The Winter 2008 issue of Sacred Music is going to print, and it has turned out to be one of the best I can remember. William Mahrt opens the issue with a detailed and compelling argument for the existence of sacred music - a point which you might not think is necessary except for the vast literature that attempts to debunk the idea that there is any real distinction between the sacred and secular in art.
He speaks of the relationship between the two forms by revisiting the history of the chasuble, which was a normal outer garment in Roman times and later became obsolete but for religious use. "In the process of sacralization of the garment," he writes, "it takes on more sacred characteristics: its form becomes more ample, the materials chosen for it become more precious (traditionally silk), and it takes on sacred symbols. This is, then, a matter of the evolution of a gradual reception, a transformation of something secular into something unambiguously sacred."
In music, the transformation of elements of our ordinary world conveys the message that our ordinary lives can also be transformed. The hitch is: what if the incorporation of music into the liturgy does not involve a discernible transformation? What if the use of styles clearly identifiable with worldly and secular purposes retain their identity in liturgical use? Is the message, then, that there is no transformation? that the secular life-styles are all that there is? I would contend that this is the danger of the present use of secular styles, since the instruments they use, their vocal styling, their simplistic musical construction all retain their secular identity. Rather, it is crucial that whatever musical styles are used in the liturgy, there be clear elements of their sacralization, that their incorporation is unambiguously for the sake of transformation into something sacred.
To participate in the discussions on Catholic church music, sign in or register as a forum member, The forum is a project of the Church Music Association of America.