OK, now what? Dealing with the paradigm shift
  • David AndrewDavid Andrew
    Posts: 1,206
    I'm seeking the advice of seasoned colleagues out there who may have experienced, or are currently experiencing the same thing I am.

    When I was interviewed and hired in my current position, which I've only held since August of 2006, I was comfortable dealing with, and more willing to endure the compromise of "blended music" for the celebration of the OF in English (the typical suburban, Midwestern Catholic parish paradigm). Since then, I have continued to study and reflect on the changes that have been coming from Rome and within the more conservative circles here in the U.S. As a result I find that my paradigmatic understanding of liturgical music and the liturgy itself has shifted. The situation at my parish is such that the pastor, while he will say in private meetings that he understands what I'm trying to do with the music program vis a vis the style of music the choir sings, my attention to the presence of heterodoxy in the hymn texts we sing, my efforts to move away from "contemporary" music of the Haugen/Haas/Joncas variety, it's pretty clear that he would rather stick close to the paradigm of "blended music" as it was when I was hired. Any suggestion of a move in the direction of orthopraxis is met with a caution to move slowly, veeerrrry slowly, and always with lots of discussion, shared decision-making and concensus-building, often among people who haven't either the musical, liturgical or philosophical background knowledge to contribute beyond the level of "how they feel" about the subject.. Before the Christmas holidays, Father and I had discussed engaging in a very careful study of the newest American doc, "Sing to the Lord" and formulating an understanding of it, while discussing it with other members of the liturgy committee. When I returned, I found out that he had already given copies of it to the parish Pastoral Council, and in our bulletin for this weekend, he announced that after reflection and discussion, the Pastoral Council will have a plan in place with specific recommendations for implementation. He has asked me to write a series of bulletin articles with excerpts from STTL and commentary, but people in the parish are invited to discuss their reactions with members of the council, not me.

    I fear that I'm being sandbagged, and that perhaps the time to move on has come.

    However, there must be others who have experienced this type of paradigm shift, and I'd welcome any insight on how to deal with this delicate situation. What are the possibilities for my next move? Part of me is thinking it's time to make a complete career shift and seek work in an entirely unrelated field, but it would be a sinful waste to not put my DMA in organ to good use.
  • Pes
    Posts: 623
    David, I'm not seasoned, but it doesn't require seasoned experience to suggest that STTL is a profoundly equivocal document that could be used to serve several different ends, a more faithful traditionalism among them. Your pastor may have just given you (perhaps unwittingly?) a green light to lay an educational foundation before proceeding further. Yes, he seems to be shutting you out of liturgical strategizing, but that doesn't mean you can therefore have no effect on development whatsoever. Perhaps you are in an interesting situation, not a hopeless one.
  • Jeffrey TuckerJeffrey Tucker
    Posts: 3,624
    STTL is not an integrated or consistent document by any means. While it does draw attention to the ideal, it doesn't clearly spell out that it is the ideal and why, and it opens up more options than ever before. Probably it is better than Music in Catholic Worship, which is now a dead letter. MCW is what created the mess we are in. Perhaps it is worth pointing out what MCW was and why it was replaced. Clearly the direction of change is what is important here.
  • GavinGavin
    Posts: 2,799
    Well I can tell you there may be a fine job opening up in Western MI soon enough ;)

    I understand what you're talking about perfectly. I've had a similar "guilt trip" after heavily considering the issue of propers. Luckily I have a supportive priest and so in Lent I'm going to try having the offertory antiphon and Introit sung before the "alius cantus aptus" and see how it works out. I read Dzobzay's book "The Bugnini-Liturgy" and the chapter on propers and ever since I've had a hard time reconciling my position at a Catholic Church with effectively replacing what the Church wants at Mass. And yet, like you, I have to ask what to do. I don't quite have a choir, my cantors do more than their share of work, and most importantly the congregation wants to sing hymns. I'll let you know how I like the "antiphon + hymn" model. It may be a good way to introduce people to the richness of the antiphons without changing the Mass significantly.
  • AOZ
    Posts: 369
    I think STTL is a scandal. Why? Sure, it at least mentioned Gregorian chant, etc. But look how long we had to live with MCW? Now we'll have to live with this, as Jeff puts it, "not integrated or consistent document" for the next twenty years or so. It doesn't spell out the ideal - so how is that an improvement?
  • francis
    Posts: 10,816
    I totally agree with you AOZ and Jeff.

    The problem is inherent within those 'bodies' who continually 'interpret' and put a spin on the obvious and clearly defined mandates of the Church. It's the political manipulation of bureaucratic monopolies that God will, in the end, hold accountable (as is cleary stated in the NT). God's Church is not a democracy, it's a benevolent dictatorship and the dictator is God himself.
  • paul
    Posts: 60
    Well, your pastor probably just wants to avoid World War III and who can blame him? Several years ago there was an article in Sacred Music that was instructive to me. The writer told of his experience in taking over the musical leadership of a parish (I think it was an anglican community though). After assessing the situation, he decided to scrap the current repertoire and just sing chant and fine choral masterpieces. There was a huge backlash, but eventually things started to settled down, even to prosper, although music was always a sore spot. A couple years later he had to relocate. His detractors lost no time in re-establishing the former repertoire. Chant and 16th century polyphony were relegated to dirty word status. It probably felt good while he was doing it, and the effort was admirable, but of little ultimate service to the cause.

    A couple years ago I was talking with a priest who told me he was sick of us musicians trying to cram "Old Euro-trash" down the throats of his parishioners. (Not kidding!!) But I had already decided to restore beautiful music to its rightful place in the liturgy at my parish; to give parishioners access to the wealth of our catholic heritage that it should be the right of every Roman Catholic to claim in the liturgy. I wanted to make sure that no music director or priest who ever came after me would be able to undo my work. I movi very slowly, wrote lots of articles, make sure people understood WHY, and above all NEVER performed anything at any liturgy that isn't well prepared.

    A lot of people think full, concious and active participation means translations for the assembly. I have a different take. As the music director, I have a responsibility to my singers: never to ask them to sing a text they don't fully understand. Not to leave it to them to find out, not to imagine that the beauty of the music renders knowing what they're singing about unneccesary. See, it's not important for the HEARER to know the text if the SINGER is feeling it. I call it the pentecostal property of music. Your heart fills in the blanks. The proof is as close as an operatic performance or lieder recital. You can be deeply moved by a comitted, intelligent performance, in fact word sheets just get in the way. Put some clueless amateur up there (sadly, sometimes the whole chorus...) and you find yourself reaching for the translations or glued to the super titles. The concept works exactly the same way in church and Vatican II was right to nail the mindless singing of texts by clueless scholas.

    True beauty is in extremely short supply in today's world. The human spirit, meanwhile, has an insatiable thirst for it. Trust the treasury of great music that is the heritage of the Church. Great music only outlives the age of its inception by being able to speak to the hearts of succeeding generations, and it will speak to our hearts as well. That's how classics get to be classics. Once you have hooked people on quality, it will be very difficult for anyone to separate them from it again. After several years it's beginning to be safe to say that at least a feast day without chant or Palestrina would be unthinkable at my parish. I'm still working at it, but the progress is real. My advice is to move slowly. You're working for ten years from now, not just for next week. Don't let your ego be the driving force. Maybe all you will end up doing is preparing the way for the next guy. Try not to mess it up for him!
  • Michael O'Connor
    Posts: 1,637
    Alas, Paul is quite right. Those of us who have worked very hard to improve parish music and seen our work dismembered almost as the door was swinging shut on our office, can sympathize. Adherents of both sacro-pop and traditional music can be quite heartless in bringing about change. Whatever we think of the status quo music, there are thousands of Catholics who are deeply attached to it. We can play all the Palestrina and Poulenc we want for them, but their mothers were buried to "Eagles Wings" and their daughters were married to "Remember Your Love". Those connections will never be sundered. We must remember the tragic implications of the post-Vatican II changes. The so-called progressives cared little for parishioners feelings in those days. We should be smarter than that. We are, after all offering something much more difficult than "music should be the people's music". The folkies and Marxists had a very simple and compelling message. We can be seen as simply "legalistic" and anachronistic. Again, Paul is right, introduce the music slowly but inexorably. I had the idea at my last parish to start with funerals. I was fortunate that my pastor allowed me to insist that every funeral end with In paradisum. Sure, a few folks wanted How Great Thou Art, and if they insisted, I gave in, but I was sure that momentum would win out in the end. By the time I left, HGTA had disappeared completely from the funeral liturgy. With more time, OEW would have flown away too.
  • paul
    Posts: 60
    Michael is exactly right. You have to just remember that you're a link in the chain, not the whole chain. Only time will tell if OEW becomes a classic. We already know In Paradisum is.
  • G
    Posts: 1,400
    Interestingly, the current issue of GIA Quarterly has a paean to MCW by one VF of NPM fame, (I have now used up my daily allotment of acronyms,) in which he lauds such gems as "Love unexpressed dies," and fails to see the irony in "poor [celebrations] weaken and destroy [faith]" despite his organization having presided over a liturgical sensibility the demonstrable fruits of which has not exactly lead to a new Pentecost, (if we accept the proposition that those with faith would practice that faith...)

    We live in exciting times.

    (Save the Liturgy, Save the World)
  • gregpgregp
    Posts: 632
    I think there were a couple of veiled references in that column to the likes of us in this forum; I don't remember. But the nostalgia was palpable (and both sad and funny).
  • priorstf
    Posts: 460
    I totally agree with you AOZ and Jeff
    Alas, Paul is quite right.
    Michael is exactly right.

    Howard Johnson is right!

    (sorry. couldn't resist.)
  • G
    Posts: 1,400
    "I totally agree with you AOZ and Jeff
    Alas, Paul is quite right.
    Michael is exactly right.

    Howard Johnson is right!"

    Huh? (I always feel as if I've been ostracized from the kewl kids' cafeteria table when I don't get a joke...)

    GregP, I'll have to go back and check it out.
    Since you've seen the quarterly, were your boots high enough to wade through the "master's corner"? (That may be uncivil, feel free to delete, Admin, and apologies, if so.)
  • David AndrewDavid Andrew
    Posts: 1,206
    G,

    While your comment may get deleted for not passing the etiquette test, you've hit on a real problem we face in the Church. Those who truly posess wisdom and knowledge, and those who have been "anointed" as wise by their self-referencing circle of peers.

    Take for example this tiny excerpt from the "Masters Corner" article to which you refer:

    "They are not used to deepen but to direct. . . [A] sign's purpose is to point to something that presents few difficulties in comprehension to all who view it, things that are already known."

    Wow, that's an amazingly poor understanding of the power of a sign, from not only a liturgical point of view, but a sociological point of view within the field of myth and ritual. Ever read Victor Turner? How about Merce Eliade? Sure, we can all agree that a red octagon at a street corner means, "Stop." Can we really claim that from the perspective of ritual that the "sign of the cross" or "sign of peace" are not used to deepen as well as direct? The whole point of signs is that they in fact DO point to something deeper, and that they must be seen before they can be grasped. This line of reasoning buys into the whole concept of the liturgical experience being reduced to what people can immediately understand, scrubbed squeaky-clean of any mystery.

    Or maybe not.

    Let us share with one another the sign of peace.
Add a Comment