But do you sponsor (or allow) Wagner, art songs, or other non-sacred (secular) musical (content) concerts? The authoritative document IS the first one you posted. Also, music in a consecrated church is specifically noted by canon 1210 of the Code of Canon Law:

"In a sacred place only those things are to be permitted which serve to exercise or promote worship, piety and religion. Anything out of harmony with the holiness of the place is forbidden. The Ordinary may, however, for individual cases, permit other uses, provided they are not contrary to the sacred character of the place."

The principle that the use of the church must not offend the sacredness of the place determines the criteria by which the doors of a church may be opened to a concert of sacred or religious music, as also the concomitant exclusion of every other type of music. The most beautiful symphonic music, for example, is not in itself of religious character. The definition of sacred or religious music depends explicitly on the original intended use of the musical pieces or songs, and likewise on their content. It is not legitimate to provide for the execution in the church of music which is not of religious inspiration and which was composed with a view to performance in a certain precise secular context, irrespective of whether the music would be judged classical or contemporary, of high quality or of a popular nature. On the one hand, such performances would not respect the sacred character of the church, and on the other, would result in the music being performed in an unfitting context.

It pertains to the ecclesiastical authority to exercise without constraint its governance of sacred places (Cf. canon 1213), and hence to regulate the use of churches in such a way as to safeguard their sacred character.

And you must also realize that the location of the tabernacle is a completely separate issue and does not identify the area which is consecrated space. In other words, if the tabernacle were moved to another remote part of the church, it would not have anything to do with lessening the viability of the consecrated state of the sanctuary or the altar that if violated, must be reconsecrated with a special penitential rite.

(revised)

Joseph

The church approves, and encourages the performance of sacred music before God in the Blessed Sacrament: during Mass, during devotions and other times to encourage and instruct the faithful in our Holy Religion. However, the document on concerts does specify the removal of the Blessed Sacrament above.

The intended venue and purpose of the work according to the Vatican.
Concerts in Churches



"The principle that the use of the church must not offend the sacredness of the place determines the criteria by which the doors of a church may be opened to a concert of sacred or religious music, as also the concomitant exclusion of every other type of music. The most beautiful symphonic music, for example, is not in itself of religious character. The definition of sacred or religious music depends explicitly on the original intended use of the musical pieces or songs, and likewise on their content. It is not legitimate to provide for the execution in the church of music which is not of religious inspiration and which was composed with a view to performance in a certain precise secular context, irrespective of whether the music would be judged classical or contemporary, of high quality or of a popular nature. On the one hand, such performances would not respect the sacred character of the church, and on the other, would result in the music being performed in an unfitting context." Par 8

Of course, if the church has a school gym or other hall, you could do it there?

Yea. Movng the organ is not possible, however, almost all organ music is sacred in nature simply because it is naturally born in that venue.

Naturally, all this stirs my curiousity. Just what kind of concert are you planning, Francis? Inquiring minds want to know. ;-)

Jam

I play mostly baroque organ works including my own. I don't play atonal or avant garde. Mostly Bach and Buxtehude.

The problem is that I am starting to get requests to use the church from opera vocalists.

How does all this square with the Chicago Symphony Orchestra performing the monumental Bruckner 5th Symphony in B-flat in Holy Name Cathedral for Pope John Paul II a number of years ago. Actually, the pontiff was delayed, the first two movements were played, then there was an intermission during which he arrived, said some very kind words about the CSO, Sir Georg Solti, and Anton Bruckner - and then the Scherzo and Finale were played. I remember this, because I listened to it on WFMR radio.

The following is excerpted from a review by Dennis Polkow of a much later CSO performance under a different conductor.

No less a critic than Pope John Paul II was moved to tears here a decade ago at a special concert in Holy Name Cathedral, the last time the CSO performed this monumental work. The pontiff wanted to hear the mighty Sir Solti and the CSO while he was in town, but a strictly "religious" concert seemed a bit much, as John Paul was celebrating a couple of sung masses every day of his grueling tour. Bruckner was the perfect compromise--fully symphonic and yet steeped in faith. The large Bruckner symphonies are often compared to large Gothic cathedrals in terms of proportion and spirituality, and the analogy is particularly appropriate in the case of the mighty Fifth.

The Minnesota Orchestra under the baton of Osmo Vänskä, began a project in 2006 of performing all ten of Bruckner's symphonies (No. 0 through No. 9), one each year, performances at Orchestra Hall in Minneapolis and at the Cathedral of St. Paul in St. Paul. This time, there has been no pontiff present for any of the concerts, and I don't know if the Archbishop has attended any performances, either.

Don't forget that Bruckner was a bold enough symphonist to be regarded as a descendent of Beethoven, he idolized Wagner (thus visciously attacked by the Brahms-loving music critic Edward Hanslick), and was a mentor to Gustav Mahler. Bruckner's symphonies were touted by the Third Reich as the (aryan?) ideal. Does the humbly-born Austrian, the symphonic Bruckner, make it into Cathedral/church concerts on the basis of his intense devotion to the Church, even though there are still, even today, some that rail against him or his music. I, for one, greatly admire and love Bruckner's music, having discovered Bruckner as a high-school freshman through an old Hans Knappertsbusch recording of his fifth symphony on Capital Records, and I'm glad that the symphonic Bruckner has been played in Cathedrals.

Okay, why don't we discuss (for example) Liszt?

He had a reputation as a bit of a bad boy in his youth, was known as a dandy and a matinee idol among women (in fact there's a pretty amusing story about him and the Apassionata sonata - his shill forgot to faint when he started to play the finale impossibly fast, so when he got to the part even he couldn't play at that tempo, he "fainted" himself instead).

So let's look at a few examples of his music:

• Bénédiction de Dieu dans le Solitude - probably okay.
• Etudes d'Exécution Transcendante - dodgy. Sounds like Yoga or something new-agey might be involved
• March of the Grail-Knights from Parsifal - wellllll . . . . technically it's Wagner, which is dodgy enough, but then we get into the Nietschean overtones of Wagner's weird animistic/aryan Eucharistic fantasies, so this one is also probably out.
• Waltz from Gounod's Faust - The Catholic Encyclopedia explicitly banned Gounod, so no dice! Plus the whole opera is about the Devil.
• Mephisto Waltz No. 1 - Do we really even need to discuss this?

Sigh. I suppose if you stick with the Harmonies Poétiques et Réligieuses, you should be safe. And where does that even leave the Hungarian Rhapsodies? Hungary is a Catholic country, right?

If I were playing a piano recital in a Church, I would not play the Mephisto Waltz. The other stuff is arguable (except the Gounod transcription, but that's only on the basis of poor taste). I think we are sometimes a little uptight about using the Church building for classical music, but I would *never* forbid Bruckner's Symphonies in such a setting because they are so uplifting -- regardless of the composer's religious outlook, although I would argue that his outlook certainly informed the beauty of those works.

"The Catholic Encyclopedia explicitly banned Gounod" indeed?

This is from a tongue-in-cheek post; the overly credulous might ask themselves what authority the Encyclopedia has in the first place...

JDE, there has never been a serious move even to change the 'national' anthem of the Vatican, let alone ban the rest of Gounod's oeuvre. The (nonbinding) blacklist singles out 3 orchestral masses that include the gloria and credo intonations, and could as well be taken as an explicit endorsement of the remaining masses.

Bumping this as this might be something to reflect upon since we are coming up on a season when 'holiday' concerts may be promoted in your parishes and churches.

Well, given what they are paid, most Catholic church musicians are pretty close to Baroque. :)

Ahhh, this post has been resurrected already. Perfect.

What about mixing sacred with secular choral pieces. My choir wants a spring concert to sing something "fun". Any of you have some simpler, fun ideas? Maybe there is something like this out there? (and nothing from Sister Act please!)

(I would never do a secular piece in a sacred concert (a concert spirituelle, a Giestlicheskonzert) in church. Some would. I wouldn't. Sacred precincts are for sacred stuff. They are either sacred or they aren't.

I totally agree with MJO. I would not desacralize the church.

Is it tacky to respond to a side-tangent in a resurrected thread?
Gounod, at the top of his game, is as good a liturgical composer as you'll find in the 19th century. He wasn't always at the top of his game, because of his tendency to pander to audiences.

Likewise, Kalliwoda got a universal ban in the 1922 Black List. But Montani & Co. didn't know those a cappella Masses that Carus has published.

And, to bring the discussion full-circle, the "operatic" Mass is a form of music which, though I wouldn't want to use it for a Mass, might be perfect for one of the church concerts. Anyone for some Giorza or RoSewig?

My research in 2010 strongly suggested Montani vanquished RoSewig, got him blacklisted.

Rossini was really the next generation. And you're discounting the Germans, who the Italians were displacing. The Italians were more coastal, while the Germans hung on in the Midwest. And those were the fracture lines of reform church music (which is why you had Caecilia AND the Catholic Choirmaster) St. Gregory Society was Montani's baby, so OF COURSE their lists would skew Italian (but Giorza was on the Black List, so it wasn't JUST a nationality thing). So I don't think it proves that the Italians were in change... except insofar as the Coastals have always run things in the US

A friend told me that he remembers singing RoSewig in his parish in Cleveland all the way to Vatican 2.