Some Cases of Conscience Concerning Church Music

[jjeanniton]

FIRST CASE OF CONSCIENCE

Case I. Whether Canon XIII of Pius X in his Motu Proprio (Tra le Sollecitudini) on Church-Music, which doth hereby declare and decree, as a uniform juridical law of church music for all Catholics everywhere in every congregation subject to the Roman Pontiff, that the activity and/or office of singing in church choirs is a real liturgical function, and that because women are ineligible to such offices, ergo: neither women nor girls can be lawfully admitted to sing in the choir, does or shall (as long as this law shall still abide in full force in the Catholic Church and is not yet superseded by later ecclesiastical laws to the contrary), salva fide et salva ecclesia (viz. without causing danger to the faith or the Church), allow for the attempted distinction that this is true only of official strictly liturgical choirs stationed in the chancel, but not of select congregational choirs located elsewhere in the church, especially in an organ loft located in a balcony above the Narthex of a church building? 

1. Those who AFFIRM vs. those who DENY.

THE AFFIRMANTS (i.e. those who AFFIRM this): Ludwig Bonvin, "A Catholic Woman" and a certain Mr. Embury (see The Tablet, Volume 103, year 1904), etc., Pius XII (Musicae Sacrae, December 25, 1955: note, he affirms this under exceptional cases listed in Canon No. 74).

THE DENIANTS (i.e. those who DENY this): Rev. Carlo Rossini (see The Caecilia, 1935), Cardinal-Vicar of Rome on February 2, 1912, a certain Mr. Houlgrave (see The Tablet, Volume 103, year 1904), the Sacred Congregation of Rites (SRC) in the year 1897, in their decree De Truxillo, dated die XVII Septembris, anno Domini MDCCCXCVII (September 17, AD 1897), No. 3964, the SRC in a later decree Angelopolitana, dated January 17, 1908 (they deny the proposed distinction except for sufficiently grave reasons duly recognized by the Ordinary, and even this exception is denied unless the Ordinary takes care to prevent all unseemliness).

2. The AFFIRMATIVE – Pros and Cons.

Pros:

P1: Ludwig Bonvin demonstrated that the reason WHY "singers in church have a real liturgical office" only applies to the sanctuary choir.

P2: On Page 577 of Volume 103 of The Tablet, a certain Mr. Embury, an English Roman Catholic, stated:

Looking through the Motu Proprio again, it has struck me that the word "choir" may be taken in its ecclesiastical sense as indicating a part of the sanctuary. If so, the prohibition of women (v. 13) would not seem to apply when they are confined to the western gallery, which is as far from the choir proper as it is possible to be.

P3: On Page 298 of the same source, another Roman Catholic, this time a woman, stated (and her statement contains the MAIN reason for the affirmative):

SIR,--Allow me, as one of a large section of the community which seems likely to be affected by the recent "Motu Proprio"—if the interpretation be put upon it which seems at present to obtain—to point out a few things with reference to it, and to say that if it is meant we women should retire, we shall have to do so, but regretfully. It is well known that for years we have taken a prominent part in church singing, and I do not think we have been more unworthy in any way than the laymen who, with ourselves, formed part of gallery choirs. Any faults, which by the way have been venial compared with those committed in Italian choirs, which are exclusively male, have been chiefly those of conductors who have chosen music unsuitable for churches. We lay no claim to be admitted into the chancels to form part of the scuola–we have never been there—but if we are permitted to sing in the body of the church, does not the gallery form part of it, when outside the sanctuary, for then it seems to me to partake rather of the nature of congregational singing, and is a substitute for it in these unmusical countries, where congregational ". is, to say the least, inartistic; in other words, it is a selection from out of it of those persons, male and female, who are better fitted by nature to perform these duties decorously. Under the new régime it will be necessary that someone should lead these different voices, if they are to sing together in time and tune. ... Why should not this be done from that portion of the church near the organ where the leaders can hear one another as also the instrument? Most of the music rendered by these choirs is that which in former times was sung by the ple, as were the Responses, Benediction hymns, and much more... In the majority of places in this country a surplice choir is an impossibility, for want of boys, for want of the money needful for their training, &c. In all probability the transition stages will be trying, until the time, if it ever comes, we become a really musical nation.

Yes, it is hard, with the precedent of years of service, to be thrown aside for no fault on our side. Polyphony is encouraged. Do men ever think what we must feel when we hear others attempt parts we were intended by nature to perform, for at best a boy's voice is but immature and lasts but a very short time, and a great expense is incurred moreover in training it. Then, too, we are the more musical as well as more numerous body of churchgoers in these lands, and notably the more pious section. This applies likewise to continental nations, where men do not attend in large numbers. A recent writer on the subject says "women can take a leading part in bringing about the needed changes." It would be interesting to know how this could be done if they are not to be banded together in regular choir form and in some definite place.
I am, Sir, yours truly,
C. M. E.

P4: Page 656, ibid., in which yet another Roman Catholic woman writes:

WOMEN IN CHURCH CHOIRS.
SIR,--I think the correspondent, whose letter appears in your last issue, has somewhat misunderstood the true meaning of the Pope's recent Motu Proprio on Church music. As far as I can see, and I have heard similar opinions from ecclesiastics of standing, it does not mean that women are excluded from choirs, or singing in church, or playing the organ either; in fact does not create any new disability, which all women are agreed would be intolerable, but merely debars them from forming part of chancel choirs, to which we really never belonged, and which exist in comparatively few places in these Countries.
Should the arrangement of liturgical choirs become general in these countries, women would ipso facto be debarred from joining; but as neither the funds for choristers' training (without which they would be unendurable and would empty the churches as they have done in some places abroad, that is of those who have any artistic sense) nor the space or architecture of most of our churches permit of it, not even the position of the organ in the western gallery or loft, make it possible, I cannot think any changes are imminent. Gallery choirs are part of the body of the church, in which women are permitted, nay, exhorted to sing, since congregational singing is advocated. No one thinks for a moment of relegating nuns to the chapter house to say their Office; yet they are women, and what is law for one is law for all. At present in most of the smaller places nuns preside at the musical instruments, or school teachers, and the choirs are chiefly formed of girls. In some places the boys sang so badly together that their services were dispensed with as not tending to edification.
Women's claims—and we are so vast a majority in any church—to be allowed to take the place they were fashioned by nature to perform, ought to count for something in whatever decision is come to by our Bishops when official intimation comes. The fact is that our exclusion is besides unnatural and out of keeping with the spirit of the age, which the Church usually considers a real grievance to very many earnest devout souls, who for years have lent time and faithful service to the Church in this respect. For my own part I must say that, were I a member of a choir, to be evicted would be a real sorrow. I feel for my sex generally, and like to hear it take its fitting share in this adjunct to the service of God. Surely such service, besides being a service of God, is in a very real sense a service of man; therefore, why should the largest part be denied participation in it? The hardship is further accentuated by the fact that we are likewise in the house of Our Father, have helped iberally in the building of those very churches, and that Our Lord is really present for all; and we wish to be allowed a share in His praise as a portion of the body of the faithful for whom, after God, all musical adjuncts are as aids, and only fulfil that end in so far as they minister to it. How can it be an aid to hear others produce badly what we could do well? Good music is practically impossible without us. The results show nowhere worse than in Italy, where we are absent.
It is but right and fitting, however, and I am sure every man and woman here agrees with me that all that savours of disrespect or of the opera ought to be avoided in Church music. No one desires that more than we do, and we need a champion who will not confound our cause with that of theatrical music.
The Church has always been the friend of down-trodden women, not its oppressor, and the present Holy Father was a model son, as we know he is a model brother, though he belongs to a nation which has less enlightened views in its treatment of women. It is very possible the Pope never heard women sing in churches, but no doubt he would willingly listen to the prayer of so, many souls who would be affected by a change taking place. All nations under British rule, not to speak of Germany, where Church music is generally really good, would join in the wish not to be debarred by sex from this branch of church worship. St. Cecilia, the patroness of ecclesiastical music, would intercede for us in heaven to be allowed to offer the tribute of our voices to the glory of God.
I am, Sir, yours truly,
A CATHOLIC WOMAN.

TO BE CONTINUED

[MeMyself]

To be continued...

wasn't there already a post about this started by you?

[Alan]

This thread shouldn't have been placed in the Catholic Safe House, I've moved it.

Catholic Safe House Rules

[jjeanniton]

To be continued...

wasn't there already a post about this started by you?

There is a more general post called Church Music which I stated, but in the interests of the Protestants. The post called "Some Cases of Conscience Concerning Church Music" is for those who call themselves Roman Catholic.

[jjeanniton]

FIRST CASE OF CONSCIENCE (continued)

2. The AFFIRMATIVE – Pros and Cons. (continued)

Cons:

C1: On Page 618 of the same journal / magazine, a certain Mr. Houlgrave stated:

The Motu Proprio v. 13, tells us that "singers in church have a real liturgical office, and that therefore women, as being incapable of exercising such office, cannot be admitted to form part of the choir or of the musical chapel." And "It will also be fitting that singers while singing in church wear the ecclesiastical habit and surplice," while the 13th Decree of the 4th Council of Westminster teaches us "how opposed to the tradition and practice of the Church is the custom of placing the choir over the principal entrance of the church." From this Mr. Embury will gather that the exclusion of women from choirs refers solely to their incapacity for fulfilling a strictly clerical office, and not to the position of the singers. No doubt the Pope might have said something about the choir being placed at the west-end of the church, but the question is: did he know of it? I presume he (Mr. Embury) will admit that the singer cannot divest himself of the "real liturgical [nay, but rather, strictly CLERICAL] office," no matter from what part of the church he sings.

C2: Page 698 of the same source:

Sir,—I do not admit that I have made any mistake as to the meaning of the Motu Proprio on sacred music. His Holiness says "that singers in church have a real liturgical office," and (2) "that, therefore women, as being incapable of exercising such office, cannot be admitted to form part of the choir or of the musical chapel." Further, "that they [the singers] be hidden behind gratings when the choir is excessively open to the public gaze."

Taking the last extract first it seems clear that the choir need not be in the chancel or the gratings would hide the altar from the view of the worshippers in the nave. Therefore "A Catholic Woman's" argument that women can form part of the choir when it is not in the chancel must fall. She fails to appreciate that placing the choir [or perhaps any other choir, even a lay choir] in the organ loft at the west-end of a church is, as the Fourth Council of Westminster says, opposed to the tradition and practice [YEA, and also, as we shall see later, the doctrinal, sacramental, and liturgical THEOLOGY] of the Church, and consequently is, I submit, illegal. No new disability is created, for St. Paul (1 Cor. xiv. 34) commands "women to keep silence in the churches"; "the Council of Autun decreed that it was unlawful for choirs of seculars and young girls to take the singing in the church"'; "in the following [middle of the eighth] century Pope Zachary, in his letter to Pepin, declares that it was wrong for women to serve at the holy altars or to take upon themselves any of those duties which pertained to men," and "nevertheless we have heard with annoyance that there is little respect for the sacred rites, that women are reported to be ministering at the sacred altars, and are attending to those things which are assigned to the task of men, and for which the other sex is not competent!'" It may be argued that the foregoing has reference to chancel choirs. The reply is that the Bishops of England quoted these passages knowing full well at the time they did so that Catholic chancel choirs were then unknown in England, and with this knowledge present in their minds the First and Fourth Councils of Westminster decreed "that the singing of women in the choir, especially of those hired for the purpose, may be banished from our churches." Against these clearly expressed commands of the Pope and our own Bishops all argument is powerless. Then comes the question raised in my last letter which "A Catholic Woman" has not considered, viz., can the singers in church divest themselves of their liturgical, or clerical, office by singing the liturgy in an illegal place? If they can there is an end of the question, and nothing can be said against women forming part of the choir, but if the exercise of the liturgical office remains, the place of exercising it being illegal, then women are shut out. Put it in another form; suppose that a priest giving the Benediction ... at the end of Exposition instead of doing so from the predella, as directed by the rubrics, carried the ostensorium to the west-end organ loft and from there gave the blessing. Would the act, being performed in an illegal place, lose any of its virtue, or would those blessed receive the same spiritual benefits as they would if the rubric had been followed?

C3: As it turns out, the REAL question is: Does a function KNOWN to be liturgical – yea, strictly CLERICAL – when performed in the Sanctuary / Chancel cease to REMAIN so when performed in yet ANOTHER part of the Church, for instance, the Nave or a balcony just above the Narthex of a Church building? The contention of Mr. Houlgrave [and he uses the analogy of faith] is that the MORE probable opinion is that every function KNOWN to be clerical when performed in the Sanctuary / Chancel of a Church building REMAINS clerical even when performed in some OTHER part of the church building! And the law stands whenever the REASON remains. And if it hadn't been for the presupposition that the mere activity of singing in the choir REMAINS a clerical prerogative when performed OUTSIDE the sanctuary, Mr Houlgrave would NEVER have answered the Test Question in the Negative.

C4: So, under the hypothesis that the mere activity of singing in the choir REMAINS a clerical prerogative when performed OUTSIDE the sanctuary, we therefore should not be surprised when the Cardinal-Vicar of Rome on February 2, 1912 decreed the following canon:

Women are [therefore] forbidden to sing during the liturgical services except as members of the congregation. They may not [therefore] sing in galleries either by themselves or as forming a part of a choir. [Or else, it would have also been lawful for them to preach and teach in Church!] Women, however, who are members of a Religious Community, and, with them, their pupils, may sing in their own Churches and Chapels during liturgical services according to the decree of the Sacred Congregation of Bishops.

Therefore, the ONLY possible just warrant for ABROGATING these liturgical decrees consists in a valid and irrefutable PROOF that the mere activity of singing in the choir CEASES to be a clerical function when performed in galleries / balconies outside the sanctuary / chancel.  Every mode of argumentation which fails to address the question of whether or not the mere activity of singing in the choir REMAINS a clerical prerogative when performed OUTSIDE the sanctuary is a mere cowardly and malicious quibble.

C5: In the Caecilia (Volume 61) of the year 1935, which is a "Roman Catholic" magazine or journal on Church Music, the Rev. Carlo Rossini shows how a certain DESPICABLE and TREACHEROUS scoundrel of a Jesuit called Ludvig Bonvin, who attempted to "prove" from the "Motu Proprio" that women are forbidden only from being members of the strictly liturgical choir in the chancel, is guilty of MALICIOUS manipulation and mutilation of the texts of Motu Proprio / Tra le Sollecitudini.

See https://media.musicasacra.com/publications/caecilia/caecilia_v61n04_1935_04.pdf, https://media.musicasacra.com/publications/caecilia/caecilia_v61n05_1935_05.pdf.

The evidence is on Page 221 of No. 4 of Volume 61 (April 1935) of the Caecilia, which the Rev. Rossini had written as a continuation of what he wrote against Bonvin in the same magazine on February and March 1935.

C6: 850 AD, Synod of Rome: 

Canon XXXIX:

Cantus et choros mulierum in Ecclesia vel in atrio Ecclesiae omnino prohibete.

In English: All songs and choirs consisting of the voices of women and girls in Church or even in the graveyard thereof are absolutely FORBIDDEN! This very decree is the DEFINITIVE PROOF that the proposed distinction between "liturgical chancel choirs" and the "select congregational choirs" in the nave or in a balcony just above the Narthex of a church building is contrary to the uniform, universal, and perpetual tradition of the "Roman Catholic" church.

3. The NEGATIVE – Pros and Cons.

Pros:

P1: All of the Cons listed in Section 2 against the AFFIRMATIVE of the test question!

P2: Even apart from the question of whether or not the mere activity of singing in a church-choir remains a clerical function when performed outside the sanctuary, let us consider the aesthetic consequences of the AFFIRMATIVE the test question.

In 1855, someone wrote in the New York Churchman:

The fact is, that not only is it out of all order, and all propriety, and contrary to all Catholic [yea, and much more, "Roman Catholic"] usage, for women to sing in church-choirs, but their voices are not adapted for true church-music; they are too sensuous, too effeminate, for its gravity and devotion; it is only in the operatic and ballad-music, improperly, so profanely introduced into too many of our churches, that they are at all in their element—and as that is out of place in the service of the sanctuary, so assuredly are they in its choirs. It was against the use of such music as women's voices are adapted for, we learn from Bingham, that St. Jerome, and others of the fathers, so frequently declaimed with sharp and severe invectives—stigmatizing it as being an introduction of the corruption and effeminacy of secular music into the grave and solemn devotions of the Church.

And to allege that this may be true in the sanctuary, but not in the nave or in a gallery above the Narthex of a church is mere quibbling. The ordinary laws of reverence, sanctity, modesty, and chastity have NEVER made such quibbling and cavilous distinctions. Besides, a given singing or musical voice has the same aesthetic (yea, the same moral, sentimental, theological, theonomical, affectional, aretological, and etiquettical) significance whether from the sanctuary or from the nave, just so long as it is audible. The emotions and sentiments it evokes are just the same de facto and de jure Divino regardless of where in the church it is used. Those who consider the CONTENT and the SENTIMENT of the voice as being no more liturgically or theonomically or aesthetically significant than the audibility of that voice or on the hearing capacity of the hearers do not deserve the benefit of the doubt. Furthermore, another decree (Canon XXX of the Church Music Regulations for the Province of Rome) from the Cardinal Vicar Pietro on February 2, 1912, explains WHY the proposed distinction is ecclesiastically and aesthetically IMPOSSIBLE, even if the question of D0 had not been worth considering.

30. We wish to correct the idea current among some people that at non-liturgical function, a style of music may be rendered which has been condemned for use at liturgical functions. Music of this character is condemned for use in church for any and every occasion. Nobility and seriousness of style must characterize all music to be performed in holy places, whatever may be the occasion, while music destined for the liturgical service is subject to still further restrictions.

P3: A Greek Orthodox commentary on the Seven Ecumenical Councils, entitled The Rudder, has stated as a reason AGAINST allowing women to sing as members of a church choir:

Female choirs [for the following reasons as will be shown very shortly] are an unexampled innovation involving many perils and capable of leading to many scandals, for woman's voice [whether the WOMEN who have this voice are SEEN with the eyes or not] is more attractive and more pathetic than man's. The appearance [nay, but even the mere fact of MEMBERSHIP and ACTIVE VOCAL PARTICIPATION] of women in the church choir constitutes a stumbling block; for [even if these female choristers were in the gallery or the balcony above the narthex of a church building] the ... ears of the congregation are at once turned to them, and, becoming intoxicated with the ... sound of the high-strung melodramatic voices of women, they are languorously effeminated in mind and rendered incapable of enjoying the modest and contrite songs of the Church; thus the church choir gradually becomes transformed into a theatrical chorus!

And so, even if we COULD prove for SURE on Roman Catholic principles that the mere activity of singing in a church choir, although KNOWN to be a clerical function when done in the chancel, will NEVER remain a "clerical" function when performed in the nave or in a balcony above the narthex of the "church" building, yet there still remains the problem of the sentimentalism and effeminacy and sensuousness of the voice of the women and girls in the "Select Congregational Choir". Thus, even apart from the question of whether or not it remains a real clerical office, the "Roman Catholic" church cannot in good conscience permit, in church music, any usage which tends to make the music of the church more worldly. (Or else she incurs the wrath of Almighty God, and the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul on the Day of Judgment!) It is written in the Nicene Creed, Et in unam SANCTAM Catholicam Apostolicam Ecclesiam (I believe in one HOLY catholic apostolic church). Because we believe in the SANCTITY of the Church, we respect the SANCTITY of the sacred ASSEMBLIES of the Church, and especially of its SOLEMN LITURGICAL FUNCTIONS. But that SANCTITY cannot be duly reverenced unless the MUSIC of the church that is PLAYED, SUNG, or HEARD there also possess sanctity and reverence. Every traditional Roman Catholic KNOWS just how unsuited to the sanctity of the Divine Liturgy it is to play any sort of worldly, theatrical, and/or operatic music (however old fashioned it may be) in church.

Cons:

C1: All the Pros listed in Section 2 in favor of the AFFIRMATIVE!

C2: The statements that both the New York Churchman and The Rudder had made against women in choirs are an OUTRAGEOUS slander against the modesty and chastity of the entire female sex, which society once KNEW was woman's greatest EXTERNAL moral ornament!!

Let us now consider the claim that women's voices are not so well adapted, but on the contrary, too sensuous and effeminate, for the gravity and devotion of Church music.

I could also argue that this same impediment would also be sufficient to make it inexpedient for women to participate in the congregational singing.

For congregational singing requires no less gravity and devotion than choral singing in church. Whatever is too sensuous and effeminate for the one is also too sensuous and effeminate for the other.

These traditionalists say 'it is only in the operatic and ballad-music, improperly, so profanely introduced into too many of our churches, that they are at all in their element', but they are right in saying that 'as that is out of place in the service of the sanctuary, so assuredly are they in its choirs'. But it is also out of place for congregational singing – therefore either women must sing something congregationally for which they are ill-adapted by nature, or else they must sing (on pretence of congregational singing) something completely unbefitting the gravity and dignity of ALL formal worship in the OT and NT alike!!

Church music must only be sung in a manner suitable to the modesty, chastity, purity, and even more importantly, the proper and natural DISTINCTION between the sexes.  Men must never allow themselves to sing Church music in any sort of effeminate and womanish manner; neither must women encroach upon the exclusive prerogatives of the male sex or act the virago and Amazon in singing.

Next, these same Anglicans tell us that 'It was against the use of such music as women's voices are adapted for, we learn from Bingham, that St. Jerome, and others of the fathers, so frequently declaimed with sharp and severe invectives—stigmatizing it as being an introduction of the corruption and effeminacy of secular music into the grave and solemn devotions of the Church.'

John Jebb himself testified that 'Those who cannot sing well [or who cannot sing with due reverence and sanctity], must remember that it is no part of their duty to make the attempt. All may join in heart and sentiment; all may join, though inaudibly, with their lips.'

The editors of the N. Y. Churchman had tried to evade the conclusion I am about to make by saying:

THE MUSICAL REVIEW AND GAZETTE, in noticing a recent article of ours on this subject, does us great injustice. 'Who,' it asks, 'that has heard the great congregation, men, women, and children, lift up their united voice in one' hymn of praise, has found "sensuousness" there? Ah! let the Churchman but get away from the curtained organ-loft, with a quartet of vocalists employed to tickle the ears of an idle congregation with voluptuous bits of Italian melody; let it but restore to the congregation the right to praise God, of which it is so often deprived, and it will no more be troubled with the "sensuousness of woman's voice."' Now, this is but the echo of what, in substance, we said ourselves! It is in 'a quartet of vocalists employed to tickle the ears of an idle congregation,' that the sensuousness of which we spoke is so objectionable. Let men, women, and children lift up their united voice,' as a congregation, by all means; it is their bounden duty so to do. But this is a very different thing from the sensuousness of 'the curtained organ-loft,' with its quartet of female vocalists of the 'hallelujah eyes' school. Surely our contemporary can not have read the article on which he has passed judgment.

But I deny that the Musical Review and Gazette has done these Anglicans of the N. Y. Churchman any injustice. For the very objection in question is that it is by virtue of the very nature and essential being and ontology of the female sex that a woman's voice is too sensuous and effeminate for church music. Not just because of the "sensuousness of a quartet of vocalists employed to tickle the ears of an idle congregation" whenever she just happens to be a member of that quartet! But merely because of her essential and intrinsic womanhood!

Let us hear the New York Weekly Review: 'Nothing is said here of the "sensuousness of a quartet of vocalists employed to tickle the ears of an idle congregation." If that had been the doctrine advanced, we should have fully agreed with the Church organ as we have agreed with many of its suggestions and ideas in regard to church-music. But quite another doctrine is advanced, to wit, that "their voices are not adapted for true church-music;" that they are too "sensuous" and "effeminate," and are in their "element only in operatic and ballad-music."'

Ought not these righteous overmuch professed Anglicans to know and understand: that whatever things are by their essential being and nature too sensuous and effeminate for Church music ought never to have any place in congregational singing any more than in choral singing?

St. Ephrem the Syrian would never have presumed to put women and girls in a church choir if he had not had the earnest CONVICTION that the allegation that women's voices are essentially too licentious and too sensual for the sanctity of church music is an outrageous slander against the modesty of the female sex!

TO BE CONTINUED

[jjeanniton]

FIRST CASE OF CONSCIENCE (continued)

4. Thesis: Under the hypothesis of total ignorance about whether or not the mere activity of singing in a "select congregational choir" outside of the sanctuary or even in a balcony above the Narthex of a church remains a real liturgical / clerical office, it is MATHEMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for any person or persons who favor the Affirmative position on this First Case of Conscience to lawfully or justly claim for themselves - or even lawfully and tolerably receive on mere sufferance - the benefit of the doubt: all indults granting the benefit of the doubt to the Affirmative position on the very question proposed in the first case of conscience, just by virtue of the mere fact that they place both the granter and the receiver at more than a 50% RISK of HERESY or SCANDAL, are ipso facto automatically NULL and VOID!

4.1: Definition and Legend:

Deserves the Benefit of the Doubt: Has the right in the absence of further evidence to be ASSUMED to be the right answer. At this time, I would like to rebut a straw-man argument against this definition that has lately been put forward by certain cavillous Antinomian "liberals" and Leftists on this web forum who dare to call themselves Christians.

do not deserve the benefit of the doubt for what, exactly?

You realize that God bypasses what YOU deserve daily, right?  He gives you grace you don't deserve, so who are you to withhold His grace from others?

This cavil of theirs caricatures my TRUE position. When I say a given person deserves the benefit of the doubt, it means that in the absence of further evidence, all other persons are under obligation to assume or admit until further evidence that he (the very person who I intend to define as deserving the benefit of the doubt) is telling the truth, and that anybody to assumes or says anything to the contrary is lying.

Legend:

D0 = 'Does the mere activity of singing in the choir REMAIN a clerical prerogative when performed outside the sanctuary?'
D1 = Assumed answer to the question D0;
D2 = True answer to the question D0;
D3 = Does a certain group of women and/or girls desire to sing in a gallery choir?
Ex parte materiae, Ex parte rei, Ex parte actus = on the part of the subject matter itself or of the action considered objectively irrespective of the state of mind of those who do them, suffer them, or witness them;
Ex parte intentionis = on the part of the intention and the motives and frame of mind of those who do an action.


4.2: Proof - Part I - Theorem 1. For every given state of available evidence from which to find D2, D1 and D2 are probabilistically independent events.

Proof: Suppose that we do not YET know for SURE what the true answer D2 to this question (which we have labelled as D0) is. Then neither do we know anything a-priori about what answer D1 people will give to the following question D0, since I cannot predict men's opinions a-priori. In this case, we must assign probabilities.

The only thing we DO know a priori is that D1 is either Yes (which we can represent as 1) or No (which we can represent as 0) or else some doubtful answer consisting of the value of some real-number variable x between 0 and 1 that represents one's personal degree of belief that D1 = Yes, and that D2 is either Yes or No, and that all possible specifications of the outcome for D1 and D2 are mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive.

However, we intuitively expect that men's perceived answer D1 to the question should never have any effect on the actual answer D2; furthermore, the probability of any one of the two possibilities for D2 is actually contingent upon the available evidence E (or rather the state E of available evidence) that is used to make as reasonable as possible of a judgment of D2. Thus, what matters is not really P(D2) but P(D2|E). What matters for any proposition Q possibly contingent upon D1 and D2 is not P(Q) but P(Q|E).

We now make the reasonable but CRUCIAL hypothesis that P(D2|E) depends solely on D2 and E. Since D1 does not change D2 nor E, it follows (and we can prove this first by assuming that D1 = Yes, then by assuming D1 = No, and then by assuming that D1 is a value x such that 0 < x < 1, and proving for each of these possible cases) that P(D2|E&D1) = P(D2|E&Not-D1) = P(D2|E), and therefore given the available evidence E, it follows that D1 and D2 are indeed independent, even if E is entirely lacking. QED

4.3: Proof - Part II - Observation. But when E is lacking, it follows from the Principle of Sufficient Reason that P(D1 = Yes = 1) = P(D1 = No = 0) = 50%.

4.4: Proof - Part III - Table of Judgment given that D3 is AFFIRMED.

The results are given by the following Table of Judgment given that D3 is AFFIRMED (i.e. D3 = 1):

For D1, all of the possible intermediate answers between Yes and No have been included in order to reflect the uncertainty and doubt of the conscience. And x = the variable between 0 and 1 reflecting the individual's subjective degree of belief that D1 = Yes. If x is sufficiently close to 1, then it turns out that, given that D2 = No, the Catholic DOGMA on this point is that the decision D3 is evil because of the danger of scandal it gives to a doubting conscience, and the greater the value of x, the greater this danger of scandal. (For Pope Innocent XI, in a decree of the Holy Office, on March 4, 1679, infallibly CONDEMNED the following Jesuitical proposition on morals: "1153 3. In general, when we do something confidently according to probability whether intrinsic or extrinsic, however slight, provided there is no departure from the bounds of probability, we always act prudently".)

Therefore, the interval I containing only all values of x for which the decision D3 is lawful (given that D2 = No) has a least upper bound X: and let J be the interval containing only all values of x for which D3 = Yes is unlawful given that D2 = No.

More precisely, under the hypothesis that D2 = No, either D3 = Yes is lawful, or else D3 = Yes is unlawful. If it is lawful, then I = the interval containing only all x such that 0 ≤ x ≤ X, and J = the interval containing only all x such that X < x ≤ 1. But if unlawful, then I = the interval containing only all x such that 0 ≤ x < X, and J = the interval containing only all x such that X ≤ x ≤ 1.

Table of Judgment given that D3 is AFFIRMED:

D1   D2   D3   Judgment (with accompanying reasons): The decision D3 is:
in J   1     1      Evil, both ex parte materiae et ex parte intentionis
in I   1     1      Evil ex parte materiae regardless of the intention of the actor
in J   0     1      Evil because of the doubting conscience of the actor
in I   0     1      Good both ex parte materiae and ex parte intentionis

Thus, the case in which D1 is in I & D2 = 0, is the ONLY case in which it can be lawful for the "Roman Catholic" church to grant women / girls the right to sing in "select congregational choirs" outside the sanctuary during solemn liturgical assemblies. In all other cases, it is wrong either because it is intrinsically against the Natural Law or it wounds the doubting consciences of the weaker brethren. The probability that the proposed decision "D3 = Yes" is evil = the Probability that the hypothesis "D1 in I & D2 = 0" is false = 1 – P(D1 in I & D2 = 0 | E) = 50% + P(D1 in J & D2 = 0 | E) = 50 % + P(D1 in J) × 50% = 50% × (1 + P(D1 in J)). The best thing that can possibly happen is P(D1 in J) = 0.

Either one KNOWS that D2 = 1 or he/she DOESN'T know it. If he KNOWS it, yet he/she chooses answer D3 in the AFFIRMATIVE, he/she is committing not just a sin against the natural law, he/she is also committing a FORMAL HERESY against the INFALLIBLE and IRREFORMABLE Catholic Dogma that women are INELIGIBLE to exercise clerical prerogatives in church! If he/she DOESN'T know it, yet he/she chooses answer D3 in the AFFIRMATIVE, he/she is still sinning against natural law, albeit through ignorance, and he/she incurs the guilt of MATERIAL HERESY. Even if D2 = 0, the action STILL incurs a RISK of SCANDALIZING the weaker consciences for whom D1 is in J.

Therefore, under the hypothesis of total a priori invincible ignorance, and assuming that all the fully detailed, elementary (i.e. in the sense that none of these events can be relevantly distinguished into two or more mutually exclusive events), mutually exclusive, and collectively exhaustive possible outcomes are equally likely, the action of allowing women and girls to sing in select congregational choirs during solemn liturgical functions can NEVER have less than a 50% RISK of being a heretical or scandalous action! It is an empirical FACT that P(D1 in J) > 0, for it has been demonstrated as a FACT of Roman Catholic journalism that there are some Roman Catholics for whom D1 = Yes, for these persons had the COURAGE to AFFIRM that D2 = Yes. Therefore, we have proven MATHEMATICALLY that the MORE probable opinion is that the decision of D3 is unlawful (ergo: by the Principle of Sufficient Reason, it DESERVES the benefit of the doubt): for it has more than a 50% RISK of HERESY or SCANDAL!

Therefore, the burden of proof is on those who AFFIRM D3 to give a VALID and IRREFUTABLE and DOCTRINALLY SOUND & ORTHODOX PROOF that D2 = No. The Ordinary is BOUND in conscience in this matter.

Therefore, except we KNOW for SURE that D2 = No, it follows that Nunquam Licet, Nunquam Licuit, Nunquam Licebit - it never IS, nor WAS, nor ever WILL BE lawful - for even the "Roman Catholic" Church, nor even the Pope himself – nor even an Angel from Heaven – to make any distinctions nor grant any indults by which "select congregational choirs" outside the nave should be exempted from the ordinary and prevailing prohibition of Canon 13 of Pius X's Motu Proprio / Tra le Sollecitudini against women and girls singing in the church choirs – or else She risks incurring the wrath and vengeance of Almighty God!

Ergo: The intended Thesis has been proven. QED

4.5: Table of Judgment given that D3 is DENIED.

But then, suppose that we REFUSE to allow women to sing in the choir.

Table of Judgment given that D3 is DENIED:

D1   D2   D3   Judgment (with accompanying reasons): The decision D3 is:
in J   1     0     Lawful and mandatory (and binding on the conscience under penalty of heresy against Catholic Dogma)
in I   1     0      Lawful and mandatory (and binding on the conscience under penalty of heresy against Catholic Dogma)
in J   0     0     Lawful and mandatory (because whatsoever is not of faith is sin)
in I   0     0     Lawful because it is not obligatory for women to sing in the church choirs!

Furthermore, while is there more than a 50% RISK of HERESY and/or SCANDAL given that D3 is answered in the AFFIRMATIVE, the probability of HERESY and/or SCANDAL given that D3 is answered in the NEGATIVE is exactly ZERO! ZIP! ZILCH! NADA! Answering D3 in the Negative is far more favorable to piety and virtue than is answering D3 in the Affirmative.

If Pope Pius X and his Cardinal-Vicar Pietro of Rome - and even the wily Jesuit Ludvig Bonvin - could see all this and do the math, they too would have the wisest REASONS for answering D3 in the Negative. It is MATHEMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE (assuming that the state of available evidence is that of a priori invincible ignorance about the true answer to D0) for the proposed distinction between "strictly liturgical choirs stationed in the sanctuary and/or chancel" and the "select congregational choir stationed in the organ loft located in a balcony above the Narthex of a church" to lawfully or validly or justly receive or claim the benefit of the doubt! QED

TO BE CONTINUED

[jjeanniton]

FIRST CASE OF CONSCIENCE (continued)

5. Conclusion and Farewell.

5.1. Final Thesis. The tenet that the mere activity of singing in a church choir is a real liturgical / clerical office is not, has never been, and will never be a Catholic dogmas of the faith and morals.

Proof: Please consult the web-topic "Dogmas of the Catholic Church". 

First of all, it is a DOGMA of the Roman Catholic Church that not even the pope, nay, not even the Saints, nor even the very Archangels of Heaven, can grant an indult dispensing any person or persons from the ordinary meaning of the Catholic dogmas of faith and morals, nor from their application and enforcement! Popes may only dispense from purely disciplinary laws of the Church.

What I meant by "indult" is a license the church grants to any of her inferiors to do an act or exercise a function which deviates from the plain and ordinary meaning of a known religious law or dogma: in this case, an infallible dogma. I know that the Church CAN grant indults from laws which are purely ecclesiastical in origin and are not materially contained in the infallible dogmas of faith and morals. But the Church CANNOT grant indults granting exceptional permission to do a heretical act or a sin against Divinely Revealed Law.

It is a DOGMA of Revealed Faith that women CANNOT be ordained to the priesthood. See 1 Corinthians 14:34/35 and 1 Timothy 2:11/12: and the reason (namely, that women must be subordinate and not usurp authority over men: and in fact St Aquinas shows that this subjection of women is prescribed by the Natural Law itself) Paul gives for his rulings also constitutes the reason WHY it is HERESY against Catholic Dogma to ordain women to the priesthood or any other clerical prerogative in the Divine Liturgy.

Pius X in his Motu Proprio on sacred music, ruled in Canon 13, that (at least during the solemn liturgical functions of the church) singers in church have a real liturgical (nay, but rather a clerical) function, but because (it was already shown to be an infallible, indefectible, and irreformable catholic dogma of faith and morals and natural law) that women are INELIGIBLE to such offices, ergo, they cannot be members of the church choir (and the Sacred Congregation of Rites already ruled in 1897 that neither women nor girls may be members of church choirs nor of select congregational choirs whether in the chancel or in the nave or even in the Narthex of a church).

Cardinal Vicar Pietro of Rome on February 2, 1912, in Canon 12 of his Regulations for Church Music in the Province of Rome stated, Women are FORBIDDEN from singing in church (at least during the solemn liturgical functions of the church) except as members of a congregation. More precisely, THEY MAY NOT SING IN GALLERIES NOR ORGAN LOFTS IN THE BALCONY ABOVE THE NARTHEX OF CHURCHES NEITHER BY THEMSELVES NOR AS MEMBERS OF A SELECT CONGREGATIONAL CHOIR!

On December 25, 1955, Pope Pius XII in Canon 74 of his encyclical Musicae Sacrae, stated that if it is impossible to get enough man/boy laics to sing in the church choirs, it is allowed for the Ordinary to grant an indult for ladies, girls, and women to sing in (select congregational) choirs provided only that they keep themselves separated from the men/boys and special care is taken to prevent all unseemliness; the Ordinary is BOUND in conscience in this matter. (As it turns out, on January 17, 1908, the Sacred Congregation of Rites ruled that wherever it concerns the question of an officially recognized choir especially in cathedrals, the exclusive singing of women alone - as a select congregational choir - is not lawful except for sufficiently grave reasons duly acknowledged by the Ordinary, and even then, special care must be taken to avoid all unseemliness!)

But then it follows that the proposition that the mere activity of singing in a church-choir is a clerical function is NOT a divinely revealed infallible de fide DOGMA of faith. Or else, suppose that it had been so. But then, because the Church has NO POWER to grant even temporary special exemptions from any of her DOGMAS, it would have followed that Pope Pius XII AUTHORIZED the Ordinary to grant women/girls this indult KNOWING that the mere activity of signing in a church choir will STILL remain a real clerical function even in the particular case in which the Ordinary or any other clergyman desires to let the women and girls sing as members of a church choir - because even the very REASONS His Holiness, the women/girls, or the Ordinary may allege cannot entitle any of them, nor anybody else, nor even an Angel of Heaven, nay, not even the Virgin Mary herself, to even temporarily exempt the case in question from the applicability of the prevailing proposition that this activity is still a clerical prerogative!

But Pius XI infallibly decreed in his Casti Connubii that NO REASON HOWEVER GRAVE MAY BE PUT FORWARD BY WHICH SOMETHING INTRINSICALLY CONTRARY TO NATURAL LAW CAN BECOME CONFORMABLE TO NATURE AND MORALLY GOOD!! Pius XI infallibly CONDEMNED all indults exempting from the prohibitions of the Natural Law. This forcibly reminds us of the slogan "WHAT PART OF 'NO' DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND??"! Therefore Pius XII would have HERETICALLY ERRED from the Faith and Morals, as well as against the Natural Law: which is impossible under the dogma of Papal Infallibility! It is a DOGMA of the Roman Catholic Church that not even the disciplinary decrees of the Church can err against the faith and morals. Weighty theologians of the Roman Catholic Church have always taught in the past that 'the Church's infallibility extends to universal disciplinary laws — she "can never sanction a universal law which would be at odds with faith or morality or would be by its very nature conducive to the injury of souls."' G. Van Noort, Dogmatic Theology (Westminster MD: Newman 1959) 2:91. And: Herrmann, Dorsch, Schultes, Zubizarreta, Iragui and Salaverri.

I therefore have proven on Roman Catholic principles as best as I can, that the proposition that the mere activity of singing in a church-choir is a clerical function has NEVER been a divinely revealed infallible de fide DOGMA of faith and morals for the Catholic Church of the New Testament ever since the days of the 12 Apostles. QED
[/quote]

5.2. Conclusion. Excepting for considerations arising from the indult granted by Pius XII in December 25, 1955, I would have to answer the question raised in this First Case of Conscience in the Negative. But it is only on account of the PROOF of my Final Thesis 5.1 that I hereby do solemnly answer this very question in the AFFIRMATIVE.

We therefore AFFIRM that although Canon XIII of Pius X in his Motu Proprio (Tra le Sollecitudini) on Church-Music, doth hereby declare and decree, as a uniform juridical law of church music for all Catholics everywhere in every congregation subject to the Roman Pontiff, that singers in church have a real liturgical office, but because women are ineligible to such offices, are ineligible to join the choir or musical chapel, actually can and DOES (as long as this law shall still abide in full force in the Catholic Church and is not yet superseded by later ecclesiastical laws to the contrary), salva fide et salva ecclesia (viz. without causing danger to the faith or the Church), allow for the attempted distinction that this is true only of official strictly liturgical choirs stationed in the chancel, but not of select congregational choirs located elsewhere in the church, especially in an organ loft located in a balcony above the Narthex of a church building.

We DENY that those who call themselves Roman Catholic can licitly or validly allege or complain or expostulate that His Holiness the Pope Pius XII did err against the faith and morals or did any injury to the Glory of God or the well-being and sanctity and purity of the Holy Mother Church by virtue of his Musicae Sacrae on December 25, 1955, which doth hereby grant the Ordinary permission to authorize in exceptional circumstances, choirs of women and girls to sing in a church choir (hopefully during the solemn liturgical functions, such as the Mass), or that they can make this allegation without therefore ipso facto committing a mortally sinful FORMAL HERESY against the Dogmas of the Catholic Church!

5.3. My Farewell Address. And thus my work for the first case of conscience is done not only for today, but also for tomorrow, and forever. I was planning to post additional cases of conscience on this forum concerning church-music, but I regret to inform you, and the rest of my fellow users, that urgent and grave circumstances of necessity and Divine Providence require that I should resign from this Forum. Tibi ergo vale dico. Ad Maiorem Dei Gloriam. In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti, Amen.