Upcoming at the next Bishop's conference

Domenico Bettinelli looks at the proposed document by the USCCB regarding the “Church’s posture on homosexuality.”
I think his concerns about the document are well justified. He says "While the proposal itself includes stuff that sounds right, there is enough equivocation to sink it at the pier before it even launches." Considering their history with documents like Always our children I think skepticism is appropriate.

“For this reason, baptism of children adopted by such couples presents a pastoral concern. Nevertheless, the church does not refuse the sacrament of baptism to these children, but there must be a well-founded hope that the children will be brought up in the Catholic religion.”

How much hope could you possibly have that children brought up by people so obviously in rejection of a basic moral teaching would be brought up in the fullness of the Catholic faith? In fact, what does “brought up in the Catholic religion” mean? Is there some minimum standard? That’s certainly a can of worms because there are plenty of heterosexual couples for whom the same questions can be asked.

Just how likely is a homosexual couple to teach children that active homosexuality is gravely sinful? Or for that matter cohabitation couples teaching about the sin of fornication? This goes way beyond a founded-hope into wishful thinking.

In other USCCB related news.

The U.S. bishops will vote to establish norms for hymns at Mass during their annual November meeting in Baltimore, November 13-16.

The new norms, which will require a two-thirds vote by the bishops and subsequent recognitio by the Holy See, are to ensure that liturgical songs will be doctrinally correct, based in the scriptural and liturgical texts and relatively fixed.

The norms are part of a new “Directory for Music and the Liturgy for Use in the Dioceses in the United States of America.” The directory responds to a recommendation of Liturgiam authenticam, the fifth Vatican instruction on correct implementation of liturgical renewal called for by the Second Vatican Council.

The recommended norms are here and they look pretty good. The USSCB site also says

The document said that the large number of liturgical songs that exist in the United States have benefited the liturgy, but also said that “a certain stable core of liturgical songs might well serve as exemplary and stabilizing factor.”

I hope the author of that statement went to confession after writing it. Large number? If this was true there would be no needs for these new norms.