• 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

Fulton J. Sheen • World’s Most Progressive Bishop?

Jeff Ostrowski · May 4, 2017

620 DRAFTS EARS AGO, I knew a seminarian named Mario Portella, who was later ordained a priest and now resides in Florence. In the 1990s, he gave me a VHS cassette—the current generation won’t know what that is—containing a video produced in 1941. The film location was Our Lady of Sorrows, on the west side of Chicago. You’ll notice this film was helpful in assembling drafts for the Campion Hymnal when you click on the upper right image.

The narrator was MONSIGNOR FULTON J. SHEEN, who would be consecrated a bishop ten years later. (He was already a huge radio star by 1941.) If you think about it, this was quite a progressive thing to do. 1

Consider what America was like in 1941. The Second World War was raging, and America would soon begin fighting. Moreover, very few people had television in those days! Only after WW2 did television become popular in America. For whom was this film intended? Was it played in theaters? I doubt that; yet the production is masterful. 2

In the following excerpt, notice how the commentary fits perfectly, multiple camera angles are used, the ceremonies are done with precision, and they even include “text” shots:


The ancient Mass was discovered by a new generation in the 1990s, and has taken off in a way nobody expected. That’s why I included some film from 2017 toward the end of that excerpt.

197 Fulton J Sheen Fulton J. Sheen might also be considered “progressive” in that he took political stances. His entire life, he fought communism. The following excerpt by Sheen is interesting, because which of us can waltz into the President’s office?

HE SUBJECT OF COMMUNISM became intense during the Spanish Civil War in 1936. One incident of that period is worth recalling. The foreign policy of the United States was considering lifting the embargo against sending arms to the Communists in Spain. In order to combat this movement, a meeting was held in Constitution Hall, Washington. The speakers were three: a former Spanish ambassador, a young woman who had been in Spain and had fought against the Communists, and myself. Thousands were turned away from Constitution Hall. It is very likely that this meeting had something to do with the breaking down of the movement to send arms to the Communists.

The day after that meeting in Constitution Hall, I had a meeting with President Roosevelt. Its purpose really was to ask for an assignment to the Housing Committee for a friend of mine who was defeated for a second term in Congress. I was always opposed to asking any favor from a politician, but because this man had been a good friend of mine for years, I broke my resolution.

When I went in to see President Roosevelt he was angry. I thought he was angry with the Secretary of War, who had just left the office. I soon learned that he was angry with me. He had the Washington Post laid upright before him on the desk. When I came in, he began: “There is one thing that I will not tolerate in this country, and that is giving speeches such as you gave last night in Constitution Hall.” I asked: “What was said, Mr. President, that offended you?” He read a line from the paper. I knew no such statement had been made. I then asked: “Mr. President, let me see the paper.” Recognizing that he was not quoting from the speeches at Constitution Hall, but from another meeting in Washington, he quickly rumpled up the paper and threw it into the wastebasket: “You must take my word when I say anything.” “I can take your word,” I assured him, “unless it is not true.”

President Roosevelt said: “You think you know a great deal about the Church’s attitude toward communism, don’t you? I want to tell you that I am in touch with a great authority who tells me the Church wants the Communists to win in Spain.” I said: “Mr. President, I am not the least bit impressed with your authority.” He said: “I did not tell you who it was.” I said: “You are referring to Cardinal Mundelein, and I know that Cardinal Mundelein never made the statement that you have attributed to him.”

He then changed the subject, and began attacking the Archbishop of Baltimore. He said: “Imagine, that man who is seated on the chair that was once occupied by a cousin of mine called the Ambassador from Spain to the United States a ‘liar.’ I will have no dealings with any man who cannot contain himself and uses words of this kind to destroy public servants.” And he went on: “Another thing, one of my bodyguards went over to St. Augustine’s Church last Sunday. He said that the priest asked parishioners to join a protest against Roosevelt, who is in favor of sending arms to the Communists in Spain.” The President then shouted: “That man is a liar.” Recognizing that he was using the word he had condemned in the mouth of Archbishop Curley, he laughingly said: “You know how it is, we men in public life become a little excited now and then.”

Seeing that we were getting nowhere, I said: “Mr. President, I came to see you about a position in Housing.” He said: “Oh, Eddie voted for everything I wanted in Congress. He wants to be in Housing, does he not?” “Yes.” So he wrote on a pad his name and said: “The moment you leave this office I will call Mrs. So-and-So [he mentioned the name of a woman who was in charge of Housing] and you call Eddie and tell him he has the job.”

When I left the White House I called Eddie and said: “Eddie, I saw the President. I am sorry, you do not get the job.” He said: “Is that what the President said after all I did for him?” I said: “No, he said you would have it.” My friend never received the job.

That story is from Sheen’s marvelous autobiography, Treasure in Clay, which you should purchase immediately if you don’t own it. As always, please buy through Amazon Smile so CCWatershed will get a portion of the proceeds. Thank you!

 


NOTES FROM THIS ARTICLE:

1   When I use that word, I am not speaking about the mealy-mouthed “progressive” Catholics who reject the holy doctrines of our Church yet never plainly admit it—and think themselves very clever. The less said about such people, the better.

2   According to Chicago Tribune, this 1941 film (whose official title is The Eternal Gift) played for two days at the Chicago Civic Opera House from 31 March 1941 through 1 April 1941. The entire video can be viewed on YouTube.

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

Filed Under: Articles Tagged With: Bishop Fulton J Sheen Last Updated: May 12, 2021

Subscribe

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

* indicates required

About Jeff Ostrowski

Jeff Ostrowski holds his B.M. in Music Theory from the University of Kansas (2004). He resides with his wife and children in Michigan. —(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

“By no means would I offer the counsel that Mass be celebrated in languages other than Latin.”

— Archbishop Dwyer (one of the Vatican II fathers)

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