PANEL decisions

[Southern Comfort]

The grapevine says a new edition of CFE is also on its way. Presumably it will be enduring the same vicissitudes....

[Peter Jones]

The results of the next panel meeting will be interesting, as I understand that several submissions of settings of ICEL Holy Week texts are being made.
I wonder if re-writes of the Exsultet with refrains will be accepted, and also settings of the short form without the option of the longer form.

[HallamPhil]

Peter, I thought the version of the exsultet modelled in the 1998 RM music was excellent for involving the assembly in what is otherwise quite a long prayer. It'll be interesting to see what happens as presumably the panel won't be that interested in all the Holy Week eg Reproaches where there already is some licence ... along the lines of other appropriate song.

[Peter Jones]

presumably the panel won't be that interested in all the Holy Week eg Reproaches where there already is some licence ... along the lines of other appropriate song.

Other appropriate song will probably need a Nihil Obstat though. All this is a mystery God has yet to reveal

[Nick Baty]

Other appropriate song will probably need a Nihil Obstat though.

Only if it appears in a collection including authorised texts. That why some publishers can still produce collections with paraphrases while those who wish to publish settings of exact texts are held up. The only way this could be fully policed would be by preventing parishes singing anything which does not have an NO – I think!

[NorthernTenor]

Other appropriate song will probably need a Nihil Obstat though.

Only if it appears in a collection including authorised texts. That why some publishers can still produce collections with paraphrases while those who wish to publish settings of exact texts are held up. The only way this could be fully policed would be by preventing parishes singing anything which does not have an NO – I think!

Nick is misleading again (whether deliberately or through lack of acuity I know not). The fundamental problems with the Permission to Publish process are its concern with matters other than textual felicity (its stated purpose); its secrecy and lack of accountability; its failure to operate according to its own rules; the absence of communication with those materially affected by its incompetence; and its dishonesty in publishing a review of its own activities that fails to mention these issues, on which it has been publicly and repeatedly criticised by interested parties.

And still the Society of Saint Gregory fails to take a stand. It's becoming embarrassing.

[musicus]

Nick is misleading again (whether deliberately or through lack of acuity I know not).

That's harsh; he could, for example, merely be right or wrong.

[NorthernTenor]

Nick is misleading again (whether deliberately or through lack of acuity I know not).

That's harsh; he could, for example, merely be right or wrong.

You may be right on both counts, M., and I appreciate the moderation with which you suggest it. The backstory, tho', is that the the individual concerned has repeatedly suggested that those who criticise the process oppose textual fidelity, while others have demonstrated that the criticism is about other matters (in my own case, I have not even repeated a word, let alone used one outwith the authorised text). Given my commitment to the integrity of the translation, I take Nick's misrepresentation seriously; and it is reasonable to speculate as to why he perpetuates it, without using more pejorative terms than I have.

[NorthernTenor]

At any rate, the real moral opprobrium lies with those, lay and clerical, responsible for the scarcely believable road-crash that is the Process; tho' some may lie with those parts of the wider circle who fail to criticise it.

[Peter Jones]

At any rate, the real moral opprobrium lies with those, lay and clerical, responsible for the scarcely believable road-crash .............

The mighty road crash will come should one or two commercial publishers - so far meekly and obediently following the BCEW guidelines and procedures but effectively hindered, rather than helped by BCEW in putting these guidelines into practice - find themselves commercially outwitted by another publisher - seemingly intent so far on raising a V sign to BCEW procedures - and who might just produce a music resource for parishes (without a Nihil Obstat) that is eminently saleable. No Bishop can tell parishes that they cannot buy a music resource without a Nihil Obstat.

Who does one sue? Bishop Roche, Bishop Hopes or Martin Foster?

I do know that one of the above mentioned Bishops has not had the good manners even to acknowledge a letter of concern from one publisher, who is trying to serve the Church.

[Peter Jones]

Other appropriate song will probably need a Nihil Obstat though.

Only if it appears in a collection including authorised texts. That why some publishers can still produce collections with paraphrases while those who wish to publish settings of exact texts are held up. The only way this could be fully policed would be by preventing parishes singing anything which does not have an NO – I think!

Nick - please think clearly before you write. In my opinion, NT is correct in criticising you. You don't mean "authorised text' - you mean "set text". A Nihil Obstat makes all submitted texts - be they set, modified/adapted from a model or freely-composed, authorised.

[Peter Jones]

Only if it appears in a collection including authorised texts.

No. As far as I am aware, the Nihil Obstat is now a requirement for any collection of songs for the liturgy, whether such collections contain set texts or not.

[Peter Jones]

I do know that one of the above mentioned Bishops has not had the good manners even to acknowledge a letter of concern from one publisher, who is trying to serve the Church.

Lest I unwittingly malign the Bishop of Leeds - who did reply to a letter I sent several weeks ago raising a particular concern about the panel process - I should state that it is Bishop Hopes who is at fault here. This is no libel, dear moderators. I can supply proof if necessary.

[Nick Baty]

As far as I am aware, the Nihil Obstat is now a requirement for any collection of songs for the liturgy, whether such collections contain set texts or not.

Not necessarily, PJ. This would only work if bishops could ban parishes from buying/using collections. If I were to publish a collection and call it Music for the Liturgy, full of whatever took my fancy – perhaps missing out an occasional article from a vaguely paraphrased Creed, then no permission is required from anyone. Whether or not parishes should/could use that collection is, of course, another matter as we know from looking around at what is available.

It is only when a collection includes texts which need permission from ICEL than problems come into play and a whole collection – not just those texts – have to be approved as one particular publisher (possibly the one you refer to, but I cannot be sure) has discovered. Meanwhile, a less scrupulous publisher could simply plough ahead.

[Peter Jones]

That's harsh; he could, for example, merely be right or wrong.

He's wrong - but there is no suggestion of moral culpability in his error.