Reporting on the fly

With all due respect to the big bloggers who command a lot of attention, especially on inside Church matters, I’m reading a little partiality in some posting. For instance, on liturgical matters. And I’m and wondering if the…let’s say, ‘fly on the wall’ kind of speculation might say more about who’s writing it than the actual subject of the speculation.

The subject is what’s been called the “remarkable gathering” assembled in Chicago for a consultation session on music in the liturgy. It was sponsored by the US bishops, and encouraged input on this matter that, frankly, is crucial to Catholic liturgy. And the input at this meeting is coming from a wide cross-section of Catholics deeply involved in the music at Mass, from choir directors to music publishers to academics. So why is that remarkable? Was the restraint and respect shown by participants remarkable? It would be if restraint and respect were not shown.

Did anyone at that gathering really make a “plea” for a restoration to Latin chant and polyphony as ‘the only music permitted’ in Catholic liturgy? Or, did they suggest that it just be permitted, as was intended by the Second Vatican Council? Terms like “flexibility” and “rigidity” to describe folks with different attitudes signals where the writer is coming from on the subject.

And on conspiratorial guesses over what an unlikely pair of participants might be talking about when seen in conversation…..maybe it was something innocuous. Like, ‘what do you think of the weather in Chicago?’

Just wondering.