A Church Musician's Lament

Oh those of us of traditional music leanings who are Church Musicians have been tortured for years by the GIA Hymnals. Their last good one was Worship II as far as I am concerned. The rest have been, well, Haugen & Hauss and worse. Now, it seems the good folks over at the Musica Sacra forums, which are hosted by the Church Music Association of America, have come up with a Parody of Dies Ires from the Mass for the Dead (Missae Pro Defuntis)

A Church Musician's Lament:

Day of wrath, O day of mourning!
Earth to ashes now returning!
Gather, by the millions burning!
Cleansed at last by cataclysm
Butchered rhyme and battered rhythm,
Neo-pagan narcissism!
On that day, Lord, when Thou comest,
And our dreadful hymnals thumbest,
Smite the ugliest and dumbest.
Smite them, Lord, yet of Thy pity
Take their songsters to Thy city:
Even Haugen, Haas, and Schutte.
Spare them on the stern condition
That they feel a true contrition
For the Worship III edition.
Doom them not to loss and ruin
While the darker storm is brewing!
They knew not what they were doing.
On that day when Palestrina
Dare not touch a Celestina,
What will Sister Ballerina?
With thine eyes that pierce like lances
Still her silly heathen dances
And her flirting with Saint Francis.
Purge us of the prim and prissy,
Ditties fit for Meg or Missy,
Not for Francis, but a sissy.
Cantors who thought nothing grander
Than a sheaf of propaganda
Writ like office memoranda,
Raise them to Thy room to bide in
Where their hearts and ears may widen
To the strains of Bach and Haydn.
Let their hearts within them falter,
Hearing, as they near Thine altar,
Seraphs sing the Scottish Psalter.
Seize those devils set to pen a
Hymnal neutered of its men-ah.
Fling 'em back to black Gehenna!
Fling them one and all to mangle
Their pronominals, and wrangle
Lest a participle dangle!
Who held manhood in derision.
Preaching double circumcision.
Suffer now their own revision.
Though the songs of Hell are naughty.
None by Handel or Scarlatti,
At the least they'll have castrati.
Pitch, O Lord, the bald and raucous
Slogans of a leftist caucus
Down to Sheol, or Secaucus!
Save their singers, though: restore 'em
To a silent sweet decorum,
Per saecula saeculorum.
Various are the throngs of heaven:
Some were lump, and some were leaven.
Some as lame as six and seven.
When the demons hear thy curses.
And this world's dense fog disperses.
Heal the hobbled - not their verses.
Hush me, too, Lord, when I grumble:
In Thy mercy make me humble.
Lest On Turkey's Wings I tumble.
Though Haugen sing "Hosea" evermore.
Save me I pray - but keep me near the door.
Amen.

So how long is enough for the Sex abuse Scandal?

Newsday, in an article titled In an Catholics have mixed reactions on sex abuse bill relates the fact there a child sex-abuse victims bill pending in Albany drew mixed reactions from Catholics attending Sunday Mass. Well duh!

The usual suspects are in the article...the oh so loyal SNAP (Survivor's Network of Abuse by Priests) and Voice of the Faithful organizers calling for the "secrets" to come out. The willing (supposed)devout Catholic Democrat Politician Margaret M. Markey (D-Maspeth)supporting the bill full of concern for the victims. Markey has sponsored the bill in three prior legislative sessions, where it has passed in the Democratic-led Assembly and stalled in the then-Republican-controlled Senate. Some supporters say it now has a good chance of passing because Democrats have gained a majority in the Senate.

Now I feel compassion for the victims of the abuse scandal, but these folks are NOT interested in the victims, they are interested in embarrassing the Church in order to further their progressive agendas.

Of course, the Democrat Pol may not have considered the implications this has for school teachers where abuse of children is FAR greater than anything that happened in the Church. I wonder if the teacher's union is aware of this bill and the fact it is coming down the pike? I'm sure they don't want people dredging in their pools of slime which are infinitely deeper.


Of interest is an article from the Chicago Tribune That goes into more detail on the Bill and the background.

WHAT THE LAW WOULD DO

*The Markey bill would create a one-year window during which the five-year statute of limitations on filing lawsuits in child sex abuse cases would be dropped. This would allow alleged victims to file lawsuits in the state regardless of when the abuse occurred.

* The alleged victims would have to prove their case in a court of law.

* The bill would also extend the statute of limitations for future cases from five years to 10 years. It is counted from the alleged victim's 18th birthday, meaning they would have until 28 years of age to file a lawsuit instead of 23.

* A competing bill introduced by Assemb. Vito J. Lopez (D-Brooklyn) does not include the one-year open window. It would extend the time an accuser can file suit to seven years after turning 18, that is, 25 years of age.

The Emasculation of the Priesthood.

I am a regular reader of Fr. John Zuhlsdorf's blog "What Does the Prayer Really Say? In a rather interesting post--the comments are even more interesting, on communion in the hand

Within the comments was a comment from a

Some of you might find this article from The Latin Mass, by Fr. James McLucas interesting. It’s called “The Emasculation of the Priesthood” and it deals directly with issues like communion in the hand.

http://www.latinmassmagazine.com/artEmasculation.asp

Excerpt:

The mistake was the failure to take into account the obvious possibility that the unique sacramental / pastoral role of the priest is not a mere timebound whim of the Church, but is intrinsic to the nature of the priesthood, particularly a celibate one. From the time that priestly celibacy came to be understood as the norm, the unique administration of the sacred and, in particular, the priest as sole steward of the Eucharist, were supernatural responsibilities that grounded the celibate’s commitment.[5] The man who has sacrificed wife and family is discovering that the structure that guarded his self-identity as a spiritual spouse and father is in the process of being dismantled. The effects are simultaneously subtle and pronounced.

... The need for a unique physical intimacy with another is constitutive of permanent monogamous relationships ordained by the Creator, Yet it is precisely that type of intimacy with another human being that the celibate sacrifices. The celibate priest, however, was offered through his office an incomparable and unparalleled intimacy: he alone could touch God.

Read the article. Now, keep in mind it was written 10 years ago and it has some things about the complicity of the Vatican in the break down of the priesthood, that I find gratuitous at best, but, I think there is some definite accuracy in the why the priest hood is in trouble. Especially in dioceses like Rochester that push a "collaborative approach" to leadership of the parish that just screams trouble. Why would a man give up having children and family only to become a limited sacramental technician that is beaten and abused on all sides? He doesn't even have any authority over his flock, because he's got to get all his actions "approved" by them before he does anything, or is hammered at all sides by lay people who have supposed Theology Degrees, but who are at odds with the magisterium.

The supposed "new" template for priesthood, frankly stinks. It seems to breed an abridged version of the Vocation that has limits to obedience to the Church, Pope and Magisterium; limits to its time; and limits to its faith.

Dioceses that have returned to the "old" template for the Priesthood. One of Father, shepherd, and spiritual leader have seen dramatic upticks in their vocations and their attendance. Maybe the "old" model worked for 20 centuries for a reason...because it it is authentic. Just as sheep know their Shepherd, so do Catholics, real Catholics, know a Real Priest.

The Bill in Connecticut goes down...for now

Last night the Bill in Connecticut that would have removed all financial and administrative control from the Bishop and Pastor over Dioceses and Parishes, has been pulled from consideration in the CT Legislature...for this session anyway, according to American Papist.

Video of Local News coverage:

From This article we're led to believe that Tom Gallagher, is a just a devout Catholic and:

Tom Gallagher, a resident of the Riverside section of Greenwich, is the son of a former Catholic schools superintendent who attended law school at the Catholic University of America, worked for the late Mother Teresa's religious order and is a long-time Eucharistic minister at Greenwich Hospital.

He also has met two Popes -- John Paul II in 2001 and Pope Benedict XVI in 2008

So I guess that means he's a saint, pure as the driven snow, or maybe he's just a misunderstood Thomas More. Or not.

One of his fellow parishers writing under the nome de plume of "No Spin" in the comments section relates:

Let it be known that as a member of St. Mary Parish, Greenwich, Mr. Gallagher did not "step down as a Trustee in 1999" he was terminated by the pastor. Secondly, let it be known the "difference of opinion" was with the junior priest with the pastor as a witness where Mr. Gallagher provoked the priest with insults at a meeting.
It is quite doubtful when Mr. Gallagher states that the encounter with the priest was an "incredibly rewarding experience that inspired his current efforts at Church reform". Please know that Mr. Gallagher has been after Church reform long before that incident and is divisive at all levels of the church's business and undoubtedly is anti-clerical most likely with an unconscious desire to be a priest himself and eventually become the Bishop of the Diocese of Bridgeport.
Lastly, the former Pastor of St. Mary, Msgr. Stubbs, did not resign from St. Mary Parish for health reasons. He retired because he violated a canonical policy by having a woman Episcopal Priest vested and concelebrate at a funeral mass for a high profile person. Many high profile people at that funeral complained to the Arch Bishop of Boston, Cardinal of New York as well as the Bishop of the Diocese of Bridgeport. All other comments concerning Msgr. Stubbs are irrelevant as to why his resignation was requested.
I have met two Popes as well, that certainly does not make me infallible.

But wait, the plot thickens...Our not so Heroic character turns out to be a member of the progressive group Voice of the Faithful which this very type of church governance is the model they are pushing. Devout Catholic my eye:

Upon further investigation, Tom Gallagher seems to be more than just a Greenwich businessman, and to have more than just a passive role in lobbying legislators for the change. In a Voice of the Faithful article titled, “The Money Trail: Financial Management and Mismanagement in the Diocese of Bridgeport,” Joseph O’Callaghan quotes ‘Attorney’ Tom Gallagher multiple times. The article spells out the following principles for reform:

“[...] The same principles should be applied to diocesan property. The diocesan corporation should include elected representatives from each of the eighty-seven parishes, who in turn would elect two directors from each of the five vicariates.

And his side-kick: Dr. Paul Lakeland, former Jesuit Priest and Dr. Paul Lakeland, Fairfield University Chair of Catholic Studies, Voice of the Faithful member, former Jesuit Priest, (if the Jesuits didn't keep him he really must of have been a heretic, oh but they did keep him on staff to teach Catholic Studies, so forget that)

and author of several books including “The Liberation of the Laity: In Search of an Accountable Church,” recently discussed his support for Connecticut’s controversial Bill No. 1098 with CNA. Dr. Lakeland is also scheduled to testify before the Connecticut General Assembly on behalf of the bill.

The premise of the bill is remarkably similar to the 2009-2010 Voice of the Faithful Strategic Plan. “The VOTF,” as Dr. Lakeland explains, “grew up in response to the sex abuse scandals here. One of the things that became rapidly apparent, among both liberals and conservatives, was the sense that the bishops hadn’t done a very good job of handling this.”

Explaining his connection to the bill Dr. Lakeland said, “I’m connected to [the bill] to this degree: I’ve been working pretty closely with Tom Gallagher, who’s a Greenwich businessman, who has been behind the push to get the state government to do something about this. Even though, I don’t think, even he was involved in putting the legislation together.”

With friends like this who needs enemies?

University of Rochester, Rejoices, Embryonic Stem Cell Research is Okay!

In an article titled:
UR excited to increase stem cell work, but others object to Obama's reversal, We find out that University of Rochester is going ahead with Embryonic Stem Research. Bishop Clark actually objects:

Likewise, Bishop Matthew Clark of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Rochester expressed deep sadness Monday at Obama's executive order. "Since we believe that human life begins at conception, we also believe that the destruction of embryos — which are innocent human life — for such research is morally wrong," Clark said in a written statement. "Instead, we encourage ongoing research on the use of adult stem cells, which has shown great promise and potential in medical treatment."

The article is straight forward. The comments attached to it are filled with anti-religion drivel that shows the moral decay in Rochester.

And Now, Catholic Theologians who try to make Embryonic Stem Cell Research Okeedokey!

Why is it that any time a Catholic Theologian is quoted in any mainstream article, they are always opposed to the Pope's position, a Jesuit or from a Major Jesuit University? In an article titled "Stem Cell Go Ahead Puts Obama at Odds with Pope" We have once again, a three-fer...A Catholic theologist trotted out opposing the Pope, who is a Jesuit, at a major Catholic University. Gee, it's almost cliche by now. Let's see how helpful this "Catholic" theologian is to the Obama administration and CINOs (Catholics in Name only). I won't post the contents of the article, go to the link above to read it. Here is the relevant passage:

Father Thomas J. Reese, senior fellow at the Woodstock Theological Center of Georgetown University, suggested several ways the Obama administration could find some middle ground.

Reese's suggestions include not creating embryos for the sole purpose of research but instead using only excess embryos produced at fertility clinics that are scheduled to be destroyed anyway.

He also said researchers should show that the research they are doing cannot be done with non-embryonic stem cells, and that research using embryonic stem cells should aim at advancing toward the goal of using only non-embryonic stem cells.

*RANT WARNING*

Because "using only excess embryos produced at fertility clinics that are scheduled to be destroyed anyway" is okay? Ah. One problem, invitro fertilization is against the teachings of the Church as well. Fruits of an evil is still evil.

But hey, we've got to provide cover for those so-called Catholics who don't see a problem with any of these procedures because THEIR conscience tells them differently, and as we KNOW this is what is really important. A malformed conscience ALWAYS trumps the mean ole Pope, The "restrictive" magisterium and that AWFUL patriarchy that hates women.

But of course, the progressives LOVE women, they've done such marvelous things for them, freed them from the slavery of marriage, the burden of children, the chains of being the nurturers of Life and the protectors of civilization. This has worked out so well for our country and western society at large. And of course, women ALWAYS choose to have their abortions freely. No one, not even society pressures them otherwise. Oh no. Just ignore the fact that Planned Parenthood looks the other way when a non-related male adult brings a young women to PP's offices and he pays in cash. Or the women who gets pregnant, because no one told her there were options other than having sex before marriage, but now is pressured by her family and friends to abort the baby so not to "ruin" her life. Nothing wrong there. Nothing to see, move along....

Freedom of Religion, maybe not in the state of Connecticut

Bizarre things are happening in CT. Father Greg J. Markey , reporting via What does The Prayer Really Say reports an attempt by the Connecticut State Legislature to effectively disconnect the parishes in Connecticut from their Bishops and Pastors:

Dear Fr. Z,

The Lord’s peace. You are going to be one of the first to hear about this. Nothing like this in the history of the US has ever been proposed as far as I know.

Yesterday, Connecticut Judiciary Committee of the Connecticut State Legislature
introduced bill #1098/2009 that directly attacks the Roman Catholic Church (please see attached copy of it). Should it pass, the bishop and pastors will be deprived of any administrative, financial and legal power over their parishes.

The bishops of CT are trying to rally the troops this weekend. I think your readers, and Catholics all over the US should be concerned.

In Christ,

Fr. Greg J. Markey

Fr. Greg J. Markey has been the topic of posts on this blog.

He is pastor of St. Mary’s Church in Norwalk, CT.

More on this bill here: Apparently the progressive group Voice of the [not so] Faithful thinks this is a good idea. If they thinks it is a good idea then there is definitely something wrong with it. This idea of "VOTF TO ASK AT CONFERENCE: "Who Owns Our Church?" is their latest conference. From their site (which I will not link to):

In addition to Professor O’Brien, Paul Lakeland, who holds the Aloysius P. Kelley, S.J., Chair of Catholic Studies at Fairfield University, will speak on “Who Owns Our Church? A Theological Perspective.” Professor Lakeland, a long-time supporter of Voice of the Faithful, is well known as the author of the seminal book, The Liberation of the Laity (2003), and of Catholicism at the Crossroads: How the Laity Can Save the Church (2007).

How is this sort of person given the chair of "Catholic Studies" at a CATHOLIC University. The Church should not support dissidents in its midst.

Archdiocese Of Hartford statement

from Curt Jester Comm Box:

If you want to see Michael Lawlor (who introduced the bill in CT) in action against Brian Brown of the Ct Family Institute now at National Organization for Marriage see this video It shows how desperate he is in trying to silence the religious objection to Gay Marriage. Is this his motive for introducing this crazy bill?