• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Corpus Christi Watershed

Pope Saint Paul VI (3 April 1969): “Although the text of the Roman Gradual—at least that which concerns the singing—has not been changed, the Entrance antiphons and Communions antiphons have been revised for Masses without singing.”

  • Donate
  • Our Team
    • Our Editorial Policy
    • Who We Are
    • How To Contact Us
    • Sainte Marie Bulletin Articles
    • Jeff’s Mom Joins Fundraiser
  • Pew Resources
    • Brébeuf Catholic Hymnal
    • Jogues Illuminated Missal
    • KYRIALE • Saint Antoine Daniel
    • Campion Missal, 3rd Edition
    • Repository • “Spanish Music”
    • Ordinary Form Feasts (Sainte-Marie)
  • MUSICAL WEBSITES
    • René Goupil Gregorian Chant
    • Noël Chabanel Psalms
    • Nova Organi Harmonia (2,279 pages)
    • Roman Missal, 3rd Edition
    • Catechism of Gregorian Rhythm
    • Father Enemond Massé Manuscripts
    • Lalemant Polyphonic
  • Miscellaneous
    • Site Map
    • Secrets of the Conscientious Choirmaster
    • “Wedding March” for lazy organists
    • Emporium Kevin Allen
    • Saint Jean de Lalande Library
    • Sacred Music Symposium 2023
    • The Eight Gregorian Modes
    • Gradual by Pothier’s Protégé
    • Seven (7) Considerations
Views from the Choir Loft

The Illusion of Privacy • Social Media Etiquette for Liturgical Musicians

Richard J. Clark · July 15, 2016

THANK THE GOOD LORD that Facebook did not exist in my youth. I would have mishandled social media quite badly. I can only imagine the disaster a twenty-something me would have been with digital technology. I grew up with a phone that required my finger to rotate it. (I know. The horror.) I had a typewriter in college with plenty of Wite-Out™ on hand in case I made a mistake. The Lord blessed my youthful (and—ahem—not so youthful) indiscretions with inferior technology.

I also learned a valuable lesson some years ago. Deeply frustrated with a difficult professional situation, I sent an email to several colleagues venting this frustration. Understandable? Perhaps. No one is perfect and we all lose our cool from time to time. But a very wise, compassionate (and musically sympathetic) Jesuit priest kindly exhorted me to avoid writing such missives in a digital medium for the reasons I will discuss.

I quickly heeded his advice. So should you. Here’s why:

Theologican Goffredo Boselli states, “There is, then, an indissoluble link between the liturgy and the transmission of faith. We can say, in fact, that the celebration of the liturgy is the most important act of evangelization.”(pg. 209, The Spiritual Meaning of the Liturgy)

With so many challenging conditions and horrific events happening in the world, we must remember this. How we speak to each other about liturgy, and what we project to the public is more important than one may realize. Also consider this statement from the Synod of Bishops on New Evangelization (2012):

“The worthy celebration of the Sacred Liturgy is the primary and most powerful expression of the new evangelization. The liturgy is not just a human action but an encounter with God which leads to contemplation and deepening friendship with God. In this sense, the liturgy of the Church is the best school of the faith.”

Social media is a very powerful tool for good. How are we using it? If one is serious about a profession or a calling to serve to God, the following are some very important reminders to consider before publishing anything:


HUMAN NATURE AND THE ILLUSION OF PRIVACY

Intellectually, most of us are aware that most anything digital can be shared with anyone. Even if you limit privacy settings, screenshots or PDFs of most anything can exist even if a post or website is taken down. Even text messages aren’t completely private. (Ask Tom Brady.)

Some aren’t worried that their incredibly witty comments won’t go past their circle of “friends.” If technology doesn’t prohibit wide distribution of poorly conceived and uncharitable comments, human nature will.

As old as the hills is the power of gossip and the spreading of rumors. Facebook was unnecessary for neighbors to know your every move one hundred years ago, so why should that be different today? Even oceans can’t stop gossip, especially in tight-knit communities.

(I think of my grandfather who came to New York City from Italy in the 1920s. He intended to marry my grandmother who was still in Tuscany. Friends in New York tried to introduce him to other women. While my grandfather was not interested, he would tell his friends, “Gilda will find out!” No one argued, because they knew it was true.)

Rumors spread faster and more effectively than a Twitter account with a thousand followers. Human nature always was and always will be the strongest factor.


DON’T PUBLICLY DISPARAGE YOUR BOSS, A COLLEAGUE, A BRIDE, A COMPOSER, AN ENTIRE GENRE, ETC.

Submitting to the axiom that anything one publishes can potentially make all the rounds, this should be obvious. Not simply because your boss or someone with power might read it. It goes to one’s professional and personal reputation.

I once witnessed a highly connected (and respected) individual look aghast from reading a post. It was from a prominent musician complaining about one’s superior.

Don’t do that.

Many others saw it, talked about it, and spread the message with a thing called “word of mouth.” Social media was rendered irrelevant. Human nature amplified and “gave legs” to the story far more effectively.

Conversely, I read two memorable threads (from two very different liturgical worlds) involving prominent figures. In both cases, one attacked the other. In both cases, the one being attacked remained charitable and civil throughout. (DO THIS. Better yet, don’t even respond.) In each case, the public debate reflected quite well on one and rather poorly on the other. (No, I will not disclose identities even privately.)

Finally, disparagement of a composer or entire genre is exceedingly unhelpful. It does more to damage the cause than to further it. It exhibits provincial and parochial behavior. Civil commentary backed up up with intelligent analysis is different. Incivility is unchristian.


DON’T PUBLICLY POST A PRIVATE COMMUNICATION.

Just don’t.

While many of your friends may agree and you may enjoy wonderful banter, be sure that many others who are not interacting with the post are reading it and not thinking well of what they see.


”ABC” • “SUNSHINE & LIGHT”
I advise young people, especially, to be nothing but “sunshine and light” on social media. Here are some do’s and don’ts:

• Be encouraging. Be a mentor if given the opportunity. You might change someone’s life.
• Avoid the herd mentality: Think independently and comment selectively.
• Make sure any debate or criticism is intelligently stated and fair.
• Be ready to back up your statements—not only on social media, but to actual real people if personally confronted.
• Never “like” or comment anything disparaging or unfairly negative—no matter how tempting. Seriously. Don’t.
• ABC 2X: Always be civil. Always be charitable.

Do the above, and the conversation on liturgy, prayer, and God may open a door to evangelization even if only a little.

M I SUCKING ALL THE FUN out of social media? Most definitely! But if you are serious about your profession and serious about serving God, be prepared to keep the discussion on liturgy, our greatest form of evangelization, informed and enlightened.

To varying degrees, we are all public figures, even if only in our own parishes—the most important place! Are we furthering the edification of the faithful in our words?

Fair debate is a wonderful thing. But be mindful to remain in service of God. I need to remind myself of this every day! Do I ever.

AMDG

Opinions by blog authors do not necessarily represent the views of Corpus Christi Watershed.

Filed Under: Articles Last Updated: January 1, 2020

Subscribe

It greatly helps us if you subscribe to our mailing list!

* indicates required

About Richard J. Clark

Richard J. Clark is the Director of Music of the Archdiocese of Boston and the Cathedral of the Holy Cross.—(Read full biography).

Primary Sidebar

Corpus Christi Watershed

President’s Corner

    PDF Comparison Chart • “Serious Problems with the Lectionary Translation”
    EARS BEFORE truly revolutionary changes were introduced by the post-conciliar reformers, Evelyn Waugh wrote (on 16 August 1964) to John Cardinal Heenan: “I think that a vociferous minority has imposed itself on the hierarchy and made them believe that a popular demand existed where there was in fact not even a preference.” We ask the kind reader— indeed, we beg you—to realize that those of us born in the 1940s and 1950s had no cognizance of Roman activities during the 1960s and 1970s. We were concerned with making sure we had the day’s bus fare, graduating from high school, taking care of our siblings, learning a trade, getting a job, courting a spouse. We questioned neither the nuns nor the Church.1 Do not believe for one instant any of us were following the liturgical machinations of Cardinal Lercaro or Father Bugnini in real time. Setting The Stage • To never question or resist Church authorities is praiseworthy. On the other hand, when a scandalous situation persists for decades, it must be brought into focus. Our series will do precisely that as we discuss the Lectionary Scandal from a variety of angles. We don’t do this to attack the Catholic Church. Our goal is bringing to light what’s been going on, so it can be fixed once and for all. Our subject is extremely knotty and difficult to navigate. Its complexity helps explain why the situation has persisted for such a long time.2 But if we immediately get “into the weeds” we’ll lose our audience. Therefore, it seems better to jump right in. So today, we’ll explore the legality of selling these texts. A Word On Copyright • Suppose Susie modifies a paragraph by Edgar Allan Poe. That doesn’t mean ipso facto she can assert copyright on it. If Susie takes a picture of a Corvette and uses Photoshop to color the tires blue, that doesn’t mean she henceforth “owns” all Corvettes in America. But when it comes to Responsorial Psalm translations, certain parties have been asserting copyright over them, selling them for a profit, and bullying publishers vis-à-vis hymnals and missals. Increasingly, Catholics are asking whether these translations are truly under copyright—because they are identical (or substantially identical) to other translations.3 Example After Example • Our series will provide copious examples supporting our claims. Sometimes we’ll rely on the readership for assistance, because—as we’ve stressed—our subject’s history couldn’t be more convoluted. There are countless manuscripts (in Greek, Hebrew, and Latin) we don’t have access to, so it would be foolish for us to claim that our observations are somehow the ‘final word’ on anything. Nevertheless, we demand accountability. Catholics in the pews are the ones who paid for all this. We demand to know who specifically made these decisions (which impact every English-speaking Catholic) and why specifically certain decisions were made. The Responsorial Psalms used in America are—broadly speaking—stolen from the hard work of others. In particular, they borrowed heavily from Father Cuthbert Lattey’s 1939 PSALTER TRANSLATION:
    *  PDF Download • COMPARISON CHART —We thank the CCW staff for technical assistance with this graph.
    Analysis • Although certain parties have been selling (!!!) that translation for decades, the chart demonstrates it’s not a candidate for copyright since it “borrows” or “steals” or “rearranges” so much material from other translations, especially the 1939 translation by Father Cuthbert Lattey. What this means in layman’s terms is that individuals have been selling a translation under false pretenses, a translation they don’t own (although they claim to). To make RESTITUTION, all that money will have to be returned. A few years ago, the head of ICEL gave a public speech in which he said they give some of “their” profits to the poor. While almsgiving is a good thing, it cannot justify theft. Our Constant Theme • Our series will be held together by one thread, which will be repeated constantly: “Who was responsible?” Since 1970, the conduct of those who made a profit by selling these sacred texts has been repugnant. Favoritism was shown toward certain entities—and we will document that with written proof. It is absolutely essential going forward that the faithful be told who is making these decisions. Moreover, vague justifications can no longer be accepted. If we’re told they are “making the translations better,” we must demand to know what specifically they’re doing and what specific criteria they’re following. Stay Tuned • If you’re wondering whether we’ll address the forthcoming (allegedly) Lectionary and the so-called ABBEY PSALMS AND CANTICLES, have no fear. We’ll have much to say about both. Please stay tuned. We believe this will end up being the longest series of articles ever submitted to Corpus Christi Watershed. To be continued. ROBERT O’NEILL Former associate of Monsignor Francis “Frank” P. Schmitt at Boys Town in Nebraska JAMES ARNOLD Formerly associated w/ King’s College, Cambridge A convert to the Catholic Church, and distant relative of J. H. Arnold MARIA B. Currently serves as a musician in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Charlotte. Those aware of the situation in her diocese won’t be surprised she chose to withhold her last name.
    1 Even if we’d been able to obtain Roman journals such as NOTITIAE, none of them contained English translations. But such an idea would never have occurred to a high school student or a college student growing up in the 1960s. 2 A number of shell corporations claim to own the various biblical translations mandated for Roman Catholics. They’ve made millions of dollars selling (!) these indulgenced texts. If time permits, we hope to enumerate these various shell corporations and explain: which texts they claim to own; how much they bring in each year; who runs them; and so forth. It would also be good to explore the morality of selling these indulgenced texts for a profit. Furthermore, for the last fifty years these organizations have employed several tactics to manipulate and bully others. If time permits, we will expose those tactics (including written examples). Some of us—who have been working on this problem for three decades—have amassed written documentation we’ll be sharing that demonstrates behavior at best “shady” and at worst criminal. 3 Again, we are not yet examining the morality of selling (!) indulgenced texts to Catholics mandated to use those same translations.
    —Guest Author
    “Music List” • 17th in Ordinary Time (Year C)
    Some have expressed interest in perusing the ORDER OF MUSIC I prepared for the 17th Sunday in Ordinary Time (27 July 2025). If such a thing interests you, feel free to download it as a PDF file. As always, the Responsorial Psalm, Gospel Acclamation, and Mass Propers for this Sunday are conveniently stored at the the feasts website.
    —Jeff Ostrowski
    Communion • “Ask & You Shall Receive”
    All of the chants for 27 July 2025 have been added to the feasts website, as usual under a convenient “drop down” menu. The COMMUNION ANTIPHON (both text and melody) are exceedingly beautiful and ancient.
    —Jeff Ostrowski

Quick Thoughts

    Pope Pius XII Hymnal?
    Have you ever heard of the Pope Pius XII Hymnal? It’s a real book, published in the United States in 1959. Here’s a sample page so you can verify with your own eyes it existed.
    —Corpus Christi Watershed
    “Hybrid” Chant Notation?
    Over the years, many have tried to ‘simplify’ plainsong notation. The O’Fallon Propers attempted to simplify the notation—but ended up making matters worse. Dr. Karl Weinmann tried to do the same in the time of Pope Saint Pius X by replacing each porrectus. You can examine a specimen from his edition and see whether you agree he complicated matters. In particular, look at what he did with éxsules fílii Hévae.
    —Corpus Christi Watershed
    Antiphons Don’t Match?
    A reader wants to know why the Entrance and Communion antiphons in certain publications deviate from what’s prescribed by the GRADUALE ROMANUM published after Vatican II. Click here to read our answer. The short answer is: the Adalbert Propers were never intended to be sung. They were intended for private Masses only (or Masses without music). The “Graduale Parvum,” published by the John Henry Newman Institute of Liturgical Music in 2023, mostly uses the Adalbert Propers—but sometimes uses the GRADUALE text: e.g. Solemnity of Saints Peter and Paul (29 June).
    —Corpus Christi Watershed

Random Quote

I basically don’t favor Cardinal Kasper’s proposal; I don’t think it’s coherent. To my mind, “indissoluble” means “unbreakable.”

— Daniel Cardinal DiNardo (19 October 2015)

Recent Posts

  • PDF Comparison Chart • “Serious Problems with the Lectionary Translation”
  • “Music List” • 17th in Ordinary Time (Year C)
  • Flor Peeters In A Weird Mood?
  • Communion • “Ask & You Shall Receive”
  • Jeff’s Mother Joins Our Fundraiser

Subscribe

Subscribe

* indicates required

Copyright © 2025 Corpus Christi Watershed · Isaac Jogues on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Corpus Christi Watershed is a 501(c)3 public charity dedicated to exploring and embodying as our calling the relationship of religion, culture, and the arts. This non-profit organization employs the creative media in service of theology, the Church, and Christian culture for the enrichment and enjoyment of the public.

The election of Pope Leo XIV has been exciting, and we’re filled with hope for our apostolate’s future!

But we’re under pressure to transfer our website to a “subscription model.”

We don’t want to do that. We believe our website should remain free to all.

Our president has written the following letter:

President’s Message (dated 30 May 2025)

Are you able to support us?

clock.png

Time's up