s have gotten rich setting up their money-making tables in our temples. Jesus gave us His perfect example of what to do with those types.
I’m delighted to see “Ashes” on the list of Bishop Knight’s list of prohibited hymns. There’s a bishop who recognizes balderdash when he sees it.
There must be one or two more.
How about “Rain Down” Miss Cleo?
🙁
Perhaps an equivalent of Nihil obstat should be be required for all music used at masses. None liturgical musical events should also be monitored when conducted in sanctuaries.
It is! but everybody just ignores the rules
eg the entrance chant, GIRM 48. This chant is sung alternately by the choir and the people or similarly by a cantor and the people, or entirely by the people, or by the choir alone. In the Dioceses of the United States of America, there are four options for the Entrance Chant: (1) the antiphon from the Missal or the antiphon with its Psalm from the Graduale Romanum, as set to music there or in another setting; (2) the antiphon and Psalm of the Graduale Simplex for the liturgical time; (3) a chant from another collection of Psalms and antiphons, approved by the Conference of Bishops or the Diocesan Bishop, including Psalms arranged in responsorial or metrical forms; (4) another liturgical chant that is suited to the sacred action, the day, or the time of year, similarly approved by the Conference of Bishops or the Diocesan Bishop.
The real enemy is the wicked drivel that is published by the Oregon Free Press. We must all perform true and sincere contrition for every Glory & Praise Edition. Problem is, no one under the age of 70 remembers what genuine, artistically beautiful Catholic music sounds like.
Speaking for myself, after suffering the bombastic cacophony of the noise during today’s Masses, I offer it up with the intention of significantly shortening my visit to Purgatory.
Even the period just after receiving Holy Communion, which was always reserved for silent contemplation between the recipient and the just consumed Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Almighty God, the noisemakers start anew, louder than ever, as if people need to be surrounded by unbearable noise!
My point is, this isn’t the lobby bar at the Hyatt Regency, with pleasant piano music playing in the background.
Periods of profound silence during Holy Mass are designed into it. At least they were. Even clergy don’t know any better now.
Long ago, I adopted the use of earplugs for use during the “musical” portions of Holy Mass. but even this is a stopgap measure.
Perhaps, someday, the Lord God will have mercy on us, and lift this burden of suffering from those few of us who still remember the real, unadulterated beauty that was the Catholic Mass.
Mrs. Cracker above (11:06 a.m.) – I don’t see Rain Down on that list.
BTW, the list I’ve seen is from the USCCB Committee on Doctrine so Bishop McKnight is not flying on his own.
I’m a convert to Catholicism from Evangelical Protestantism and with respect, I don’t understand why attempting to sing in a foreign language helps anyone grow closer to God although I do respect your preference for chants in a language that is not what you speak everyday- after all, many people are opera fans and listen for two hours to songs in foreign languages! I like to sing in my own dear heart language, which God. can use to help me grow closer to Him. I think what would help many of us. including me , to grow closer to God is to stop looking down on American English and ask the Holy Spirit to use all parts of the Mass, even the parts that we have issues with, to help us grow closer to God and each other and to worthily receive our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament—and to stop finding fault in all things contemporary—God is still there even if people are singing with a decided “Gomer Pyle accent! I am a trained musician in piano and organ who has worked as a paid accompanist for soloists and choirs of all ages and also in many churches, including Catholic parishes. I seldom come across any style of music that l can’t become competent at-except for Gregorian chant. I find it extremely difficult to read the neumes and chant the words correctly and of course, I have no idea what I am saying and to be honest, I don’t find chant beautiful at all, especially when sung by non-singers using the chest voice. I have a lot of respect for all of you who are comfortable singing correctly any kind of chant, especially Gregorian! Frankly, even though I spent several years in high school learning German and a semester learning Latin—I don’t understand more than a few words of either language. I love the classic hymns in my own heart language. I agree that several of the contemporary hymns in most Missalettes contain some questionable lyrics and should probably be re-worked if the writer is still alive. My biggest problem with the Catholic hymns is that the melodies jump all over the place and there are a lot of
difficult intervals that require a singer to attempt to get their voice up into the stratosphere, but I think this could be a little better if we all learned to use our head voice instead of our chest voice—or better yet—go back to traditional hymnals where four parts for each hymn are included and use the ability to learn Latin to also learn how to read music and sing whichever part God gave us the voice to sing, but just as most people can’t play the piano or organ, many people have a hard time learning how to sing. I hope that some of you will find these comments thought-provoking. And may we all stop finding fault with Masses that are not out preference.
The problem is many of these hymns have problematic theology. Take the one I mentioned above “We remember” by Marty Haugen. The lyrics imply (frankly, make it clear) that at Mass we are having a “meal” and not “participating in the Sacrifice of Christ of Calvary.”
Your last statement- as a convert you can’t remember the more reverent times a few decades ago. The priests were more involved in keeping with the correct form of the mass, and parish councils and ccw ladies kept all kept an eye on things. Different times.
If this post was directed to me-yes, I do remember the times when the Mass was done in Latin and there were no hymns sung during the Mass, although often, a hymn like Faith if Our Fathers was song after the Mass was pronounced “finished” by the priest. I also remember when much of the Mass was chanted in Latin by the priest—and I didn’t understand what he was saying, but I still knew what was happening in the Mass. because my friends had told me in advance. I hope that tradition-loving Catholics can understand that many of us want to understand and that we need to hear our own language to fully understand! Of course, no or perhaps very few earth-bound humans will fully comprehend all that God is and does for the humans that He loves so dearly,l but hearing the Mass and the hymns\choir numbers/Mass parts in my own language is immensely helpful to someone like me who is extremely slow at learning foreign languages .
Some things sound better in a Gomer Pyle accent. Like Sacred Harp hymns.
🙂
And Jim Nabors actually had a beautiful singing voice.
Well, goooooolly!
Porter Girl above (8:35 p.m.) Thanks for your comment on the Antiphons. Yes, I sense there is a shift in the air.
BTW, of the twelve songs on the list of offending songs, eight were OCP publications.
The problem is many of these hymns have problematic theology. Take the one I mentioned above “We remember” by Marty Haugen. The lyrics imply (frankly, make it clear) that at Mass we are having a “meal” and not “participating in the Sacrifice of Christ of Calvary.”