The issue is one of musical style.

Hiding a secular tune inside of a polyphonic texture does not, actually, change the musical "style," especially if it is augmented and upside-down.

However, playing the theme from the Adam's Family at Mass would not be good, because that is a secular style of music.

Incidentally, inserting a Palestrina piece into a secular movie doesn't change Palestrina's musical style.

(And, actually, the Church was very suspicious of the music that sounded like secular music even in the 15th century).

When the church says it is unchanging, it does not mean unchanging in how its traditions (including music) come about. It is speaking specifically of its theological dogma. In those things, it will never change.

Music has evolved with our understanding of harmony, counterpoint, modes, keys, etc. The liturgy, as we all can sadly attest, always undergoes abuse of some kind or another. The church 'allows' some things, (and I say allows with great caution) to prove its value, merit or worth.

JPII encouraged composers and artists to create new works that are fitting to reflect the mystery of our Catholic heritage. Composers are encouraged to write music for the liturgy. There is a great movement afoot in the wake of VII to create new settings of the Mass in the vernacular. All very noble in their intent.

On the other hand, commercialism, greed, vainglory and a host of other errors can enter into and 'skew' the intentions of composers, musicians, organists, choir directors, music publishers, and yes, even the CATHOLIC MUSIC PUBLISHERS! Just because Haugen finds its way into the heart of every music program today, doesn't mean the church will find it fit to actually "dub" his compositions 'sacred' in the future.

This is all the more reason why we (as stewards of music in the liturgy) have to be diligent to know what Mother Church expects of us when it comes to what is sacred and what is profane, and to educate those under our immediate care in things pertaining to the liturgy.

I would go on to clarify that a musical motive or melody actually is imbued with intellectual meaning depending upon how the composer sets the theme, and in what spirit (the state of his [composer] own soul) is almost intimately bound up in how he 'conceives' the work. As Jeffrey said, the Adams Family theme, belongs to the class of profane, because the music actually makes us think of the "family" which it represents, even if the words are not employed in the performance.

Oh, and once again, Gavin, a good thought provoking query.

Excellent comments, each worthy of a lengthy tangent. I remain unconvinced that the changes of the renaissance were anything less than drastic. It's worthy of fuller discussion, but if I'm going to expend that kind of energy it should be for school. But here's my theory to interact with:

My theory is that we shouldn't be worried about the aberrations of the Renaissance nor those today. If we take a Libertarian/Free Market approach to musical development, the problem solves itself. Why are L'homme Arme Masses OK today? Because they withstood the "test of time". Time has a way of holding on to the best and rejecting that which is unworthy. Actually, to rethink it, do we even HEAR L'homme Arme Masses today? Anyone here ever do one in a liturgical setting? Would do one in a liturgical setting, given the vast repertoire of sacred-based ordinaries? Ever hear or hear of one in a liturgical setting? That was a fad and its time is well over.

To parallel the music today, how much energy do you expend fighting off 19th century French operatic music in Mass? No, this genre died out looong ago. Can anyone here even name a single piece of this French/Italian stuff?? Its presence was even more inorganic than L'hA, but it wound up contributing to better music and then dying off. So at the same time, I think we have nothing to fear from the pop music of the day. Haugen's Mass of Creation will not be heard in 5 years. On Eagle's Wings will not last 50. And yet some music is of good quality; I hope to hear "Lift High the Cross" in churches for the remainder of my life. Lauridsen's works will likely stick as well. Matthias, Hancock, these works will likely be around when people are saying "Haugen who?"

How does this happen? We make it happen. Each of us who, even despite pressure, says "No" to Mass of Creation is putting a nail in its coffin. The less it is heard, the less it will be expected to be heard. And if I'm wrong, then history will record us as bitter old conservatives - big deal. Let the "market" work its magic and music will keep progressing.

Maybe we're like the people in the 15th century who said "no" to 3rds. OR maybe we're more like the people in France who finally saw the music done there as the tripe it was and brought back chant in the parishes. History will judge, and for now we just have to make our stand where we see fit.

To be fair, L'homme arme continues to be in our consciousness through music history courses. It is historically important, but, like you said, rarely if ever used in the liturgy. Think of all the much better 15th-c compositions that are virtually unknown outside of early music circles (Missa de pllus en plus anyone?) Palestrina OTOH has withstood the test due to quality of composition and an innate appropriateness for Mass that our and previous generations have detected.

The L'homme arme Masses and their ilk date from a time when the line was blurred between secular and sacred. Unlike in our own time, where the same condition exists, it was because the sacred so often spilled over into the secular. Now the situation is quite the reverse.

Well, well, well.

Maybe we've got it all wrong. If we can't beat 'em, join 'em!

Bring on the liturgical dancers (to go with the dance music).

Guilty as charged! Ah, you've just reminded me of another fine example of music in the grand french operatic tradition. The question is--what precipitated this seularization?

And the whole thing about french operatic style seems like a double standard to me. I love the masses of Mozart and Hayden, but detect very little difference in their sacred and operatic styles. Live with Magic Flute, Don Giovanni and Finta Giardiniera and you will know exactly who composed Mozart's masses when you hear them. Sure it's first class music, but it's music that practically drips theater.

Well, if you listen closely to Mozart you will some nice polyphony -- full blown fugues in the later works -- that are not part of the theatrical idiom. You are right, however, that his church and opera music were quite closely related. Magic Flute and the Requiem (what little he finished) are 2 sides of the same spiritual and musical coin. I'm probably in the minority for not really wanting to have Mozart Mass settings in modern times for reasons of length (even the brevis Salzburg works) and the galant spirit of those pieces which don't frequently reflect the text. They are excellent concert works, though. I think the Cecilians had the right basic idea, even if they stumbled on the details.

And BTW - Gilligan's Island? Have I missed something?

The only thing is that the Cecilians aren't really a problem these day. I found myself developing opinions on them in reading the Ruff books. They seem like a recognizable sort. They had views that one likes in the abstract and ways that one finds maddening in the details. It would go too far to describe them as the Taliban of 19th cent. Church music, but at their worst there seemed to be a tendency in that direction. on the other hand, their principles were largely sound and they fought a good fight.