Liturgy Office - unjust prejudice?

[Nick Baty]

The government is planning to cap benefits. The boss of RBS has been offered a £1million bonus. Britain could soon be bombing Iran. And here a small group from one sector of Christendom is worrying about which piece of music has been used to demonstrate a minor change in its liturgy. I despair.

[NorthernTenor]

The government is planning to cap benefits. The boss of RBS has been offered a £1million bonus. Britain could soon be bombing Iran. And here a small group from one sector of Christendom is worrying about which piece of music has been used to demonstrate a minor change in its liturgy. I despair.

It's called denial.

[NorthernTenor]

Whilst I wouldn't say that the processes are 'off the rails', there are clearly issues. I understand that some of the 'discrete engagement' to which you refer is taking place. I would suggest that we leave it at that for a week or two and see what happens. Your points have been clearly made (and it is right that this forum has provided a place for you to make them). I know that many of us have a lot of sympathy for your position, but it might be helpful if there were no further attacks on individuals, either express or implied.

So what you're saying is that we should trust those who've so badly *****d it up to put it right; all manner of things shall be well; and without any evidence of this - even so much as the courtesy of a communication from the layman or clerics concerned, let alone an apology - I should stop embarrassing those responsible? Of such are Magic Circles made, DP. In the meantime, I feel a polyphonic Sanctus setting coming on, with a break before the Bendictus. All in fidelity to the translation, you understand, and I will enjoy submitting it to the anonymous, unaccountable Panel, in the spirit of the Holy Father's express wish that the two forms should learn from each other. Whether that will accord with the right-on sentiments of the Liturgy Office as (poorly) expressed in its Composers' Guide I know not, but if I'm going to listen to a Pope it will at least be one in Rome, not Ecclestone Square.

ps despite the above I appreciate and thank you for your concern!

[NorthernTenor]

a crescendo of negative comment

OK, but let's not lose sight of the fact that the negative comments in relation to the permission to publish process, and to the Liturgy Office, have come repeatedly from a small number of people, and to my mind have repeatedly been expressed intemperately and with a marked lack of courtesy to those charged with difficult or impossible tasks.

It's sad to see institutional knee-jerk at work. There's nothing terribly difficult about passing judgement on textual fidelity, the express purpose of the Process. 'Difficulties' have arisen as a direct result of the Liturgy Office's opportunistic use of the process to turn its Composers' Guide into a source of ill-defined law on a contentious range of other issues. That has been compounded by the confused terms of reference for the Process, the secret and unaccountable nature of the Panel, and the Office's arrogant failure to even devise an appeals process in accordance with its own rules (I suppose those responsible couldn't quite believe that anyone would disagree with their views, or having done so have the temerity to stand their ground). As for lack of courtesy: had those involved had the elementary decency to communicate with those directly effected by their incompetence (and maybe - here's an idea - apologise for it), the criticism would not have been necessary.

Quite frankly, in any organisation with pretensions to functionality and honour such behaviour would be the stuff of resignation, or at the very least a politic reshuffle. At what level in this case should be a matter for investigation. But don't hold your breath.

[Dom Perignon]

I am locking this topic because we have all drifted off topic, no-one has contributed anything on topic since way back on the thread and the topic appears to have run its course.