Bishop Michael Sheridan (Colorado Springs) observed that the BCL [Bishops Committee on Liturgy} rationale "very consistently says that what we have had has proven to be 'pastorally helpful'", and asked, "Did we determine that from surveys, or - ?"
Bishop Trautman responded, "I think that language is taken from the document Liturgiam authenticam itself - the rationale for us to present adaptations, that is found in the document Liturgiam authenticam".
"But have we as a Conference determined that [the proposed adaptations] have been pastorally helpful?", Bishop Sheridan asked.
Bishop Trautman replied, "I think in the judgment of the Committee, in the practice of thirty years, the advice we have received is, yes, they have been indeed very pastorally helpful to us".
Adoremus Bulletin July-August 2005
So just how has it been determined that a change has been pastorally helpful? And just how will it be determined that a newly-enacted change has been pastorally helpful? If pastoral is a reference to the bishops role as shepherds, I'd expect the test would be whether more or fewer people show up at Sunday Mass after a change.
In the good old days (roughly 1965-2000) "pastorally helpful" was easily defined.
ReplyDeleteWeakland, Pilarczyk, Lipscomb, or Trautman SAID it was "pastorally helpful."
Now, along come these blag-dagged newbies who want "evidence."
EVIDENCE, mind you, they want EVIDENCE that our Infallible Judgment was, ah, infallibly correct!!!
You can't disprove the thesis that something should work with evidence that it doesn't.
ReplyDeleteThat's because of the particular meaning of "should" in this context.
When you point out it didn't work, the response is that the only reason it didn't is because of the way people are.
You might think the Church ought to be a help for people to change from how they are to how they ought to be, but that would add quite a burden on the staff. When would they do all their planning?
You're right.
ReplyDeleteCan't get all that in between 8 and 5 during the business week.