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?

Maybe there is a freeform church somewhere, but I've never seen one

I believe that the Friends (aka Quakers) have "free-form" meetings.

I have never attended one, but my understanding is that the worshipers sit in a reverent silence, and whenever an individual feels led to speak to the group, or pray aloud, they rise and do so at any time.

I don't believe they have any liturgy or any type of structured service.

If there are any Friends on this thread, perhaps they can clarify or correct me if I'm wrong :)

If you find a church called, "(something) Bible Chapel," chances are they will follow the Plymouth Brethren tradition where the Remembrance meeting, a.k.a. the Breaking of Bread meeting, is free-form.

Being a recovering Plymouth Brethren, I can tell you the form is just as liturgical as any other church. The content of the service varies, but the order does not. Someone invariably gives thanks for Communion at about 45-50 minutes into the service, then the plate is passed during announcements.

It may be a very simple liturgy, but it is a liturgy none the less. If you doubt that it is a liturgy, try this: stand up and give thanks for the bread and cup 5 minutes into the meeting. Watch peoples heads spin.

So, I'm still left wondering how the new covenant had the effect of rendering musical instruments unacceptable.

I ask this because it seems you believe the entire Old Testament Word of God has been replaced by the New Testament. I am not aware of anything in Scripture to support that view. What I do find is that the old covenant has been superceded by the new covenant. It's not the same, not even close.

No, not all of those melodies are actually awful.

What on earth is "Bionic Son" ?

Ah, that one also caught my eye. Sounds pretty gruesome, doesn't it?

On the OCP page you can listen to a sample of each ringtone before laying your money down. Bionic Son sounds sounds like a dance club tune. It's got a beat that will make you move your feet.

If the new covenant has superceded the old covenant(which it has), and we have been given a specific command in the new covenant regarding praise in worship(which we have), then what authority do we have to add to the command given in the new covenant?

The very same authority by which you prohibit instruments in church, when in fact no New Covenant command prohibits the same. Unless you're careful, you could well fall afoul of the warnings in Colossians 2.

In point of fact, the New Testament is silent on the matter of instruments in church. Is it not better to simply speak where the bible speaks, and be silent where it is silent?

I ask this because it seems you believe the entire Old Testament Word of God has been replaced by the New Testament. I am not aware of anything in Scripture to support that view. What I do find is that the old covenant has been superceded by the new covenant. It's not the same, not even close.

I'm just speculating here, but based on what little I know of the life and ministry of Jesus the Christ, I suspect that he would agree with you. His life was very much grounded in the Torah. It had to be, because the very Law He came to fulfill was an expression of the Authority by which he acted.

The command to sing is specific. It does not leave room for mechanical instruments. If we only had a general command to praise God, then anything would be allowed. However, we are told specifically how to praise God. It is by singing and making melody in our hearts.

Being a recovering Plymouth Brethren,

Sorry to hear of your bad experience.

If you doubt that it is a liturgy, try this: stand up and give thanks for the bread and cup 5 minutes into the meeting. Watch peoples heads spin.

Not all groups are the same; everything in and around your post suggests yours was more rigid than most.

Breaking bread five minutes into the meeting would make some people uncomfortable. But, for most groups, I doubt it would be a big problem.

then the plate is passed during announcements

That is by no means universal, and it's simply a matter of expediency and custom.

Thanks for your input. Best wishes during your continuing recovery.

It is by singing and making melody in our hearts.

And somehow having a piano in the room negates that?

Tell me, does the command to sing leave room to use songbooks? My bible certainly doesn't specifically authorize the use of written records of hymns, and while we do have written records of the lyrics of the psalms, these are without down Old Covenant writings and therefore do not apply. There is of course the New Covenant command to sing "...hymns, songs, and spiritual songs" as recorded in Ephesians 5 and Colossians 3, but these passages do not permit songbooks any more than they allow instruments, and it's likely that the first-century church didn't use songbooks.

When you say "The command to sing is specific. It does not leave room for mechanical instruments," I reply "Says you." If you can't cite any biblical authority for your position, I'm afraid there's no reason why I should respect that position. Show me in the Word of God where instruments are forbidden...or, failing that, show me in the Word of God where your approach to the scriptures that pertain to the issue is prescribed. If you can't do that, you're standing on your own authority, or that of the people who taught you, and that won't sway anyone. Nor should it.

we have been given a specific command in the new covenant regarding praise

Again, your terminology points to your seeming desire to throw out the OT in its entirety. Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16 have not replaced Psalms 149 and 150. Those epistles appear in the NT. They came under the new covenant.

The NT has not replaced the OT. The new covenant has replaced the old covenant. Surely you understand the distinction.

I am very interested to know where Scripture says otherwise.

First, let me answer your point about songbooks. There is a difference between an expedient or aid, and addition to a command. Songbooks do not add or change the command to sing. They only aid in the singing. However, if mechanical instruments are used in worship, then that is adding to the command to sing. It is a different type of music.

As I have said before, while the Old Law is not binding on Christians, the Old Testament was "written for our learning" (Romans 15:4). There are numerous examples in the Old Testament (Cain and Abel, Nadab and Abihu for example) where people took it upon themselves to do something not specifically forbidden by God. Cain's offering was not accepted by God, and Nadab and Abihu were destroyed by God for offering something that was different from what was specifically commanded. When a specific command was given in these cases, doing something outside of that specific command was not authorized.

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.