Over critical narration during Papal events

[maximus]

I am just curious to see if there is anyone else who finds that sometimes the EWTN commentators cross the line into detracting sarcasm. I love EWTN and view it as a first class organization for which I am so thankful. I understand that alternative Christian rock, Spanish, or having a famous pop singer at a papal event is not everybody cup of tea. EWTN I believe is fantastic vehicle of evangelization and probably had some new viewers turned off by their tone.

 

[Dauphin]

I think the criticism was completely appropriate. Some of that music was plainly unsuitable for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. If the commentary turned off liberal liturgical terrorists from entering the church, then we’re better for it.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

I didn’t get to listen during the events, but what I’ve seen quoted from EWTN’s commentators for the DC Mass seemed like they were trying to find a way not to criticize what so desperately needed criticism out of an attempt to give people the benefit of the doubt and not make the event a time for bickering. You must have gotten a different selection than I’ve been exposed to.

 

[benedictgal]

I think the criticism was completely appropriate. Some of that music was plainly unsuitable for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass…

I would have to concur with you regarding the commentary. Perhaps there are those who sincerely believe that this kind of music is suitable for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. I would submit that they are mistaken.

We have to separate two things, however. The choirs involved invested a lot of time and hard work. Their efforts are not the problem. The selection and the performance (stylistic approach with regard to manner and form–use of musical instruments not fitting for the Mass) of the music, however, is an entirely different matter. That is where the criticism lies.

Other posters commented how the psalms talk about using cymbals, lyres and whatnaught to worship God. The Church has different means and requirements. Perhaps if those who are bothered by the criticism would instead read the Church’s documents (the ones put forth by the Apostolic See) they may actually discover that the commentary was well-founded. All one would have to do is read The Spirit of the Liturgy to know that there is a huge chasm between the banal and the sacred.

Now, I’m not sure which performer the OP is referencing. Is it Kelly Clarkson or Placido Domingo? Kelly did rather well with the Ave Maria. Although, I am reminded of something the Holy Father said when Bob Dylan performed as the “opening act”, if you will, for one of Pope John Paul’s rallies. The former Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger was very much against it. This is, in part, what he said, taken from the Holy Father’s book on his late predecessor:

The pope appeared tired, exhausted. At that very moment the stars arrived, Bob Dylan and others whose names I do not remember.

They had a completely different message from the one which the pope had.

There was reason to be sceptical—I was, and in some ways I still am—over whether it was really right to allow this type of ‘prophet’ to appear.

Clearly, I’m not putting Kelly Clarkson in the same category as Bob Dylan. However, mixing pop concerts with a religious event is something a little strange. The two are diametrically opposed. I personally like some of Kelly’s songs. She also sang the Ave Maria with her heart. But, to put her in a pop concert and have her share the stage, if you will, with Pope Benedict, considering what he’s said in the past about such events, is a little disconcerting, to say the least. This is not the Superbowl Half-Time show. This is an encounter with Jesus, presided over by the Holy Father. EWTN had every right to comment on that one, as well as the other incidents that occured throughout the trip.

 

[EasterJoy]

I was listening on the radio about the time the Pope was arriving for Vespers with the bishops. I thought the tone of the commentators went over the line on several occasions, to the point of being disrespectful of the bishops. I felt it was distracting and out of place, and considered writing EWTN about it.

 

[PassthePeace1]

I enjoyed EWTN’s coverage, and thought they were very constrained…considering what was being sung at the Washington DC Mass, was often inappropriate.

 

[Joannm]

The Mass at DC was supposed to be representative of masses as they are celebrated in regular parishes across the country. The music reflected that. The NY Mass was a “Cathedral Mass” in celebration of the 200th Anniversary of the elevation of Baltimore to an archdiocese and the creation of the 4 dioceses of NY, Boston, Philly and Louisville. The type of music would be more formal.

 

[lovesMary]

I think that should have saved their editorial comments until after the events were over, for a segment afterwards. I found it distracting and inappropriate to do that during the Mass itsself.

Frankly, it reminded me of color commentary during a football game, very distastful to my mind. I think neutral reporting during a sacred event such as a papal Mass would have been much more appropos. I was left with a bad taste in my mouth and negative view of the commentator, who struck me as an opinionated old windbag.

 

[Karl_M]

I think that should have saved their editorial comments until after the events were over, for a segment afterwards. I found it distracting and inappropriate to do that during the Mass itsself.

I know this isn’t quite the point of the OP, but the reason they talked so much during the Masses is that it was simulcast on the radio with a substantially larger than normal audience and you can’t have the silence (dead air) on the radio.

At times, the commentators were critical of some of the things, mostly the more modern-type stuff, for lack of a better description.

But, I don’t think they went too far, and I don’t think they were incorrect in what they said.

 

[benedictgal]

I know this isn’t quite the point of the OP, but the reason they talked so much during the Masses is that it was simulcast on the radio with a substantially larger than normal audience and you can’t have the silence (dead air) on the radio.

At times, the commentators were critical of some of the things, mostly the more modern-type stuff, for lack of a better description.

But, I don’t think they went too far, and I don’t think they were incorrect in what they said.

The issue of radio broadcasting is also something that people tend to forget. If you’re listening online or on Sirius, you obviously can’t see what is going on because this is radio. When the English-language commentators for Vatican Radio do the voice-over for the joint EWTN/Vatican Radio simulcast, you will find that they do a lot of commentary, even when it cuts into the hymns.

There are some, like Chris Altieri, who will not comment at all during the Eucharistic Prayer and hold off until the Communion hymn has begun, and, even at that point, he will occasionally break away so that we can hear the music. However, ever so often, the folks on Vatican Radio will do the requesite 10-second pause for station idenfication.

Actually, the only time that Raymond and Fr. Neuhaus broke in was during the processionals and their comments were most justifiable.

 

[anamchara]

I am just curious to see if there is anyone else who finds that sometimes the EWTN commentators cross the line into detracting sarcasm. I love EWTN and view it as a first class organization for which I am so thankful. I understand that alternative Christian rock, Spanish, or having a famous pop singer at a papal event is not everybody cup of tea. EWTN I believe is fantastic vehicle of evangelization and probably had some new viewers turned off by their tone.

I’m glad you brought this up. I’ve mentioned a few times in the forums that I ended up turning the channel and watching the coverage on CNN. They also had a few priests and a Vatican analyst who did a nice job of commentary. They explained a great deal from what the Pope was wearing (the why and the meanings) to parts of the Mass etc…and they didn’t over talk at all. It was all very positive commentary.

EWTN is fine, I do watch it as they have some good scholars on there at times and also I love watching the old Bishop Sheen tapes they play. But yes, I felt Raymond Arroyo and Fr.John Neuhaus crossed the line. I was very excited to watch the papal Mass in Washington but they both kept making comments which were directly related to the division in the Church ie appropriate music etc… It was a major downer. I ended flipping over to CNN for full coverage and with more positive comments. There is a serious division in the Church over the liturgy and I didn’t feel like hearing their bias view points while trying to enjoy seeing the Pope in our country. This is one of the reasons I don’t watch EWTN as much as some do on here.

I have been thinking of writing a letter to them as well.

 

[anamchara]

I know this isn’t quite the point of the OP, but the reason they talked so much during the Masses is that it was simulcast on the radio with a substantially larger than normal audience and you can’t have the silence (dead air) on the radio.

At times, the commentators were critical of some of the things, mostly the more modern-type stuff, for lack of a better description.

** But, I don’t think they went too far, and I don’t think they were incorrect in what they said.**

But this probably because you agree with them on this issue in the Church. Many don’t agree and feel the Mass was great or even if they did agree they don’t feel like hearing about it during the Mass. I guess it just goes to show you that the division over liturgy is very real

 

[benedictgal]

I had the pleasure of corresponding with Fr. Richard John Neuhaus on one occasion. I did not find him condescending at all. In fact, he was very gracious. He is a very intelligent man and is very sincere about things. He is also a convert to Catholicism, having been a Lutheran pastor for many years.

His comments and his insight come from many years of study, in both traditions. I would dare say that having been at both sides of (Protestant and Catholic), he can speak with some authority on the subject. He is also one of the premier intellectuals of our our time and had hosted the former Cardinal Ratzinger on many occasions and counts him as a friend. So, I think that his comments are well-founded.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

But this probably because you agree with them on this issue in the Church. Many don’t agree and feel the Mass was great or even if they did agree they don’t feel like hearing about it during the Mass. I guess it just goes to show you that the division over liturgy is very real

Of course, agreeing “with them” on this issue means agreeing with Pope Benedict and everything the Holy See has taught us about sacred music throughout the centuries. Those who don’t agree simply don’t agree with what the Church has been teaching us for all this time. Now, it’s true, perhaps Mass isn’t the time to be pointing this out to people, but in pointing it out they’re not introducing a matter of personal preference or taste - like whether to use Palestrina or Josquin - but a matter of Church teaching.

 

[Spiller]

I am just curious to see if there is anyone else who finds that sometimes the EWTN commentators cross the line into detracting sarcasm. I love EWTN and view it as a first class organization for which I am so thankful. I understand that alternative Christian rock, Spanish, or having a famous pop singer at a papal event is not everybody cup of tea. EWTN I believe is fantastic vehicle of evangelization and probably had some new viewers turned off by their tone.

EWTN is a godsend. No question. The tone however was lamentable in more than a few cases. While I really like Fr. Neuhaus and Peggy Noonon and can tolerate Raymond Arroyo, Carl Anderson and the others, they do need to learn how to be still (and silent) at times. It became unprofessional at times.

Don’t expect a lot of agreement on this forum, however. The myopia that often limits EWTN also happens to limit these forums. That’s why I prefer people like Fr. Mitch Pacwa – he has the breadth as well as the brains to grasp a wider breadth of what’s going on.

 

[Spiller]

I think that should have saved their editorial comments until after the events were over, for a segment afterwards. I found it distracting and inappropriate to do that during the Mass itsself.

Frankly, it reminded me of color commentary during a football game, very distastful to my mind. I think neutral reporting during a sacred event such as a papal Mass would have been much more appropos. I was left with a bad taste in my mouth and negative view of the commentator, who struck me as an opinionated old windbag.

Excellent insight…

 

[benedictgal]

Of course, agreeing “with them” on this issue means agreeing with Pope Benedict and everything the Holy See has taught us about sacred music throughout the centuries. Those who don’t agree simply don’t agree with what the Church has been teaching us for all this time. Now, it’s true, perhaps Mass isn’t the time to be pointing this out to people, but in pointing it out they’re not introducing a matter of personal preference or taste - like whether to use Palestrina or Josquin - but a matter of Church teaching.

That is very true and something people tend to forget!

A lot of what they said was justified, in light of the Church documents and the authentic intepretations presented by the Pope when he was Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger. THey aren’t saying anything new. They are referencing what has already been written, and, sadly, ignored.

 

[Spiller]

Of course, agreeing “with them” on this issue means agreeing with Pope Benedict and everything the Holy See has taught us about sacred music throughout the centuries. Those who don’t agree simply don’t agree with what the Church has been teaching us for all this time. Now, it’s true, perhaps Mass isn’t the time to be pointing this out to people, but in pointing it out they’re not introducing a matter of personal preference or taste - like whether to use Palestrina or Josquin - but a matter of Church teaching.

So your personal opinion suggests.

In no way did the DC Mass violate Church “teaching.”

[Edited by Moderator]

I’ll say it again. The DC Mass nourished MILLIONS of people – Catholic and non-Catholic and I’m fairly sure the Pope and his crew were aware that just that was going to happen. In the end it could be easily argued that the DC, St. Pat’s and YS Masses just as they were nourished FAR MORE then if they would all have been clones of St. Pat’s, [edited by Moderator].

 

[Spiller]

Of course, agreeing “with them” on this issue means agreeing with Pope Benedict and everything the Holy See has taught us about sacred music throughout the centuries. Those who don’t agree simply don’t agree with what the Church has been teaching us for all this time. Now, it’s true, perhaps Mass isn’t the time to be pointing this out to people, but in pointing it out they’re not introducing a matter of personal preference or taste - like whether to use Palestrina or Josquin - but a matter of Church teaching.

That’s simply not true. You are presenting your opinion (and those of the EWTN commentators) in a false light – as if they are the only viable option per the Church and that’s simply not true. While the DC Mass was clearly not optimal per your specific tastes, in no way did it contravene what the Church directs or as you suggest “teaches.” I didn’t notice any liturgical deformations. Did you?

The DC Mass nourished MILLIONS of people around the world – both Catholic and non-Catholic. It could easily be argued that the DC Mass nourished far more and reached an audience that would not have been reached by the two other Masses. I’m fairly sure the Pope and his crew were aware of this.

I’m sure they also viewed the Mass as a means to evangelize. Based on the comments of many people I have talked to, the DC Mass was a *grand *success.

 

[Joysong]

One might possibly excuse these two reporters if all they did was explain the church’s teachings. However, the disparaging remarks went beyond a simple narration and were a source of scandal to any who were listening. I heard comments that were definitely out of place, and were probably a personal opinion that was best left unsaid.

It would have met with deep disapproval of many of our saints who always us taught in word and example to speak highly of all things religious, or hold our tongues.

From St. Ignatius regarding past or present ecclesiastical superiors, [which would include the clergy who arranged the liturgy]:

Be on the alert to praise whatever is good in their directives, instructions, traditions, style of operation, and personal behavior. Even though their conduct be not absolutely impeccable, nothing is gained by attacking them either in the public forum or in private. For such attacks on them do more harm than good; they only shock people rather than do anything useful to help the situation. For the outcome of such attacks is general exasperation, spiteful disparagement, and name-calling directed against secular and religious leaders.

Therefore, we should abstain from all personal invective and, rather, put the following principle into practice.

Not that I believe anyone who was incensed with the liturgy [their right to hold that personal opinion], will listen to a saint, but just in case it touches anyone’s conscience . . .

I personally heard Father Newhaus say the liturgy was a "mish-mash of multicultural “exhibitionism” and the tone of voice and facial expression was very out of line for a priest to make these statements in public reporting, even if that was his opinion. He was speaking to millions of listeners, and entrusted with narrating a most sacred sacrifice.