Catholic Sensibility

Judge Sarmina denies the defense request to allow Msgr William Lynn to await sentencing while under house arrest. Defense attorney Thomas Bergstrom:

If he were any other defendant he’d be out on bail. I don’t think he should be treated any differently. I think he’s entitled to (house arrest).

Mr Bergstrom is perhaps correct for a non-cleric. Other accused priests have fled as far away as they could. Ways and means of going on the lam and living more comfortably than under overpasses are somewhat greater than for the average lay person. We all know Cardinal Law hightailed it to Rome after his resignation. Has he ever returned to the US? For vacation? To visit family and friends?

Defense attorney Jeff Lindy:

 ((T)he monsignor was also left feeling like the fall guy.) He’s upset because he’s seems to have the weight of the church on his shoulders.

The Church did pay for his legal defense. But indeed, he very much seems like the fall guy. If his testimony and that of others on Cardinal Bevilacqua had held up in a jury’s mind, then it would have been the deceased archbishop going to prison for a term a bit longer than three-and-a-half to seven years. Msgr Lynn is one man convicted for the endangerment of one child. There were thousands of children abused. Is the hierarchy prepared to send some of its own to prison for the equivalent of thousands of years?

I was struck that one of Msgr Lynn’s attorneys offered to serve sentence in his place were he to escape house arrest. I wonder how many bishops would put themselves in the same position.

Anthony Stevens-Arroyo’s WaPo commentary on nuns, bus, bishops, and gas didn’t quite hit the spot for me. Granted, like him and the sisters, I’m concerned about religious freedom, even as my supervisors frame it. I think the bishops were the wrong guys to be the front line on F4F. I understand that they were the leaders and all.  But except for their own dioceses, the average non-New York City Catholic doesn’t know Tim Dolan from her or his own diocesan social justice person. The latter is probably a bit more politically savvy than your average bishop, too. And the bishops are fighting against the perception that their leadership has been weak on protecting children.

Comparing apples and oranges beef and chicken:

In a sense, these two events that started in June and conclude on the nation’s birthday maximize the choices behind Catholic freedom. Paired together, they exhibit the full spectrum of Catholic commitments. Much like patrons of a cafeteria can choose either beef or chicken for lunch, Catholics have a varied menu this summer when engaged in social justice ministry. But if one chooses beef for oneself, that doesn’t mean that other Catholics in line are denied the choice of chicken.

This is not to deny a climate in which different sides try to make their definition of Catholicism the only one. The current cohort of bishops seems to be following the top-down non-accommodating model of Pope John Paul II when he was cardinal archbishop in Poland: keep all Catholics unified under the direct leadership of the hierarchy so that when these prelates negotiate with government they have the full power of an obedient and militant laity. I would not deny the bishops’ pastoral charge to preserve the unity of the church. However, that unity is not the same as uniformity with a bishop’s political preferences.

Don’t misunderstand my first paragraph. As citizens and members of the faithful, the US bishops have every right, if not the responsibility, to follow their consciences and speak out, as they see fit. My assessment is that the bishops were more effective as a unitive voice in the 1980′s–a similar situation in which some of the flock and some outside of it interpreted their teaching and actions as political and others walked in lockstep behind it. Of course, the 80′s bishops had the advantage of having consulted with the laity in advance. I remember participating in open forum sessions in my own diocese on peace, the economy, and on women. And today, of course, if the bishops consulted with us about the Fortnight, rather than just their staffs and lawyers and insurers, it would likely be after the 2012 election that we’d have a unitive voice on religious freedom issues.

If the bishops are okay going their way and expecting the faithful to line up behind them, they have the right, and as they see it, the duty to do so.

For my part, I can choose to identify the problems with this stance, and engage with the F4F as I see fit, which in my case, has been to offer a broader perspective on religious freedom and suggest that the institutional Church may not be the vox clara needed at this time.

Liam suggested we take a peek at this document, issued one century after Pope Pius X released his motu proprio on sacred music, Tra Le Sollecitudini.

Today, from Pope John Paul II’s chirograph, a look at the heritage of Vatican II:

2. The Second Vatican Council followed up this approach in chapter VI of the Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium on the Sacred Liturgy, in which the ecclesial role of sacred music is clearly defined: “The musical tradition of the universal Church is a treasure of inestimable value, greater even than that of any other art. The main reason for this pre-eminence is that, as sacred melody united to words, it forms a necessary or integral part of the solemn Liturgy”[SC 112]. The Council also recalls that “Sacred Scripture, indeed, has bestowed praise upon sacred song. So have the Fathers of the Church and the Roman Pontiffs who in more recent times, led by St Pius X, have explained more precisely the ministerial function exercised by sacred music in the service of the Lord”[SC 112].

In fact, by continuing the ancient biblical tradition to which the Lord himself and the Apostles abided (cf. Mt 26: 30; Eph 5: 19; Col 3: 16), the Church has encouraged song at liturgical celebrations throughout her history, providing wonderful examples of melodic comment to the sacred texts in accordance with the creativity of every culture, in the rites of both West and East.

The attention my Predecessors thus paid to this delicate sector was constant. They recalled the fundamental principles that must enliven the composition of sacred music, especially when it is destined for the Liturgy. Besides Pope St Pius X, other Popes who deserve mention are Benedict XIV with his Encyclical Annus Qui (19 February 1749), Pius XII with his Encyclicals Mediator Dei (20 November 1947) and Musicae Sacrae Disciplina (25 December 1955), and lastly Paul VI, with the luminous statements that punctuated many of his Speeches.

The Fathers of the Second Vatican Council did not fail to reassert these principles with a view to their application in the changed conditions of the times. They did so specifically in chapter six of the Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium. Pope Paul VI then saw that those principles were translated into concrete norms, in particular with the Instruction Musicam Sacram, promulgated on 5 March 1967 with his approval by the Congregation then known as the Sacred Congregation for Rites. In this same context, it is necessary to refer to those principles of conciliar inspiration to encourage a development in conformity with the requirements of liturgical reform and which will measure up to the liturgical and musical tradition of the Church. The text of the Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium in which it is declared that the Church “approves of all forms of true art which have the requisite qualities[SC 112], and admits them into divine worship”, finds satisfactory criteria for application in nn. 50-53 of the above-mentioned Instruction Musicam Sacram.

Where preconciliar practice remained deficient was the lack of attention to music as formative by those who sing it. In retrospect this was quite lamentable, as the Western world had a fine tradition of the amateur performance of music at all levels: home, school, pub, community gatherings, and festivals. Until about the middle of the twentieth century people who enjoyed music had to provide it for themselves and their loved ones and friends and community.

Music at liturgy was largely an extension of the priestly function: it was performed for God on behalf of an assembly at prayer. This might have ensured, on one level, a sort of quality control. But those Scriptural citations in paragraph two above presume a community singing an active repertoire of sacred song, not the preservation of a tradition of music exclusively by a “professional” class.

For an in-depth examination of that 1967 Instruction, Musicam Sacram, I refer readers to the sidebar. It was with this document and the introductions and rubrics of the reformed rites that we saw the post-conciliar emphasis on the laity reclaiming their proper role in the musical heritage of worship.

As is true of all rites, adaptations are possible at the judgment of the conference of bishops, and others at the judgment of the minister. The fourth section of this chapter details proper adaptations:

Adaptations within the Competence of the Conferences of Bishops

24. The conferences of bishops may adapt this rite, as required, to the character of each region, but in such a way that nothing of its dignity and solemnity is lost.
However, the following are to be respected:

• a) The celebration of Mass with the proper preface and prayer for a dedication must never be omitted.
• b) Rites that have a special meaning and force from liturgical tradition (see no. 22) must be retained, unless weighty reasons stand in the way, but the wording may be suitably adapted if necessary.

With regard to adaptations, the competent ecclesiastical authority is to consult the Holy See and introduce adaptations with its consent. (SC 40)

Adaptations within the Competence of the Ministers

25. It is for the bishop and for those in charge of the celebration of the rite to decide whether to have the depositing of relics of the saints; in so doing, they are to follow what is laid down in no. 11 and they are to take as the decisive consideration the spiritual good of the community and a proper sense of liturgy.

It is for the rector of the church in which the altar is to be dedicated, helped by those who assist him in the pastoral work, to decide and prepare everything concerning the readings, singing, and other pastoral aids to foster the fruitful participation of the people and to ensure a dignified celebration.

In the Liturgiam Autneticam regime, it’s not likely that 24b would pass muster, but it does indicate a time when the needs of the community were considered as a greater good than the particular wording of the prayers. As we’ve seen in all the rites, adaptations are not made for the sake of the ministers, but by the ministers for the people in judgment of what will bear greater fruit in the celebration of the rites.