Go make a difference!
  • Richard MixRichard Mix
    Posts: 2,767
    The 'excuse' for mixed choirs is that TLS is no longer in force.
    5. The Church has always recognized and favored the progress of the arts, admitting to the service of religion everything good and beautiful discovered by genius in the course of ages …

    6. Among the different kinds of modern music, that which appears less suitable …

    I'll readily grant that Pius X knew it when he saw it.
  • Richard,

    I don't have the documents in front of me, but I believe the American bishops (predecessors to our current illustrious lot) secured an indult to allow mixed choirs, even when TLS was still in force, on the grounds that the men-and-boys choir had never been part of the American Catholic experience. Someone with the time and the energy and the knowledge base can track down the documents or the thread hereabouts where it was previously asserted.
    Thanked by 1CharlesW
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,157
    Not so much on the grounds that choirs of men and boys had never existed in America: they had indeed, in a few places. But the question went to Rome asking for permission to continue mixed choirs, and included (as one reason) the fact that in most places, even in cathedrals, they were in practice the only choirs in existence.

    After Tra le sollecitudini appeared, there were questions to Rome from both bishops and lay organizations (including the journal Church Music). At one point, the wording of the directives from Rome even seemed to prohibit women from singing in the congregation, though this was contrary to the Pope's wish to encourage congregational singing. The eventual reply (published in that journal around 1908-09) was that the prohibition against mixed choirs wasn't going to change, but that if men couldn't handle the singing by themselves, then at least keep the men and women physically separate for the sake of propriety.
    Thanked by 1eft94530
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,933
    Church documents can be a minefield as illustrated by the previous couple of posts. There are contradictions from one document to another, exceptions abound, and even bishops don't follow their own pronouncements. Pius X would have recognized inappropriate music in his day, but his inappropriate music was mostly from the operatic stage. He had no idea what would come after him. Similarly, Pius XI said more elaborate mass settings requiring a choir should be used primarily on special occasions. He also indicated simpler settings should be taught the congregation so it could learn and sing the parts belonging to it. Even the Trads are still not following that one.

    If there is a good example of Catholic tradition, it would be the practice of widely ignoring papal documents on music.
  • KARU27
    Posts: 184
    I wonder if MBurrier would find this compelling at all?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmWs94KbiJQ

    I wonder what Church documents Mburrier has read or studied about sacred music in the Church?
  • Scott_WScott_W
    Posts: 468
    There are two songs that I've had to sing as a choir member that have made me want to hide under my chair.


    The bad news: it isn't going to get better in the foreseeable future. When Waugh talked about the Age of Hooper, he ain't seen nuttin' yet.
    The good news (in addition to the Gospel of course): you are not alone under the chair. Know that there are other great musicians not in the choir/P&W/Mariachi band. Find them and commiserate. Maybe make good music when no one is looking.
    Thanked by 1francis
  • kevinfkevinf
    Posts: 1,183
    To MBurrier,

    I rarely post but read this forum with regularity. You accuse people of being "qua-school marms" and Pharisees and Sadducees ( quite the cliches) and gate-keepers and people who pursue dead-ends.

    However, you have not engaged anyone here with anything except ad hominem arguments, name-calling and labeling. You have not made one iota of an argument for your position except through these labels and ad hominem responses. You do not support any statement of your own. You cannot cite documents or articles. You cannot deduce any compelling reason for your statements other than "its my way" or "my taste", which does not hold up in any argument on the merits of the choice of music for the liturgy.

    I will not stoop to your depth of uncharitable thinking. But I would suggest that you do not act in the manner you wish others to act. That is to say, civil discourse or reflective thinking and cogent argumentation, which has a fine and marvelous history within the Church.

    The profession of Roman Catholic Church musician is an honorable one. I know that as I have served 36 years in that capacity. I am an organist,choirmaster, lover of chant and choral music. I regularly teach young children the glories of chant, polyphony and good singing. My students adore and love chant, because I share with them my joy and love for it and the Church in general. I respect all my colleagues who do this work, knowing full well that we don't always agree. We argue,cite documents and learn from each other.

    The arguments you foist upon this forum are not supported with anything except your own force of labeling,ad hominem and name calling. They are not the tools of civil discourse. I invite you to civil discourse without the ad hominem responses. I pray you to act in the Christ-like manner that we are asked to do...in this place and in life.

    Those whom I deeply respect here deserve such a grace-ful response.
  • Fair points, all.
    I apologize for any offense.
    Please forgive me.

    My issues are not to be merely polemic or antagonistic.
    I've been a DM for 25 years, yet only 3.5 as a Catholic.
    I joined the Church after accepting the DM&L position.
    This parish had 1600 families then (1800 now) and had conducted a national search.

    In other words, I lack the Catholic culture so dear to many of you, simply because I wasn't raised Catholic.
    I was, however, raised as a musician, and have served with many wonderful people.
    My Catholic liturgy experience is limited to on-the-job plus Notre Dame's STEP certificate program.

    My job is the same here as it has been everywhere else: sacred music.
    Obviously, my aesthetic, musical, and liturgical boundaries are broader than some of yours, yet are well within the rules of the Church.

    1. I love God and his Church.
    2. The people of the parish are dear to me.
    3. I am not a jukebox - neither traditional nor contemporary.
    4. This is what I do because churches keep hiring me.




    Thanked by 2CharlesW Elmar
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,371
    @mburrier - that's helpful background. Some of the music you are advocating for may well be appropriate in Catholic worship, but not in Mass. Catholic liturgy as it now commonly exists is not what many here think it ought to be. In particular there should be far more liturgy in Catholic churches than just Mass, even if in various styles. Mass is only one part of the church's liturgical riches, and the other liturgies and para-liturgies have different focus and require different music. There is a rich repertory of Catholic hymns extending over at least 1500 years, but until the last few decades they were not written for Mass, and indeed were explicitly excluded (that's over simplified). Catholic churches should have 'campfire Jesus songs', but in non-eucharistic services.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,668
    Yes... marshmallows and campfire Jesus! We should do that at the next colloquium... (however, maybe strong drink would be in order)