Hymnal Review, Part Five: Conclusion, Hymnody and Justice

Editor’s note: Part One, the author’s introduction to this series of reviews of three hymnals, is  here.

Part Two, the author’s review of Adoremus Hymnal (AH), is here.

Part Three, the author’s review of the Saint Michael Hymnal (SMH), is here.

Part Three, the author’s review of the Vatican II Hymnal (V2H), is here.

I’m convinced that good Catholic liturgy, authentically conceived and celebrated, naturally generates an enthusiastic evangelism, a vigorous outreach to the poor, and the restoration of justice toward all people. I would go so far as to suggest that the validity of that liturgy is measured by the extent to which the congregation succeeds at evangelism, outreach and justice. I even venture to claim that most parishes that lean in the direction of the Extraordinary Form—or wherever a choir dominates the singing of the ordinary and proper, and where at least some of the people don’t understand the Latin and resort to their private devotions instead—are less likely to take outreach and justice as seriously as do Ordinary-Form congregations. It doesn’t have to be this way of course. Indeed, it would prove the triumph of the EF or the Latin OF if congregations using them were also hosting successful outreach efforts. But in practice these two features are usually at odds with each other. This would be a good dissertation topic.

I mention this here because neither V2H nor AH provides a listing of copyright permissions. You may wonder how this segues from the previous paragraph, but it is a perfect sequitur. These two hymnals are fully dedicated to the restoration of a particular concept of Catholic liturgical life, and in this they succeed to a great degree, but in the process they have apparently failed in the matter of ordinary justice toward those good people whose texts, tunes and harmonizations have been reproduced without adequate evidence that proper permissions have been obtained. In the case of V2H, the vast majority of items are in the public domain. But no permissions appear anywhere in the printed hymnal, despite the fact that a large percentage of the masses, gospel acclamations, responsorial psalms and some of the hymns are the work of modern composers. The introduction to the hymnal provides the URL for access to a place on the publisher’s website that purports to list such permissions, but it is not functional.

Congregations who hold allegiance to more traditional forms tend to isolate themselves from the larger purposes of the church, for reasons that are hard to identify. Perhaps they see themselves as the beleaguered remnant, under siege, holed up for security sake and determined to survive despite all the odds. Such a community has an inward orientation and has trouble seeing the relationship between worship in the church and work in the world.

Evangelism is a recessive gene in Catholic DNA. We don’t imagine ourselves walking the streets and knocking on doors. So when I asked if there is an evangelical aspect to the kind of worship envisioned by V2H, Jeffrey Ostrowski was unsure what I meant by the word “evangelical.” I expect the editors of the other two hymnals would have a similar response. The word has a variety of meanings, after all. But what I meant is that authentic worship must have an openness to the world and a receptivity to strangers, making liturgy the church’s first evangelist. By this I don’t mean that the unbaptized have a place at the altar, but rather that the liturgy is living proof of the kingdom, which is available to everyone through baptism, without distinction of persons, whether they understand Latin or not.

James Frazier is organist and choir master at St. John the Evangelist Episcopal Church in St. Paul. He was formerly music director in the office of worship of the Archdiocese of St. Paul-Minneapolis.

36 comments

  1. Having grown up, become Catholic ( in the heart of West Oakland), married and brought three children up in Oakland, Richmond and the East Bay, it is not only conceivable but likely that I learned from my friends of all ethnic backgrounds the term “The Okey Doke.”
    If you’re not familiar with it, it’s quite simple. Someone with cred, or what “nice people” call an expert (the person from 50 miles away carrying the briefcase who tells your crew exactly what you instruct them daily, except s/he gets paid exorbitant fees!) espouses some rhetorical constructs to deflect and lower any prejudicial hesitance that a con is just around the corner. The expert then sweetens the rapport with more sweet talk and bon mots that even the most suspicious of antagonists are surprised and let their guard down.
    And at the auspcious moment, the expert pulls the iron hand out of the velvet glove and delivers the sucker punch below the belt to the kidneys, and then trots off to his corner, arms raised as if just the sight of another foe vanquished magnifies his cred among his other peers.
    That justice regarding IP and acknowledgments is used as a smart missle to not only call into question the integrity of a fellow Christian, but a fellow serious scholar under the premise and guise of a fair, balanced and honest review process is not only most unbecoming of the expert, the heretofore respected, “nice” and objective reviewer (awash with endorsements from former students and confreres), but of the editorial staff of PTB.
    There is serious stuff amiss and dangerous and threatening the very survival of the Christian ethos in the global public square. And this petty, inconsequential, and that it is, Mr. Frazier, is how you want to exhort the remnant church in the English west to spit out from their mouths?
    I’m terribly sorry, but this sort of editorial tactic is precisely why people are exhausted with folks who behave as “limousine liberals.”
    This is the great metanoia about worship that my brother Todd Flowerday keeps praying…

  2. Part V is certainly a sour note upon which to end what I, as a non-musician, thought was a very interesting and informative series of reviews.

    It is particularly unfortunate since it does not appear to be based on any evidence either internal or external to the hymnals being reviewed.

  3. I think it is legitimate to ask if reproduction permissions of copyright material have been properly obtained. All self-respecting hymnals carry such a list. When they don’t, alarm bells begin to ring.

    In another forum, the question being asked about these books is whether they have received any kind of nihil obstat/imprimatur via the national approval process, as all hymnbooks are now required to do. Without actually purchasing copies of the books in question, it is not possible to say. Perhaps James Frazier could enlighten us.

  4. How very polite and smoothly do you sidestep the crux of the issue, Paul. The only alarm bells ringing from this most unfortunate of choices made by Frazier, Ruff et al, is that PTB has been revealed to be unable to practice what it preaches, the basic and most natural of moral principles of justice that our Lord brought to bear upon the strictures of the Old Covenant.
    I’m not you nor Jeffrey Tucker. I’m a simple man. I do know that Ostrowski is diligent and as I am home and not in my office, I can’t readily attest to this- I would wager the approvals necessary, that of the local See as I understand it, such as found in Portland and Chicago, were doubless obtained in Corpus Christi, TX. Just as Mr. Bartlett secured the same sanctions by Bp. Olmstead in Phoenix.
    But fret not, we still sing your material out here in little ol’ Fresno, and pay severly for the privilege.

  5. The very first question asked and answered on the Q & A page for the Vatican II Hymnal at the Corpus Christi Watershed contains the answer about the necessary approvals:

    1. Has your hymnal been approved by the Church ?

    All of the Mass Settings included in the Vatican II Hymnal have been approved for Liturgical Use in the United States by the USCCB Secretariat of Divine Worship. The entire Vatican II Hymnal has also been approved by the Diocese of Corpus Christi.

    It saddens me to find that a contributor of articles on this blog pass on innuendo in a comment on this article, without actually checking for himself, that suggests these hymnals may not have obtained necessary approvals. Shooting from the hip like this has no place here, unless it is intended to fan the flames of dissension. What a shame that respect, dignity, and charity are thus immolated. Can we not do better than this?

    1. @Charles H. Giffen – comment #5:
      Okay.

      Mass settings–the musical portion of the V2H–have been approved by the BCDW. Fair enough. But ICEL is the copyright holder of the texts.

      The entire hymnal is approved by the home diocese of Corpus Christi. Fair enough. But are all the hymns in the public domain?

      The challenge to works of charity and advocacy for justice: this impacts the issue if V2H and others have avoided justice by declining to cite the ownership of the texts. I agree with Charles that the generalization about which types of parishes support the poor and protest the powerful is unhelpful, unfair, and wrong. However, have these publishers satisfied the responsibility to acknowledge sources–in print in their books, and not just online?

      I have no doubt that Mr Ostrowski did intense, detailed, and loving work on the V2H. Bishop Gracida cites this as a “magnum opus” of one man. Is that true? Others have contributed creativity and effort to this, including, like it or not, translators and bishops.

      Ecclesiastical approvals do not give people free reign to do as they wish to abrogate civil laws. Perhaps these hymnals are produced in part to protest the tyranny of copyright. That is another matter.

      The fact is, these three books are now in print. And being sold. If there are errors, it would take great courage to admit them, and to rectify this.

      Is there anyone associated with these publications who can calm the concern that one or more of them have not properly complied with civil practice, wholly leaving aside the matter of ecclesiastical approval on a diocesan and national level?

  6. “Congregations who hold allegiance to more traditional forms tend to isolate themselves from the larger purposes of the church, for reasons that are hard to identify.”

    Paul VI identified it clearly in Evangelii Nuntiandi 58:

    “(Some communities) come together in a spirit of bitter criticism of the Church, which they are quick to stigmatize as “institutional” and to which they set themselves up in opposition as charismatic communities, free from structures and inspired only by the Gospel. Thus their obvious characteristic is an attitude of fault-finding and of rejection with regard to the Church’s outward manifestations: her hierarchy, her signs. They are radically opposed to the Church. By following these lines their main inspiration very quickly becomes ideological, and it rarely happens that they do not quickly fall victim to some political option or current of thought, and then to a system, even a party, with all the attendant risks of becoming its instrument.”

    Many wrap themselves in the mantle of “orthodoxy,” but they choose to walk a separate way from the Body. EN 58 is illustrative as it suggests that communities that align with the Church’s mind and efforts, are evangelical in nature: they attract new followers to the Gospel, and they point to realities greater than their circle of followers.

    And to be sure, I don’t need to hear a party line parroted. (I don’t need to hear it at all, really.) Other hymnal producers offer a statement placing their work within a larger context of the Church’s mission. These days, especially in a time of “new evangelization,” I don’t think it an optional tack for people to cede, “We’re just doing music. We wager the evangelical thing will come because we’re on the right track.”

    “I would wager the approvals necessary … were doubless obtained in Corpus Christi, TX”

    Why do we need to wager? Or guess? I’m well aware that CMAA is advocating a different business model than major publishers. But it seems easy enough to attribute creative sources, even if the composers have ceded legal rights that other composers opt to retain. As for ICEL material, it does need a copyright line, even if the product is sold for a non-profit to recover costs of production.

    On the other hand, a hymnal publisher might call attention to its own manifesto. In other words, “We don’t list copyright notices, and here’s why.” In which case, the hymnal becomes a political statement in addition to being a particular vector for better liturgy.

  7. Todd, don’t hang your semantical hat by excerpting one word from the whole context of my quote in order to make a rebuttal. That tactic is tiresome. I clearly said I was home. I keep my V2 at the office. But, I can inform you and anyone else that CH Giffen has posted the necessary information Paul felt was lacking. Yes, CCW is on record with approval from the USCCB and the Diocese of Corpus Christi.
    What is the purpose of this opaque speculation that Frazier, Inwood and now you, my friend, have chosen to engage in?
    And though I know you seldom are inclined to state regrets, your tainting of V2 as a “political statement” is alarmingly myopic considering the textual content of many pieces in the OCP/GIA organs, some of which I still employed as of yesterday (though not “Gather and Remember” nor “Women of the Church.”)

  8. Charles, fair enough. You know these guys–that’s one thing. I’m not looking to blow up 96% of what my parish sings, so I’m clearly not a potential buyer, except for a reference copy on my bookshelf.

    The needed information needs to be in the book, imo. Why wouldn’t it be? Is it the kind of accidental oversight that Jeffrey Ostrowski concedes left his name off as a credited composer? Or is it a political statement (a la Jeffrey Tucker) about copyrights and attribution?

    What is the purpose of my speculation? Is this a quality product? Is it on the professional level, say, of the Hymnal for Young Christians? Worship, First? You can have production values over the moon thanks to the computer age. But an editor needs to be more than a software geek and a lover of the right sacred music.

    1. @Todd Flowerday – comment #7:
      What is the purpose of my speculation? Is this a quality product? Is it on the professional level, say, of the Hymnal for Young Christians? Worship, First? You can have production values over the moon thanks to the computer age. But an editor needs to be more than a software geek and a lover of the right sacred music.
      That last little dig is an unwarranted, egregious ad hominem, just without the hominem. Wow, really?
      According to Frazier’s review, your questions above were addressed. That is not the focus of this post and commentary upon it. I’d ask you to consider engaging Frazier and Fr. Ruff as to the purpose of how this series of admittedly fair reviews went sideways in a major way, instead of resorting to the cardboard shields that have thus far been offered in defense of Frazier’s off-topic summation post. Let’s get real, for once.
      Fr. Krisman, your meticulous observation is reasonable and appreciated.
      But my office bookshelves are lined with hundreds of little hymnals from little people in little monasteries and dioceses that date back to the nineteenth century, as well as the two source references by Higginson. Who’s going to righteously stand up and have their little “j’accuse” moment over something like the THE MOUNT MARY HYMNAL where, despite the nihil obstat and imprimatur, and published by the great McLaughlin & Reilly, Boston, the uncredited author of its foreword merely states that “The arrangements in TMMH, are all copyrighted, and many have been made only by special permission by the copyright owners.”
      Oh, I’m sorry, that was then…..this is now. My bad.

      1. @Charles Culbreth – comment #9:
        “That last little dig is an unwarranted, egregious ad hominem, just without the hominem.”

        No it’s not.

        I read a lot. I see many published novels (non-fiction somewhat less so) with significant errors due to an editor’s and publisher’s reliance on computers to do the job of oversight and review. The pages of these hymnals look lovely. But the question of citing composers and sources of texts is a very important one. It’s silly not to do it.

        GIA has had notorious editing problems with the supplemental instrumental editions of its hymnals. I would want to see everything coming from them before I’d ponder committing to W4 or G3. Their track record with Bb parts and guiatists is not all that good.

        If I’m thinking one or more of these reform2 hymnals on my bookshelf gives me something that BFW, the Liber Usualis, and the internet links to music don’t, then I sure want to know that the publishers have all their ducks in a row. It doesn’t seem that they do. Now, if one of those publishers comes up and says, “Frazier missed it. Text attributions are on page 280.” Then I’m good with that.

  9. While I would agree with Charles that there are no data available that I know of which support the claim that the hymns included in V2H or AH or SMH (or W4 or JourneySongs, et al.) indicate whether a congregation using one such resource does or does not practice evangelization, outreach, justice and love, and all the other virtues, I would point out that there are some hymns in V2H still under copyright which seem not to have been acknowledged: Lift High the Cross; To Jesus Christ, Our Sovereign King; I Received the Living God; Father, We Thank Thee Who Hast Planted. In justice, royalties need to be paid.

  10. It does. We are, after all, examining three published works of persons known to be savvy with computers and who have particular, if not narrow ideas about what constitutes sacred music.

    In light of these reviews, I don’t think that’s enough. Hymnals are more than products of good intentions. There are aspects of producing a hymnal which I would find exciting (reviewing good music) and aspects I would find excruciating (the detail work of layout, acknowledging sources, and all).

    Can we just agree on facts for now? Does each hymnal contain in its pages an appropriate recognition of all copyright holders? And even if someone’s work was generously donated to the cause, is each composer recognized? There are civil ramifications if, say, Mr Ostrowski wanted to claim a tax credit or such. And his IRS contact said, “Dude, your name isn’t in the music book anywhere.”

    My own experience … a parish where I was a member during grad school produced its own hymnal a few years after I left–about twenty years ago. They contacted me about including a number of my compositions which were sung there often. “We’ll pay you for them,” I was assured. The whole effort was to be done in alignment with the principles of justice and copyright.

    I was surprised but not shocked to find that when I visited a year or two later, the hymnal was in print, and a number of my selections were indeed included. No copyright notices. Some text editing for vertical inclusive language. Some texts from other sources used without acrediting either. My friends were earnest, but naive. I never received a dime for my contributions. (Had they asked to include them gratis, I would certainly have acceded to that request.)

    So I admit I don’t have an unbiased personal experience with this kind of effort. And the relentless reform2 bile against publishers tends to sour a lot of people. Music publishers with decades-long pedigrees have editorial boards. Mistakes are caught. A half-dozen pairs of eyes are better than one.

    Ideology aside, can these publishers assure us of their best work, repertoire concerns set aside? I openly wonder. And turning this into an episode of “Todd is mean to us” seems dodgy to me.

  11. Todd, self-flattery is never your strong suit. Nor mine. I’m not turning squat here, and I’m keeping it quite real with zero tolerance of spin.
    No one here, save for Fr. Krisman, has leveled a significant answer for the “sour…bile” which Jack Rakosky rightly wonders was employed to wrap up an otherwise very positive and mutually beneficial series. But if you really believe I’m whining about you, I can call this thread a day.
    This is pointless anyway. Might as well concentrate by returning to score study of Ostrowski’s “Sherwin Mass” which we’ll begin praying this Advent.
    As for PTB adherents upset about fanons and such, “Have fun stormin’ the castle.”

  12. Charles, I don’t think any of the comments on this thread have supported Dr. Frazier’s claims about communities which do not practice justice. Even Todd’s first posting raised a legitimate concern about the “mission statement,” if you will, of a hymnal for Catholic worship. He then went on to address equally legitimate copyright concerns, which have been the focus of all his subsequent postings.

    We do not live in a pre- FEL vs. Archdiocese of Chicago age. Proper acknowledgment of copyrighted texts and music should not be dispensed with just because someone acted in good faith, or is a good composer, or for any other reason.

  13. Bishop Gracida, you say? The bishop emeritus of Corpus Christi?

    Canon 824 establishes the “local ordinary” as being responsible for the requisite permission or approval to publish books. And canon 134 defines what is meant by “local ordinary.” A retired bishop is not a “local ordinary” unless he has been appointed a vicar general or an episcopal vicar by the diocesan bishop.

    1. @Fr. Ron Krisman – comment #17:

      Fr. Krisman, thank you for basing your critique in research and facts about the hymnal rather than speculation.

      I agree that it is wrong for publishers to reproduce without copyright permission music and texts found (as you have shown) in the hymnal. I’m confident that there are texts reproduced in this case without the requisite permission, e.g. the Church Pension Fund, which owns the copyright for the text of Father, We Thank Thee Who Hast Planted would surely insist on a credit line for the words to that hymn, which are reproduced without such a credit line on the Corpus Christi Watershed web site in the choral section for the VII Hymnal.

      (I do note, however, that one of the hymns cited, “Lift High the Cross”, was published in 1916 and that version is therefore in the public domain in the United States.)

      Would that the reviewer had examined the question and based his critique on this, rather than speculation. It would have avoided confusion.

      Regarding ecclesiastical permissions, Bishop Gracida has written a preface, but the permission cited on their web site is that of the Diocese of Corpus Christi (and the approval of the Mass settings by the USCCB CDW) not that of Bishop Gracida.

  14. Only Fr. Ruff has so far defended the main body of James Frazier’s attack on

    parishes that lean in the direction of the Extraordinary Form—or wherever a choir dominates the singing of the ordinary and proper, and where at least some of the people don’t understand the Latin and resort to their private devotions instead

    This attack is unfounded on facts about the life of such congregations and the lives of their members. The Latin Mass and ROTR communities here in New York (and where I’ve experienced them elswhere) are open to the world, evangelistic, work to make the liturgy accesible to the people, are in the streets evangelizing and doing works of justice and charity. They’re involved in ecumenical activity, scholarly work, and professional careers working with the poor and needy. They’ve sent numerous men and women to seminary and religious life who are deployed not for the benefit of any isolated community, but in union with the apostolic choices of the whole Church and her leaders. Are they perfect, hardly, but there’s no community of perfect Christians on this side of the grave.

    They are surely engaged with “the larger purposes of the church”:

    the Church, equipped with the gifts of its Founder and faithfully guarding His precepts of charity, humility and self-sacrifice, receives the mission to proclaim and to spread among all peoples the Kingdom of Christ and of God and to be, on earth, the initial budding forth of that kingdom. (Lumen Gentium 5)

    They may disagree with James Frazier about how best to achieve these goals. But that’s a rather less dire critque than the one offered.

  15. I had no idea that Charles would get so upset about what is a very simple issue.

    Any hymnal published needs to include a comprehensive list of copyright permissions, somewhere between its two covers. That is normative. It is not sufficient to say “Oh well, we have the list online somewhere, or in our files”. It’s about transparency.

    Sam, as it happens, Lift High the Cross is not yet out of copyright in the US or anywhere else. Michael Newbolt, who made the adaptation from Kitchin’s original, did not die until 1956; and this means that, depending on where in the world you are, this text is still copyright until 2026 or even 2031, 70 or 75 years respectively after the death of the author. The date of publication is not relevant.

    As far as an imprimatur for hymnals as a whole is concerned, my understanding is that there is a national process for this, as there is with Mass settings. It’s a different process from getting an imprimatur from your local Ordinary, if the UK experience is anything to go by. I am informed that the publishers of Worship 4 and the third edition of Journeysongs were both compelled to omit/adapt hymn texts in these volumes because of this process.

    Compilations which do not fall into the category of hymnals are not subject to the same restrictions. There, an imprimatur from a local Ordinary will suffice.

    I would add that I am not trying to get at Jeff Ostrowski, who is an honest and well-meaning guy as far as I am aware. I am simply stating that all hymnbooks, whether his or anyone else’s, need to conform to standard practice. I think this is what James Frazier was trying to convey.

    1. @Paul Inwood – comment #21:
      Paul, I so wanted to avoid any further involvement with this.
      Is it cricket now in the UK as it’s been forever in the colonies to obscure the salient points that an adversary raises in a debate by the simplistic tactic of villifying that opponent by diagnosiing him/her as emotionally “upset.”
      Would, therefore, it be equally just for me to suggest that some here inhabit the roles of the isolated managers of trivia as portrayed in Terry Gilliams’s film “Brazil” and then making the quick change into the oppressed serfs in his “Monty Python and the Holy Grail” wailing “See the violence inherent in the system.”?
      Do you think that $15K+ per year alotted for the convenience and ignominy of perpetuating the singing of your and Bob Hurd’s songs in perpetuity via OCP’s monopoly at our parish per annum could be better applied to the myriad of social services (which run the gamut) our parishes also fund? And then we, by law, are obliged and do dispose (to a recycler) the Living Word of God and repurchase that Word and pretty much the same repertoire at a larger expense for the next year?
      And, ignoring all I’ve said about this just being the same mousewheel that goes on worldwide, then (see Mount St. Mary et al!) and to this day, you’ve hitched your wagon to Frazier and claim there’s a “standard practice.”??? Maybe for Anglicans, Methodists. A standard among Roman Catholics? Dream on. Solemnse and the Vatican haven’t much of a history of agreement, like most of catholicism might be aware or care.
      Nah, this was about passive shilling.

  16. As it happens, Lift High the Cross is not yet out of copyright in the US or anywhere else. Michael Newbolt, who made the adaptation from Kitchin’s original, did not die until 1956; and this means that, depending on where in the world you are, this text is still copyright until 2026 or even 2031, 70 or 75 years respectively after the death of the author. The date of publication is not relevant.

    This is not a correct summary of the law in the United States (which is the relevant law for the Vatican II Hymnal). Barring special exceptions, in the United States, “Works published before January 1, 1923, have fallen into the public domain…”

    As far as an imprimatur for hymnals as a whole is concerned, my understanding is that there is a national process for this, as there is with Mass settings. It’s a different process from getting an imprimatur from your local Ordinary, if the UK experience is anything to go by. I am informed that the publishers of Worship 4 and the third edition of Journeysongs were both compelled to omit/adapt hymn texts in these volumes because of this process.

    Your understanding is not that conveyed by Msgr. Hilgartner as to the rule in the United States:

    http://forum.musicasacra.com/forum/discussion/7149/usccb-secretariat-of-divine-worship-responds-to-question-about-general-instruction-of-roman-missal/p1

    (I have not made this a link so as not to activate the Spam trap)

    1. Samual, the software converted it to a link anyway, so it was put in pending. I just saw it and approved it.
      Thanks,
      awr

  17. I understand that in the US works that were re-copyrighted after 1923 have a 95-year period of “copyright life”, bringing them at least up to 2018 if not further.

    For these books to be marketed in other countries where different copyright laws hold, see my remarks above.

    As far as the US hymnal approval process is concerned, I have now inspected your hidden link and it does appear that the local Ordinary is the one who issues the imprimatur. That is not necessarily the case in other countries where the national agency dictates which theologian will inspect the text of every hymn in the compilation, with resultant delays and aggravations!

  18. Paul Inwood : As far as the US hymnal approval process is concerned, I have now inspected your hidden link and it does appear that the local Ordinary is the one who issues the imprimatur. That is not necessarily the case in other countries where the national agency dictates which theologian will inspect the text of every hymn in the compilation, with resultant delays and aggravations!

    That’s alright, Paul. You and Todd’s speculation about USA IP is still valuable, whether accurate or not (as opposed to Ostrowski/Giffen) because, of course, y’all clearly occupy the moral high ground, as the loyal opposition are also clearly misanthropes.

  19. “I understand that in the US works that were re-copyrighted after 1923 have a 95-year period of “copyright life”, bringing them at least up to 2018 if not further.” Paul is I think confusing a requirement that works published in the US between 1923 and 1977 have their copyright renewed for a second term; a few such fell through the cracks and entered public domain, such as Ernst Krenek’s 1953 book on Ockeghem, which is now online.

    Some points remain to be cleared up: the reviewer seems to be American. Is V2 in fact being marketed outside of the US, where the unwary risk having a court order them to pulp hymnals they bought in good faith?

    And is there specific examples that are clearly in violation of US law? Both Newbolt’s revision of “Lift high the cross” and CRUCIFER appeared in 1916, without any substantial changes since. My parish’s GIA hymnal only lists a 1974 copyright, so transparency might not really an issue with all publishers. What about the other examples? For “To Jesus Christ, Our Sovereign King” I see a 1941 alt. copyright by Irene Mueller: this is the version in V2, with thee’s instead of you’s, but I can’t easily tell what’s copyright or not. “I Received the Living God” is supposed to be anonymous, with a second verse “Jesus said I am the vine” copyright 1994. The tune LIVING GOD seems to be anon. as well. “Father, We Thank Thee Who Hast Planted” I have in The Hymnal 1940; the translation by Bland Tucker is identical to the first two verses in V2, and the third, “Bread of the world in mercy broken” seems to date to 1827.

    I agree that the lack of attributions is annoying, not least because of the obstacles it raises to researching and verifying status. The case of “Father, We Thank Thee Who Hast Planted” is rather serious. I trust though that it is an isolated instance and that Corpus Christi will make haste to secure necessary permissions!

    1. @Richard Mix – comment #27:
      The liturgical pioneer Virgil Michel, OSB (1890-1938), a monk of St. John’s Abbey in Collegeville, Minnesota, and a founder of the modern liturgical movement in English-speaking countries, promoted the idea that the liturgy creates community and that social justice cannot be separated from the liturgy—concepts that made their way into the documents of the Second Vatican Council and inspired many leaders of the conciliar reforms. Michel also founded the liturgy magazine Orate Fratres, now called Worship, which is arguably the most respected journal of its kind in North America.
      Religious orders of men and women have distinguished themselves for many centuries for their work among the poor and needy, but Virgil Michel taught that the liturgy obligated parishioners themselves to work for what we today call social justice. The idea was not mine, but I believe that as the prophets and Jesus preached the importance of justice, so we Christians commit an offense against the gospel when we imagine that beautiful worship suffices in our relationship with God. Jesus also preached that the time is coming when we will worship the Father in spirit and in truth (John 4:24). Truth is part of the package.
      Certainly there are many parishes using the EF or the OF in Latin that also take the world seriously, being actively engaged in evangelism and social justice. It’s not a black-and-white issue. I think, for example, of the Cathedral of the Madeleine in Salt Lake City, renowned for its commitment to the arts and humanities, whose beautiful (English OF) liturgy (with Lauds and Vespers having a regular place in the liturgical rota) attracts the well-dressed and street people alike, but which also sponsors programs for people in need.
      To be continued.

    2. @Richard Mix – comment #27:
      Continued from above.
      This is not to say that parish musicians must also direct soup kitchens. It does mean, however, that every serious musician must lay the cause of justice before his or her congregation through the use of hymn texts that reinforce the lectionary on that subject. Few hymn texts written in earlier centuries measure up to this matter in our day. That is one reason that modern hymn texts are so important.
      The conclusion to my three reviews did indeed take a sharp turn to the left, but it was assuredly not off-topic. Indeed the fact that two of the hymnals appear to lack proper documentation for the copyrighted materials in their pages is justification enough for pointing out the living links among beautiful liturgical music, quality hymn texts and social justice.

      1. @James E. Frazier – comment #29:
        “It does mean, however, that every serious musician must lay the cause of justice before his or her congregation through the use of hymn texts that reinforce the lectionary on that subject.”

        Serious musicians must lay the worship of the Triune God through music before the congregation, and from that flows the service to world which He created. We’ve forgotten that and hopefully, that’s what these 3 hymnals are trying to revive and instill in singing congregations again.

      2. @John Kohanski – comment #30:
        I’m not convinced “we’ve” forgotten that at all. The “attitude of fault-finding and of rejection” doesn’t just apply to worrisome marxists in the 1970’s. It is in evidence today with self-styled “orthodox” musicians.

        The notion that people who do not use these hymnals are lacking in their worship of the Trinity is akin to the statement that traditionalists have no sense of social justice.

        When Charles refers to “the moral high ground,” he is only detecting strong opinions strongly asserted. Clearly, the Catholic Church has no lack of that.

      3. @James E. Frazier – comment #29:

        The conclusion to my three reviews did indeed take a sharp turn to the left, but it was assuredly not off-topic.

        In order to talk creditably about justice, you need to be perceived as being just in your commentary, not only to the subject matter, but also to your readers with whom you have engaged in an implicit contract.

        If their purpose was to merge Versions I and II into a “blended” liturgy, they are largely successful. seemed to announce the implicit contract for the reviews. It did not give any hint of another standard of judgment: I’m convinced that good Catholic liturgy, authentically conceived and celebrated, naturally generates an enthusiastic evangelism, a vigorous outreach to the poor, and the restoration of justice toward all people.

        The introductory comment that Each of them was produced by a non-profit organization run by a handful of zealous, hard-working people devoted to a well-defined vision of authentic Catholic liturgy, not by major for-profit publishers of liturgical cataloguery. Indeed, for each of them the hymnal was a labor of love. could have been followed by the suggestion that by the very nature of their goals and their resources these hymnals might have limitations in addressing important issues such as evangelization, social justice, etc.

        If in the following reviews these limitations had been raised it would have given our readers an opportunity to discuss how they would deal with these “potential” limitations in terms of the particular hymnal under discussion.

        Two of the most influential Americans in terms of social justice and evangelization (attracting people to the faith) were Thomas Merton and Dorothy Day who accomplished most of this before the advent of contemporary hymnals and music. They didn’t wait for Vatican II and the reform of the liturgy.

        One of my Psalters is annotated with theme labels, e.g.24 psalms of the poor; 38 psalms of evangelization. Replacing hymns by psalms could result in more not less emphasis upon social justice and evangelization.

    3. @Richard Mix – comment #27:

      I believe “I Received the Living God” made its first appearance in The Catholic Liturgy Book, 1975, Helicon Press, Baltimore. The text and tune were noted as “anonymous.” There were four verses and a refrain.

      That attribution seems not to have been challenged for many years. I believe WLP was the first publisher to attribute the tune to Dom Clément Jacob, OSB, and the text to Bernard Geoffroy, both of France. The French title of the hymn is: J’ai reçu le Dieu vivant. Geoffroy’s text has eight verses and refrain. Jacob’s tune rhythmically is quite different from the tune which accompanies the English translation, although the melodic contour is the same. (The last I checked, Geoffroy, a layman, was teaching at the Biblical Institute in Jerusalem.)

      I was asked by GIA to make a new English translation, as well as a Spanish translation, of Geoffroy’s eight verses and refrain. I felt that the French perfect text “J’ai reçu” (I have received) is better translated into three corresponding syllables as “I receive” rather than “I received.” (“I’ve received” would have been even closer to the French, but I judged it out of the register of the rest of the text.) I inserted a ninth verse (vs. 4), one from the “anonymous” English translation referring to Christ, the Truth (this verse does not exist in the French text), thereby preserving the three consecutive verses: Christ the Way, the Truth, the Life.

      Google “J’ai reçu le Dieu vivant” and these results will appear: a YouTube video of Dom Jacob (d. 1977) playing his original tune; the complete French text on a perhaps unauthorized online page from the parish of St. Pierre de Nive-Adour.

      Google Maxime Jacob, OSB, and you will discover that had he not converted to Judaism and become a Benedictine monk, France’s Les Six may have been Les Septs!

      One online source gives Editions du Seuil as the copyright holder for the French original, although it is my understanding that the publisher never confirmed this prior to the publication of Gather 3 and Worship 4.

  20. OOPS!

    Maxime Jacob converted FROM Judaism TO Christianity. And he is NOT the person playing that dreadful organ on YouTube.

    Finally, I meant to write “French perfect tense” instead of “French perfect text”

    Mes fautes!

  21. Thank you , Jack, for not only having the capability of expressing what I felt, but could not objectively state, but for concern for all souls’ interest in how this ought to have played out.
    This was all most unfortunate. But you have provided a lamp in the darkness.

  22. “Replacing hymns by psalms could result in more not less emphasis upon social justice and evangelization.”

    That would be the movement in contemporary music over the past forty years. I would say that only 20% of my current parish’s repertoire consists of hymnody. But even some of that is based on the psalms and other Scripture. In some of the strophic repertoire presented in these hymnals, I see a bit less of Scripture.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.