Bad Music is Destroying the Church

In recent times the Church has developed uneasy relations with its musicians. Growing up in the 1960s and 70s I was aware of a creeping separation between my serious engagement with the study of music, the application and practice of assiduously honed skills, and what the Church seemed to need and want for its liturgy.

I soon discovered that most serious Catholic musicians were being repulsed by an increasingly rigid misinterpretation of the Second Vatican Council’s reforms on music. Clergy and “liturgists” began expressing a scarcely veiled disdain for the very expertise and learning that musicians had sought to acquire. Serious musicians were more and more caricatured as elitists, reactionaries and Tridentinists by a new philistinism in the Church. Many of those who were not subdued into a state of quietism defected to Anglican and Lutheran parishes where their skills as organists, choral directors and singers were greatly appreciated.

These other churches now regard the Catholic Church as having engaged in a cultural vandalism in the 1960s and 70s – a destructive iconoclasm which wilfully brought to an end any remnant of its massive choral tradition and its skilful application to liturgical use. In short, music in the Catholic Church is referred to with sniffs of justified derision by these other denominations which have managed to maintain high standards of music-making in their divine services.

Is this negativity justified, and if so, how did this sorry state of affairs come about? Discussions of this issue usually throw up divided opinions about the state of Catholic liturgy before the 1960s. Reform certainly seems to have been overdue. The pre-conciliar liturgy by all accounts seems to have been a ritualised expression of the moribundity that had so calcified the Church. We were certainly ready for the rejuvenating breath of the Holy Spirit to cleanse, renew and refresh every aspect of Catholicism in the modern age. However, even although the pre-conciliar liturgical experience could be an alienating endurance for some, others speak fondly of how widespread the practice of choral singing was, even in the most lowly provincial parish. Performance of major composers, from Palestrina to Mozart, seems to have been natural practice from Aberdeen to Kilmarnock, from Glasgow to Cumnock.

The Second Vatican Council was certainly not the beginning of the Church’s desire in recent times to improve musico-liturgical practice. The Church has worried away at the question of appropriate music for centuries, dating back to its earliest days. The constant centrality in the Roman rite, though, since these days has been the chant. The motivation of the Church, since the mid-19th century, to re-establish a more fully authentic liturgical life has been wrapped up with a concern for the chant.

In 1903 Pope Pius X issued his motu proprio on sacred music. Gregorian is not the only form of the chant that has been used by the churches. One need only look to the Anglicans or to Byzantium to see the shadings of a great multiplicity. There is also great potential for new forms to suit the vernacular liturgies. Gelineau and Taizé are the most obvious examples of how the modern church can respond to its great musical calling.

Although Pius was aware of the plurality of the chant, he nevertheless stressed that the attributes of holiness, goodness of form and universality were pre-eminently embodied in Gregorian chant. Since then it has been regarded as the paradigmatic form of Catholic liturgical music. Pius’s words speak of its classic nature: “The more closely a church composition approaches plain chant in movement, inspiration and feeling, the more holy and liturgical it becomes; and the more out of harmony it is with this supreme model, the less worthy it is of the temple. Special efforts should be made to restore the use of Gregorian chant by the people so that the faithful may again take a more active part in the ecclesiastical offices, as was the case in ancient times.”

The chant, Gregorian or otherwise, has cropped up in recent news stories about Pope Benedict’s hopes and fears for the Church’s liturgy. As to be expected, the media have given these stories a spin of bogus controversy and have traduced the Pontiff’s words and motivation. “An end to modern worship music” and “Pope abolishes Vatican’s Christmas pop concert” are two such headline examples. A number of liberal liturgists have rushed to condemn Benedict’s “cultural authoritarianism” and have found willing accomplices in the institutionally anti-Catholic BBC and other media outlets. The Pope is presented as a stern-faced, party-pooping disciplinarian, stamping out electric guitars, pop-crooning, and the sentimental, bubble-gum “folk” music used in many of today’s Catholic churches. Consequently we will now all have to “endure” his much-loved Mozart, Tallis, Byrd and Latin plainsong. The people queuing up to attack the Pope are the very ones who were responsible for the banal excrescences enforced on us in the name of “democratisation of the liturgy” and “active participation” over the last few decades. They claim that the Pope is forcing through a narrow, one-dimensional vision of liturgy, and imply that chant is beyond the capabilities of ordinary people. They are wrong on both counts.

First, Benedict has been quite clear that updating sacred music is eminently possible but “it should not happen outside the traditional path of Gregorian chants or sacred polyphonic choral music”.

Clearly, there are living composers who know and respect this tradition and context and can allow their contemporary work to be infused by it, and there are other composers who don’t and can’t. It is quite straightforward to understand with whom the Church can and should be working. Secondly, congregations in and outside the Catholic Church have been singing chant in Latin and in the vernacular for centuries. In Britain, the monumental efforts to keep alive the plainchant tradition over the last century have not been nurtured by the authorities. When Plainsong for Schools was published in 1933 it sold over a 100,000 copies in the first 18 months. The Society of St Gregory organised regional chant festivals throughout the land and held summer schools. Between 1937 and 1939 congregations of 2,000 and more met at Westminster Cathedral and sang the Ordinarium Missae from the Kyriale, with a schola of male amateurs singing the Proper. This shows what can and what could still be done.

There is a new momentum building in the Church which could be directed to bringing about this new, creative “reform of the reform”. Part of that momentum comes from a widespread disgust at what was described recently as “aisle-dancing and numbskull jogging for Jesus choruses at Mass”. The days of embarrassing, maudlin and sentimental dirges such as “Bind us together Lord” and “Make me a channel of your peace” may indeed be numbered. Are we seeing the end days for overhead projectors, screaming microphones and fluorescent lighting and their concomitant music, complete with incompetently strummed guitars and cringe-making, smiley, cheesy folk groups? The American writer Thomas Day describes this kind of liturgy as “a diet of romantic marshmallows indigestibly combined with stuff that grabs you by the scruff of the neck and shakes you into submission with its social message”. “What was the rationale of such music?” asked John Ainslie, one-time secretary of the Society of St Gregory, writing in the 1970s. “Many well-intentioned nuns, teachers and later priests thought that such ‘folk music’ would appeal to teenagers and young people generally and so encourage them to participate in the Liturgy instead of walk out from it.

“The term ‘folk music’ is, of course, misleading. There is nothing, for example, to link it with the English folk-song tradition... The name was no doubt coined partly because some of the early repertoire was imported from the United States, where it might have been called folk music with some justification, partly because it was felt that the style had something in common with the musical tastes of today’s younger generation and their sub-culture. But it has never been persuasively shown that whatever young people may find attractive to listen to in a disco, they will find attractive to sing in church.

“Further, the style is unsuitable for singing by large congregations... more so if the only accompaniment provided is a guitar rather than the organ, since guitars, even amplified, have insufficient ‘bite’ to keep a whole congregation singing together and to give them the support they have come to expect from the organ.” Liturgy as social engineering has probably repulsed more people from the modern Catholic Church than any of the usual list of “social crimes” trotted out by the Church’s critics. Like most ideas shaped by 1960s Marxist sociology, it has proved an utter failure. Its greatest tragedy is the wilful, de-poeticisation of Catholic worship. Our liturgy was hi-jacked by opportunists who used the vacuum created by the Council to push home a radical agenda of de-sacralisation and, ultimately, secularisation. The Church has simply aped the secular West’s obsession with “accessibility”, “inclusiveness”, “democracy” and “anti-elitism”. The effect of this on liturgy has been a triumph of bad taste and banality and an apparent vacating of the sacred spaces of any palpable sense of the presence of God. The jury is still out on any “social gains” achieved by the Church as a result. It may be timely and sobering to reflect on what we have lost.

In the early 1970s Victor Turner, the cultural anthropologist, wrote of the old Roman rite: “One advantage of the traditional Latin ritual was that it could be performed by the most diverse groups and individuals, surmounting the divisions of age, sex, ethnicity, culture, economic status, or political affiliation.

“The liturgy stands out as a magnificent objective creation if the will to assist both lovingly and well was there. Now one fears that the tendentious manipulation of particular interest-groups is liquidating the ritual bonds which held the entire heterogeneous mystical body together in worship.”

In the light of this, the reformed liturgy can be seen as yet another glaring failure by the Leftists in the Church to deliver, even according to their own agenda. It was not meant to be like this. Reading the Sacrosanctum Concilium, the Council’s document on the liturgy, one realises just how much the spirit of true reform has been betrayed by the wilful misdirection of liturgical activists in recent times:

“Servers, readers, commentators, and members of the choir also exercise a genuine liturgical function. They ought, therefore, to discharge their offices with the sincere piety and decorum demanded by so exalted a ministry and rightly expected of them by God’s people.” (Sacrosanctum Concilium [SC] Chapter 3, Section 29)

“The treasury of sacred music is to be preserved and cultivated with great care. Choirs must be assiduously developed.” (SC, Chapter 6, Section 14)

“The faithful are also to be taught that they should try to raise their mind to God through interior participation as they listen to the singing of ministers or choir.” (Musicam Sacram, Part 2, Section 14)

“Because of the liturgical ministry it exercises, the choir should be mentioned here explicitly. The conciliar norms regarding reform of the liturgy have given the choir’s function greater prominence and importance. Therefore: (a) Choirs are to be developed with great care, especially in cathedrals and other major churches, in seminaries and in religious houses of study. (b) In smaller churches as well a choir should be formed, even if there are only a few members.” (MS, Part 2, Section 19)

“The Church recognises Gregorian Chant as being specially suited to the Roman liturgy. Therefore it should be given pride of place in liturgical services.” (SC, Chapter 6, Section 116)

“Other kinds of music, especially polyphony are by no means excluded.” (SC, Chapter 6, Section 116) “The pipe organ is to be held in high esteem in the Latin Church, for it is the traditional musical instrument, the sound of which can add a wonderful splendour to the Church’s ceremonies and powerfully lifts up men’s minds to God and higher things.” (SC, Chapter 6, Section 120) “Pastors should see to it that, in addition to the vernacular, the faithful are also able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass belonging to them.” (MS, Part 2, Section 47)

It is clear, therefore, that Vatican II did not abolish choirs, the great choral tradition, Gregorian chant, organs, prayerful liturgy, or even Latin. In fact as the documents make clear here, all these things are positively encouraged. So who did abolish them?

duck-n-cover .... yeah, it can get that way.

Seriously, though: I make no promises, but it's a good bet when you're traveling. Most 'liturgical abuses' seem, in my experience, to come from the "minister of music" not the priest. It wasn't always this way, but that's been my experience of late ... so if you want pure worship (the Mass) and no nonsense, avoid the "minister of music".

As Christians, we are no longer under the Old Law.

Yes, of course.

But, when people pointed you to Psalms 149 and 150, which specifically mention playing musical instruments in praising God, you responded by saying the OT is not binding for Christians. How you relate the OT Law to the Psalms remains unclear to me. No one was saying those Psalms commanded the playing of instruments. Are you?

At any rate, it seems what you're saying is, although it used to be good to praise the Lord in the playing of musical instruments, something about the New Covenant has made musical instruments unacceptable, or even bad, for praise and/or worship. Correct?

Judging by the posts, bad church music seems to be a truly ecumenical subject.

Now you can take your favorite bad tune with you out in public and irritate the whole world:

Got a favorite worship song that inspires you each time you hear it?

Put it on your cell phone for only $1.99!

Now many of the most popular OCP melodies are available as cell phone ringtones. Choose from over 30 well-known liturgical and contemporary songs, including "On Eagle's Wings," "Be Not Afraid," "Sweet Redeemer," "Pencil in Your Hand," and "Pescador de Hombres."

It's a fun and affordable way to bring the music of OCP home!

All That Is Hidden (Bernadette Farrell)
Allelu! (Ray Repp)
Be Not Afraid (Bob Dufford SJ)
Been So Busy (Grayson Warren Brown)
Big God (Sarah Hart; Twila McBride-LaBar)
Bionic Son (Chris Padgett; Bradley DeRosia)
Blinded (Greg Walton)
Brand New Day (Curtis Stephan)
Fish With Me (Ken Canedo)
For Your Love (Tom Kendzia)
Freedom (Trevor Thomson)
Gloria In Excelsis (Curtis Stephan)
Glory And Praise To Our God (Dan Schutte)
Go Make A Difference (Steve Angrisano; Tom Tomaszek)
Green Light (Julie Hoy)
Hail Mary, Gentle Woman (Carey Landry)
Here I Am, Lord (Dan Schutte)
I Will Choose Christ (Tom Booth; Ed Bolduc)
Just Like You (Matt Maher)
Just Live It (Tom Booth; Matt Maher)
Love Has Come (Ed Buldoc; Matt Maher)
On Eagle's Wings (Michael Joncas)
Open My Eyes (Jesse Manibusan)
Our God Is Good (Cooper Ray; Joshua Blakesley)
Our God Is Here (Chris Muglia)
Pencil In Your Hand (Bob Halligan, Jr.)
Pescador de Hombres / Lord You Have Come (Cesáreo Gabaráin)
Prayer of St. Francis (Sebastian Temple)
Sing Of The Lord's Goodness (Ernest Sands; Christopher Walker; Paul Inwood)
Stomp (Bob Halligan, Jr.; Rick Cua)
Sweet Redeemer (Steve Angrisano; Sarah Hart)
Trading My Sorrows (Darrell Evans)
Tú Estás (Frankie González; Andy Andino; Elvin Negrón)
Your Grace Is Enough (Matt Maher)

The ringtone services are provided through MediaPlazza. All technical support and billing issues regarding ringtones should be addressed directly to MediaPlazza at 1-866-303-5488 or support@mediaplazza.com.

Then I guess this could be a song to Satan...

Sowing in the morning, sowing seeds of kindness,
Sowing in the noontide and the dewy eve;
Waiting for the harvest, and the time of reaping,
We shall come rejoicing, bringing in the sheaves.
Refrain
Bringing in the sheaves, bringing in the sheaves,
We shall come rejoicing, bringing in the sheaves,
Bringing in the sheaves, bringing in the sheaves,
We shall come rejoicing, bringing in the sheaves,
Sowing in the sunshine, sowing in the shadows,
Fearing neither clouds nor winter’s chilling breeze;
By and by the harvest, and the labor ended,
We shall come rejoicing, bringing in the sheaves.
Refrain
Going forth with weeping, sowing for the Master,
Though the loss sustained our spirit often grieves;
When our weeping’s over, He will bid us welcome,
We shall come rejoicing, bringing in the sheaves.
Refrain

Nope, no references to Jesus or God there...

Every word that I have written to you is backed up by scripture, interspersed within what I have written. Do you not recognize it without chapter and verse cited? I perceive that surely you have hidden His Word in your heart that you might not sin against Him, but then so have many others.

The only thing in this that I think you are "wrong" about is your apparent lack of respect for others' beliefs and rights to their own reading of the Word of God. Disagreeing is your right. - My posts ARE generally too long; I stand corrected. . and I don't feel badly toward you, I wish you the best as I do all people and want them to be saved and ready for the return of Christ -whenever that is. Most of us are just doing the best we can where we are.

I may read in the scriptures where Paul admonishes that women should wear long hair and cover their heads, and I, for example, may deem your sect to be damned because the women get butchy short haircuts and don't cover their heads (with coverings). There is much more scripture dealing with that subject than with mechanical instruments. (In fact, I don't recall any that specifically mentions mechanical instruments.)

The difference is that I give YOU the leeway and Christian love to have the benefit of the doubt, which I think you are unwilling to allow us in the simple matter of musical instruments (about which you cite two verses of scripture that do not even mention mechanical instruments specifically.) You should absolutely NOT go to a church building where there is mechanical music UNLESS you are 100% sure it is not a sin. Of course not, believing about it as you do.

And finally, brethren, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are of good report, if there be any virture, if there be any praise, think on these things. -

In every example we have of Christians praising God within the New Testament, it is by singing.

And I heard a voice from heaven, as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of a great thunder: and I heard the voice of harpers harping with their harps: And they sung as it were a new song before the throne, and before the four beasts, and the elders: and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth. (Revelation 14:2-3 KJV)

And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints. And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; (Revelation 5:8-9 KJV)

Some of those aren't completely horrible songs (if I had to choose the "best" from the list, I'd probably choose "Glory and Praise to Our God."). But a lot of them are, and especially when done poorly. I don't recognize even half of them though. What on earth is "Bionic Son" ?

If you want truly bad post-Vatican II songs though, go and find an old 1st generation of the Glory and Praise hymnal and look at some of the songs by one Erich Sylvester. The man was (I'm told) a German beer pub band player and his hymns are written in that vein (!). Absolutely hilarious although totally inappropriate for church. I'd actually say the modern GIA/OCP publications have actually managed to cull a lot of the pure crap that arose in the early 1970's.

about which you cite two verses of scripture that do not even mention mechanical instruments specifically

Not only do the verses not mention mechanical instruments specifically, they don't mention them generally or even imply the use of mechanical instruments. Those verses do, however, give a specific way to praise God, and that is by singing and making melody in your heart.

In fact, I don't recall any that specifically mentions mechanical instruments.

Neither do I. However, there are several verses that specifically mention singing (Romans 15:9,1 Corinthians 14:15,Hebrews 2:12,James 5:13).

As you can see, we have no command, example, or necessary implication that mechanical instruments are to be used during worship by Christians. Where does your authority to use mechanical instruments come from?

And finally, brethren, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are of good report, if there be any virture, if there be any praise, think on these things. -

I have listened to some great music and wondered aloud how anyone could possibly hear such music and deny the existence of God.

Here's a small sample of what I mean. To think that a human being is capable of making that kind of music with nothing more than strings and wood and fingers is nothing short of a miracle.

One can and should be able to praise the Lord with anything at your disposal including your fingers and to deny such a Gift as Billy McLaughlin had from being displayed at church in a worshipful manner is tantamount to burying your talents.

The sample is from Billy McLaughlin's Christmas album called Simple Gifts. You can purchase it here.

:-)

The nature of Revelation is symbolic. These verses deal with visions of heaven that John was given by God. This is not an example of what the Apostles or the 1st century Christians did in their worship of God.

Also, if what happens in heaven is to be considered an example of what goes on today, then we should no enter into marriage relationships, since they will not exist in heaven.

To not be "under the law", you sure do seem to major on commands. - HEAR THIS! NO ONE is trying to make you NOT sing and make melody in your heart unto the Lord. Praise the Lord you do! We all need to sincerely do more of that. Your interpretation of scripture is not, unfortunately, going to be shared by EVERYONE. Neither is mine. We just have to get over it.

By the way, are you man or woman? Paul said that he suffered the women not to teach the men. Now I risk, in my own personal conviction on the matter, truly going against scripture as I see it if I continue answering you. This thread has already gone to "doubtful disputations", which are as you know are, according to the NT, commanded against.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.