>>If it’s objectionable purely because Cat Stevens sang it, we’re gonna have to get rid of the National Anthem because Roseanne Barr butchered it . . . this is just a silly objection to a very unobjectionable hymn.<<
I find it objectionable because we have four songs to sing at Holy Mass.
When someone without a historical music background (most of us) hear it, we think of Cat Stevens. It’s not Catholic, it’s pop and it has nothing to do with the Holy Mass.
It amazes me that everyone says Catholics don’t sing. WE sing at my parish. And do you know why we sing? Because we play the same songs. The Historically Catholics songs. We don’t sing “The Lord of the Dance”, “The King of Glory” or “Morning has Broken”.
If people truly want the congregation to participate in singing (which I doubt many times when the “Music Minister” is soloing away at parishes I visit), play something they know. Stop worrying about the choir being bored with singing the same thing. It’s not about them anyway.
Well, no, it's not about them, but if the choir does the same thing over and over again, it gets sloppy and there's no growth, spiritual, musical or any other way. Not to mention, it really does bore the choir to tears. That's not to say that a standard repertoire isn't a good idea, just be sure there's variety. In my choir, we switch Mass parts by season, and do a collection of antiphons in Advent and Lent. They've been the same the last few years, but as they only come up once in the annual cycle, it's not so bad. We do two anthems a week as well, but this is the Mother Ship, as it were, or the "big house", so Holy Mass is a big more formal.
Now, if the 'performers' are giving a tune a pop sound, that's their problem, not the tune's. I just can't see rejecting an old melody and theologically unobjectionable words because a modern pop singer got hold of them after the copyright lapsed. "Christian Rock" singers mess with old hymns all the time, that shouldn't cause them to be rejected.
And you can't have it both ways. If the people won't sing because they don't know the music, they sure as heck know "Morning Has Broken", so they ought to sing. And whoever the 'praise band' is can tone it down and let the organ play a simple, reverent accompaniment. It gives the melody a whole different cast.
Now when it comes to actual bad music -- banal pop melodies and words written by worshippers in "The Church of Me", I'm with you all the way. Get 'em out of there.
But let's not confuse our categories.
1. There are bad hymns because they are in and of themselves bad, words and music. Let's get rid of those FIRST -- the "Eagles Wings" and "Here I Am Lord" and all that abominable junk.
2. There are hymns that are objectionable not in and of themselves, but because of various associations - "Morning Has Broken" with Cat Stevens, "A Mighty Fortress" with Luther. Can't do much about the latter since ol' Martin wrote the thing, but rather than rejecting a hymn just because some person of questionable morals or religious views performed it, perhaps a change in setting or presentation would be adequate.
3. Obviously, Protestant hymns with words that are problematic for Catholics should go. "Amazing Grace" is one of the worst offenders, but there are plenty of others. I've heard some astoundingly Baptist hymns in church . . . and a bunch of Wesley (the Methodist Brothers) stuff too.
We need to prioritize, though. My personal preference in hymns is for the old stuff out of the early German hymnals, preferably with translations by Catherine Winkworth, who was a genius in turning German into English without missing either the rhymes, the rhythm, or the meaning, or the good old Anglican standbys out of "Hymns A&M", which generally present no theological problems.
But we've got a long way to go before we start picking and choosing among the hymns that are (1) good melodies; (2) good words. I'll wait!