At that chilling meeting at which the Final Solution of the Jewish Problem was organised, it is clear that many of the participants were uneasy about certain categories ... half-Jews .... those married to Jews ... Jews who had won the Iron Cross (first Class) in the Great War. What nobody round that table said was: this whole policy is evil. The presuppositions were never debated. And many of the elderly among us have experienced how committees much less murderous than Wannsee deliver their results if determined people with a clear agenda have set parameters which nobody questions.
Our reader Jesse very kindly attached to a recent post a detailed account of the discussions in the relevant post-Conciliar coetus which led to the interpolation into the Psalterium of the Divine Office of New Testament canticles. What fascinates me, reading it (thanks, Jesse), is, again, that no-one queried the assumptions. What nobody said was: we were not given a free hand; we were given, by an Ecumenical Council, a list of specific mandates to which we are required to give effect. And, however attractive the arguments for this particular innovation, we have no mandate for it.
Incidentally and by the way and changing the subject and going off at a tangent, I notice that Fr Zed, on his blog, has been discussing with a friend just this very self-same topic that I have been posting on and documenting for a while now: the hijacking of a relatively conservative ("conversative" is Fr Zed's term, but I suspect e contextu that it means the same) Conciliar document (Sacrosanctum Concilium) by those whose own agenda was far from conservative. Since Fr Zed doesn't mention my blog, I presume it is just a matter of great minds thinking alike.