Thu 31st Jul 2014 | Last updated: Wed 30th Jul 2014 at 15:38pm

Facebook Logo Twitter Logo RSS Logo
Hot Topics

Comment & Blogs

Now we have an improved new Mass translation, can we apply the same rigour to our hymn books?

Including such jingles as ‘Who put the colours in the rainbow?’ is patronising: are they for children?

By on Friday, 16 September 2011

A choir singing during Mass in New York (CNS photo/Mike Crupi, Catholic Courier)

A choir singing during Mass in New York (CNS photo/Mike Crupi, Catholic Courier)

I was distracted during Mass the other day by one of those linguistic irritations of modern interference in old hymns. The hymn in question was “I’ll sing a hymn to Mary”; consider my annoyance when we got to the refrain which, as everyone knows, should be, “When wicked men blaspheme thee/I’ll love and bless thy name”, to find that it had been changed to the insipid and anaemic, “When wicked ones blaspheme thee…’ I know this change isn’t recent, but since the translation of the liturgy itself is now more precise, could we not begin to exercise some rigour over this kind of absurdity in hymns?

We all know that men are more wicked than women, despite Kipling’s famous line, “The female of the species is more deadly than the male”, but that isn’t the point. The older version meant “mankind” and no one objected until a rigid feminism took hold of the hymn books. Incidentally, this new version comes from Liturgical Hymns Old and New published by Kevin Mayhew. I checked the Catholic Hymn Book, compiled by the London Oratory and published by Gracewing, and note that they have kept to the original wording.

In a parish not a million miles from me there is low-level skirmishing going on at present between the parish priest, who favours Kevin Mayhew’s hymns, and parishioners of a more traditional hue, who favour Gracewing. Checking another old hymn from my childhood, “To Jesus’ heart all burning/with fervent love for men”, I see that both hymnals keep to the original. I suppose Mayhew could hardly have changed the word “men” here to “people” as it wouldn’t have scanned; thank goodness “all” wasn’t substituted instead.

I have just opened the Mayhew hymn book at random, to find number 780 trilling: “Don’t build your house on the sandy land/ don’t build it too near the shore/ Well, it might look kind of nice/but you’ll have to build it twice/ oh, you’ll have to build your house once more…” How can this possibly be called a hymn? It’s simply a jingle.

For the feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross, we sang that marvellous hymn, packed with Christian theology, “When I survey the wondrous Cross…” It’s in the Oratory hymn book but I can’t see it anywhere among the Ws in the Mayhew book’s index, even though they have included another jingle with the opening line, “Who put the colours in the rainbow?” Are these happy-clappy ditties composed for the sake of children? How patronising; when I was a child we used well-worn copies of The Westminster Hymnal in dark red cloth; they were full of the poetry of Fathers Caswall and Faber, and singing lines like “O Bread of Heaven beneath this veil” was how we learned our Catholic faith.

To raise another (related) question: in the Gloria of the new English translation “hominibus” is rendered as “people” [of good will]. Why not “men”? Especially as in the Creed “homines” is rendered “for us men” [and for our salvation]. This is inconsistent; I don’t understand the logic of it. For the sake of nostalgia I took down my old Roman Missal, published by Burnes, Oates and Washbourne in 1957, to look at the English translation of the Latin Low Mass. Here was another mystery: “Et cum spiritu tuo” was translated in all places as “And with you”. “Bonae voluntatis” in the Gloria was translated as “[men] who are God’s friends.” I had never noticed this before because we always responded in Latin. How could such inexact translations have occurred so long before the Novus Ordo was introduced? Someone enlighten me, please.

  • Anonymous

    The use of exclusive language such as “for men” is considered very important by the Vatican. Over the last forty years women have become more and more visible in the church as they have been allowed to read at mass, administer Holy Communion and become altar servers. If this trend were to continue they would expect to become priests next, so it is important to the authorities in Rome that in the mass we use language that puts them in their place. As Francis Phillips says, to be consistent we should make sure that hymns also reflect the different position of women in the church.

  • Anonymous

    @Patrick Hadley The word ‘men’ has to be interpreted according to context. As Francis says, it often means mankind, or members of the human species (‘for us men and for our salvation’), and its meaning is clear. I do think that some are so oversensitised to the word ‘man’ that they jump on it as evidence of unjust discrimination.

  • Anonymous

    Oh I hope so. They keep singing “Shine Jesus Shine” in our Parish not even at the childrens Mass. My other pet hate is “Kumbaya” Yuck.

  • Anonymous

    “Wicked ones” How ridiculous, and utterly meaningless.

  • mikethelionheart

    Complaining about changing ‘wicked men’ to ‘wicked ones’?  How utterly pathetic.

  • Anonymous

    Latin has an advantage over English in that its words no longer change in meaning. The meaning of English words can change over time. While it used to be the case that “men” could, depending on context, mean both men and women that is no longer true in contemporary English. I assert that, and it could be easily disproved if someone can find a good modern writer of English using “men” in that way. I do not think that writers now ever say “for all men” unless they are referring exclusively to male persons.

    @rjt1 says that “men” often means mankind or members of the human species. If it really is often used that way then with modern search engines it should be easy to prove me wrong and quote current examples of that usage.

  • Anonymous

    @Patrick Hadley ‘All men are equal’ springs to mind. Sorry I can’t post this under your entry – problem with Disqus – clearly all posts are not equal.

  • Anonymous

    “All men are equal” is based on “all men are created equal” from the declaration of US independence written in 1776. I do not dispute that “men” used to refer to both sexes, but hardly think your 235 year old example is a current creation, and contradicts my assertion that nobody at all now chooses the word “men” when they are going to write about both men and women.

    If you saw a recently created phrase, (not a quotation from or reference to an earlier text) anywhere such as: “All men are liars” or “Something all men should know” or “Secrets all men keep” or “The problem with men” or “All men are pigs” or “Where have all the men gone?” would you have the slightest uncertainty about whether the writer was referring to just half of the human adult population? Using the internet I could find hundreds of millions of examples of “men” where the writer is only discussing men, can you find even one where the meaning is both men and women?.

    If you are not able to find a modern writer using “men” in that way, then you cannot deny the thesis of my original post that the use of “men” is a deliberate, important and well intentioned decision to remind women of their proper place in the church.

  • Aidan Coyle

    Oh I couldn’t agree more, Patrick. But these uppity women don’t seem to appreciate that the place ideally accorded to them by Mother Church is in fact special and within the logical created order. Personally I would like to see the return of the requirement for women to cover their heads in church (perhaps heralding a revival of the tradition of mantilla-wearing) as a visible manifestation of the different positions of men and women.

  • Anonymous

    “When I survey the wondrous cross” is in the latest Mayhew hymn book (no.624) with settings to two wonderful tunes, the traditional Rockingham, and the folk tune O Waly Waly.  Perhaps the worst crime against hymnody is number 25 “All who would valiant be.” I think Percy Dearmer did enough damage years ago when he changed it from “Who would true valour see” to “He who would valiant be”, but that is a step too far.

  • Anonymous

    Tell me Francis, what did you find when you looked at Faith of Our Fathers?

    Had Mr Hadley changed it to Faith of Our Parents?  Or perhaps it is no longer to be found, with its mention of us being true to the Faith in spite of dungeon, fire and sword.

  • Anonymous

    Of course it must remain Faith of Our Fathers, in order to remind women that they have had no important role in passing on the faith to the present generation. This is of the utmost importance. If we feminize the hymns we will have women wanting a leading role in the church next, which is most certainly not their place.

    We need a constant repetition of prayers with “men”, “man” and “brethren” and hymns with “fathers”, “sons” and “brothers” to defend the church against the onslaught of feminism. The more women hear the exclusive use of male words in church the more they will be prepared to leave all leadership in the church to men.

  • Aidan Coyle

    I don’t think you can state your message strongly enough, Patrick, such is the ongoing, grave danger presented to Mother Church by feminism and its misguided adherents among the supposedly faithful. Mother Church has long presented women with an ideal model in the form of Our Blessed Lady and yet some ‘Catholic’ women seem to want more than even this, as if there could be a better representation of the divinely-sanctioned female position and role. I’m sure you know, Patrick, that when Our Blessed Lady appeared at La Salette in France, she wept bitterly at the extent of humanity’s embrace of sin. I’m sure that knowledge of the future sins of her ungrateful daughters among the supposed faithful weighed heavily on her heart at that time. The path that you advocate seems a truly blessed one, Patrick. I wonder if we should contact some truly faithful Catholic women in groups such as the wonderful Pro Ecclesia et Pontifice and see if they would be prepared to take up this cause.

  • Anonymous

    I think there is a deeper problem, Patrick. I have to confess I am feeling my way here but I think it has to do with the following: Christ has redeemed us by identifying himself with us, that is by taking on human nature, by becoming a human being. It is through that that we become one with him. The word ‘man’ in its sense of ‘human being’ expresses that idea that there is a human nature with which he could identify. If we substitute ‘men and women’ every time, we lose that sense of common identity: I think we fall back into nominalism – a very old problem which makes human nature and redemption as just described incomprehensible because it denies that there is such a thing as real natures: there are only individuals. Redemption then comes to individuals as an externally imposed diktat and/or as a singular ‘experience’ with no interior connection to others (no real communion of salvation). I don’t think that is the Catholic way.

    If we didn’t want to use ‘man’ in this context, I think we would have to say ‘human being’ to get the equivalent sense, which is a bit cumbersome. As I say, I’m just feeling my way here.

    You accuse ‘the powers that be’ of a deliberate intention to ‘put women in their place’. It’s an unsubstantiated accusation and I don’t believe that is what is at stake here.

    No doubt Disqus will display this away from your comment.

  • Anonymous

    I think there is a deeper problem, Patrick. I have to confess I am feeling my way here but I think it has to do with the following: Christ has redeemed us by identifying himself with us, that is by taking on human nature, by becoming a human being. It is through that that we become one with him. The word ‘man’ in its sense of ‘human being’ expresses that idea that there is a human nature with which he could identify. If we substitute ‘men and women’ every time, we lose that sense of common identity: I think we fall back into nominalism – a very old problem which makes human nature and redemption as just described incomprehensible because it denies that there is such a thing as real natures: there are only individuals. Redemption then comes to individuals as an externally imposed diktat and/or as a singular ‘experience’ with no interior connection to others (no real communion of salvation). I don’t think that is the Catholic way.

    If we didn’t want to use ‘man’ in this context, I think we would have to say ‘human being’ to get the equivalent sense, which is a bit cumbersome. As I say, I’m just feeling my way here.

    You accuse ‘the powers that be’ of a deliberate intention to ‘put women in their place’. It’s an unsubstantiated accusation and I don’t believe that is what is at stake here.

    No doubt Disqus will display this away from your comment.

  • James

    A couple of lines from trendy hymnals that annoy me:

    “Our God loves us…” rather than, “My God loves me….” It just makes a nonsense of the rest of the words, as well as sounding awkward.

    “Remind us all that we are saved in spite of our iniquity….” instead of, “Remind thy Son that he has paid the price of our iniquity…..” Seems to me it takes the focus away from Jesus’ death as the means of our salvation.

    And I absolutely cannot stand Colours of Day.

  • Anonymous

    @Patrick Hadley  “If it really is often used that way then with modern search engines it should be easy to prove me wrong and quote current examples of that usage. ” I don’t know whether this would be a valid test because ‘man’ is being used in a specialised sense, which may well require explanation but has a certain value which I have tried to explore in my other comment about nominalism.

  • Parasum

    ““Bonae voluntatis” in the Gloria was translated as “[men] who are God’s
    friends.” I had never noticed this before because we always responded in
    Latin. How could such inexact translations have occurred so long before
    the Novus Ordo was introduced? Someone enlighten me, please.”

    Funny you should mention that. “Bonae voluntatis” is a dictionary-correct translation of Greek *eudokias* – the full phrase being:

    *Doxa – Glory
    en hupsistois – in the highest [heavens (understood)]
    Theo – to God
    kai epi ges – and on earth
    eirene – peace
    en anthropois – among men
    eudokias – of-[the]-good-pleasure (of God)

    That is just a crib – the second half, from “kai” to the end, in recognisable English,  is:
    “and on earth, peace, among men of his good pleasure” – a Semitic way of saying “…peace, among men to whom He is well-disposed”  (there is some debate as to whether the verse is two parts or three). A proper translation would bring out all the nuances and relate them to the theology of the passage, of St. Luke’s gospel as a whole, to the  theology of all the gospels, and to the theology of the NT & of the Bible. The “good will”, as *eudokia* is often translated, is not that of men.

    God’s *eudokia* is theologically very important – it is the expression of His “attitude” to certain people, and is founded on nothing but His own grace, his *chesed. This grace is “behind” election and predestination – and all three concepts are of major importance in the theology of the Gospels. Why in Luke do angels announce the mighty works and saving acts of God to a Jewish girl, an old priest, and some shepherds, rather than to the religious & political establishment in Jerusalem ? Ultimately, because of God’s eudokia, which chooses nobodies, and by-passes the great. This is the “liberation theology” of the Magnificat. There is also a strong dose of Daniel 4.34 ff. – Nebuchadnezzar’s madness has just passed:

    “34 “But at the end of that period, I, Nebuchadnezzar, raised my eyes toward heaven and my reason returned to me, and I blessed the Most High and praised and honored Him who lives forever;

    For His dominion is an everlasting dominion,
    And His kingdom endures from generation to generation.
    35 “All the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing,
    But He does according to His will in the host of heaven
    And among the inhabitants of earth;
    And no one can ward off His hand
    Or say to Him, ‘What have You done?’

     36 At that time my reason returned to me. And my majesty and splendor were restored to me for the glory of my kingdom, and my counselors and my nobles began seeking me out; so I was reestablished in my sovereignty, and surpassing greatness was added to me. 37 Now I, Nebuchadnezzar, praise, exalt and honor the King of heaven, for all His works are true and His ways just, and He is able to humble those who walk in pride.””

    The Vulgate translates  the words of the Greek – but it doesn’t translate the Semitic concepts which the Greek words point to. So an English translation based only on the Latin is in considerable danger of supplying English equivalents to Latin equivalents of Greek words, and of missing the Semitic concepts the Greek words are trying to convey.

    AFAICS, “to [men] who are God’s
    friends” is a good translation – it conveys the copncepts behind the Greek of Luke 2.14, even though, if we look at the words of the Latin of the formula, it is less accurate as a translation of those Latin words. Which is is to be preferred – an English translation of the immediate Latin words, even when the Latin does not convey the full meaning of the Greek; or, an English translation of the Latin, that fills out the English equivalents of the Latin with the theology the Greek of Luke 2.14 is driving at ? IMO, the translation “[men] who are God’s
    friends” does a very good job of trying to translate in both ways.

  • Anonymous

    love the sarcasm

  • Anonymous

    You may disagree with feminism in its entirety, but it has done many great things. Lets not scapegoat something which has both its good and bad points.

    Better pay for women, the vote for women, allowing women to have careers and to be successful, attempts at stopping abuse and violence against women.

    I would think less of anyone who was against such laudable goals.

  • Parasum

    “Faith of Our Forebears…” would scan – and be inclusive.

    “Patres conscripti” should OTOH be Englished as “Senators” – not “conscript fathers”. It sounds as though the new Englishers of the Missal would have chosen “conscript fathers” – which is almost as uncouth as the Latin English that allowed people to write of the “porrection of the instruments” (that gem was in a C.T.S. book from the 1930s, about the Sacraments.

  • Anonymous

    Are you for real? Go back to the middle ages. Having a stick of meat hanging from your crotch does not allow you to be a chauvinistic pig, – putting women in their rightful ‘place’! etc.
    This is ridiculous, you should be ashamed.

  • Parasum

    “How can this possibly be called a hymn? It’s simply a jingle.”

    It’s a jingle, but it does echo Matthew 7 – faintly. Give me “Hymns Ancient and Modern” & “The English Hymnal” any day – the pre-1960s editions, please; not the denatured modern ones – the C of E has suffered the same hymn-wrecking ravages as we have.

    Among bad hymns, “The Lord is My Pace-setter” (discovered in a hymnbook used in Durham, and approved for use in the diocese of Heham and Newcastle) must be one of the worst. There’s nothing even Christian about it; the words can be found here:

    http://www.angelfire.com/journal2/flowers/pcd35.html 

    “Anti-hymn” might be a better word.

  • Recusant

    “One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind”

    Armstrong’s mistake changed the meaning of his sentence from referring to himself to referring to humans in general. Your argument that search engine’s can’t tell the difference says more about search engines than the language.

  • Crossraguel

    ‘Faith of Our Parents’ indeed leprechaun, disgraceful inequality presuming the plural, both for the parents and offspring.

    Perhaps though Faith of Our Fathers is retained in its forward-thinking historic form to recognise the secular redefinition of the family which can incorporate ‘fathers’ in the multiple to represent a single generation.

    In the name of equality however verse two must recognise mother in the singular, striving and independent from the shackles of men-kind, St. Joseph the loyal spouse redundant to Income Support & Tax Credits.  

  • Little Black Censored

    “I would think less of anyone who was against such laudable goals.”

    Gosh, that’s a deterrent!

  • Little Black Censored

    …is no longer true in contemporary English.
    But it remains true in traditional liturgical English, which is capable of obeying its own rules.

  • Honeybadger

    Oh, thank heavens someone else agrees that sorry excuse for a ‘hymn’ is, indeed, appaling!

    We nicknamed Colours of Day ‘The Cremation Hymn’ when I was at school because of the lines: ‘… so light up the fire and let the flame burn…’

    Another sorry ditty is ‘Bind Us Together’, which we also nicknamed ‘The Egg Hymn’…

  • Little Black Censored

    “The use of exclusive language such as ‘for men’…”
    “For men” in the liturgy is inclusive.

  • Honeybadger

    God forgive me for this… when I hear the words ‘Shine Jesus Shine’, I think of Our Lord with a can of polish and a dusting cloth…

    ‘Jesus Wants Me For A Sunbeam’ is a fair swap… if He has an Ebay account!

    Right, bless me, Father, for I have sinned…

  • Nat_ons

    Ah! a consummation devoutly to be wished .. even if it is the welcome death (not simply the dormancy) of a particular spirit. No, I do not mean only that of an Age of Aquarius humankind praise for the Parent, the Child and the Breath from the womb of earth’s mother church; those passing errors have no part in Catholicism or its Orthodoxy. Nor do I mean the integrated use of guitars, a joyful noise, or stirring praise-worthy praise; rather the abandonment of orthodox catholic liturgy for mix-me-match hymnody (better suited to Protestant prayer meetings) – and that is as true of the useful but trite Victorian Era ‘All Things Bright And Beautiful’ (which I do like) as it is of the sky-high Hippy-Protest-Folksy Era of ‘Our God Reigns’ (which I also like) .. both of these are ideal for a bus ride or at a camp fire along with ‘Michael’ and ‘He’s Got The Whole World’ (which I also really like, my own era of popular music showing there), none are suited to Benediction let alone the Mass!

    http://www.chantcafe.com/2011/09/forthcoming-documentary-on-new-missal.html

    The little documentary intro, above, captures the reform intended: not our action for God, but his gift to us .. even in the way we use hymns to him.

    God bless, Nat.

  • Anonymous

    why are you?

  • Anonymous

    “Honeybadger wrote”
    Another sorry ditty is ‘Bind Us Together’, which we also nicknamed ‘The Egg Hymn’… ”
     
    Oh very good, Honeybadger.  This is one of my bugbears too.  Not just the words but the music is horribly sentimental and much too secular in tone.  In fact Hymns Old and New shich is all that is used in my Parish  has some real duds although also some unexceptionable ones.  Fortunately as one of the organists I get to choose the hymns when it is my turn to play – oh the power!.  But it can be quite taxing to find ones which are both theologically sound and with suitable music. 
     
    Oh how I wish we would start to sing the liturgy and drop the hymn singing.
     

  • Rich

    This is a great insight, thanks. The term “friends”, though, still seems inadequate as it suggests a two-way buddiness going on – you can be my friend if you want to be.

    Given what you’ve said, “[men] who are favoured by God” would work better; its a little less PC but its a great opportunity for our priests to preach.

  • Parasum

    I hadn’t thought of that detail LOL – friendship is two-way, even with God, *once God has taken the initiative* in it. I don’t think it suggests equality, or “mateyness”, as though God were somehow dependent on us – & yet, maybe the Incarnation is how God does become dependent on men. Whoever said translation is the art of the impossible knew what he – or she – was talking about.

  • Anonymous

    @Honeybadger.                      
                             I am sure you ll be forgiven. I knpow exactly what you mean!

  • Rich

    Nice one fella :)

  • Anonymous

    Are you saying that the translators of the Mass into English can make up their own rules about the meaning of words, rather like Humpty Dumpty? That is not possible; common words cannot have a different meaning when one meets them in a liturgical context. I think that is a bit insulting to the translators, because it implies that they are not aware of the current meaning of common English words. They knew what they were doing and were very careful in their choice of exclusive language, and made these choices in loyalty to the wishes of the authorities in the Vatican who have a duty to try to restore women to their proper place in the Church.

  • Anonymous

    Bring back the Westminster Hymnal unexpurged

  • Little Black Censored

    No, not “make up their own rules”, but operate within a long-established vernacular liturgical convention, whereby “all men”, mankind”, “if any man”, etc, are understood inclusively. To say that developments in contemporary secular (political, sociological, etc) usage must be applied in liturgy is intolerant. Taken to a conclusion, it would mean removing anything from liturgical language that was not familiar in other contexts. It would leave liturgy, as a human activity, at the bottom of the heap, being intelligible, if at all, only in terms of other, secular, activities; whereas it ought to be at the top. Would you abolish the Authorized Version of the Bible and the Book of Common Prayer?

  • Warren Anderson

    It is good to hear the torch of change being taken up about hymn books. I was beginning to think the obvious had escaped everyone but me :-)

    Without a good translation (we now have one!), clear rubrics (with teeth!) for the celebration of Mass and a worthy hymnal in the pew, the pace of renewal will be reduced to an anaemic crawl. Bishops need to take up the torch too, and counsel with holy musicians (yes, there are such folk), gifted musician historians who understand and practice the musical patrimony of the Church. There are many beautiful settings in the vernacular being produced, but it seems bishops’ conferences are listening to the pop fluff crowd. As long as we have banal settings of the Mass the world will be treated to a stunted version of the Faith instead of the fullness of the Faith which has made saints in abundance! Bishops – please give us beautiful music and ban from the Church’s precincts any vulgar, heterodox, cheap, pseudo-protestant devotional syrup.

  • Anonymous

    You should see the ‘inclusive’ versions of the psalms and canticles:

    “Happy indeed is the man who follows not the way of the wicked…” becomes: “Happy indeed is he who …., etc”
    “Blessed be the Lord, the God of Israel, He has visited his people and redeemed them. He has raised up for a mighty saviour in the house of David His servant” becomes: “Blessed by the Lord, the God of Israel, who has visited the people and redeemed them. Who has raised for us a mighty saviour in the house of David the servant, etc.

  • Anonymous

    The theory that (within a long-established vernacular liturgical convention) common words can have meanings when used in the liturgy which are different from the meanings of the words in contemporary English is a new one on me. Can anyone give me another example of this phenomenon? I rather thought that the word “vernacular” meant the standard language of a country or locality as opposed to a literary or cultured language used by elites.

    I suppose that if according to this theory for example a translator were to say that uniquely in the liturgy “black” should be understood as meaning “white” those in the know would quickly get used to this new meaning of the word and rather scoff at anyone who failed to understand. However there could be a problem for simple souls who are not well schooled in the finer points of liturgical semantics and assume that “black” means the same on a Sunday morning at Mass as it does when they meet the word during the rest of the week.

  • Little Black Censored

    I don’t think we are understanding each other. I am making a simple point: that over time liturgical meanings can draw apart from current speech, because liturgy is innately conservative. There are several liturgical languages, some of which are very different from the modern form. “Prayer Book” English is no more different from modern English than, say Shakespeare, but it is distinct. “Indifferently” in the BCP means “without bias”; “prevent” means “precede”; and so on. I don’t wish to make heavy weather of this, so now I shall STOP.

  • Little Black Censored

    In your first example the new inclusive version is no more inclusive than the old inclusive version.

  • Anonymous

    I understand your concerns about feminism corrupting the Church and the role of women in it. However, I think you are wrong about the role of women in transmitting the faith. They are in fact central to this – but in their domestic role as mothers. What feminism has done is to destroy the notion of motherhood as being worthy and fulfilling for women and, in consequence, the mother’s role in faith transmission was also broken. 

  • St_agnes

    Feminism aside for a moment: imagine making this kind of argument about Satan. I mean he does have his good points – he is an angel after all, and being an angel is in itself a good thing. So if there are pros and cons to being Satan and even to the things he sometimes says and does, does that mean we should avoid being too judgemental about him or scapegoating him for all the world’s ills?  

  • Anonymous

    Satan was born an angel, and then through his actions became wicked. None of his actions were ever good, and therefore we cannot judge him in any other way.

    However, surely you would agree that there have been many actions of the feminist movement that have been good for society and for women.

    Hitler was a politician, and was obviously very evil, but we have had politicians that have given us free public schools, the NHS and libraries – all good actions. Therefore rather than scapegoating all politicians it is best to simply realize that some do good, and some do bad.
    Same with feminism, it has its good and bad points, and therefore to scapegoat it is wrong.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Nikolai-Lee/1395530555 Nikolai Lee

    It is an ongoing tragedy that the Church should have sidelined some of the most beautiful music ever written, to be replaced by the tawdry and banal ecclesiastical pop songs that now infest our churches.  Where music is concerned, I would venture to say that vox populi is most emphatically not Vox Dei.