From Across the Pond...

Anecdotal evidence informs us that a record number of American bishops and priests spoke with total clarity regarding the matters at stake in the election of 2020. Even if their counsel did not bear the hoped for fruit, we should recall the wise and holy observation of St. Mother Teresa: “God does not call us to be successful, only faithful.”

All that said, now that Joe Biden has prevailed, what can the Church expect?

• All the pro-life gains of the past three years will be eviscerated.

• The Little Sisters of the Poor, EWTN, and a host of other faith- based groups will be back in court, doing a rearguard action to defend their religious liberty – and that of us all.

• Our Catholic schools will not only have to be reconciled with the death of any and all parental freedom of choice initiative,1 but can count on massively intrusive regulations designed to make our institutions carbon copies of the godless government schools, especially as that relates to human sexuality.

In short, we must be prepared for the Church’s exile into a catacomb existence. That said, we cannot – and will not – reconcile ourselves to such an existence. In an absolutely unprecedented move on the part of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), a special commission was established to deal with what the hierarchy see as major points of contention which will emerge between the Church and the Biden Administration.

Hymns and things

The Committee on Doctrine of the USCCB completed work  in  September  2020  on  a document dealing with the doctrinal content (or lack thereof) in hymns used in the Sacred Liturgy, released recently under the title of “Catholic Hymnody at the Service of the Church: An Aid for Evaluating Hymn Lyrics.”2 The document is a damning critique of the harmful diet many Catholics have been fed by the liturgical establishment of the past half-century. It should be noted that this text deals only with doctrinal concerns, not the musical quality of hymns, which is a different (but not unrelated) element for consideration.3

I deem this “guide” a long-awaited response to an alarm I sounded way back in 1999 when I wrote to the late Cardinal Francis George of Chicago about the content in many hymns published in the Paluch Missalette. My reason for appealing to Cardinal George was that Paluch is located in the Archdiocese of Chicago and their publications carried the assurance that they were produced with ecclesiastical approbation. The Cardinal replied to my query on December 14 in detail. Among other points, he said that Paluch indicated that “all of their Missalette materials are reviewed by the Secretariat for the Liturgy at the National Conference of Catholic Bishops.” However, he went to say that, according to the policy of that office, “no official approbation is required for hymns, songs and acclamations written for the assembly.” In a hand-written note at the bottom of the page, he assured me that he intended to “take [my] letter to the BCL (Bishops Committee on the Liturgy).”

How bizarre that the lyrics of hymns used in the Sacred Liturgy would not be subject to review. Was that a function of the laziness of personnel at the BCL? Was it passively to allow these harmful texts to poison the spirituality of Catholics in the pews? Was it their suspicion/awareness that ‘the Deep Church’ which included the liturgical publishers would not heed their interventions?

Hans Urs von Balthasar linked truth, beauty and goodness, referring to them as “three sisters.”4 While the musical quality of hymns deals with beauty, the lyrics deal with truth. Hymnody is one of the most significant ways the truths of the Faith are taught and reinforced. The fourth-century heretic Arius knew this and so committed his heresies to singable ditties for the consumption of the people.5 In “Only the Good Die Young,” Billy Joel pilloried “you Catholic girls” because “you start much too late” (that is, sexual activity) – a 1970s version of “shaming” through song. Put simply: Attention to what we sing is not an exercise in nitpicking.

Now, we are poised to cull the evaluations of the doctrine committee. The document begins by linking truth and beauty, following the logic of von Balthasar. In fact, even the title of the paper is instructive: “Catholic Hymnody at the Service of the Church.” Sometimes one could get the impression that one wag got it right by asking, “Is it ‘What’s the place of music in the liturgy’ or is it, ‘What’s the place of liturgy in the music’?” And so, we are reminded: “There is a necessary and direct relationship between the living Word of God and the Church’s worship. Thus, the sacred texts, and the liturgical sources which draw on the living Word, provide something of  a ‘norm’ for expression when communicating the mystery of faith in liturgical poetics, or hymnody.” Calling on the Catechism of the Catholic Church (which, in turn, is having recourse to Vatican II’s Sacrosanctum Concilium), the text teaches:

The harmony of signs (song, music, words, and actions) is all the more expressive and fruitful when expressed in the cultural richness of the People of God who celebrate. Hence “religious singing by the faithful is to be intelligently fostered so that in devotions and sacred exercises as well as in liturgical services,” in conformity with the Church’s norms, “the voices of the faithful may be heard.” But “the texts intended to be sung must always be in conformity with Catholic doctrine. Indeed they should be drawn chiefly from Sacred Scripture and from liturgical sources.” (1158)

In the bishops’ document, we are reminded that “Christian tradition, both Eastern and Western, has from antiquity been acutely aware that hymns and other songs are among the most significant forces in shaping – or misshaping – the religious and theological sensibility of the faithful,” as we have already seen. With that in mind, the document lays out “two general guidelines” for evaluating hymns:

1. Is the hymn in conformity with Catholic doctrine?

2. Is the hymn expressed in image and vocabulary appropriately reflective of the usage of Scripture and the public liturgical prayer of the Church?

​These two standards are designed to support the liturgy as what the Catechism calls “the privileged place for catechizing the People of God” (1074). Hence, the bishops warn:

It is important to avoid language that could be easily misconstrued in a way that is contrary to Catholic doctrine. The poet always has a certain “licence” for language chosen to serve an aesthetic purpose. But in assessing whether a paraphrase or restatement is an appropriate use of poetic license or an inappropriate distortion, Guideline 2 can provide assistance.

While the direction given is quite needed, it is regrettable that, not only in this instance, but frequently throughout the document, one finds the expression, “to be avoided.” If a text is theologically problematic, it should not be “avoided”; it should be banned.

The paper grounds its critiques in a 1997 document of the Ad Hoc Committee to Oversee the Use of the Catechism, under the direction of the late Archbishop Daniel Buechlein, which “identified a consistent trend of incompleteness and imprecision in catechetical texts being published at that time in the United States,” in ten “categories.”6 The current committee “piggy-backs” on those same categories in their review “of approximately 1000 hymns composed and published mostly in the period 1980-2015.”

The first area of concern, with the most egregious errors, involves Eucharistic doctrine – not surprisingly since that area also reveals the most distressing data about present beliefs of even regular Sunday Mass Catholics. And so, the bishops refer to deficiencies in this area as “by far the most common and the most serious.” Their observation demands heeding their full assessment:

Catholics nurtured on a steady diet of certain hymns will learn from them that at Mass we come together to share bread and wine, which remain bread and wine, a common meal, even if under special circumstances. They will learn that the bread and wine signify in some vague way the presence of Jesus, but they will not be given a basis to understand the Catholic belief that the Eucharistic elements can be worshipped because under their appearance is a wholly unique, substantial presence of Christ. These hymns correspondingly also downplay or eliminate entirely reference to the Sacrifice of Christ, His Priesthood, and His status as both Priest and Victim, as well as to the role of the ministerial priesthood in the Church. A steady diet of these hymns would erode Catholic sensibility regarding the fullness of Eucharistic teaching, on the Mass as Sacrifice, and eventually on the Church, as formed by that Sacrifice.

Couldn't have said it better myself!

The report takes particular aim at the recurring reference to the Eucharistic Species as “bread and wine” and names names. Some of these gems of Eucharistic heresy: “God Is Here! We Are His People” – “This hymn speaks of ‘symbols to remind us of our lifelong need of grace.’ We hear that, ‘as bread and wine are taken, Christ sustains us as of old.’ Bread and wine are still bread and wine.” “All Are Welcome” would have  a congregation sing these inspiring words: “Let us build a house where love is found in water, wine and wheat; A banquet hall on holy ground where peace and justice meet...” After gagging, theological reality hits, as the document notes:

Someone who sings this song frequently would have a hard time imagining that the Eucharist can be and is worshipped or is in any sense a “sacrifice.” The hymn is also objectionable throughout on ecclesiological grounds as well, since it repeats the phrase “Let us build a house...” as though our actions make the Church. This hymn shows the relationship between faulty Eucharistic theology and faulty ecclesiology.

Trinitarian doctrine in many “contemporary” hymns is also “deficient,” reflected most clearly in “a reluctance to use ‘Father” for the First Person of the Trinity.” Here, the bishops are being kind; I would replace “reluctance” with “refusal.” Calling the First Person “Creator” is a reductionist effort since all three Persons can be called “Creator.” Needless to say, the ham fisted attempt to avoid masculine pronouns for the Divinity is the surest sign of a non-biblical understanding of the Holy Trinity. We are also reminded of the directive of Liturgiam Authenticam and the follow-up instruction of Cardinal Francis Arinze in 2008 that “Yahweh” is not to be used in Catholic worship since it was (and for Jews, still is) the unspeakable Name.

A third problematic area involves “deficiencies in the doctrine of God and His relations to humans,” most manifest in hymns that conflate the Godhead with His creation, which is to say, the divine transcendence. A most extreme example of this is found  in “God Beyond All Names.” First of all, there are many names for God, which are revealed in Sacred Scripture. This song, however, goes a step farther and would have us sing: “God Beyond All Names ... All around us we have known you / All creation lives to hold you/ In our living and our dying/ we are bringing you to birth.” Huh? We hold God? We bring God to birth?

Fourthly, the bishops zero in on “a view of the Church that sees her as essentially a human construction.” Here the document brings to our attention two pieces:

“Sing a New Church” – Refrain: “Sing a new Church into being, one in faith and love and praise.” This implies or even states outright that the Church is essentially our creation. It also leaves open the possibility that there could be a new Church replacing the old one.

“As a Fire is Meant for Burning” – Verse 1: “As a fire is meant for burning, With      a bright and warming flame, So the Church is meant for mission, Giving glory to God’s name. Not to preach our creeds or customs, but to build a bridge of care, We join hands across the nations, finding neighbors everywhere.” This seems a seriously deficient account of the evangelizing mission of the Church, particularly, the rejection of preaching “our creeds and customs.”

Fifthly, the text calls attention to “hymns with doctrinally incorrect views of the Jewish people.” This deficiency is rather odd since one would assume that would be “Vatican II Catholics” would almost bend over backwards to accommodate religious differences. However, not a few of the post-conciliar tunes have views of Jewish complicity in the death of Our Lord that would make the Fathers of Trent blush (e.g., “The Lord of the Dance”).7

Lastly, we meet “hymns with incorrect Christian anthropology.” This section, in my estimation, is the weakest of all as I believe that dozens of “contemporary” songs betray a defective notion of the human person; in fact, many of them come to us through the Protestant charismatic movement. Here we must recall that Martin Luther’s basic issue with the Church was not theology, per se, but a view of the human person. Thus would he proclaim that humanity is nothing more than a “massa damnata” and the individual Christian merely “a dunghill covered by snow.” Sacred Scripture, on the other hand, proclaims that a Christian is “a new creation” (2 Cor 5:17). Therefore, for my money, the biggest offender in promoting an “incorrect Christian anthropology” is none other than the “go-to” hymn for all kinds of disasters,

“Amazing Grace,” by the English clergyman, John Newton, wherein we are to sing of the God who “saved a wretch like me.” Wrong, a baptized Christian is not “a wretch”; he is precisely what St. Paul asserts, namely, “a new creation”8; even more, we are Our Lord’s “friends” (John 15:15).

The report ends with a fine summary of what this effort has been about:

The Second Vatican Council was quite emphatic about the importance of sacred music in the Church’s liturgical worship: “The musical tradition of the universal Church is a treasure    of inestimable value, greater even than that of any other art” (Sacrosanctum Concilium, n. 112). The Council also made it clear that this great value derives precisely from the union of music and words: “The main reason for this preeminence is that, as sacred song united to the words, it forms a necessary or integral part of the solemn liturgy” (n. 112). When the Council exhorts composers to “produce compositions which have the qualities proper to genuine sacred music” (n. 121), chief among these qualities must be the use of words that are appropriate for liturgical worship.

A final assessment: This is a most welcome contribution to the life of the Church in the United States, however – and it’s a big “however”

– this is, in all likelihood, too little too late. From my initial expression of alarm to Cardinal George in 1999, we find ourselves over two decades later with a document that, most regrettably, has no teeth in it – there is no enforcement mechanism. As a result, the people guilty of these abuses will just say, “Thanks, but no thanks,” and move along on their merry way, continuing their ecological pollution of Catholic worship. This paper will be helpful, however, for embattled laity and priests at least as an authoritative document with which to push forward the battering ram of opposition to these heretical texts.9

Life in Lockdown

When the pandemic first struck, American bishops were among the first to close down operations. I suspect that this was done for two reasons: first, better to do it on your own, rather than appear to cower before governmental action; second, to avoid law suits over “wrongful death” or “reckless endangerment” allegations.10 With the passage of time, not a few priests and bishops began to resist the draconian demands, even going so far as to the Supreme Court of the country (where satisfaction was won). While reasonable governmental requests for the sake of public health are not problematic, demands made without any scientific data behind them or inconsistent policies treating religion as “non-essential,” can and should be resisted.

Pastors who kept their churches open (even if not offering public Masses) for Eucharistic Adoration, who continued to administer the Sacraments of Penance and Anointing of the Sick, and who were available for counseling and spiritual direction, have had no difficulties in returning to normalcy. Let’s be clear: those were generally parishes that were vibrant before the onslaught of the Wuhan virus. On the other hand, parishes on life support prior to the plague (most often due to clerical sloth), will in all likelihood never recover. Interestingly, American Catholics who tend to express their approval or disapproval of parochial life through the Sunday collection have spoken loud and clear in this instance as well. Anecdotal data coming to me reveal that one priest experienced a 36% increase in giving over the same time period a year earlier; another had a Christmas collection of $40,000 (three times that of Christmas 2019); while yet another almost had to be taken to hospital on Christmas morning after receiving a check for $150,000 (with a note thanking him for tending to the needs of his flock in less than optimal conditions).

Catholic schools also made the news as nearly all our schools remained open for full, in-person education – while most of the government schools settled for “virtual” instruction (and many of those districts couldn’t even get their act together for that little bit for weeks or months). What has made the difference? Our teachers are with us out of conviction, taking as much as a 40-50% cut in salary from the so called “public” school scale.11 The public school teachers’ unions are all-powerful (they certainly helped get Biden elected) and mightily pushed back against in-person classes. As a result, many dioceses witnessed unparalleled enrollment increases since parents most definitely want their children in school.12

While this is welcome news, I have also cautioned principals to    be careful about taking in too many students from the govern- ment sector, lest the ethos of the Catholic school be compromised because the government schools are well-known for lack of discipline, lower academic achievement, and – needless to say – promotion of immoral behavior. On the other hand, not a few Catholic school administrators inform that the new parents have expressed great pleasure at what they have found and wonder what took them so long to realize the tremendous gift that Catholic education is to our nation.

Fr Peter Stravinskas is the president of the Catholic Education Foundation, editor of The Catholic Response, and publisher of Newman House Press.