PANEL decisions

[NorthernTenor]

But add in a new translation Gloria, and then the Panel can put the brakes on by pointing out that you've omitted the Memorial Acclamations.

It's a good example of how the anonymous and unaccountable Panel is happy to go beyond its stated purpose of ensuring that a setting of a text is faithful to it. Tho' as a matter of fact you can get separate permission to publish a Gloria, independent of the rest.

[Peter Jones]

btw, you've quoted Southern Comfort's words as mine!

I'm having a bad hair day.

[Peter Jones]

Still no sign of an appeal process. Six months now, and not even a mention of the issue in the Liturgy Office's self-satisfied review of its own activity.

Time, perhaps, for a summary of various grievances:

NT's appeal - but no appeal process properly set up, apparently, and quite ill-mannered lack of communication with NT.

Requirement for a Nihil Obstat for new collections of music - but no proper process properly set up, apparently, for this to be granted. (Plain rudeness in not replying to a publisher's questions.)

Insufficient and vague information for composers (and publishers) in the Guide - and a woolly-minded compilation of judgements through so-called case studies, the results of which are unavailable to composers to assist them further.

Lack of clarity as to the true purpose of the panel. To what extent is it actually making musical judgements? Is the panel qualified to make musical judgements? (Apparently not for at least two Mass settings have been given approval that contain very basic musical blunders.)

Lack of clarity as to why the requirements of our panel do not necessarily harmonise with the requirements of other panels world-wide - and yet it is possible to buy and sing imported settings of ICEL texts published abroad, that would not pass our panel procedures here.

Inconsistency in panel assessments (e.g. various settings of the Sanctus with seemingly arbitrary approval/disapproval of the number of "Holy")

Patronising comments made on certificates and a certain childishness about the procedure for withheld editorial - i.e. failure to deal with composers as adults, in an adult manner.

I'll leave SC to continue..........

[nazard]

No Bishop has ever told his diocese what hymn books the parishes can and cannot buy. If a Bishop tried that, an aggrieved publisher would sue for the imposition (in civi law) of a restrictive trade practice.

And yet in the USA, where they have a much more stringent set of laws regarding restraint of free trade, a number of bishops have indeed told dioceses which Mass settings they may and may not use; and no writs have yet been issued. At least one English bishop has to all intents and purposes done the same.

And one English diocese is very clear about which hymn books it recommends, and which it does not recommend. That doesn't stop ignorant or wilful parish priests from doing their own thing, of course, and no bishop could or would ever do anything about that.

I think this depends on whether the law sees the parishes as having a separate existence from their diocese. If the parish is merely the local arm of the diocese, then the bishop may tell a parish how to spend its money, within the laws as they apply to the diocese as a whole. I would expect this to allow the bishop to select music books if he felt so inclined. On the other hand, if the parishes are separate legal entities, then the bishop may well infringe free trade laws by laying down which books may be used.

I think that in England and Wales the parts of the church have their legal existence by virtue of being registered as charities, and that it is dioceses and religious orders that are registered in general, and not parishes or individual houses, although some orders ( eg I think the Benedictines ) have registered individual communities. Please feel free to correct me if you know better.

On another point, historically the nihil obstat has been delegated by a bishop, usually to a scholar, and the bishop endorses a document by giving it an imprimatur. Is this not being used now?

Another point is that nihil obstat and imprimatur apply to whole documents, so the hymns would all have to be endorsed as well. Amazing grace could have its problems.

[Peter Jones]

On the other hand, if the parishes are separate legal entities, then the bishop may well infringe free trade laws by laying down which books may be used..

In civil law, an RC parish has no juridical personality whatsoever. Don't confuse civil and canon and liturgical law........ for such is the road to existence by prozac.

[nazard]

Thank you - that is what I thought.

[Peter Jones]

Another point is that nihil obstat and imprimatur apply to whole documents, so the hymns would all have to be endorsed as well. Amazing grace could have its problems.

Precisely!

[Peter Jones]

Amazing grace could have its problems.

If the NO process is underway and the time being taken includes lengthy consultations on texts such as Amazing Grace - i.e. should this be included for ecumenical/pastoral reasons or expunged on the grounds of its overtones of evangelical hubris concerning the certainty of the individual's salvation (no need for the virtue of Hope in this text, is there) - then the publisher should be informed of the process being undertaken and the reasons why matters are taking so long.

[Dom Perignon]

The 'nihil obstat' issue is muddying the waters on this thread. Can we please use this thread to deal with views and experiences of the permission to publish panel process, and nothing else. Further discussion on the imprimatur/nihil obstat for collections of church music should be on a separate thread.

[NorthernTenor]

The 'nihil obstat' issue is muddying the waters on this thread. Can we please use this thread to deal with views and experiences of the permission to publish panel process, and nothing else. Further discussion on the imprimatur/nihil obstat for collections of church music should be on a separate thread.

It's all one, DP - the two processes are to do with approval to publish, they both suffer from the same incompetence, lack of clarity, absence of communication etc, and both boil down to our willingness to trust the dysfunctional department concerned.

[Peter Jones]

The 'nihil obstat' issue is muddying the waters on this thread. Can we please use this thread to deal with views and experiences of the permission to publish panel process, and nothing else.

I'm with NT on this DP - it's all part and parcel of the permission to publish process. Are the anonymous panel not only the body responsible for scrutiny of ICEL texts but also the body responsible for the doctrinal orthodoxy of all sung texts? (Not that we will ever know, given the secrecy that veils these matters)

[Peter Jones]

One wonders if collections of music for Holy Week containing both ICEL Missal texts and other texts will see the light of day before next Christmas - for example.

[Dom Perignon]

Peter, you started this thread so that people could share their experiences of Panel decisions (in relation to the setting of the new Mass translation to music) and so assist others who might be going through the same process. The Panel process is to do with adherence to the text (albeit that it may be going a bit further than that), not whether or not the text is 'orthodox' (for want of a better word).

The 'nihil obstat' process is entirely separate and relates to whether or not the text is so 'orthodox' or contains anything damaging to faith or morals. As you will be aware, that is determined by the theologian who reviews it and determines whether there is, or is not, anything wrong with it. If he finds that there is nothing wrong (ie 'nihil obstat' - 'nothing hinders' roughly translated), it is for the relevant Ordinary to issue an imprimatur (ie 'let it be printed').

One only needs to review the comments from Nick Baty and the responses to it to see how the issues become confused and the thread moves away from its original purpose. I can see the merit of having a thread dealing with the 'nihil obstat' process and, possibly, a thread considering whether the two process are, or are not signs of any trend or a good or bad thing (provided the argument is reasoned and dispassionate!).

[Peter Jones]

For clarity -

I have no objection whatsoever to their being a requirement for a Nihil Obstat - in fact, I'm all for it.

That there exists a permission to publish panel suggests, to me, that their task actually goes beyond the ICEL texts now, to cover all texts sung in liturgical celebration......... or is there also a secondary, anonymous panel of fundamental theologians overseeing the doctrinal accuracy of non-ICEL texts that we know nothing about? Whatever the secret process is, it's not working. We cannot post helpful comments on decisions made about any texts if no decisions are actually being made. It would be wonderful to be able to post helpful comments about the suitability of texts for composers and publishers but without information forthcoming, we are impeded (and publishers faithful to the Church cannot engage in their trade).

Theologians reviewing texts for the grant of a Nihil Obstat can reside anywhere. Acting on their advice, the Nihil Obstat is granted by the Ordinary of the diocese wherein publication takes place (I think - off the top of my head without recourse to Canon Law).

[Peter Jones]

I have now been informed that only settings of ICEL set texts for Holy Week need to be submitted to the panel - e.g. Behold the wood..... and the Exsultet.
Settings of ICEL model texts - e.g. The Reproaches - should probably be submitted directly to ICEL.