David Haas' ecclesiological challenge to SttL
  • David AndrewDavid Andrew
    Posts: 1,206
    In the December/January issue of Ministry and Liturgy, David Haas writes in his regular column, "Sung Prayer" that:

    [W]hen exploring the second chapter of our new document on liturgical music (SttL), we find this emphasis on the assembly abandoned. The bishop, priest, and deacon are given pride of place in this conversation [referring to the primacy of the assembly being the foremost consideration in matters liturgical] before the role of the assembly is addressed. This is a sad reversal, not only in terms of ecclesiology but also in terms of helping give spirit and voice to the song of the gathered community.


    He then becomes quite exercised over the notion that SttL actually suggests that the "priest celebrant" (a term Haas put into quotation marks; does he not like the idea that the priest is the celebrant?) doesn't join in the singing of the congregation's responses, especially at the "memorial acclamation" and "great [sic] amen." He wants to know if SttL is "promoting a 'liturgical wall' between the priest and people? Hopefully not."

    No, what SttL is doing is restoring the true ecclesiology of the liturgy, i.e., that Priests are Sacred Ministers of the liturgy, with roles distinct and unique from that of the congregation based on a little thing called holy orders. Amazingly, he misquotes the GIRM at paragraph 95, making the absurd leap that this paragraph somehow refers to all, including the priest when the paragraph itself is the first of a subsection entitled, The Duties of the People of God, claiming that SttL's distinction regarding how the Priest Celebrant fulfills his duties does not resonate with para. 95 of GIRM.

    His final salvo reads:

    Let's be clear. It is important to assert and support the leadership of bishops, priests, and deacons. But in the midst of our efforts to activate a far too often passive assembly [I thought MMA and all the work of composers of contemporary music they've written and advocated was supposed to have corrected that problem], when we are trying to make a case for a singing community begin at the heart of liturgical celebration . . . any attempt, overt or covert, to reassert clerical power or lay inferiority is in direct contradiction with the vision [again, the word "vision", the super-dogma of the progressivists] given to us by the council.
    .

    He adjures us to "remember that the assembled community as the first and foremost concern of our liturgy and our sung prayer."

    How do we work to challenge this? I've noticed that for some years now "Ministry and Liturgy" magazine doesn't print letters to the editor, so there's no way to challenge this other than directly.

    It seems to me that Haas is misinterpretting documents of the Church as well as the true nature of the Church's ecclesiology.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,986
    "It seems to me that Haas is misinterpretting documents of the Church as well as the true nature of the Church's ecclesiology."

    And he's been doing exactly that for far too many years. If anyone ever needed to be smacked down, it's him.
  • GavinGavin
    Posts: 2,799
    How do we work to challenge this?

    Only thing you can do (unless you're Haas's bishop) is teach the orthodox Catholic faith. Yes, a bit obvious. But I should add that, as trivial as it may seem, a large part of that is Catholic style as well as substance. As much as I hate the "theology of buzzwords", it wouldn't hurt to throw around terms like "unbloody sacrifice", introit, "Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion", celebrant; and to not use loaded terminology like "assembly", "gathering song", "Eucharistic ministers" and so on. And introduce traditional Catholic devotions into your choir's life. At my past church, I always began rehearsal with the litany of the saints. Encourage the PROPER gestures during Mass, and discourage improper ones, particularly since your choir is up front. If nothing else, promote a real Catholic "style" and the garbage commentary written by Haas and others will seem stranger and stranger.
  • David AndrewDavid Andrew
    Posts: 1,206
    Here's the funniest thing of all . . . Haas is NOT currently an active parish musician. He's "Artist-in-Residence" at Benilde-St. Margaret's High School in St. Louis Park MN.

    He dares call himself an "active" pastoral musician, and yet isn't confronted with the challenges and responsibilities of a parish music program.

    Oh, and Gavin: words like Priest Celebrant, chalice and paten (rather than "cup and plate"), Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, etc., aren't "buzzwords", they're the correct terms that describe elements of the Faith and how we express it publicly. Words mean things, and when we tamper with the words we tamper with their meaning, like "worship space" and "gathered assembly" and "presider".
  • janetgorbitzjanetgorbitz
    Posts: 968
    Isn't his wife Jeanne Cotter? Back before I learned about what the Church really wants us to use in liturgy, I used to love to play her accompaniments [on the piano, of course] :)
  • Charles in CenCA
    Posts: 2,416
    His wife was, at one time, Jeanne Cotter.
    Not going there.
  • miacoyne
    Posts: 1,805
    I wonder Haas would want to start his own denomination sometime where he can worship without priests. Why he wants to stay in catholic church and poison so many people's mind. Devil surely creeps into church in a very subtle way using people's good intention and their talents.
    As a catholic who used to sing his songs, I can testify that the secularism and the music that go with it don't help catholics to experience the Divinity and His temple as Holy of Holies in the mass. I found that many catholics know about Divinity and Holy temple in their heads, but cannot experience them in the mass, because of this secularism in our church. His music created our church become a community center and blocked me from entering the heaven on earth for a long time.

    I was looking for something like 'catholic contemporary music forum' where people can help each other, I couldn't find any. Is there one? Or they want to avoid getting help from others on their ideas on music and liturgy.
  • athome
    Posts: 31
    It reminds me or a Tori Amos lyric of all things:

    "Father Lucifer, you never looked so sane,
    You always did prefer the drizzle to the rain..."
  • Dan F.Dan F.
    Posts: 205
    Haas is at Benilde-St. Margaret's? That's 10 minutes down the road from my house! Why was I not informed?
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,986
    Perhaps your area needs a lex offender registry. Or at least warning signs - now entering a bad music zone.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,848
    Dan

    You have now been warned.
  • Michael O'Connor
    Posts: 1,637
    Uggh!! Listen, Marty Haugen seems to be a decent guy, even though I wish we never sang his music in church. David Haas OTOH did little to impress me the one time I met him. He berated our parish musicians and came off as God incarnate. Anything he says has to be read with the utmost suspicion. The good news is that he seems to be very worried... I felt the need to take a bath after reading that excerpt.
  • Daniel Bennett PageDaniel Bennett Page
    Posts: 837
    Mr. Haugen just makes money off of Catholics and makes no pretense about being even remotely a part of the Church.
    He particularly diapproves of the requirement that all Catholic priest be male, and says so.
  • miacoyne
    Posts: 1,805
    The scary thing is that they don't always say 'wrong things.' Sometimes they say things seem right, and oftentimes they sneak in heresies with a disguise. People can be easily deceived.

    I just saw his song in Gather, I never noticed this one before.

    We will drink his cup, We will win the fight, We will stand... We will run. ...

    Sound very positive and promising, huh?
  • priorstf
    Posts: 460
    As to the quality and appropriateness of the music, I believe that to be an excellent subject for this group. As to personal attacks, I believe a review of John 8:7 is appropo.
  • Charles in CenCA
    Posts: 2,416
    Marty Haugen is most likely a decent guy. (I've met him, but can't say that I've spoken with him. Same for having met Haas.)
    "Marty Haugen, the Industry" is worthy of debate insofar of how it affects licit RC worship.
    "David Haas, the Industry" clearly has issues that are not worthy of discussion here.
    And to keep my credentials fully in tact, I do not, under any circumstances, lump Rv. Joncas or Dr. B. Hurd in the latter category. To me, they're still Menschen.
  • David AndrewDavid Andrew
    Posts: 1,206
    [post deleted]
  • Michael O'Connor
    Posts: 1,637
    Hmm... what goes around comes around, seems to be to be appropo in this case. He doesn't get a free pass when he starts pretending to be an authority on the Church's music.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,986
    Charles, it seemed that nearly every time I used to read an NPM magazine, Haugen and Haas were getting honorable menschen for their "contributions" to Catholic liturgy. That's why I no longer belong to that organization.
  • kevinfkevinf
    Posts: 1,199
    What Mr. Haas (and others) are asserting are a competing ecclesiology. And yes, the 20th century is rampant with competing ecclesiologies, some of which our brother liturgists created, some of which have been competing with each other since the beginning of time (Read Dulles Models of the Church). The question to assert is "does the ecclesiology that Mr. Haas wishes to promote counter to the documents of the Second Vatican Council". Now it gets sticky. Models of ecclesiology can be found in CSL and Lumen Gentium that might seem to be diametrically opposed or at least in conflict.

    I do not disagree that his ecclessiology is problematic in relation to the liturgy as seen in CSL. But this is not just about ecclesiology. This is about the distribution of power over the liturgy and who gets to do what. We might slam him for all sorts of things (bad psalm translations, misuse of texts,etc) but what I suggest is to get to the heart of the matter. It is about who is doing what when. Or put it more simply, who is at the top and who is at the bottom. I do not necessarily see tradition as purloining the faithful into submission, but many see the pVII era as one in which the faithful finally take their place (rightfully) as the ones who run the show. (Oh no, its Kevin's horizontalism thing again). "God is not in his house and all is not well in the world" to quote a very famous and maligned liturgist.

    Or to quote my door on my office, "Where is God?"
  • David AndrewDavid Andrew
    Posts: 1,206
    Unfortunately, the notion of "competing ecclesiologies" is a fallacy promoted by the standard-bearers of the "spirit of VC-II" who wished to outstrip the Council, develop a new "super-dogma" and begin a completely artificial aggiornamento (the "hermeneutic of rupture"). In reality the "ecclesiology" and teachings of the Church have not changed between Trent, VC I and VC II.

    The fact is that the Church, established by Jesus Christ and left in the care of his Vicar Peter and the Successors of Peter, employs a much-despised "top down" structure to safeguard the Faith and maintain continuity in matters magisterial. It would seem that Haas subscribes to a "horizontalism" that is part and parcel of Modernism which was vigorously condemned by Pius X (as the culmination of all heresies), and has been proven to be a failure as a substitute "ecclesiology" for the received traditions of the Church, which failure has been proven by the collapse of a true Catholic identity that is in harmony with the Faith. With "full, active and conscious participation" imposed on the faithful by those who co-opted the reform we move around a lot and generate activity, but it doesn't make the liturgy any more efficacious, and we soon forget that exterior action doesn't necessarily mean interior disposition.

    God certainly is in His house, but has become unrecognizable amid all of the self-adulation and narcissism that has replaced true worship in the Church. We've spent so much time being told that God is present in the "gathered assembly" that we've forgotten that we're not God. Many people don't even understand that there is a distinction between Opus Dei, Opus Plebs Dei and Domus Dei.

    I'm reminded of the parallel that H.H. has alluded to often, between the current state of affairs in liturgy and music (a narcissistic exercise wherein the people replace God with themselves and worship each other) and God's Chosen who while waiting for Moses to return with the Law decide they really don't need what God was going to provide, and decided therefore to create a graven image and dance around it. Has the time come, or is it here now, when the graven image will be ground into a powder, mixed with water and be given to us to drink?
  • priorstf
    Posts: 460
    I think David Andrew makes some extremely valid points. I'd add that the Church lives in a modern world in which democracy is seen as the only "true" government form. There are few remnants of monarchies left, so when we hear of the feast of "Christ the King" the only reference for most people is some sort of Disney cartoon. We are surrounded by "rights" and "entitlements" and have little in the way of responsibility and pain to remind us of reality. When we are confronted by our own errors we rationalize, justify and, when all else fails, call in the lawyers and psychologists to exonerate us. Tie this together with a television-schedule-driven attention span of 10 minutes between commercials and it is of little wonder that we cannot possible conceive of anything in the long term ... like eternity.

    It should come as no surprise that people are at the same time resistant to change and reluctant to maintain some old status quo. There is an enormity in our modern world the goes far beyond V-2 that has a lot of folks perplexed, be in in music, Liturgy, or even their perception of God.

    I think it's less a question of needing what God was going to provide than believing that a God who has already waited so long is even going to show up.

    So how do we turn our music into the spirit of Hope?
  • francis
    Posts: 10,848
    "Unfortunately, the notion of "competing ecclesiologies" is a fallacy promoted by the standard-bearers of the "spirit of VC-II" who wished to outstrip the Council, develop a new "super-dogma" and begin a completely artificial aggiornamento (the "hermeneutic of rupture"). In reality the "ecclesiology" and teachings of the Church have not changed between Trent, VC I and VC II."

    101% spot on and well said.

    Thank you DA. I am completely behind you.

    fk
  • kevinfkevinf
    Posts: 1,199
    David,

    I do not disagree with what you are saying and I applaud your comments. But, Cardinal Dulles shows that different ecclesiologies have been at work for a long time. Even the present Holy Father's Introduction to Theology (written in the late 60's) shows the various issues with ecclesiologies and articulates their function in the church.

    So I do not support that the standard bearers of VII are the only ones dancing that jig. Theologians far more competent than I commend that ecclesiology is a long standing issue.

    Nevertheless, I applaud your comments, particularly about God in his house. A well articulated and clear response.
Add a Comment