Sentire Cum Ecclesia

My brief foray into the vexed issue of liturgical music and song in the Australian Catholic Churches last week drew a lot of comment, both positive and negative, both here and in that “other” forum. In order to put my earlier comments into some sort of context, I have taken the time to write a much longer document, which consists entirely of my own reflections on the crisis of liturgical music and song in the Catholic Churches of Australia, and my own humble suggestions for ways forward.

I offer the opinions and ideas in this paper for what they are worth to the general readership. Your reactions would be welcome. I have left space for discussion at the bottom of that rather long page, so I am closing comments to this post. It would get too confusing to have the discussion going on in two places. Besides the link in this post, there is a link from the side bar under “permanent pages”.

I should not need to repeat this, but I shall, just so there is no misunderstanding: What I have written is entirely my own opinion; it cannot be taken as representing the opinion of any other individual or body, private or ecclesial.

Check out and bookmark our new Anima Education website at http://animaeducation.wordpress.com/. We hope that this new page will be a place that you will use regularly to check out the upcoming courses of Anima Education, a joint project of Anima Womens Network and Catholic Womens League.

Well that didn’t take long. I finished reading John Fleming’s new little book “Convinced by Truth” in almost one sitting (not quite). It is a thin volume of collected bits and pieces coming in at 124 pages, falling roughly into three parts.

I read the last part first. Not because I wanted to find out “who-dunnit” (!), but because I was very interested in the topic of the last chapter, jointly authored by Fr John and Archbishop John Hepworth, the Primate of the Traditional Anglican Communion. This chapter tells “the real history” of Anglicanorum Coetibus. There’s juicy stuff here, and if it were reported by a third party, I would probably dismiss it all as hear-say. Even if John himself were the sole author, I would probably think (unfairly) that he was overestimating his part in the whole picture. But Archb. Hepworth corroborates Fleming’s account, and there seems no reason to doubt that this is really what happened. I do find it astounding to think that at the same time I and a couple of other Lutheran pastors were turning to John for his advice on how to enter full communion with the Catholic Church, the entire TAC was turning to him for an answer to the same question. The advice in both cases was very good. In my case, he introduced me to Fr Gregory Pritchard and Fr Anthony Fisher, who expertly and pastorally saw both me and my friend Peter into the fold. Fleming’s advice to the TAC was equally on the money, and has born much greater fruit.

Then I turned to the first section. Again this was of personal interest to me. Chapter One is a letter which John wrote to his daughters to explain the reason and history of his decision to enter the Catholic Church. One day I will have to write just such an account for my own daughters, who were were of a similar age and similarly had no idea of the chaos and heartache going on around them. So thanks for the style tip, Fr John! In this story I saw many other cross overs with my own experiences, all the more so because I knew John at the time before, during and after his conversion. He mentions Dr Daniel Overduin on page 17. The late, great Dr Danny of Blessed Memory was a close friend of my aunt, and I often would hear him hold forth after dinner over several glasses of red wine. It was through him that I got to know John. One day in 1984, myself and group of other Lutheran Seminary students turned up for the Sunday Sung Eucharist at his Anglican Parish. This experience was a complete eye-opener for me, and resulted in what I now call my “first catholic conversion”. Ironically, it was John who after this event urged me not to act impulsively and join the Catholic Church straight away, but to seek to be “catholic” as a Lutheran. At that time, I had no idea how much John had staked on a similar attempt to be “catholic” as an Anglican. Also, reflecting on that time, I find it odd that I was not attracted by the service at Good Shepherd Anglican Church to join the Anglicans, but the Catholics. Very odd, but true.

Other things he mentions in this letter strike a chord. Like me, John had a two-step conversion to the Catholic faith: first to the idea of “catholicity” and only many years later to the reality of the Catholic Church. Just as his wife Alison played a crucial role in his conversion, so did my own wife – although Cathy did not do so as a convert herself. Like John, I frequented St Mary Magdelene’s in Moore Street; I developed on ongoing friendship with the priest there, who was himself later to leave to become a priest of the Continuing Anglicans. Like John, my conversion was aided by meeting sympathetic Catholic priests who actually helped with the process. As with John, we too had a birth in the family in the middle of the turmoil.

There were differences, of course, especially in our reading which led us along the way. I was surprised to discover in “Convinced by Truth” that I had actually read Newman’s Apologia before John had . I read it in 1984 as a part of my “first Catholic conversion” in order to understand what was going on in my own heart; whereas John avoided reading it during his period of trying to balance Catholicism and Anglicanism because he feared that it might be too confronting. He read Aquinas – I still, to this day, have not made Aquinas much of a focus in my faith or teaching (do I hear gasps of horror from some readers?). I note that Ratzinger didn’t play a role in his faith journey – perhaps because of the fifteen year gap in our respective journeys; how much Ratzinger was available in English in the mid 1980s?

I still have a cut out of the story of John’s conversion from The Advertiser which he mentions on page 31. It is tucked into the back of my copy of the Apologia. I will have to get it out and stick it in the back of this book now. John’s descriptions of the feelings at the time of his conversion are almost word for word what I wrote in my conversion diary. These sentiments are especially familiar:

But I needed a job, a house in which we could live, and an alternative career there being no guarantee that the Catholic Church would ever agree to my being ordained a Catholic priest. The future was very uncertain and I was afraid….

I suffered from a loss of identity and the need to rebuild a new career… Conversion is not a road for the faint-hearted, particulary if you have been a minister of a Protestant ecclesial community, and it is just as well you cannot foresee all of the practical problems or you would never make the move…

[But] God is good.

John continued to be an influence in my conversion even after we had lost contact in the intervening years. In January 2000 a friend gave me a recorded talk in which John outlined his reasons for conversion, most notably that which he repeats on page 24 of the present book:

I could be quite wrong about womens’ ordination. If I am wrong, rom whom would I take correction? The Anglican Church? Absolutely not! Then from whom? I answered, “The Pope and the Catholic Church”. The absurdity of this answer struck me with great force.

I too wished to seek communion with the Bishop of Rome – my “second conversion” had begun, even if there was a long way to go.

The middle section of the book consists of two chapters addressed to a prospective convert on the matters of the Sacrifice of the Mass and the Real Presence. I recall John saying to me back in the mid ’80’s that “Lutherans don’t understand the Sacrifice of the Mass because they don’t understand the Letter to the Hebrews”. In the present book, I found these two chapters to be of the least interest – probably because for me they were not great issues in my conversion. The chapters are good concise statements of and defences of the Catholic doctrines, but I wonder if John might not have fleshed the book out a little more by looking at other doctrines that converts might also struggle with, such as prayer to the Saints, Purgatory, and (above all) the question of Justification. But the latter was probably more my issue than John’s. The doctrine of Justification never played a great part in Anglican theology (other than among Evangelicals anyway).

All in all, this book has “something for everyone”. It is a bit of a mixed bag, but you will enjoy reading it. I hope we can expect more publications of this sort from John in the future. He has many good things to offer the Church beyond his specific area of expertise in bioethics.

Christine Hogan on Cath blog has come to the defence of Fr Küng against online charges of heresy. If the working definition of someone who is a heretic is “someone who should be burnt at the stake” (as Christine seems to assume) then he is certainly not a “heretic”.

And truly, someone can only be called a “heretic” if the Church officially declares them to be so. As Christine points out, Fr Küng is a priest “in good standing” with the Catholic Church.

That doesn’t mean that he has not, from time to time (and time and time again) professed doctrines that could be defined as “heretical”. The Oxford Concise Dictionary defines “heresy” as a “belief or opinion contrary to orthodox religious (especially Christian) doctrine”. According to the Catholic Encycopledia of 1911, St Thomas Aquinas defined “heresy” as “a species of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas”.

No-one can deny that Fr Küng has professed plenty of such “beliefs or opinions” in his time. But he is not, strictly, a “heretic” because the Church has never declared him so. If it were to ever do so, there would be plenty of other professors of “contrary” beliefs who would also have to be considered as candidates for the same charge.

Or: Where have all the mothers gone?

Strange tidings in the weekend editions of The Age.

Remeber a little while back we had the little tyke who didn’t have a mummy but had two daddys (or rather, he was taken from his mummy who wasn’t his mummy because another mummy’s egg was put in his mummy’s tummy)? Everyone has a mother, they say. Not this kid.

Well, yesterday, The Age ran a full page story on this Australian woman, who was a surrogate for a friend’s childless brother and wife. Will she be remembered by that baby on Mother’s Day? Does she have a right to be?

And today we have the story that the Anglican Church’s General Synod is being encouraged to believe that it is our Christian duty to have fewer children – that to bear children is, in fact, to act against the seventh (they call it the eighth) commandment “Thou shalt not steal”. Go figure. (BTW, trick question: do you know what God’s FIRST commandment for human beings was?). Actually, to be fair, from the reports it looks like this something from a discussion paper from the Anglican Public Affairs Commission rather than a resolution of their Synod. We know how the media twists these things. But the mere fact that such a thought can be thought shows just another gulf between the Anglican Communion and the Catholic Church in the area of the Christian’s moral life.

How refreshing then to read this article on the overflowing inner city schools in Melbourne. Too many kids? No such thing, my friends. That first commandment again!

The idea that having children is adding to the woes of our world is a real furphy. In fact, although projections vary, as this website shows, even the UN’s projections (and take note that they are not supporters of bigger families in general) show a levelling off of world population over the next 20 years.

This time last year I returned from a visit to Turkey and Italy. In Turkey – which doesn’t have the highest standard of living but isn’t impoverished by any means – I saw lots and lots of happy chidren everywhere and schools overflowing. In Rome, by contrast, children were barely visible. Europe at least is in population decline, and population would be declining in Australia too if it were not for strong rates of immigration.

Thank God for our mothers. May God bless them with that original blessing with which he blessed Eve and give all people everywhere the blessing of the New Eve!

Good News from Sydney. The Sydney Archdiocese had experimented with permanent deacons for a while in the past, but now, after a considerable rethink, a new permanent program is now being launched. It looks largely as if they are following the Melbourne model in terms of training program, but with a Bishop as Director and a part time lay Executive Officer. We pray for the success of the program and for the fulfillment of many vocations to the diaconate in Sydney.

Well, perhaps it is more than that. But it is amazing how often, if a rumour is repeated and spread and repeated often enough, people come to think that it is an “established fact”.

That Andrea Tornielli publishes something which Rocco Palmo picks up, and then which becomes so talked about around diocesan offices throughout Australia that The Australian does a story on it, which Cathnews reports…

And apparently, according to the story in “The Australian”, there is even a time line on the appointment: it has to be before the Holy Father goes on holiday to Castel Gandolfo for the summer.

BXVI (bent over suitcase): Now vhere did I put my bathers?
Aide: Holy Father, Holy Father, you can’t leave yet! There’s still a vacancy at the Congregation for Bishops.
BXVI: But I read in ze papers zat ze Prefect had already been appointed.
Aide: No, Holy Father, that story came from Cathnews from the Australian from Whispers in the Loggia from Il Giornale.
BXVI: I see. Are the ze stories true?
Aide: They come from the best sources, your Holiness, and everyone says it is true and that is a done deal.
BXVI: Well, there it is. Let it be. Now where are my sunglasses?

Perhaps not. But anyway, here is the story from The Australian (afterall, Sentire Cum Ecclesia can’t be left out of the rumour mill, can it?):

Rumours fly over Cardinal George Pell’s job in Rome

SPECULATION that Australia’s Cardinal George Pell is about to be appointed to a senior Vatican post has strengthened in Rome with high-ranking priests now regarding the move as a done deal.
And Cardinal Pell’s forthcoming book-launch tour of three states is increasingly thought to be a farewell tour, according to prominent Catholic blogs in Europe and Australia.

Yesterday a leading Italian newspaper, Il Giornale, speculated that just days ago, after Cardinal Pell had met Pope Benedict XVI, he had spent an hour with Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re – the current prefect of the Congregation for Bishops.

The report by journalist Andrea Tornielli – who has accurately predicted several developments during this pontificate – suggested that the meeting was to discuss Cardinal Pell taking over from 76-year-old Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, who has been prefect for 10 years.

Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.
.End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.
It also said Cardinal Pell had been “officially nominated” as Cardinal Battista Re’s successor by the Pope.

The report matches rumours that have circulated in Rome for several months and said a formal announcement on Cardinal Pell’s appointment would come within the next few weeks.

The Congregation for Bishops oversees the selection of new bishops around the world.

If appointed, Cardinal Pell would take up the position of prefect by the end of August.

Major changes in the Roman Curia often come either just before or after the Pope makes the move to the apostolic palace at Castel Gandolfo for his (northern) summer stay there.

Cardinal Pell’s challenges if made prefect could include helping the Pope select new bishops for Ireland following the fallout from child abuse revelations, and recommending a replacement for himself in his current archdiocese of Sydney.

The Cardinal’s new book, Test Everything: Hold Fast to What is Good, will be launched next Friday in the crypt of St Mary’s Cathedral in Sydney.

The launch will be followed by several stops in Melbourne, his Victorian home town of Ballarat, and Brisbane.

I receive regular newsletters from John Garratt Publishing. They deal with a lot of stuff which (euphamistically) may be described as “not my cup of tea”, but this resource will be very significant.

“Become One Body One Spirit in Christ” is the international DVD produced to aid catechesis for the introduction of the new translation of the Roman Missal (due in a parish near you in mid-2010). It looks really good. The video tour begins with Vivaldi’s Gloria – a good start indeed!

John Garratt is offering it at a pre-order discount for $28 (perhaps Mary at the Central Catholic Bookshop might have details for how we could order it through her?).

See here.

Update: as Pax says in the combox, we should pray for Catherine. She is a woman of deep spiritual need.

And all the work of the National Liturgical Music Board goes down the gurgler. I’m sorry, but someone has to put a stop to this.

The Willow Connection (aka Willow Publishing – I could find no information on the internet about who this crowd is) are the publishers of the As One Voice series of song books. The first two volumes are in broad use in the Catholic parishes of Australia, and a third has just been released (“The Next Generation”). To promote this series of books, the Willow Conection is planning and promoting a three day conference 24-26 September in Sydney called “As One Voice National Christian Music Conference”. The full program can be downloaded from here.

Now I have nothing against people holding Christian music conferences. I’m all for it. I am a bit more cagey when that conference is explicitly designed by a particular publishing company to sell a particular product. And I am definitely and particularly opposed when a publishing company, without the authority or approval of our Catholic Bishops Conference, directly targets Catholic parish music teams to press upon them products and directions that run completely counter to the Bishops own Liturgical Music Board.

For this is what this planned conference amounts to.

Anyone who has taken the time to look at the National Liturgical Music Board’s Bishops approved Recommended List of Liturgical Music for use in Australia will see that the “As One Voice” books do not (as a whole) have the imprimatur of the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference. In fact, only 55% of the first volume and 34% of the second volumes contents made the recommended list. (The new volume was not published yet when the list was drawn up). The fact is that Australia’s Catholic bishops have, as a body, decided that more than half of the contents of “As One Voice” (Vols I & II) are unsuitable for use in Catholic parishes.

The Press release for this Conference lists “Australia’s best Catholic [musical] artists” – including Kevin Bates, Monica Brown, Peter Kearney, Michael Mangan and Trisha Watts. Now I confess that I do not find all that these artists have written problematic, but again, anyone who has looked at the NLMB’s list will see that there are few of their works that make the list.

Amid all the hard work that the Church has done around the world to address the accuracy of the language used in our liturgy, if this sort of thing is allowed go ahead unchecked, we are, in effect, plugging the leak while leaving the tap running.

A few excerpts from the brochure promoting the As One Voice Conference [my comments in bold italics]:

* The As One Voice National Conference is a celebration of Australia – the people and the music that have shaped our worship over the past 20 years. [Of course, this is all that matters – the “next generation” – the past 2000 years of Church music and hymnody is dismissed as insignificant – and doubly so if it isn’t “Australian”.]

* In this time of change and transition within the church it is opportune for all involved in the important role of music ministry to become familiar with the latest developments and guidelines offered by the Church and to gain support and encouragement as we continue to confidently sing and worship into the 21st century. This conference provides such an opportunity. [Does it? It flies in the face of the NLMB’s list for a start.]

* The exciting music and educational program has been specifically designed to address the needs and interests of youth and adults involved in music ministry within the Catholic community. [Note that this is not just a “Christian Music” conference – they are targeting Catholic parishes]

* Come along ready to sing through some exciting new repertoire for use in school and parish celebrations. [There is nowhere in the program for the “exciting OLD repertoire” that has sustained the Church for centuries – the focus is on “new” – a word that appears twenty five times on the brochure]

* Are you unsure about what music is appropriate for liturgy? How do you select contemporary music that will speak to young people who are exploring issues of faith and life? Are you looking for new, contemporary music to expand your repertoire that will touch the hearts of young people? [Is there not already the assumption here than anything that is not “new” or “contemporary” is not “appropriate”?]

* Drawing on the huge selection of new, contemporary music from As One Voice – The Next Generation, participants will have the chance to learn, sing, play and pray songs by Australian and International songwriters. [New, contemporary – etc. etc. Just make sure it comes from “As One Voice” since they’re paying for this, you know]

The Plenary Session, in which “All delegates are invited to participate” is called “New Challenges in Liturgical Music Leadership”, and is described thus:

World Youth Day 2008 seemed to herald the acceptance of the contemporary music genre in Australian Catholic churches. Before and since, drum kits have been appearing on the Catholic liturgical landscape, and ‘praise and worship’ songs have become a regular feature of youth-oriented masses. At the same time, Pope Benedict XVI has expressed his desire that Gregorian Chant be the primary genre of music used in Catholic liturgy, and the National Liturgical Commission has prepared a list of approved songs for liturgy. How are we to make sense of these different currents flowing in liturgical music today? How do we grasp the opportunities and face the challenges that new styles of music and new performance modes bring to liturgy? What is needed to help music ministers do this?

What indeed? Not another book from the Willow Connection. Not more “new” stuff sold to us by publishers who have a vested interest in getting us addicted to the “ever new”. Not a wider use of the (largely unapproved) “As One Voice” series. And can the expressed desire of the Holy Father and Australian Catholic Bishops Conference be simply dismissed as a “current” in the make up of the music we use in the Roman Rite of the Mass?

There is indeed much to be done in encouraging the liturgical singing and music in our parishes, and I urge those with oversight of this area to do it. But someone has to blow the whistle on this conference, which has absolutely no (= zilch, zip, zero) authority or approval from the Australian Catholic Bishops Confernce or the Liturgical Music Board and which – far from leading us forward – will undo all the good work that our Holy Father and the Bishops of the English speaking Churches throughout the world and here in Australia have done to this point to make our parish liturgies more faithful to the Liturgy of the Church.

PS. And, as a footnote, anything that Catholica recommends…