For the second time in a matter of weeks, the combox of a blog belonging to the egregious commercial enterprise for those of all faiths and none has been closed; and for the second time, the closure was obviously occasioned by the number of Catholics reminding the blog author of what Catholicism is, and making him – or her – look rather stupid in the process.
Mind, these commenters still are the rose water Catholics, those who are generally fine with the rose water approach to these turbulent times. Still, even among those Catholic feelings are often still developed enough, that when the blog author tries to sell the adulterous and homosexual lie as Jesus' Very Truth the reaction is nuclear.
Of course, these are not the first blogs to shut the combox. But in all other cases I know, the reason was an authentic enthusiasm of the commenters, who flocked to take part to the battle; and then became too many, say, or at times too heated. Comment moderation takes an awful lot of time.
This here is different. These here are comboxes closed in order to prevent their very own authors from being utterly exposed as – I am being gentle here – weathervane Catholics.
Close the combox, then. Keep writing for the mainstream of either non-Catholics or very vincibly ignorant Catholics desirous to read what pleases them. It makes commercial sense. For an angry commenter on the combox making clear what a bad Catholic the author is there will always be ten, thirty or fifty ready to delude themselves that dissent is an acceptable position, or truth changes according to the Pope of the day, or the Church will change her doctrinal positions if they are but patient enough.
Fake Catholics readers need fake Catholic bloggers; and as the readers are by far the greater number there is no doubt the fake blogs will continue to prosper, catering to the “emotional needs” of adulterers, abortionists and sexual perverts.
That's were the numbers are. That's what makes certain commercial blog operations prosper. That's what the ignorant, self-deluded “mainstream” wants to hear. That's how you sell the lies of the world as the Truth of Christ.
The recipe is simple: flattery and lie. Tell your, say, perverted readers Jesus would march with the perverts.
They will never stop supporting your lifestyle.
Interesting blog post of Father Longenecker as to why Catholics won’t sing hymns.
Several explanations are attempted, some of them valid and/or serious, some others made rather in jest.
I would personally say that the reasons are, mainly, as follows:
1. As Father Longenecker points out, most modern hymns are just plain stupid, childish, and ugly. Whenever I am stuck at a mass with such hymns, I am tempted to despair for the human race. It gets a bit better only when I notice that it is always the usual suspects who sing, the others hopefully offering their suffering to the Lord.
2. Hymns singing at Mass is not, as far as I understand it, a very Catholic thing. If it has been fine for Catholics not to sing hymns at Mass for 2000 years there is really no reason why they should do it now. The fact that Protestant love to sing hymns at their own Mass says absolutely nothing in favour of the practice. Rather, I would say that…
3. It is the fundamentally different Catholic understanding of the Mass that doesn’t match really well with the idea of hymn singing. Catholics just don’t go to Mass to sing. It’s not that they – as Father Longenecker puts it rather doubtingly himself – “don’t sing hymns because they still don’t know how to participate at Mass”; it is rather that their understanding of their participation at Mass is completely different, because their Mass is completely different, from the Protestant one. Not communal meal, but sacrifice. Not celebration of the community, but stunned silence in front of the enormity of the miracle taking place in front of them. Not loud singing, but reverent silence. Not excitement, but humble kneeling. All this, of course, unless the Catholic Mass is more or less gravely protestantised; but this is another matter altogether, and certainly no improvement.
Of course, at times there is some singing, or at least chanting. At a Latin Sung Mass, the faithful participate in some of the… chanting. The Credo, for example, is chanted by the congregation together with the choir, and many answers are also chanted. But even on these occasions, at the sung parts (the Gloria, say) the choir sings, and the faithful in the pews allow themselves to be uplifted by the music and the atmosphere. Which, if you ask me, is a far more profound participation than the merry shouting of Protestant masses, because in the singing we are protagonists, but in the listening we disappear in our prayers, we are made very humble and very littler by the thundering majesty of the choir; and yet, we feel taken up to hope, and to a world of beauty that is like the down payment of a much bigger beauty to come.
Don’t get me wrong: I enjoy a good hymn like the next man, and I find that some of the Protestant hymns are really beautiful (a truly stunning example is above). But I am never requested to sing hymns at the Masses I like most (the low and sung high Tridentine Mass; considering the Oratory Sung Mass a Tridentine for the sake of the argument) and I would never think that there is a problem in this.
If you ask me, the lot of this generation is not to try to improve on what our ancestor have done, but to recover it and fully appreciate it again.