He may have some points, but I see the music as a result rather than the cause. The lax attitudes, people who should never have been ordained or accepted into orders, and the lax and ineffective leadership from Rome on down were the causes. In so many words, the church became in the world and of the world.

I haven't read the article yet, but does it seem reasonable to suggest that bad (i.e., insipid) music does in fact contribute to a softening of morals?

The American Church has, for decades, been soft. How deaf were the ears on which Pope Pius X's instructions fell?

On the other hand, nudge-nudge, listening to the good stuff and not really believing it could have the same effect. Truly, there's a cancer on the body ecclesial.

Nothing,

If it's true that the truth can't lead a person away from God, but that truth placed in the wrong context can, then the attachment some people place on the "devotional" music, to the extent it leads them to reject the music proper to the worship of God is the context which leads people away from Him. If we prefer our own version of things over what God tells us, then clearly it is we who are wrong, not God.

Let's not get side tracked with the homeschooling family. Not only are we not talking liturgical use of music in this instance, we also need to expand our horizon of the Church as the world (not just America, as this author had referenced.) The church's crisis has infected various continents- can we argue that it is all the same music in Germany, Ireland, Argentina, the US, Rome, etc? I don't see how you can claim a *universal* crisis on music in America.

Incardination- I am interested in more details of the "profanation of the liturgy." A span of 7+ centuries is quite the range in time. I am not learned on liturgical history, but I wonder if the "descent" is as clean or simple a bell curve as you imply.

Chris,

It's a partitive genitive --- No-Name, as it were, not Nothing. :-)

I think that the overall lack of liturgical propriety feeds a tremendous lack of unity, unanimity, and also renders the liturgy itself and its ritual inarticulate of the mysteries they were crafted and are intended to convey.

On that point, from me, you shall have no dissent.

Rather, my beef is with this idea that poor music is inflicted on Catholics by unknown malicious actors, rather than inflicted on the liturgy largely by well-meaning, genuinely devout Catholics. I also attempt an answer to question of why they would be doing this, and why the well-meaning are puzzled by attempts at positive reform, or indeed sometimes outright hostile to them.

Incardination,

I would certainly not rank Lambillotte with Kumbaya, either.

I'm not arguing maintenance of the standard, so much as that, in improving the standard, we have to understand that people who do mediocre things for God are not necessarily doing them out of malice or spite, and that those things we devoutly wish they would never do again are, in fact, genuine expressions of their own devotion which, in their experience, they have been (1) encouraged to do by spiritual fathers and shepherds, (2) which they understand are permitted and, indeed, normal at Catholic liturgical celebrations, and (3) which they experience as fruitful.

This makes the difficulty of improving things that much more sensitive.

PolskaPiano,

Let's not get side tracked with the homeschooling family. Not only are we not talking liturgical use of music in this instance...

Actually, in their case, we are. Which it why I brought them up. They are very involved in the music making at all levels in their own local parish.

--------------------------------------------------

More broadly, I think Incardination's "decline" narrative does warrant careful consideration. After all, if "Kumbaya" is viewed as the nadir of a downward trajectory, the most distant point from which is viewed as, therefore, an apex, I think we run a real risk of damaging the devotional life of the faithful in the opposite direction.

If "Kumbaya" is the essence of content-free saccharine music in liturgy that is entirely foreign to the liturgical music of the Western Church, then what is polyphony, with its roots in (or at least strong affinities with) the madrigalist tradition? Is Palestrina halfway down the slip-slide from the sober austerity of plainsong that is the only acceptable church music?

Or is plainsong itself the golden mean between Puritanism and hyperemotional aestheticism or horizontal sugar-water?

Where does the virtuous mean lie? Doesn't the virtuous mean of a parish music program have room for both music of propriety that leans emotionally and devotionally and music that leans towards austerity?

A diet of burgers and beer will sustain life, but mental and physical agility, and health, are better sustained by a more balanced diet.

legem credendi lex statuat supplicandi
the law of worship builds the law of belief [Prosper of Aquitaine (attrib.)]

It's the words, stupid! And not just vacuous songs, but the watered down liturgical translation we had for so many years.
I too feel general support for the author's view, he lists 9 other factors, but he does not think music the least important of them..

Doesn't the virtuous mean of a parish music program have room for both music of propriety that leans emotionally and devotionally and music that leans towards austerity?

I tend to think of it more as a balance between emotion and intellect. (I don't really see chant as "austere".) If chant is pure intellect (it is not) and polyphony / hymns are pure emotion (they are not), the balance is in having a diversity such that it appeals both to the intellect and the emotions. Kind of a "man does not live by bread alone" equating to "Catholics don't worship by chant OR polyphony alone".

I wouldn't argue - ever - for a chant-only Liturgy. I wouldn't see that as the ideal. Nor would I argue for a polyphony-only Liturgy (even if the highest representation of that art) for the same reason. We can't draw souls to the Faith musically with only one part of the tool-set. (We CAN, but we won't be nearly as effective.) Even the Council of Trent debated on banning that new paradigm - polyphony - and decided not to, which clearly endorses the "let not the perfect..." philosophy.

Poor liturgy may be an effect of a lackadaisical clergy, but not a cause, IMO.

This is essentially saying that the way worship is simply an effect of who we already are, but not formative of who we become. You can argue which way the causation is stronger, but it's hard to deny that music has an effect on how we think of ourselves and even how we behave. Naturally the "causation" we're talking about is not mechanical, as if singing certain songs will automatically produce bad actions, but that it sows the seeds of weak sensibility which is opposed to a clear and strong living out of the faith. Even the otherwise lackadaisical Music in Catholic Worship recognized the connection when it said, "Good celebrations foster and nourish faith. Poor celebrations weaken and destroy faith." And certainly music used is an integral part of the goodness or the poverty of liturgical celebrations.

I see the music as a result rather than the cause.

Again, why does it have to be simply one or the other? Is death metal (to take a rather extreme example) simply an effect of a certain way of thinking, or could it also be a cause (not "the" cause) of more people adopting that same kind of thinking and acting?

We're not opposed to saccharine, shallow songs not simply because the text expresses saccharine, shallow thinking, but because the music to which the text is set can engender and reinforce such thinking. A song like "Precious body, precious blood," is not objectionable only because it expresses bad theology, but also because its reinforces a soft and overly-familiar attitude towards the Eucharist, as expressed in the musical style of the song.

Otherwise we're holding to the strange notion that the liturgy and music used in seminaries is really of little consequence, since bad clergy are only the cause, but not the effect, of poor liturgy (which includes music).

Incardination- I am interested in more details of the "profanation of the liturgy." A span of 7+ centuries is quite the range in time. I am not learned on liturgical history, but I wonder if the "descent" is as clean or simple a bell curve as you imply.

Polska, I think I didn't express my thought very well. :)

If the high-point of chant was the 12th-13th centuries and there was a decline from then to the 19th century... a decline that happened as humanism, modernism, and liberalism began having more and more sway within the Church (and in Her music), surely one could relate the decline liturgically, spiritually, and musically as each reflecting the other.

1. The decline over a span of centuries is very clear in chant. Melodies were tampered with and badly maligned, there was large-scale evisceration of melismatic passages, and both the written and oral tradition were neglected. Fast-forward from the 13th/14th centuries to the 19th century and we see the calls for Liturgical Reform - particularly with regard to music - that lead to Solesmes and Pius X.

2. Many of the great composers for polyphony (Palestrina, etc.) wrote their polyphony in a way that borrowed from the chant. But as the chant declined, one can certainly argue that there were corresponding decline in polyphony, eventually leading to the sentimentalism and romanticism mentioned by Nihil above and then declining more and more rapidly until - well, you can fill-in-the-blank with whatever you see as the epitome of that decline.

3. Certainly, "profanation of the liturgy" isn't something you can graph with data points to chart something that leads from a high-point to a corresponding fill-in-the-blank with whatever you see epitomizing the liturgical decline... but that decline also didn't simply happen with a flip of the switch and a certain Council. The liturgical atrocities we see - consecrating a candy-bar? consecrating a cookie? having a drone to fly in the Blessed Sacrament in a monstrance during a procession? - are symptomatic of a larger long-term decline. Perhaps that liturgical decline is more nuanced over the centuries, but it is certainly discernible in retrospection. As just one example... speed Masses of 10-20 minutes in the early 20th century?

4. I don't think I have to discuss moral / spiritual decay within the Church... Presumably you'll grant that decline just as I would grant there is a cyclical nature to moral / spiritual growth and decay. I'll even grant that the fact that some of us (including myself) would say that it is worse this time could well be symptomatic of living during the time in question. People always think that they are in the end-times, as far back as the Apostles. (I'm not suggesting these are the end-times, just that we sometimes exaggerate the evil from which we suffer in the present.)

Hey, Nihil, Korman! That's the Christmas Carol Mass, I presume?
(Asia: where old Masses go to die.)

as a liturgical musician, I might hold a somewhat exaggerated view about the importance of music.

Bingo! Music is our hammer, the thing that makes everything else look like a nail. If music is an integral part of the liturgy, how can we separate its effect from that of the liturgy as a whole? And how often does one find bad music in otherwise excellent liturgy? If you're hearing Dan Schuette, you're probably also experiencing ad populum, a fulsome Pax with your neighbors, communion standing with a bevy of female EMHCs...you know the drill.

If that's really Jesus physically present, you should want everything to be its absolute best. If not, then all that matters is that the PiPs are happy. So, first the words (or the concepts), then the music.

We say, "It's the music" because we have an exaggerated sense of our own importance. It's not nothing, of course. But show me a scenario where the work of David Haas sends somebody to Hell.

"Maybe it just sounds like Hell."

Eye has not seen, ear has not Hurd...

And your point is? LOL.

But show me a scenario where the work of David Haas sends somebody to Hell.

Hmmm... I guess it might depend on whether you see the music as merely for those that are already Catholic. I mean, let's face it... someone who is a strong Catholic isn't going to let Haas destroy that faith.

But how many times have we read of those who converted to Catholicism after taking part in Mass? At seeing the respect and devotion that accompanies the Liturgy, celebrated in a way that sees beauty as a reflection of God? Could we perhaps agree that the greater likelihood is that one would be converted from a context that is sublime rather than from one that is pedestrian?

One of my choir members in a past choir a few years ago was a convert. She was looking for God. She went to a number of churches (both Christian and Catholic), but each time left knowing that she hadn't found it. The first time she heard the high Mass (at our church) she recognized the sublime nature of Catholic worship. She joined the parish and then joined the choir.

Some may say "emotional conversion". I think, given a chance to talk with her, one would realize how false that is. She was a thinker, and she was one of the most zealous (in a good way) people I've ever met. She has subsequently moved to another part of the country, but we still keep in touch.

I've seen several examples (in the last 7-8 years) where non-Catholics have been profoundly moved by the music in particular. I've mentioned before the situation where some traveling people (Catholic and Protestant mix) stopped by during Holy Week one year on their return trip to Miami. They had a long conversation about the nature of the Triduum service they had just taken part in, culminating with one of the Protestant men stating - "for the first time, I can see that there is a difference between my religion and the Catholic Faith". From the Catholic gentleman's letter to my pastor, the discussion was prompted by both the music and the unexpected nature of the Latin Mass form to which both the Catholics and the Protestants, apparently, were unaccustomed.

Had another situation where a professional trumpet player that had joined us for a wedding was talking about the music more than 6 months after the wedding... and how he was reassessing his own spirituality as a result. It took him back to a time in his life (as a Protestant) where he was religious. He had a similar "for the first time in my life..." moment.

Believe me, the choirs involved just aren't that good. Its not like we have the Sixteen up in the loft. We simply do our best with good caliber music, both chant and polyphony. And I don't have my ear to the ground, trying to winkle out these types of stories... these were just several random examples that I found about about after the fact from other people who had some first-hand knowledge.

So, going back to your statement - a scenario where poor music sends someone to hell... I'd much rather be in a position at my last judgment of at least having fostered a chance for facilitating conversion, for facilitating the Faith, by using the best music I reasonably could; than in trying to explain why I didn't use the best tools I could in my efforts to draw souls to Christ. Who knows how many opportunities are available for conversion?

Clearly there is more than music involved in converting souls; in teaching the Faith... but good music lubricates the process. It provides the setting that show-cases the Liturgy, the worship of the Universal Church.

If the high-point of chant was the 12th-13th centuries

One could argue that Asperges I is an unneccessarily prettified/professionalised version of Asperges II. So I suggest a decline already evident after the 10th century.

Jerome says: "Listen, young men whose duty it is to recite the office in church: God is to be sung not with the voice but with the heart. Nor should you, like play-actors, ease your throat and jaws with medicaments, and make the church resound with theatrical measures and airs." commentary on Ephesians 5:19

Most of this music we are criticizing is intended to stir the emotions, nothing wrong with that except that Mass is not about ME and my emotions, it is about worship of GOD.
Question, is the decline of popular devotions the cause or the effect of the placing of devotional song in the Mass? [Perhaps that should be purple.]

Richard: I've been waxing nostalgic for an age in which the worst that could be said of a Pope is that he got jobs for his bastards.

pfreese: I only met David in a workshop situation, and my impression was "jaded", not "evil". But he was with Lori True who really IS nuts.

Incardination: it's not that bad music will send you to Hell, but that only great music will send you to Heaven. "Preach the Gospel. Use notes. Use the Festival Trumpet only when necessary" -- St. Francis (attrib.), paraphrased. In my own case, I wasn't converted by the music, but the music kept me in close enough contact that I could be converted.

I must . . . because it's Friday afternoon:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_ZmJx2If6U

And let's not confuse Bavarian with the Black Forest (says the guy with two great-grandparents from Baden, one from the Black Forest in Württemberg, and the last's eventual spouse from the Swabian district of Bavaria, whom he met while doing masonry on one of Ludwig II's construction fancies, and the first three all emigrating because of the Kulturkampf).

The autumn leaves threads drift by my window ...

JCR,

Perhaps if we could differentiate between worship and evangelism we could make some headway. This distinction is often difficult for evangelicals to make.

Worship is directed at God. Evangelism isn't. It's END is God, but it's directed at human persons.

Perhaps evangelicals can't distinguish between the two because they see little difference between worship of God and celebrating the community. That would certainly explain the problem you've noticed within Catholic circles, where it exists. Abp Annibale Bugnini insisted that the Mass be in the vernacular because the addressee needs to be able to understand what is said to him...… That is, Bugnini understood that the Mass (which is properly addressed to God as an act of worship) was, rather, addressed to man.

In a recent conversation with a choir member I made the suggestion that instead of striving to find out what the congregation likes it would be interesting to think about what kind of music God likes. She was startled at the suggestion, but saw that the act of worship might require this kind of inquiry.

Worship is certainly directed toward God. Evangelization, relevance, entertainment, "feels good" stuff is all directed toward man. I am convinced that the church that pays genuine focused attention on making its worship what it should be will have a shockingly different result than those that direct it toward man. "Praise and Worship", baptized Broadway, "Come to Jesus" songs, and the like are just directed to the wrong goal and, therefore achieve the wrong end.

where in the Gospels do we read of Jesus chanting? Matthew 26:30, presumably in Hebrew or Aramaic, I doubt there was much call for Latin, even Pontius Pilate probably preferred Greek.
I also prefer Gregorian chant, but do not think that the TLM somehow sprang directly from the mouth of God.

God has no need of our praise.

We, on the other hand, do have a need to worship God. And to do so in ways that bring us to closer knowledge and love of Jesus.

Mark 14:26: "And when they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives."

When I was a kid, in the early 1970s, at the same church where we had a folk mass, I also heard the entire mass sung by the priest. In English, but still SUNG in a Gregorian-style mode/melody. I LOVED IT! I wish I could find that today, Latin or English, but SUNG.

There is a Latin mass on Sunday evenings about 25 minutes from my house, and there is a Gregorian choir (and Latin mass) about an hour the other direction. But at this time in my life I do not want to abandon my local parish where I grew up and where my parents are and where my son and I sing in the choir. The music there is the 4-hymn format ("Word and Song" hymnal), the Responsorial Psalm sung by us in 3 parts (no basses in the choir). It is not the chant and conservative music I would prefer but I've heard much worse music at other churches.

If my life weren't so busy and my roots so deep where I am, I'd make the 2-hr round trip Wed nights for Gregorian choir rehearsals and Sunday morning Latin mass. But for now I have to believe the music at my mass is still pleasing to God because it comes from devout parishoners doing the best they know.

https://youtu.be/Mmud2Fr4V5s?list=RDMmud2Fr4V5s