I know, I know!!

It's our friend Dan Schutte writing in the new issue of Today's Liturgy. I was going to post about this but then found the whole idea draining.

His entire article on the subject of the tetragrammaton was...self serving...to say the least.

Here are the affected songs

Gentlemen Friends,
I think you do Schutte a bit of disservice as the original quote was excerpted out of a larger context. The fuller quote, "Many people will not understand unless it's explained why we don't sing "Yahweh" anymore. Even with careful instruction, there will be people who will continue to sing "You are near" just the way they have for the past 37 years. It's not enough just to say we'll do it because the Vatican congregation says so. Our faith deserves more than that."
I actually "hear" Schutte endorsing the efforts of Bsp. Serratelli, my local bishop et al, and the publishers who did expediently publish and disseminate thorough explanations of the Vatican directive in newspapers and parish bulletins. The truncated quote can indeed be regarded as a sort of petulant reaction; but I don't believe that is how Schutte intended it to be regarded.
As to Schutte's intent present in the article, I wouldn't presume to judge that. YMMV

Charles, you know, I understand your point, and it was my impression too when I first read it. I thought, oh, this isn't so bad. But then days passed and I read it again. I tried to conjure up that old feeling but it began to dissipate with his paragraph after paragraph explanation, which really stretched on and on. I put it down again for a week and re-read it just yesterday. each time I went back to it, the sentence quoted above stuck out in my mind. I'm also of the view that there must be reasons for things, but this is a narrow directive--and an unusual one--and one that actually provided the reasons. It's not as if the Vatican just announced a policy without providing the whole background and thinking here. Why was it not enough just to read the explanation given in the directive itself? Schutte acts like he is being ordered around by Torquemada here. Moreover, his article actually seems to take issue with the directive, and on very weak grounds. so while I agree that the quotation isn't enough to make a case against his attitude, the broader context in which it occurs actually strengthens the impression that Schutte just resents all forms of Church authority, and this actually surprised me! I do think it is an unfortunate piece of prose.

Can one be still a catholic when he intentionally rejects 'catholic faith'? Maybe he is not catholic. I respect protestants because at least they don't pretend to be catholics.

Good Heavens. I don't see any justification for Mia's suggestion about Schutte.

The problem with Today's Liturgy is many musicians and liturgists use it as their sole source of information. We should do all we can to provide them with other resources, but we should also recognize that lots of folks think they're doing just fine.

The problem with much of the music identified above is that it isn't suitable music for liturgical functions. Its aesthetic, compositional, etc. merits aren't important to me otherwise because there's room in the world for a great deal of music I don't like.

The use of the tetragrammaton has vexed me since it showed up in the Jerusalem Bible. Our hollering "you know what" when the Jews who wrote the original texts didn't always struck me as vaguely insulting, no matter how broad-minded we wanted to be. Somewhat along the lines of the "pseudo-Sedars" that popped up in the 1960s and refuse to go away.

Now I'm going to rehearsal.

@CharlesinCenCA, I would say from the entire piece. It was interesting history but it was way too defensive on his own behalf. I don't think anyone was somehow accusing him of anything really. His Alleluia example seemed pointless to me.

Also, you know, I doubt the idea that this was somehow a result of the Jerusalem Bible. It was just the fashion in those times. I know this for sure, having lived it in many silly youth camps.

Well, let's see if I can make his point more obviously acceptable for you:

When someone presents an instruction (or a directive) from the Church, they can tell us to accept it on the Church's authority, or they can use the methods of reason to provide a justification for it.

Every argument is either an argument from authority or an argument from reason. If a thing can be known through either means, then the argument from reason is the stronger argument. This is a very common idea in Catholic thought, going back at least to the medievals. It's part of how Catholic thought integrates reason and faith. St. Thomas Aquinas mentions it in the Summa (under the question "Whether sacred doctrine is a matter of argument"). He says, "the proof from authority is the weakest form of proof".

Now, some doctrines do require an argument from authority, because they cannot be known through reason alone -- for example, the revelation of the Trinity. But when an argument from reason is possible, it's better to provide it.

So -- Schutte is saying -- there are many people who aren't very satisfied with just getting a Vatican instruction about the liturgy without an explanation for it. Our Catholic faith, with its tradition of integrating faith and reason, deserves better.

---

I hope that helps.

Now, in reality -- as Jeffrey pointed out above -- the CDWDS instruction did come with an explanation, and Schutte's reaction doesn't seem to acknowledge that. But his confusion about that doesn't come anywhere near challenging the Church's authority.

Well, I'm really grateful to know how much stuff is read and interpreted and understood. So I'm glad to have these reactions and I can never do enough policing of my own work.

Thanks chonak for the insightful and kind explanation. I understand that the degrees of how you see his statement can vary.
I wanted to know him a bit better and went to the thread on him in this forum, "Composer Dan Schutte can't be kept from singing" It was quite amazing to read the posts there (many of them are written by the same people here)compare to what I hear here. Is this the same person we are talking about who wrote "City of God" ... let us build the city of God... ?
I don't think my limited reasoning and imagination can stretch to see that his statement is based on the wonderful catholic tradition of integrating faith and reason as seen in St. Thomas Aquinas' writing. Mr. Schutte's theology expressed in his songs doesn't support his statement above as in the same spirit as in St. Thomas Aquinas, even if both quotes are out of context.
I want to pray that his songs and talks may inspire and help to lead the faith of fellow catholics in the right direction.

The music that is newly composed and not based in the traditions of the last five to ten centuries is experimental. DA and I have touched on the documents that expound on this thinking between ourselves. I Can't remember if any of it is on this forum, but for starts, the poor translation of Musica Sacra from the Latin to the English where composers are encouraged to be "creative". I would have to go back to sources to draw this out which won't be possible as Holy Week and premier has totally swallowed my time till Easter, but I would love to pursue this further at that point in time.

In our own US of A, Weakland championed the "creative" spirit and was a significant force by organizing key composers, musicians and "liturgists" which is outlined in the Snowbird documents.

Significant changes in the liturgy, text, music, action have always evolved organically, slowly and carefully over centuries. In the light of VII there was a radical departure from that tradition of change and much was foisted on the church by a small "committee" nearly overnight. A vaccuum occurred which synthetically forced this experimentation without the slow and deliberate discernment that the church has always excersized.

The fruit of this haste has produced a mind boggling amount of instability and almost a complete loss of identity to what it means to be RC. This occurred in everything liturgical including the evacuation of chant, the destruction of altars, the confusion of the role of priest, the abandonment of ruberics, the embarrasing proliferation of detestable English translations of the Mass and the Bible, the orientation of the priest at the Holy Sacrifice, the abandonment of the organ, polyphony, and role and placement of the choir, the institution of RocknRoll and clown apostacies, and on and on and on.

Here are some paragraphs from Musica Sacra that reflect this thinking:

14. The choral chant began to be called "Gregorian" after St. Gregory, the man who revived it. It attained new beauty in almost all parts of Christian Europe after the 8th or 9th century because of its accompaniment by a new musical instrument called the "organ." Little by little, beginning in the 9th century, polyphonic singing was added to this choral chant. The study and use of polyphonic singing were developed more and more during the centuries that followed and were raised to a marvelous perfection under the guidance of magnificent composers during the 15th and 16th centuries.

15. Since the Church always held this polyphonic chant in the highest esteem, it willingly admitted this type of music even in the Roman basilicas and in pontifical ceremonies in order to increase the glory of the sacred rites. Its power and splendor were increased when the sounds of the organ and other musical instruments were joined with the voices of the singers.

16. Thus, with the favor and under the auspices of the Church the study of sacred music has gone a long way over the course of the centuries. In this journey, although sometimes slowly and laboriously, it has gradually progressed from the simple and ingenuous Gregorian modes to great and magnificent works of art. To these works not only the human voice, but also the organ and other musical instruments, add dignity, majesty and a prodigious richness.

17. The progress of this musical art clearly shows how sincerely the Church has desired to render divine worship ever more splendid and more pleasing to the Christian people. It likewise shows why the Church must insist that this art remain within its proper limits and must prevent anything profane and foreign to divine worship from entering into sacred music along with genuine progress, and perverting it.

18. The Sovereign Pontiffs have always diligently fulfilled their obligation to be vigilant in this matter. The Council of Trent also forbids "those musical works in which something lascivious or impure is mixed with organ music or singing."[11] In addition, not to mention numerous other Sovereign Pontiffs, Our predecessor Benedict XIV of happy memory in an encyclical letter dated February 19, 1749, which prepared for a Holy Year and was outstanding for its great learning and abundance of proofs, particularly urged Bishops to firmly forbid the illicit and immoderate elements which had arrogantly been inserted into sacred music.[12]

19. Our predecessors Leo XII, Pius VII, Gregory XVI, Pius IX, and Leo XIII [13] followed the same line.

20. Nevertheless it can rightly be said that Our predecessor of immortal memory, St. Pius X, made as it were the highest contribution to the reform and renewal of sacred music when he restated the principles and standards handed down from the elders and wisely brought them together as the conditions of modern times demanded.[14] Finally, like Our immediate predecessor of happy memory, Pius XI, in his Apostolic Constitution Divini cultus sanctitatem (The Holiness of Divine Worship), issued December 20, 1929,[15] We ourself in the encyclical Mediator Dei (On the Sacred Liturgy), issued November 20, 1947,[16] have enriched and confirmed the orders of the older Pontiffs.

21. Certainly no one will be astonished that the Church is so vigilant and careful about sacred music. It is not a case of drawing up laws of aesthetics or technical rules that apply to the subject of music. It is the intention of the Church, however, to protect sacred music against anything that might lessen its dignity, since it is called upon to take part in something as important as divine worship.

22. On this score sacred music obeys laws and rules which are no different from those prescribed for all religious art and, indeed, for art in general. Now we are aware of the fact that during recent years some artists, gravely offending against Christian piety, have dared to bring into churches works devoid of any religious inspiration and completely at variance with the right rules of art. They try to justify this deplorable conduct by plausible-looking arguments which they claim are based on the nature and character of art itself. They go on to say that artistic inspiration is free and that it is wrong to impose upon it laws and standards extraneous to art, whether they are religious or moral, since such rules seriously hurt the dignity of art and place bonds and shackles on the activity of an inspired artist.

Here is a piece on CanticaNova about the Snowbird.

http://www.canticanova.com/articles/liturgy/art9o1.htm

Snowbird in Sacred Music Journal

http://www.musicasacra.com/publications/sacredmusic/pdf/sm127-4.pdf

You might say we are 'reaping what we snowed!"

Noel:

I don't understand what you mean by this:

"It is a matter of sadness that Catholics call out-dated music contemporary and ignore true Contemporary music. You don't have to like it...but you should recognize it."

Can you clarify? Thanks.

Gentlemen and Ladies,
I think that we ought to take up Francis' suggestion and seriously take this up, post-Easter, in another thread. Some brief, bulleted responses:
*I fundamentally disagree that sacred or liturgical music that clearly has tenets connected to "traditional" music dating back five to ten centuries constitutes "suitability" for use at Church. The era is irrelevent; the style employed is of paramount concern. As has been mentioned in many threads elsewhere, the works of Gesualdo or Ockeghem must be evaluated for suitability by the same criteria applied to Byrd or Victoria; the works of M. Haydn or P. Martini must be evaluated along those of the grander Masses of Mozart or Charpentier; the works of Faure and Bruckner with those of Verdi and Rossini; and the works of Pendercki and Part along those of....Richard Rice or Francis.
*Toward that end, it seems that the only commonality that serious liturgical musicians must agree upon is the explicit primacy of Gregorian chant, and its edification by the more elaborate, deliberate and related form of "classical" polyphony. Beyond those, we will find little consensus. The failure of both the Milwaukee Symposium and Snowbird Statement to take root among any of the known "guilds" of church musicians attests to that.
*So, I still wonder if the term "experimental" is either valid or valuable in discoursing about the quality of sacred or liturgical works, whether it is a setting of the text mentioned above by Landry, Walton or Rene Clausen.
*Experiemental projects that otherwise try to adhere to various licit criteria issued by church directives would include PSALLITE as well as BFW and other volumes regularly discussed here. And we seem to always, while applauding the intent and attempt, always seems to default back to the Gregorian Missal, or the Parish Book of Chant or the Graduale, which doesn't promote the creation of new music envisioned by MS.
Gotta run, Communal Penance Service.....(blech....)

Well, Noel, thems that know me from '08 Colloquium and SD Intensive will agree that I rarely know what I'm saying either. But I do try to be agreeable '-) I think it's because I travel with Cabs, not by cabs.

Noel:

Thanks for the clarification.

I categorize anything that has been composed in the last 100 years as contemporary.

Not sure, JT. What are you thinking?

Here's a list of some of the early 20th Century composers. I googled for a list of composers by chronological date and grabbed the most well known names off the list. What flavor of musical "experimentation" do these names conjure up at a glance?

Here is my take.

I really like most all of these, but Shostakovich and Webber are my least favorites. As for those that professed to be "holding true to the roots of sacred music", Messiaen was the most experimental, Barber tended toward the romantic (but truly moving music), Bernstein composed a "Mass"... oops... my mistake... this is Sacred Broadway! Gorecki, Part and Tavener subscribe to the school of minimalism, and I find their works captivating, but I tire quickly of the repetition. Andrew of course composed the most famous 'religious' music of them all... Jesus Christ Superstar... Super Sacred Broadway. Where are all the composers of sacred music hiding!!

( 9/25/1906 - 8/09/1975 ) SHOSTAKOVICH, Dimitri
( 12/10/1908 - 4/27/1992 ) MESSIAEN, Olivier
( 3/09/1910 - 1/23/1981 ) BARBER, Samuel
( 11/22/1913 - 12/04/1976 ) BRITTEN, Lord Benjamin
( 8/25/1918 - 10/14/1990 ) BERNSTEIN, Leonard
( 1933 - ) GORECKI, Henryk Mikolaj
( 9/11/1935 - ) PART, Arvo
( 1/28/1944 - ) TAVENER, John
( 3/22/1948 - ) LLOYD WEBBER, Andrew

_______________________________________________

Here is the list from wiki. These are the bold names from the first 50 years of the 20th Century. Many of these are experimental in my book. Out of that list, I consistently listen to Copeland, Barber and Part... (some of them I do not know at all. Does any one know if any of these others are composers of sacred music? (besides the ones mentioned above) Granted, wiki may be prejudice to listing composers of sacred music. Not sure. Any guesses?

_______________________________

Aaron Copland 1900-1990 American Appalachian Spring (ballet); Billy the Kid (ballet); Rodeo (ballet); Fanfare for the Common Man; Clarinet Concerto neoclassical, Folk music influence, jazz influence, early twelve-tone, later serialism
William Walton 1902-1983 British Symphony No. 1; Violin Concerto; Viola Concerto; Variations on a Theme by Hindemith; Belshazzar's Feast (oratorio) avant-garde (early), neoromantic, neoclassical
Aram Khachaturian 1903-1978 Armenian Gayane (ballet, contains the famous Sabre Dance); Spartacus (ballet); concertos
Dmitri Kabalevsky 1904-1987 Russian The Comedians
Giacinto Scelsi 1905-1988 Italian Quattro pezzi chiascuno su una nota sola unclassifiable
Michael Tippett 1905-1998 British The Midsummer Marriage; 4 symphonies; A Child of Our Time (oratorio)
Dmitri Shostakovich 1906-1975 Russian Symphony No. 5, No. 7, No. 9, and No. 10; Violin Concerto No. 1; Cello Concerto No. 1; Festive Overture; String Quartet No. 8; Piano Quintet; Romance from The Gadfly Suite neoclassical, neoromantic
Elliott Carter 1908- American Variations for Orchestra; A Symphony of Three Orchestras; 5 string quartets neoclassical (early), modernist
Olivier Messiaen 1908-1992 French Turangalila Symphony; Quartet for the End of Time; Vingt regards sur l'enfant-Jésus; Saint François d'Assise (opera) mysticism, post-impressionist
Samuel Barber 1910–1981 American Adagio for Strings; Violin Concerto; Symphony in One Movement Romanticism
John Cage 1912-1992 American 4'33"; Sonatas and Interludes Aleatoric music, Extended technique
Conlon Nancarrow 1912-1997 American-Mexican Studies for player-piano
Benjamin Britten 1913-1976 British Sinfonia da Requiem; Young Person's Guide to the Orchestra; War Requiem; Cello Symphony; Peter Grimes (opera) Neo-classicism
Morton Gould 1913-1996 American
Witold Lutosławski 1913-1994 Polish Concerto for Orchestra; Musique funebre; Jeux vénitiens; Preludes and a Fugue; Symphony No. 2 and Symphony No. 3 Neo-classicism, folk-influenced, later Aleatoric music
Milton Babbitt 1916– American Composition for Four Instruments; six string quartets; Philomel serialism, electronic music
Henri Dutilleux 1916– French 2 symphonies; Tout un Monde Lointain; The Shadows of Time; Timbres, espace, mouvement Neo-impressionism
Alberto Ginastera 1916–1983 Argentine Panambi (ballet); Malambo; 2 piano concertos; 3 piano sonatas
Lou Harrison 1917-2003 American Concerto for Violin and Percussion Orchestra; Piano Concerto; 4 symphonies; much gamelan music
Leonard Bernstein 1918-1990 American West Side Story (musical); Chichester Psalms; Candide; Serenade; Mass; 3 symphonies jazz and popular music influence
Malcolm Arnold 1921-2006 British Symphony No. 5 and No. 7; English Dances; film music
Iannis Xenakis 1922–2001 Greek Metastasis avant-garde
György Ligeti 1923-2006 Hungarian Atmosphères avant-garde
Ned Rorem 1923- American Our Town (opera); Air Music; 3 numbered symphonies; over 400 songs Pulitzer Prize winner
Luigi Nono 1924-1990 Italian Avant-garde
Morton Feldman 1926–1987 American
Hans Werner Henze 1926– German Ondine (ballet); 10 symphonies; 3 violin concertos
Einojuhani Rautavaara 1928- Finnish Cantus Arcticus; Symphony No. 7: Angel of Light; Piano Concerto No. 3: The Gift of Dreams Mysticism
Karlheinz Stockhausen 1928–2007 German Gruppen; Kontakte; Hymnen; Stimmung; Mantra; Tierkreis; Licht Avant-garde, electronic music, serialism, aleatory, world music, intuitive music, formula composition
George Crumb 1929– American Ancient Voices of Children Extended technique
Alun Hoddinott 1929–2008 Welsh
Peter Sculthorpe 1929- Australian Requiem; Kakadu; Earth Cry; Piano Concerto; 17 string quartets world music
Tōru Takemitsu 1930-1996 Japanese A Flock Descends into the Pentagonal Garden; Toward the Sea Neo-impressionism
Malcolm Williamson 1931-2003 Australian Mass of Christ the King; The Dawn is at Hand; 7 numbered symphonies; cassations
Wojciech Kilar 1932- Polish Krzesany; Dracula (film music) Holy minimalism
John Williams 1932- American Jaws (film music); Star Wars (film music)
Henryk Górecki 1933- Polish Symphony of Sorrowful Songs Holy minimalism
Krzysztof Penderecki 1933- Polish Threnody for the Victims of Hiroshima; St. Luke Passion; A Polish Requiem; Symphony No. 2: Christmas Avant-garde, Extended technique, later Neo-romanticism
Peter Maxwell Davies 1934- British Eight Songs for a Mad King; 8 symphonies
Alfred Schnittke 1934-1998 Russian 10 symphonies Polystylism
Arvo Pärt 1935- Estonian Tabula Rasa; Fratres; Summa; Cantus In Memoriam Benjamin Britten Holy minimalism
Terry Riley 1935- American In C Minimalism
Richard Rodney Bennett 1936- British
Steve Reich 1936– American Piano Phase; Music for 18 Musicians Minimalism
Philip Glass 1937- American Violin Concerto; operas; 8 symphonies Minimalism
William Bolcom 1938- American Songs of Experience; Songs of Innocence
John Harbison 1938- American
Charles Wuorinen 1938- American Time's Encomium; 8 symphonies; chamber music Serialism
Louis Andriessen 1939- Dutch son of Hendrik Andriessen
John McCabe 1939- British
Ellen Taaffe Zwilich 1939- American 4 symphonies
Brian Ferneyhough 1943- British Etudes Transcendantales New Complexity
Joseph Schwantner 1943- American Aftertones of Infinity; A Sudden Rainbow
Peter Eötvös 1944– Hungarian Love and Other Demons (opera) eclectic, extended technique, electronic music, folk-music influence
Michael Finnissy 1946- British New Complexity
John Coolidge Adams 1947- American Harmonielehre; Nixon in China (opera); Shaker Loops, Short Ride in a Fast Machine; Violin Concerto Post-minimalism
Michael Berkeley 1948- British son of Lennox Berkeley
Claude Vivier 1948– Canadian Kopernikus: Rituel de la Mort (opera) spectral music, Asian-music influence
Christopher Rouse 1949- American Requiem; Karolju; Phantasmata; Gorgon; Oboe Concerto; 2 symphonies Pulitzer Prize winner
Steven Stucky 1949- American Son et Lumière; Concerto for Orchestra No. 2; Rhapsodies; August 4, 1964 Pulitzer Prize winner
Oliver Knussen 1952- British Symphony No. 2; Where the Wild Things Are (opera)
Wolfgang Rihm 1952- German 12 string quartets; Die Eroberung von Mexico (opera) New Simplicity, expressionism
Kaija Saariaho 1952- Finnish Orion