I’ve long suspected that the Catholic world of music at the parish level, by which I mean parish music directors and singers along with priests in charge, can be rough divided as follows: 10% dedicated to a sacred music program, 10% dedicated to a pop music program, and 80% wallowing in unrelenting confusion about nearly everything related to Catholic music. I derive these estimates based entirely on years of anecdotal evidence from visiting parishes, receiving thousands of emails, hanging around on forums, and generally talking with people here and there.
There is no way to scientifically validate or invalidate my claim because no one really knows for sure. But this much I do know. There is no single document in existence that explains with clarity what it is that a Catholic musician is supposed to do on a week-to-week basis, nothing that clearly presents the goal of one’s endeavors, and no monograph or book that can state with absolute certainly what are the core responsibilities and tasks of the Catholic musician in the current climate. This is because there is a major conflict of vision at work today and we are far from having resolved it enough so that such a document can be produced.
Catholic musicians today are like city managers without training who hired to build infrastructure, manage the community environment, and undertake activities that are suitable to the task – with no specific instructions or mandates of any sort. They can read libraries full of books but come no closer to understanding what they are really supposed to be doing. It would not be a surprise to discover that such a person would eventually learn that showing up and doing something, anything, is just about the best one can do. It’s not very inspiring but such is the nature of the job.
The email below is a typical case. I shared the original (which I’ve changed for clarity, grammar, and to hide the affiliation) with several people, and they all responded the same way: nothing new here. To give you an idea of what we are dealing with, have a look:
Music for Mass seems like a subject that drives everyone up the wall. Traditionalists and many young people would like to hear chant, while many pastors believe that to attract youth we must play folk music and some of the newer material, and there is everything in between. I’m trying to sort all of this out. This has recently become much more important to me because I am now the leader of one of the choirs at the student parish. As I strive to learn about the ideals the church has in place, I’m finding the answer to one question and two more will pop up.
Let me start from the top. I’ve seen in a few places that the Church’s ideal for music is
chant. But if that was the case, wouldn’t that severely bar participation from the congregation? Isn’t another ideal to have everyone involved in singing? Even forgetting that, we have another problem. The choir I lead jokes about doing chant, but the reality is that we simply do not have the talent here. We have two singers. Only one of whom can project his voice. No one has any real training.
The natural place to go (for us at least) is to look in the hymnal. We currently use [a mainstream hymnal]. It contains most of the songs I remember from childhood, and most of the songs the lay faithful would probably consider favorites. However, I’ve been much more on the lookout for what the songs actually say, as I haven’t always been so careful about the message as much as the music. The more I scrutinize the hymns we know and love, the more amazement I have.
There’s a few songs which really scare me. Such as “The Supper of the Lord”. “Precious body, precious blood, here in bread and wine…” Isn’t this a bit confusing? There have been a few others which could be argued either way (“Eat this bread, drink this cup, come to me and never be hungry; eat this break, drink this cup, trust in me and you will not thirst”) if you look at them in context. But ultimately I am finding songs I cannot stomach, and I wouldn’t consider myself closed-minded to the newer material (“Let us break bread together on our knees, when I fall on my knees with my face to the riding sun, O Lord, have mercy on me…let us drink wine together on our knees…”).
Am I being oversensitive, or is this really as odd as it seems? If it is not what the Church teaches, why are the publishers pushing it at us? This begs yet another question…in the front of the book, it is printed “Published with the approval of the Committee on Divine Worship, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.” What does this mean, exactly? It’s some kind of stamp of approval, but on what? I also see that many, many of the hymns are post-1970. What happened before that? Where did those songs go?
I’ve also been told that I cannot use the Mass of Light Gloria–because it adds a word to the Gloria. Is this true? Do you know offhand where this directive can be read? I’m not looking to be disobedient on this or any other issue; I simply want to be able to point it out to people in the future if I get questions about it.
I’ve had it up to my eyeballs in the bashing wars towards American Catholics; I do want to restore the beauty that everyone talks about, but I haven’t got a clue where to start, and I have yet to have a productive conversation with anyone about this. Any help or insight, or even a single answer to any of my questions would be greatly appreciated. I know there’s a lot there, but it’s really a huge topic (at least in my mind) and I’m really trying to figure this out.
There is so much interesting about this, starting with its wholly common sense of being completely lost in a thicket of confusion. The writer wants to know who is charge around here. If it is the publishers, why is so much of their material vaguely suspect? I’m also struck by the writer’s innocent query: what kind of music did Catholics sing before 1970, because that historical record seems not to exist. It’s true: there does seem to be some sort of black out here.
Then there is the very legitimate inquiry about the people’s role in chant. Let me just answer this one right here. The Church provides dialogues for the priest and people, propers for the schola to sing, and the ordinary chants of the Mass for the people. Even if the schola sings all the propers, there is still a vast responsibility remaining for the people. Even if the schola sings Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus and Agnus as well, there is are vast responses and the Pater Noster for the people in addition to any extra hymns one might add after communion or for recessional.
But this much I can guarantee: that paragraph above would be completely lost on this correspondent. And why? Because no one has ever explained the musical structure of the Roman Rite to this person, much less the responsibility of the music director with regard to it. The other problem is that answer I just gave makes virtually no sense in light of hundreds and hundreds of pages of the hymnals produced by mainstream publishers, which are filled not with chanted ordinary settings or schola propers but rather: piles and piles and piles of post-1970 songs that we are supposed to plug in anywhere we want.
I do wish that there were a single book one could use that would provide all things that the educated Catholic musician could use to navigate the prevailing mess but there is no such thing, I’m sorry to say. We are in the midst of a transition that consists mostly in rediscovering Catholic music that pre-dates 1970, and I don’t mean music of the 1950s. I mean music that shares in the sensibility that has always and everywhere defined the idea of liturgical music, music that is holy, universal, and beautiful.
One of the advantages that the publishers have right now is that they can hand a book over to a music, along with a sample CD, and say: sing this stuff. However, this might not work in the future as well, because the new translation of the Mass starting next year is structured to lend itself to chant-like settings and because of the new emphasis on the propers of the Mass (especially the introit, offertory, and communion). The existing model of the “hymn cafeteria”’ cannot and will not hold its firm grip on liturgical music in the future.
A final issue in the note above concerns talent. Where is it? Where are the singers? Where is the musical competence? Frankly, it is a desert out there. Only clarity about mission will make it bloom again.
This article is not a statement of despair. It is a statement that draws attention to the desperate work that needs to be done to educate, create new resources, learn, and put into practice the lost wisdom that this generation is recovering. There is crowd of Catholic musicians out there crying out for answers.
"A final issue in the note above concerns talent. Where is it? Where are the singers? Where is the musical competence? Frankly, it is a desert out there."
Isn't there a crisis, in general, in the Catholic Church in that there are few intellectuals? I'm not talking about cardinals and professional pundits; I'm talking about people in the pews. American Catholicism might have this problem in particular, but it could be more widespread for all I know. But my point is, we will never have singers until we have a healthy, vibrant, intelligent overall culture. I do not intend this as code for "the way things were in ______(pick a magical year of pure bliss)." I just think the issue needs to be solved at a broader and deeper level than just the music, though the music may be the foremost symptom of the problem. In order for the situation to improve much we'll need to develop some tolerance for some level of Toryism, for lack of a better word. Democracy is not friendly to culture, in my experience.
Indeed Mr. Lawrence hits it right when he suspects the intelligence of most American Catholics could be the root cause of all this nonsense. If one can meander into Mass at anytime or leave after Communion; if one can wear any sort of graphic one wants on the back of their sweatshirt at Mass; if one can wear shorts to Mass because it is 'hot outside'; if one chats and greets with a loud voice their friends in the church before Mass; If one is encouraged to clap at the end of Mass for the fine operatic Tenor hired;If one thinks all such things as this are just fine and fitting in the house of God than there is no reason to expect there to be any sort of sacred music, befitting a sacred place, i.e. church. It is the handshake with secularism that has tainted the sacred. I suspect that most Catholics have no Idea of WHO resides inside 'that box' called a Tabernacle on the Altar, or the side altar in some churches. Until we know the Majesty of God as taught by the Church, we shall continue to wallow in uncertainty in all things liturgical. Bring back the idea of the Sacredness of the Church space, it's vessels, it's statues, its Icons, it's interior space and there will be a thirst for holiness. If one is thirsty one desires to drink of that which will quench it.
Jeffrey,
I absolutely bristle when you postulate as such in this post; I suppose that's why I'm kept around for the occasional need for a dose of reality when the narrative spins further and further into "self fulfilling prophecy."
You declare: "There is no way to scientifically validate or invalidate my claim because no one really knows for sure. But this much I do know. There is no single document in existence that explains with clarity what it is that a Catholic musician is supposed to do on a week-to-week basis, nothing that clearly presents the goal of one’s endeavors, and no monograph or book that can state with absolute certainly what are the core responsibilities and tasks of the Catholic musician in the current climate. This is because there is a major conflict of vision at work today and we are far from having resolved it enough so that such a document can be produced."
You are looking through the convenient lens labeled "Macro," when I suspect, with much more scientific/anecdotal experience than you, that many of us, quite aware (thank you) of the large picture paradigms, are yet relegated to also managing our duties and schedules through many "micro" scopes.
I don't want to rant upon this divergence of perspective here and now. I've been trying to get my own mind around how to create a "unified field" manifesto and practicum, and then post my thoughts coherently. But I wish that propagandizing a unified field theory based upon the absence of empirical evidence of the intent and work of actual DM's in the American parishes, for a seeming purpose of advancing a silver bullet remedy as perceived by "Us" who have truly perceived the legislation of documents past and present, is disingenuous at best, and a fool's errand at worst.
Not personal, just a reality check.
I'm not sure why you are defensive here. Certainly no need to be. Clearly, there are knowledgeable people who can't put into effect their knowledge week to week, if that is what you are saying. In fact, that is a universal and always has been. I must not have explained myself well because I'm really speaking here of the vast majority of volunteers out there who can't find their way around the confusing shadows cast in every direction since 1970. Preconcilar, the necessary and sufficient agenda of the Catholic musician could be summed up in two words: Liber Usualis. Today? It's a mess and this mess isn't going to be straightened out until there is clarity about fundamentals. I'm sorry that my point did not come across.
I took pains not to appear "defensive." So, it appears we're both unsuccessful, my friend, in expressing our perspectives with clarity.
Here's the difference I perceive in our assessments, and I'm sure that you'll correct me if I err.
+You seem to infer that the "necessary and sufficent agenda" of the LU in preconciliar times has a equally and necessary corrolary clear agenda in our times. I think we have beaten that Trojan Horse into kindle wood ourselves without the help of liberals or "V2" progressives. As I said, there is no legislative silver bullet that any assembly of professionals or afficianados will agree is absolute. That is also a reality of "today."
+You reiterate, "Today? It's a mess…" I ask you, given the myopic lenses of St. Blogs, our own company, and our predispositions, have you asked everyone, besides the poor letter writer DM in the post, if it can be confirmed that today is a "mess" anymore than it was a mess in 1955, 1905, or 1795?
We are afforded a luxury of archeological evidence of authentic performance practices of bygone eras. We are afforded with a clarity of vision that has at its nexus the coincidence of the "scientific" efforts of 19th century Solemnes and the MP of St. Pius X that with which we are just now coming to terms. What we don't have is a comprehensive, exhaustive account of what has not been a "mess," what has, indeed, been authentic worship forms among global peoples that seems not in alignment with "our" paradigms (I'm still part of the paradigm crowd, btw.) and, most of all, we have not benefited in our quest, springing as it does from the grass roots upwards, from a universal tending of each garden by the heirachy of our Church, who seem to be the last people who want to weed the gardens on a weekly basis on the Lord's Day.
To this knowleadgeable DM, this is an apparent and, as yet, inescapable dichotomy.
It's not defensive, JT, it is reality.
I think there are some deeper philosophical/historical issues involved in the back-and-forth here (as well as a shared history of conversation between JT and CC), but I'm not sure how one could take issue with what seems to be JT's central point: the vast majority of Catholic parish musicians don't have any clue what they're doing.
The only amendment I would make to that thesis is:
Most of them don't know that they have no idea what they're doing.
The singers are there. The musical ability is there as long as the director is humble and the efforts are publicized.
Publicity is important. For every person that loves what you are doing there is on that hates it. And that means two people who will spread the word. The one that hates it will not hurt you, since smart people will check out what you are doing, so his mean comments can help!
Be humble, always throw all praise on the choir, be willing to learn.
A clear guide to what could/should be sung each week is EXACTLY what is needed. It would serve as a foil to the hymn selection lists that rule music at mass in 80% of the parishes,
And it would link to videos for training and there would be weekly discussion on how things went. We could present a solid front, with a list of what should be sung from the MR, the GS, BFW, TAG, and appropriate (are you ready for this, Kathy?) hymns!
It can explain that the Mass of the Angels may be sung during Advent because it is a time of hope, not sadness, it could mold the future of the church today. There will be argument, >•< will propose and California Charlie will decline…and all that will makes things grow.
There is a body of text known as liturgical law. It is contained in the rubrics of the Mass and the various rites. It is also found in the introductory documents.
Jeffrey states we need a book. We have several. They should be read. Cover to cover by those truly interested in the material.
That Jeffrey laments liturgical law doesn't provide what he seems to want: I can understand that, even if I disagree.
But it advances no points to suggest that music directors who don't do as he does are ignorant. It is more logical to suggest that many possible viewpoints are permitted under Roman liturgical law. And perhaps that every church musician is deficient in some way, given our fallen and imperfect state as mortal beings.
I only wish it were as clear as you suggest, Todd. Sadly, it is not. A book like Psallite Sapienter does not exist for the ordinary form, and that is for a reason. Perhaps one could be written but so far no one has succeeded in doing so.
"I've also been told that I cannot use the Mass of Light Gloria–because it adds a word to the Gloria. Is this true? Do you know offhand where this directive can be read? I'm not looking to be disobedient on this or any other issue; I simply want to be able to point it out to people in the future if I get questions about it."
In the Mass of Light Gloria, the refrain goes: "Glory to God in the highest, Sing! Glory to God!". It is the addition of the word "Sing!" that makes this Gloria illicit for use in the Liturgy.
"Let me start from the top. I've seen in a few places that the Church's ideal for music is chant. But if that was the case, wouldn't that severely bar participation from the congregation? Isn’t another ideal to have everyone involved in singing? Even forgetting that, we have another problem. The choir I lead jokes about doing chant, but the reality is that we simply do not have the talent here. We have two singers. Only one of whom can project his voice. No one has any real training."
There are several (what I consider to be) false assumptions in the above. The first is that congregation can't learn chant. When I hear that I often point out that a seeming majority of people learn the lyrics, pitches, and rhythm of maybe up to 10 songs in the Top 40 — and that list changes weekly. Many of those songs have more complex elements in them than most chants (especially plainchants).
I also point out that I recall reading (though I can't recall exactly where) that when the monks received a new member in olden days (say, several hundred years ago), the new member probably couldn't read music (or even words for that matter). When it came time to join the monks in the Divine Office, the new member would listen for the first several times but pretty soon could join in with the other monks. In other words, he learned chant by ear. That this was apparently the common practice, it would seem that this ability isn't limited to musical prodigies.
Another false assumption is that the congregation can't effectively join in with the choir (or be the choir). Evidence against this assumption comes from our Eastern brethren. An article on the village chanting of Carpatho-Rus' states: "In Subcarpathian Rus’ in all the villages both among the Uniates and also among Orthodox, there was always practiced only congregational singing of the complete services, not excluding the changeable (proper) hymns in all the varied chants. They sang according to the ‘Great Zbornik’ (collection of prayers and liturgical texts) containing every necessary text. The numerous chants (not excluding all the podobny, not even found in the Synodal notated liturgical books) were known by everyone, even the children of school age. The leader of song — the most experienced singer from the parishes—standing at the kliros sang the chant. As soon as the worshippers would hear the hymn, they would join in the chant and the entire church sang all the stichiry, all the tropars, all the irmosy—in a word, everyone sang properly according to the established canonical parts of the Liturgy. They sang in unison and whoever could, imitated or reinforced the bass. The impression proved to be overwhelmingly strong." The entire article can be found here: http://www.patronagechurch.com/HTML/full_congregational_participatio.htm — and here are two samples of Carpathian chant — the Troparion (a proper) from the Feast of the Nativity of the Theotokos: http://metropolitancantorinstitute.org/recordings/DivineLiturgies/501NativityTheotokosTroparion.mp3 and from the Feast of the Nativity of the Lord: http://metropolitancantorinstitute.org/recordings/DivineLiturgies/551NativityTroparion.mp3
A final false assumption is that "active participation" means constant action. Indeed, recent Popes have reiterated that even passive listening and silence at their appropriate times is part of the Actuoso Participatio (which some claim is better translated as actual or authentic participation).
"But ultimately I am finding songs I cannot stomach, and I wouldn't consider myself closed-minded to the newer material"
There is too much bad music out there. I also chuckle at the thought of the song 'Gather Us In'. At the end of the 3rd verse (I think) is the phrase "give us the courage to enter the song". Here is a song so banal and insipid that the composer felt the need for a pep talk half way through. And a good Priest (R.I.P.) noted that for the longest time when the song "Peace Is Flowing" was sung, he couldn't understand why all the cactus needed to be freed.
Again, we can look to our Eastern brethren and the hymns they sing. The Christians of the Orient (Syria, Lebanon, etc.) have long been noted for their hymnography. And I recall an album called "Christian Themes in Ukranian Folk Music" by the group Drevo. This is the folk music that can have a proper place in the Liturgy, as this hymn that is sometimes sung in the Good Friday procession shows: http://he3.magnatune.com/all/03-Suffering%20Mother%20stood%20near%20the%20Cross-Drevo.mp3
Note also that there, and in many other European, Mid-Eastern, and African cultures that singing these religious hymns outside of Liturgy is also common. When was the last time you and a group of your friends gathered after work on the porch to sing "One Bread, One Body" or anything from an OCP or GIA hymnal? Do you find yourself belting those out in the shower? Perhaps we should develop an authentic form of American Polyphony to compose worthy hymns for the Liturgy.
"But it advances no points to suggest that music directors who don't do as he does are ignorant. It is more logical to suggest that many possible viewpoints are permitted under Roman liturgical law. And perhaps that every church musician is deficient in some way, given our fallen and imperfect state as mortal beings."
In the Equine Dressage world, horses and riders compete, not against each other, but against a standard.
Church musicians have a standard, clearly outlined and documented by the church. Many, including yourself, have chosen to use the new freedoms to ignore and even ridicule the standard. It would seem to be your choice and be in violation of nothing.
Except that your acts affect the sacred liturgy, the worship of the people. The standard was put into effect so that no liturgy may offend or fall below a certain level. You and those you encourage are not in favor of bad music, rather you delight in attacking the standard and everything that the church is about. It smacks of evil in many ways. You have publicly challenged the church in many ways.
Many possible viewpoints? Is the viewpoint of the Pope not one that should be the center of what we do, not the efforts of those who chose not to follow him, but to challenge everything that has been the foundation of the church for centuries?
Looking back in history we see the havoc created by people who choose not to do what is good for the people but rather what they think is good for the people.
Noel, nice work. "Smacks of evil" is a particularly good touch. You have a congruent point of view, so I suppose you have no concern about being deleted.
"You have publicly challenged the church in many ways."
So? So has Father Z. So have a lot of critics.
I suspect a slow burn is in the air because you have no power whatsoever over the people who hire music directors or liturgists. And there's no reason to think anything will change on that front.
The truth is that I come prepared in these discussions with liturgical law. I've studied it. I apply it. I happen to think Jeffrey's musical ideals are especially well-suited for a dialogue with that law and its application. Less so for the person who assigns ill motives or ignorance to those with whom she or he disagrees.
In other words, way to make your point, Noel. Good luck with it, and all.
You know, reaching for the dictionary becomes such a pain.
Fr. Z challenges the church from the view of someone who loves the church.
No concern about being deleted? The administrators of Musics Sacra have to order PC's with an extra key coded to automatically delete postings that I make, and I have publicly thanked them.
You apply Liturgical when is suits your own views, which differ greatly from Fr. Z's. I find it offensive that you equate yourself with him.
I read Fr. Z.
Mr. Todd, you're no Father Z.
Indeed Mr. Lawrence hits it right when he suspects the intelligence of most American Catholics could be the root cause of all this nonsense.
I'll quibble a bit: it's not 'lack of intelligence', it's application of intel.
We're far too busy calculating the over/under and odds on NFL games rather than reading Aquinas and understanding genuine art.
The basic problem I see is lack of knowledge / training in liturgy. By this I do not mean simply a knowledge of liturgical law, as necessary as that may be. That just gives you the do's and don'ts. Even those who have read and studied the documents very often lack any sort of sensibility for the tradition of the church – the "soul" underlying the letter of the law. Liturgical law cannot supply good taste, familiarity with the Catholic tradition, and prayerfulness. I'm talking about the "ethos" of the Catholic liturgy, which cannot be learned from a book. Familiarity with a church where the liturgy is celebrated with a full Catholic spirit – often seen only in monasteries – can be of immense help here.
Take the example of the big rousing hymn to open a mass. This is certainly "allowed" in the rubics, yet is it a *good* choice? I would say no – not just for a legalistic reason (it's last on the list or whatever), but from a consideration of the nature of modern strophic hymns and the nature of the Eucharistic liturgy. The ethos of modern Catholic liturgy is in many ways different than that of a hymn – at least the way a hymns are commonly done and understood today.
I would summarize this difference under the headings "Catholic" and "Protestant" (for lack of better terms). Let me throw out some descriptions: Catholic: contemplative, reflective, indirect, symbolic, interior – the liturgy is Christ's work; Protestant: didactic, proclaimative, explicit, verbal, outgoing – the liturgy is what we do. Obviously these are neither exclusive not exhaustive – it's a matter of emphasis and what is at the "core". The liturgy is (or should be) beautiful without being pretty or precious, simple without being cheap or only adequate, moving without being sentimental, powerful without being overwhelming, symbolic without being arcane, formative without being didactic, personal without being solipsistic, public without being common, other-wordly without being narcissistic, sensual without being self-indulgent.
Now think of the big hymn opening mass as opposed to a Gregorian chant introit. Which is more congruous with a Catholic understanding of the liturgy – what it does, and more to the point, *how* it goes about doing it? I think this is the source of the disconnect we have all felt at certain masses where the music / vestments / architecture etc. just don't match what is really taking place – it does not manifest what is going on in the liturgy. Over-the-top Broadway, casual small talk, and to a lesser extant, a gigantic hymn at the opening, don't "fit." Even such things as microphones chip away at a proper ethos.
Needless to say, recently there has been an emphasis on the more "Protestant" elements I listed, presumably because people thought they were lacking in Catholic worship. The "new liturgical movement" can be seen as an attempt to recover some of these qualities (hence it is often accused of "turning back the clock.")
With so many options, there is little guidance on what is the "better" option – or what is more to the point, what is better about it, how it is in accord with a proper understanding of the ethos of the liturgy. This is why a knowledge and understanding of tradition is so important; it is the "key" that opens the door to the full beauty ad power of the liturgy.
Just speculating, Jeffrey….
But it seems that the author of the email you quote is young-ish. (Under 30).
That most likely means that the fellow is an…….ahhhh……inexpensive hire for the Church where he works.
He would have benefitted from being an apprentice to an older, far more experienced musician someplace, except that those older/experienced types draw higher compensation. Therefore, they get no apprentices.
Sam, I agree, Pointless to have a rousing hymn then a lackluster Glory To God, THE hymn of the church!
http://catholicsensibility.wordpress.com/2010/10/18/after-this-our-exile/
seems to think little if us.
Wait, I think she used to be in my alto section!
Sam, I join Knoxville Noel 😉 in thanking you for advancing the cogent notion of approaching redress of the mess via a veritable Roman Catholic ethos.
That said, I return to the dichotomy I mentioned in my second comment with this question?
Do you really believe this can pervasively be promulgated from the grass roots UP among, at least, USA parishes/cathedrals/basilicas/missions?
We who subscribe to this ethos (CMAA et al) cannot be expected to implement a completely revolutionary vision (I speak of Tra le…) EVERYWHERE without the teaching and pastoral support of our local ordinaries. If we are still talking about it being a "mess" everywhere.
And I reiterate, we "locals" can tend our gardens quite nicely, but I haven't seen too many US bishops (you can likely count their number on two hands) willing to pick up a trowel and get into the soil in order to cultivate even their own vision of the ethos of Roman liturgy.
I could be wrong, I often am.
The US Bishops are being shielded from our work by the people who are threatened by the need to actually read music, study music, lead music of quality.
Noel, mon ami, two questions:
1. Are you absolving US Bishops from their liturgical responsibilities by your contention above?
2. Could you elaborate precisely as to the strategies and mechanisms of the people shielding all the US bishops from our work?
Bishops are only cognizant of what is going on in parishes by the liturgies they observe, almost always prepared specially for the Bishop, and what they hear from their friend priests and deacons.
In a small diocese, chancery employees are often sprinkled around the local churches resulting in an ongoing web of intrigue and gossip. From what I have observed, there is a certain spin that goes on to convince the Bishop of what the reality is.
These guys really don't get a chance to step out, stand back and observe what is going on since they get calls every Monday with complaints from lay people and priest.
But, how many of them actually speak with the bishop?
And that's where the problem lies. If you have a bishop who answers his own phone then there is no problem. If you have to go through people to get to him or may only meet with him in the presence of others, good luck.
I'm not absolving, just stating why they rarely have an accurate understanding of what good may be happening in their diocese.
Which is just another reason why bishops should not have a stable residence but move regularly from vicariate/deanery to vicariate/deanery (and, for urban and suburban parishes, it would be best to consolidate presbyteral residences to a vicariate/deanery house of religion level, and sell off or repurposes parish rectories to the extent feasible).
Two interesting ideas, Liam.
"Do you really believe this can pervasively be promulgated from the grass roots UP among, at least, USA parishes/cathedrals/basilicas/missions?"
We'll never know until we try. The fact that the CMAA has developed so much over the past few years is very encouraging.
"We who subscribe to this ethos (CMAA et al) cannot be expected to implement a completely revolutionary vision (I speak of Tra le…) EVERYWHERE without the teaching and pastoral support of our local ordinaries."
I see this as a parish by parish effort. The parishes where I see good things happening are being done most often without the active support of the bishop. It's the pastor who is the key here. That's not to say that I don't appreciate a bishop who actively encourages good liturgy and music. But let's face it – you could have Joseph Ratzinger as your bishop and the pastor could still force you to sing Glory and Praise every Sunday. So it's really at the parish level, pastor by pastor and music director by music director, where this is going to be played out.
I can't implement anything "EVERYWHERE" but I can do my best at my own parish.
Noel,
Your last comment seemed to hit the nail on the head. At my last parish, I wondered frequently why the bishop (who is a good and holy priest) wouldn't take action against the many liturgical abuses that went on week-to-week. Then, I realized that whenever he visited, the liturgy was reoriented to something more reverent, solemn and sacred, as if His Excellency's presence was the one we were worshiping. Although I (and my like-minded cohorts) wrote him more than a few personal letters about the sad state of affairs at said parish, nothing ever seemed to happen. No intervention occurred. I deduced, quite logically, that he had a mail-reader and was never even seeing the complaints. Perhaps he does; perhaps he doesn't. After reading your comment, however, I no longer feel that I am alone in wondering about some sort of shielding-conspiracy.
…..summarize this difference under the headings "Catholic" and "Protestant" …
Very interesting observations!
Noel, Skeeton at al,
You are so correct in observing that when the local Bishop arrives at a parish for confirmation, pastor installation or other special, out-of-the ordinary weekly liturgy, changes are indeed made. In my former parish, from which I retired this past spring(now you know that I'm not one of those "less expensive" younger music directors),the pastor picked super traditional hymns that very few of the congregation were able to sing. When I retired he hired a piano banging, cruise ship crooner who accompanied the more traditional hymns with cocktail style chords…I don't need to go on any further. I'm sure you get the idea. I'm not sure that the majority of pastors know what the documents say, much less try to put them into practice. Much education is needed for the mediocrity so common in American Catholic churches to be gradually eliminated. It starts with an informed pastor and music director. The people will gradually learn and follow.
"I'm not sure that the majority of pastors know what the documents say, much less try to put them into practice."
What makes you "not sure"? 😉
"Much education is needed for the mediocrity so common in American Catholic churches to be gradually eliminated."
I'm not convinced the problem is purely, or even mostly, an intellectual one. At its core, music is an art. Art is not informed by the intellect, so much as by the imagination.
But I am curious as to how this streak got started among some chant supporters. Do you honestly believe it's a matter of learning and intelligence? And if so, where is the art? The beauty?
What I'm convinced of remains the reality that the problems (see the brutality inherent in the system!)have little to do with artistic or intellectual concerns. It boils down to terratorial politics in the end, now doesn't it?
I don't take a job as DM unless I'm invested with total responsibility for all repertoire choices at worship/devotions/concerts. Never have, won't likely ever need to hash that out again. But, my intellectual and artistic assets and tastes cannot prevail over those of any priest/celebrant's when it comes to any proposed modification or reform of our local rites and procedures.
If there is clarity of responsibilities and communication between pastoral authority and musical mastery, then the give and take should balance out over all, and the ship stay its course.
But we all know that "human resources" squabbles and intrapersonal squabbles are the cause of the undoing of a lot of DM jobs. One has to keep one's job to remain an advocate for change.
I'm not convinced that most chant supporters believe that "the problem is purely, or even mostly, an intellectual one."
I think we can all agree that a basic level of education is necessary but that it is not sufficient. The reaction is against people who, for example, lead the music at a church but cannot read music and are not interested in any formal musical education. Leading a chant group in particular demands a certain level of training (reading neuemes, pronunciation of Latin, etc.) that may not be as necessary for other types of music.