Accurate account of an indisputable history documented in black & white, of planned cultural, intellectual and spiritual destruction, on the part of hidden elite forces.
The arenas are disparate, the one, Catholic liturgical music, the other, the curricula of public schools. The essential similarity is that powerful hidden interests have successfully acted to destroy the common weal.
We know why Catholic Liturgical Music was deliberately made ugly in the 1960s, deprecating the fine, vigorous, traditional Catholic choral tradition, breaching the walls of the ancient cultural edifice with the calculated philistinism of guitar Masses. It was an essential strategy of the movement to attack and destroy the Catholic Mass. This is documented history in the case of Archbishop Rembert Weakland, a highly educated and talented musician who knew exactly what he was doing fostering “Hootenany” Masses in the mid-1960s.
And we know why a similar process was planned and implemented in the period of 1880 to 1918, at the founding of mandatory, universal public education–with an unannounced agenda of propagating students’ educational failure–a design calculated to “crush the imagination” of school children at the behest of the better classes, natural supervisors of the lives of the great, unwashed masses. The complete set of base institutional features of public education–bells, attendance, location controls, intentional fostering of dependency rather than initiative, disorienting memorization of random, disconnected facts irrelevant to any vocational path but only as fodder for standardized testing itself a self-justifying dead-end, conscious disruption of students’ coherent attainment of authentic accomplishments in any specific field, fostering indifference, an arbitrary regime granting conditional esteem for those rated in the middle to fear elite rankers and despise the “dumb kids”–were all designed from the outset simply to regiment children for institutional efficiency, and precisely not to foster their individual development.
(Nineteenth century common people were oriented toward self-employment, guarantor with property ownership of independence from forced industrialization, as the Amish and the Catalan, Mondragon commune still do today. They generally enjoyed a fine, modest, middlebrow culture with high aspirations. Ordinary, common people often with little formal, institutional education, commonly only a few grades in school, were nevertheless possessed of a surprisingly high average culture level, based on primary education that looked for its model to the Christian acceptance of the classics of Western civilization, the good if not the great books prior to programmed curriculum deprecation 1915-1930. Their basic educational needs could easily be met in homeschools, and their extension in local community-controlled one-room schools, by an approximation of a mere 40 hours literacy instruction and 42 hours for basic numeracy. The common aspiration was to treat kids from 13 on under the expectation of self-reliant little adults rather than perpetually dependent children into middle age.)
It was for the purposes of handicapping the ordinary populations of Europe and America, to render them helpless, to ensure easy control, to regiment them for mass military service and factory employment, to eliminate small innovators’ perceived competition to financial capitalists for the accumulation of investment money, competition posed to the great financial families by average farmers, practical engineers and small entrepreneurs.
John Taylor Gatto documents this very long term process of deprecating curricula–colloquially termed “dumbing-down“–advocated and planned over an unimaginably long stretch of time, hundreds, indeed, thousands of years, beginning with of philosophical writings of Plato, Baruch Spinoza and the Kantian, Prussian philosopher, Johann Gottlieb Fichte.
Queue to 1:09:42 – Napoleon remarked that “each corporal has a field marshal’s baton tucked in his rucksack”; that is, his explicit expectations were that, against the institutional inertia of the upper military officer hierarchy, small squads of line soldiers isolated on the battlefield were expected to violate orders and seize the situational initiative. This policy was credited by Fichte with causing the institutionally top-heavy Prussians’ defeat by the French in the Battle of Jena, 1806, and served as the philosophical basis for the total revolutionizing of the Prussian state, the retrenchment of institutional hierarchization over all lower classes, and Prussia’s remarkable rise dominance from 1870 until 1920. It would be difficult to overemphasize the far-reaching influence of the Prussian model on the educational planing of all nations of the world during the period of industrialization 1880-1930.
The Barbed Dagger in the Heart of Harmony
A similar process of deliberate spiritual and intellectual destruction was implemented another in wave in the 1960s, targeted against dedicated Catholic religious culture. Bismarck’s 19th century, atheist-Protestant kulturkampf against the Catholic Church had failed because Catholics stuck together; the enemy of souls’ solution was to attack the Church from within. Without the capitulation of the Church, the horrible wars of the 20th century would not have been possible.
“All the trouble in the world is caused by things people know aren’t true.” Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen spoke about a man converted on his death-bed, a man named William whose face was half-eaten away with cancer. William’s sister related his life history, that he delighted in deliberately corrupting young people, writing and distributing to them, pamphlets of poisonous ideas.
Archbishop Rembert Weakland, heresiarch of the decimation of culture, was centrally placed in this position, perfect to corrupt Catholic Liturgical music, as an expert in Gregorian plainchant, never-the-less, implacably opposed to its use in the Divine Liturgy. It requires someone who most precisely knows the truth, to most effectively devise and propagate lies which will be unknowingly repeated by the unwitting. And an essential element in this highly articulated, planned corruption, is that the proto-dolos, this founding Apate, personification of deceit, be able to find hidden weaknesses in the uninformed, weak places in their flesh with which to hook them.
One of the motives in telling his story, Weakland wrote [in his 2009 biography A Pilgrim in A Pilgrim Church], is that he is concerned about “revisionism,” and wants to tell the true story about his amazing career, where he was front and center at some of the most important events in the life of the Church in the latter half of the 20th century. He was most disastrously part of the liturgical “reform” that followed Vatican II.
Weakland’s admission that he is, and has been since his teenage years, a homosexual, is yet another indication that homosexual liturgical revolutionaries were the driving force behind the demolition of the Roman Rite of the Mass.
That process began more than five years before the revised Missal of Pope Paul VI, the Novus Ordo.
The late Msgr. Richard Schuler of St. Agnes Church in St. Paul, Minn., had the misfortune of observing Weakland closely as he led the liturgical wrecking crew that had commandeered the newly formed Church Music Association of America in 1964. Msgr. Schuler wrote in A Chronicle of the Reform: Catholic Music in the 20th Century (Sacred Music: 1990) that Weakland and his co-conspirators around the world were united in their opposition to the liturgical renewal called for by Vatican II. They routinely ignored appeals from the Holy See to stop their “useless and harmful” innovations. They carried on a massive public relations and propaganda campaign in both the secular and Catholic press, as well as in deceptive, official- sounding communications to priests and religious, distorting what the Church desired in terms of sacred art and music.
In his Chronicle detailing the debacle that Weakland (and his co-conspirators, notably Fr. Frederick McManus) caused, Msgr. Schuler wrote: “The records of the meetings of the members of the commission on sacred liturgy, together with the suggestions of periti and the final discussion of the document in St. Peter’s, form the foundation for future study of what was exactly the intention of those who gave us Sacrosanctum concilium.
“Several things concerning sacred music were crystal clear: Gregorian chant is the special music of the Church and must be given primacy of place; the long tradition of sacred music in all styles must be fostered and used; the purpose of music in the liturgy remains the glory of God and the sanctification of the faithful; the reforms begun by Pius X must continue and grow, especially the active participation of the people. [Pope St. Pius X’s very first act as Pontiff was to issue the motu proprio “Tra Le Sollecitudini” (Participatio Actuosa) forbidding singing in a secular, operatic style in Church and fostering renewal of Gregorian plainchant.] The council clearly reaffirmed the musical traditions of the Church and at the same time gave ample challenge to musicians to continue and enlarge their work in the service of God’s worship.” From the time Sacrosanctum concilium was released, Archabbot Weakland dissented. He especially could not give his assent to the use of Gregorian chant. As Msgr. Schuler noted: “A meeting was sponsored in Kansas City, Mo., November 29 to December, 1966, by the American Liturgical Conference. Opposition to the sixth chapter of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy was voiced by Archabbot Weakland who said that ‘ false liturgical orientation gave birth to what we call the treasury of sacred music, and false judgments perpetuated it.’ Those ‘false judgments’ seem to have been made by the fathers of the [Second Vatican] Council who ordered that the treasury of sacred music be preserved and fostered. . . .
“This was the beginning of efforts that have continued over the past 20 years to undermine the intentions of the council fathers and the work of the Consociatio Internationalis Musicae Sacrae, founded by Pope Paul VI for the express purpose of implementing the directives of the Vatican Council in matters of liturgical music. Those who were unhappy with the role given to sacred music in the sixth chapter of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy have never ceased to oppose what the Church has ordered for sacred music in its liturgy.
” They have by their actions set Church music back to a state far worse than when Pope St. Pius X began the work of reform in 1903. They have promoted their own ideas of what music and liturgy should be, but these fail to correspond to the decrees of the council or the documents that followed after the close of the council. A careful analysis of the legislation given for the universal Church and the reality as it is presently promoted in the United States exposes a considerable divergence between the two . . .
“Since liturgy expresses belief, the importance of using it to diffuse errors is clear. Most Catholics know their Church and their faith chiefly through the Sunday Mass. When their worship is turned about, so will their very religion follow. When liturgy becomes entertainment, secularized and profaned, then its role as the expression of Catholic dogma is weakened and even lost for those who look to it for their spiritual sustenance, the ‘primary source of Catholic life,’ as Pope Pius X called it.
“The resurgence of modernism or neo-modernism was well organized all over the world. It spread with incredible velocity and efficiency. Indeed, there are those who think that an international conspiracy was operating. An agency called the International Center of Information and Documentation concerning the Conciliar Church (IDOC) promoted the tenets of neo-modernism and functioned on an international level with associates in every country. All areas of Catholic life came under its scrutiny, and the names of those working under its direction included some of the best known scholars, religious, and clergy of this country. Their aim was the same in liturgy, catechetics, religious life, education, the press, social action, and even Church music.
“What was happening was not without direction and purpose. To counter required equal if not greater organization, and such was not at hand. The results of the greatly advertised ‘ changes’ introduced into the postconciliar Church by the modernist camp can be seen in the catastrophe we have witnessed in the closed schools, defections from the clergy, decayed religious life, fewer converts, a substantial drop in attendance at Sunday Mass, theologians who defy the Magisterium, fewer vocations to the priesthood, and the banality, profanity, and ineptitude of what is now promoted as liturgical music.
“Who is responsible? In the field of liturgical music, those who voiced their opposition to the conciliar directives at the congress in Chicago and Milwaukee were associated with the National Liturgical Conference, Universa Laus, the Bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy and the Music Advisory Board organized under that committee.
“The activities of these groups in the years following the Fifth International Church Music Congress provide the answers to many of the questions asked by Catholics who wonder what has become of their musical heritage, what has happened to deprive them of the sacred worship of God that the liturgy should be. They wonder, in a word, why the clear orders of the Second Vatican Council on the reform of sacred music, set out in the sixth chapter of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, have not been heeded and implemented in the United States,” wrote Msgr. Schuler.
Msgr. Schuler’s essay … chron..pdf, also details how Archabbot Weakland and his co-conspirators arrogantly and consistently defied clear instructions from the Holy See with regard to liturgical music and music programs, and even explicit commands to dissolve the organizations that were destroying the legacy of sacred music that began with Pope Pius X. Their efforts culminated in the “hootenanny Mass.”
Msgr. Schuler recalled: “Typical and perhaps most interesting of the innovations engineered through the Music Advisory Board by Fr. McManus, Fr. [Godfrey] Diekmann, and Fr. Weakland was the ‘hootenanny Mass.’ The scenario began in April 1965, when Fr. Diekmann delivered an address entitled ‘Liturgical Renewal and the Student Mass’ at the convention of the National Catholic Educational Association in New York. In his speech, he called for the use of the ‘hootenanny Mass’ as a means of worship for high school students.
Queue to 1:55
“This was the kickoff of a determined campaign on the part of the Liturgical Conference to establish the use of profane music in the liturgy celebrated in the United States. Universa Laus had already begun a similar effort in Europe. In September 1965, the Catholic press began to carry reports of the use of hootenanny music by those in charge of college and high school student worship. In February 1966, the Music Advisory Board was called to meet in Chicago, with an agendum that included a proposal for the use of guitars and so-called ‘folk music’ in the liturgy.
“It was clear at the meeting that both Fr. McManus and Archabbot Weakland were most anxious to obtain the board’s approval. The archabbot told of the success of such ‘experiments’ at his college in Latrobe, Pa., where, during Mass, the students had enthusiastically sung, ‘He’s got the archabbot in the palm of His hand.’ Vigorous debate considerably altered the original proposal, and a much modified statement about ‘music for special groups’ was finally approved by a majority of one, late in the day when many members already had left.” But once the rubber stamp had been applied, the intensity of the debate and the narrow margin of the vote were immediately forgotten. The Music Advisory Board had fulfilled its function; it had been used. The press took over. American newspapers, both secular and ecclesiastical, announced that the American bishops had approved of the use of guitars, folk music, and the hootenanny Mass. Despite repeated statements from the Holy See prohibiting the use of secular music and words in the liturgy, the movement continued to be promoted in the United States and in Europe. Deception played a part, since American priests were allowed to think that the decision of the Music Advisory Board was an order from the bishops themselves.
“In reality, an advisory board has no legislative authority, nor does a committee of bishops have such authority. Decisions on liturgical matters need the approval of the entire body of bishops after a committee has received the report of its advisers and submitted its own recommendations to the full body. The hootenanny Mass never came to the full body of bishops; it did not have to. The intended effect had been achieved through the announcement of the action of the Music Advisory Board and the publicity given to it by the national press. It was not honest, and further, it was against the expressed wishes and legislation of the Church. . . .
” The gullibility of the American clergy and their willingness to obey was used. A confusion was fostered in the minds of priests between the Bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy and the Liturgical Conference, which indeed had interlocking directorates. As anticipated, most American priests failed to distinguish between the releases that came from them, taking the proclamations of both as being the will of their bishops.
“Meanwhile, the official directives of the postconciliar commissions in Rome rarely reached most American priests. They knew only the commentaries on them provided by the liturgists both nationally and on the diocesan level. As a result, the altars of most American churches were turned versus populum; choirs were disbanded; Gregorian chant was prohibited; Latin was forbidden for celebration of the Mass in many dioceses; church furniture and statuary were discarded.” These innovations which distressed untold numbers of Catholics were thought to be the orders of the Second Vatican Council. Rather, they were the results of a conspiracy whose foundations and intentions have yet to be completely discovered and revealed.
“The Church is clear in what is its liturgical reform. The documents for an ongoing work, begun by Pius X and slowly developed through several pontificates, reached their fullness in the council and the later instructions that undertook to implement the will of the council fathers. Formulating the specific details of the liturgical renewal fell to the pontificate of Pope Paul VI. In the area of sacred music, the most significant document was the instruction of March 15, 1967, “Musicam sacram.”
That document, which is still binding, lays down the Church’s law on what is to take place at Mass. Forty-two years later [written in 2009], one might wonder if any bishops, besides Weakland, have heard of it, so well was it buried.
Weakland’s peculiar revelation, furthermore, reinforces the groundbreaking work of Canadian Catholic journalist Sylvia MacEachern, who was the first to investigate and document the role of a clique of homosexuals in deconstructing the Roman Liturgy with the intention of effecting a permanent moral revolution against the papacy and the universality of the Catholic faith.
In 1966, she noted, at precisely the same time that the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Office of Liturgy sent out a missive to priests decreeing the vernacular, instructing them to turn their altars around and to give Communion in the hand, the leadership of the conference sent a letter to Canadian Justice Minister and future Premier Pierre Eliot Trudeau supporting his proposals for the decriminalization of abortion, divorce, contraception, and homosexuality.