Do you have a theology degree or any formal theology training? If the answer is no, what makes you qualified to say that the hymn is unorthodox when it has already passed the theological review of the bishop's designate of the diocese where it was published?

Not an attack, an honest question and food for thought.

Dear Dad!
There is something to what PGA is advancing. The OP doesn't provide any details whatsoever. We are being asked to presume a great deal and then opine upon those presumptions and the content of the post.
Barring receiving further information, subsidiarity remains a prudent suggestion.

Yokel,
.
Not knowing the nature of the hymn or of your objection, and taking into account Melo's observation, may I suggest that you phrase your conundrum as a question: how does it accurately represent the teaching of the Church on ..... (whatever the topic is). That way, especially if you remove even the slightest hint of snark, you have the chance to LEARN from the choir director ( and, in the event, learn ABOUT the choir director).

AVOID chattering behind the choir director's back, as this is both ineffective in solving the problem and uncharitable. Avoid challenging the choir director in open forum.

As to Matthew's point, it is sadly true that a great many hymns in "approved" missalettes and such have many qualities, but orthodox belief isn't often one of them. Even if it is approved by the Archbishop of Chicago, you may still ask questions.

Since the word "hymns" was used, there's no assumption being made. It sounds like these are hymns from a hymnal. If it's a Catholic church, it is a fair assumption that these are from a Catholic hymnal or worship aid. If it's not a Catholic church, that fact should have been clasclarified since this is a group of Catholic musicians.

Therefore my comments and cautions stand.

Do you have a theology degree or any formal theology training? If the answer is no, what makes you qualified to say that the hymn is unorthodox when it has already passed the theological review of the bishop's designate of the diocese where it was published?

Well in my case, it was once a Catholic Newman Choir programming "Imagine," as their contribution to a campus interfaith service, so yeah, it was pretty clearly not orthodox!

Since the word "hymns" was used, there's no assumption being made. It sounds like these are hymns from a hymnal.

"Hymns/music" actually.

First of all, welcome to the forum, Yokel!

In many cases, songs that seem unorthodox are rather vague and can be interpreted in an orthodox or unorthodox manner. They don't often directly deny or disparage truths of the Catholic faith, but a few do.

If there's ambiguity, feel free to sing the song and intend the lyrics in an orthodox manner.

If there's a direct rejection of some Catholic truth, the best course may be to ask to sit that hymn out. But before you do that, maybe it would help to quote the questionable text here on the forum to get a second opinion, to confirm your assessment.

Thanks for starting this topic, Yokel. I've been in the same situation before. I think it's best to assume that the choir director just doesn't know their faith very well and isn't intentionally trying to pick heretical music. If I were you, I would sit down with them and just point out the problematic part and why it is incorrect. It might be the first time they've ever considered it. If it's just a verse that's problematic, maybe you can just skip that verse. If your priest is supportive, perhaps talking with him about it would help, because I know a lot of choir directors don't listen to choir members because they don't have any authority.

When I was 15 my church choir sang a very heretical piece for Communion (I can't remember what it was, but it literally said something like, "all this is is bread and wine" or something) and I tried to tell everyone that we couldn't sing it, but everyone just gave me blank stares. So I just didn't sing the part that was problematic, but in retrospect I wish I would have talked to the priest about it. Later on, the choir director was asked to leave, I think because of all of the problematic music he was choosing.

Now, if the choir director knows that it's wrong and chooses it anyways (that's the predicament I'm in right now), you have a problem. I would ask your priest to talk to them and definitely don't sing the hymn/song. Someone has to stand up for what is right.

W, I'll stand pat on my original response. Yes, communication is the primary concern, but we don't have any perspective on the contentious issues, ie. specifics. These aspects must inform how we, whether DMs or choristers, would advise the OP as to an appropriate manner in which to broach the subject formally.
A subordinate calling into question the competence of a leader, no matter who's righteous or not, will always prove a delicate and potentially divisive enterprise. This isn't a personnel issue, or one where someone has been wronged. This is about authority.
My only advice: tread lightly, Yokel.

Thank you all for your insightful responses to my question. I understand that it's hard to comment on the situation without knowing circumstances, but I intentionally left out specific examples in order to avoid getting stuck in a debate of what particular hymns are "good" or "bad". In fairness, none of the music we sing is heretical.

I agree that it's best to address any concerns with the music director privately and not outside of that private discussion. Fortunately, I actually have a very good relationship with our director and I can do so. I feel as though simply not singing certain songs could be misinterpreted as "bad attitude" or something when I don't mean any judgment or negative thoughts about the director or the choir. That was part of the motivation of the question; how do I communicate a concern without stepping on toes or coming across as "holier than thou" as some might put it?

To clarify in the area of qualification or level of theology training, I didn't intend to declare any specific song or hymn as heretical. The term "unorthodox" was misused in my original wording. A more accurate way of putting it is that I believe it is better not to declare words publicly if they are not words that reflect one's heart and mind, and some of the words we sing are different from what I believe. So, that's very likely on me a bit too. EDIT: In this case, I'm referring to words of certain songs that are poetic and interpretive; nothing of course that is citing or even paraphrasing canonical teachings directly.

Great debate, and a lot of good advice and admonishment. Thanks again.

There are quite a few forum members who are not organists or directors, but are members of choirs or just sit in the congregation.

The best way for them to make change is to put themselves in a position where they can make change.

Learning to sing and direct chant is really not a big deal.

Many music directors in the Catholic church are insecure and poorly trained, if trained at all. As a result anyone who known anything can and will intimidate them. A priest that suggests that they listen to someone with "ideas" can trigger a situation none of us want to be in.

Move up and move in.

I think Melofluent and CGZ have the right path forward. It's good to talk to the director directly, and how to do it is a huge concern. As CGZ suggests, ask what it is about the hymn that makes it orthodox.

I might suggest phrasing it as a personal statement, as you've here done. "I am concerned that this hymn doesn't accurately reflect my beliefs about Holy Communion, and I'm having a conscientious problem with singing it." The ball is then in his court.

Some very good points have been made here. In my ministry, each choir member is encouraged to ask me questions whenever they arise. Part of the duties of leading a choir is to be available to the singers to hear them out and if necessary, to explain my thinking regarding a specific hymn choice. The singers I work with trust me, but they are free to ask me anything about the music we are learning and using.

One of my problems with certain hymns/songs that I have had the odd chance to hear/play is that they don't outright teach/promote heresy or heterodoxy, but they are ambiguous enough to be taken either in the orthodox way or not.

The opening line of Song of the Body of Christ.

We come to share our story

I grew up assuming that this meant the Christian story specifically, the one story that is common to all of us as members of the Body of Christ. In combination with the second half of that line ("we come to break the bread") I have always interpreted it as a simple description of the two "halves" Mass (Word; Eucharist).

Apparently a lot of people seem to take it in the New Agey, post-modern, quasi-liberation-theology sense of the idea behind liturgy being that we each bring our own individual stories and [something something about weaving something something].

This seems to depend on context.

Adam's common sense and acumen about SOTBOC prompts a few more aspects to consider. This song is the hallmark and harbinger of Haas' (I love alliteration) fascination with Hawaiian culture that dates clearly back to 1981. Oceanic cultures, to me, are perfect examples of their people's deep hospitality to absorb Western influence and fully integrate aspects into their expressions. In music they can appropriate "How great thou art" (and have) and refashion it to a distinctly relaxed manner on their slack-keyed guitars/ukeleles that is obviously genuine, and seemingly their own. "We created this, not some Scandinavian." Likewise, their true chants are a marvel.
My point (and I do have one) is that Haas either encountered the "genuine" tune and perhaps text meaning at George Camacho's parish on Hawaii big isle, or was inspired by something like it before comporting it to his version. All well and fine with the intent. And if you're a youngster here in the states, like Adam attests, distinctions of theology as well as simplicity of music are easy to acquire and useful at service. The theology doesn't change as one matures to adulthood, but the usefulness of the music idiom does pale significantly. Adult Hawaiians singing this song in their tongue and genre makes sense. In English/Spanish, even with ukes, slide guitars etc., not so much. At that point the taste factor must be taken into account before programming it into the Divine Liturgy, yes? I think that's the context Adam mentions.
Now don't get me started on deliberating between the KINGS WESTON and Chris Walker faux-gospel versions of "At the Name of Jesus." Oi.

That is key. As MUSIC DIRECTOR, I'm entrusted by the pastor with some responsibilities that are properly his delegated to me. Therefore, there are hymns that I do not use because I see them as having too much potential for confusion. However, the words themselves are not heretical.

If I go to sub at a different parish, my prudential judgment has no place there. If one of those hymns is picked, I simply play it. Remember, it's not actually WRONG - it's just that in my own parish I feel that it invites possible confusion.

As for actually looking at something in the hymnal and deciding it is actual heresy? Above my pay grade and education. If the censors for both the Portland AND the Chicago archdioceses approved of it, and they have more theology training than I, who am I to actually say "They missed this?"

Again - all too often these discussions REALLY center around music someone doesn't like. Traditionalists who don't like referring to the Altar as a "table," though there is nothing actually wrong with that. Deeply progressive Catholics who don't like references in a song to sin and overcoming it. Most of it has nothing to do with ACTUALLY questionable lyrics.

If a person finds honest questions to be a threat to their authority, they have no business being in a leadership position to begin with.

The best music directors I ever sang with/for always considered questions to be a teachable moment. Which benefits all concerned.