In my diocese the prohibition has been about 95% effective. David Haas' songs are not sung anymore, except rarely. One exception I'm aware of is that his Advent Alleluia is being used by a parish, but I suspect they don't realize who the composer is; just out of habit they are using the Advent Alleluia they've used for many years.

But "We Are Called," "You Are Mine," "Blessed Are They," haven't been sung since July. Those used to be standards.

It's really up to each local ordinary. Each ordinary was provided with the recent document about songs with doctrinally problematic lyrics. It's up to them to communicate to liturgical musicians in their dioceses what the expectations and standards are.

I think if a list of prohibited songs were published in my diocese, there would be 90% compliance. There would be grumbling, but there would also be compliance.

This recent document from the doctrinal committee would give local ordinaries a reference to justify compiling a list of prohibited music and a list of recommended music.

I guess we’re giving him the Voldemort treatment

It seems to have been the practice here, for reasons that I didn't get the memo on, and I didn't wish to fall afoul of moderation.

Honestly, I would imagine most dioceses don’t need an outright ban, his misdeeds are well known now and that alone can be toxic enough. For these places it’s not so much the wrath of the bishop that DMs need to worry about but the wrath of parishioners.

Personally, I'm not playing anything by You Know Who, Haugen, or Joncas, until Haugen and Joncas come clean about what their role was in this scandal. In fact, I systematically purged all the music from said individuals from all the binders for my choir.

The 84 might be low as they are the ones who bothered to write back specifying their policy. But there are 194 dioceses in the US.

I had no issues with not using that composer's music because I thought the quality wasn't up to the standards necessary for liturgy. One doesn't have to cancel anyone to determine their work isn't good enough.

Yes, we are all sinners and that is something to keep in mind. I agree Christianity is supposed to be about reform and redemption, not cancel culture. To think the works of that composer will disappear is, I think, a bit wishful. There are parishes with hymnals they are going to continue to use either because they can't afford new ones, or they have an attachment to that particular music. Those "works" will be around for some time yet.

The sad part is that it took such egregious sin to even prompt the discussion and action from bishops about music of poor doctrinal quality.

the composer's celebrity music ministry and internationally-known music were the means by which he leveraged access to and power over victims.

I'm pretty certain that the former DoM and composer who was CONVICTED (not just charged) with very serious paedophile acts operated in a very similar way - interestingly when I tried to google for him to place this topic in context, I wasn't able to locate the story. Arguably because his behaviour affected children, his sins were a lot worse.

I wonder how many church musicians would be left in the world if every one who publically sins (eg is in an irregular marriage) had to step aside.

The individual allegations against Haas matter far less in this context than the fact that he literally used the Roman Catholic Church and the industry of liturgical music solely as a means of furthering his abusive practices. This is far beyond him merely not living a virtuous life - he cynically used our Church and the trust placed in it to abuse people.

I am no fan of cancel culture; but for his callous disregard of the Church, Haas's music should be permanently banished from it.

Now to address some points made earlier:

The notion of the "unforgiveable sin" is quite jarring to me. Yes, the sin of sexual deviancy, abuse and manipulation is especially grave and it is right that this is punishable by law but if we cancel every 'composer' because of this type of sin we would have to say goodbye to an awful lot of church music. We do believe in forgiveness though, don't we?

Many composers lived lecherous lives. None of those well-known names, on the other hand, used religion to further their goals. I don't care about what mischief Gabriel Fauré (or even Wagner) got into when he wasn't working as an organist.

What is there to forgive with Haas? This wasn't a singular incident that occurred decades ago and is now being dug up. This is a pattern of behaviour covering thirty years. I know individuals whose lives were defined by one moment of weakness, for which they spend their entire lives atoning. People who are genuinely ashamed of what they have done, or might have a weakness to that kind of behaviour, don't continue it for thirty years or put themselves in those kinds of situations (let alone build a career around it) Perhaps we should forgive the man and pray for his soul, but that's a very different argument than continuing to use "artistic" creations that were essentially offspring of his lifestyle.

Now, if the man were a hundred years dead, and nobody living had been hurt by him or remembered the scandal, and somebody liked his songs and wanted to use them... that's the land of public domain, where many things are possible. But we're not there yet.

I'm sorry, but this is a bit weak. Despicable things don't become less despicable (or should be treated as less despicable) just because time has passed. I think taking advantage of the Church and public trust in it is something that warrants somewhat more permanence of consideration.

(Also, let's be real, he's had his moment in the sun. His music has been performed more than Palestrina's for decades. Let that one sink in.)

This also has little to do with the subject. I hate the man's music as much as the next guy, but it doesn't automatically have a shelf life. Whether he's experienced success or not is completely irrelevant to the legitimacy of his compositions or how we should judge his moral character.

His comps should have never been allowed in the liturgy in the first place. The rot started at the top with a confused and erroneous heirarchy. Error follows error and sin begets sin. Admittance of fault, clearing the deck and making repair is the only way to restoration.

But every man is tempted by his own concupiscence, being drawn away and allured.
15 Then when concupiscence hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin. But sin, when it is completed, begetteth death.
16 Do not err, therefore, my dearest brethren.

James 1:14-16

@Nathan_the_Organist

I think the rules would still apply to some extent. I would have to do a little research but I think there's a document explaining that the people that form a schola/choir, should be of good moral character...

I'm not one for cancel culture either, hence I only put in my two sense only about his music.

I also wonder, how would we react if this was a contemporary composer of polyphony instead of christian pop?

This is a good and rather probing question. No doubt we would speak of letting the works stand on their own merit and that they are not the measure of the man.

What is intriguing about this question is that traditional composers use traditional styles and (typically) latin/liturgical texts. In that sense, such music transcends the boundaries of "style" per se (they certainly transcend trend), as they meld with a living tradition, rather than stand apart in contrast to it. That said, I think in all honesty I have to admit a certain bias. There are a few modern composers of polyphony I can think of that I would be very sorry to see their music banned. (I wish not to sully their names by associating them with this thread.)

My sorrow in this case is strictly that people were harmed. I sense no artistic loss. Mea maxima culpa.

If the first part of my reflection be true then, we are back to analyzing the compositions on their merits apart from the composer. It seems to me that we rather mostly agree about that.

As both Serviam and Francis have said, we have to let the work stand on its own merit. It drives me crazy when a politician wants to use a tragedy to push for a policy that the politician has been advocating for already. (I would argue that this is separate from investigating the cause of a tragedy and then implementing policy to prevent the tragedy from happening again. That is a specific solution that has a direct relationship to the specific problem). I feared that we were trying to do the same thing in regards to this composer's music: we already wanted a reason to ban it, and therefore would use this tragedy to push for that ban. This is why I brought up the hypothetical if this was a composer of polyphony. We would argue that those works should stand on their own merit and still be sung at mass. I wanted to make sure that we were not applying this double standard just because we dislike his music.

This isn't to say that his music has merit on its own. I believe that his music does not have merit to be worthy of use in mass. As I said before, I would refrain from using it due to its secular style. I also think that there is an argument that it would be prudent to refrain from using his music since people might associate it with his faults. I would not want anyone in the congregation who as been a victim of sexual assault to have to deal with that during mass. Also as sdtalley3 points out, those with leadership positions in the church should be moral, upright people-even for positions as simple as cantor or organist. (I'm not sure if it is in the documents or not, but I would think this would be common sense). Otherwise, scandal could result and damage the Church.

I think that we have to take a balanced, rational approach to this and consider many things such as the merits of the music on its own, the possibility of scandal, and how members of the congregation might react. I think taking any other approach to this would be illogical, and could lead to standards that we might not like the application of in the future.

As others have noted, there is a huge difference between having a private sinful life, and having your public life as a musician be a tool for systematized and institutional abuse spanning 40+ years. Haas has 40+ women accusing him. In light of this, I have several thoughts:

1. Absent a clear act of public repentance (rather than a pseudoapology that he has apparently been using as a form letter since he was accused of rape in the 1980s), I do not want my royalties subsidizing his lifestyle. Cutting off his royalties is in fact an act of charity towards David Haas. This might be the wakeup call he needs to turn his life around. We should be praying for his conversion.

2. As was sadly brought to light by McCarrick, we're still in the sex abuse crisis. We need to clearly establish that sexual abuse is gravely contrary to our faith and that sexual predators are not welcome in the Catholic Church. In the present moment, I believe that means that we need to take decisive action to separate ourselves from the criminals who have infiltrated our Church. I presume that your parishes are not holding on to any books written by McCarrick (or Maciel, or Corapi, etc, etc) because you can separate the art from the artist.

3. Haas systematically manipulated the Liturgical-Industrial complex to systematically threaten and silence anyone who might turn him in. He used his celebrity status to make sure his enemies were frozen out of opportunities such as presenting at LA Congress and apparently had vast influence over the employment status of people working in liturgical music publishing. He used recording sessions for his CDs to create an in group and an out group and create a strong incentive to be in the in group and keep your mouth shut about his behavior. The only way I see to fully unwind this scandal is to completely remove the works of David Haas from liturgical music.

4. Haas conducted serial affairs in plain sight of the liturgical music insiders for decades. The criminal element of these may have alluded these folks, but the people on the inside of the liturgical music industry saw no issue with letting someone who openly saw Catholic sexual morality as optional present himself as a lay minister for 40+ years. Some knew bits and pieces of his abusive tactics yet did nothing, choosing their own convenience over the safety of women in the Catholic Church. In some cases, Haas' behavior was reported, and institutions that knew the full details chose to do nothing about it.

5. The victims of David Haas have been united and publicly outspoken that they want Haas' music removed from our liturgies. I think that we ought to honor this request. Additionally, as a practical matter, the huge number of survivors of David Haas, likely still a number much larger than the total who have reported to IntoAccount, makes it a realistic possibility that one of his survivors could attend your liturgy. The women who survived his abuse have a right to not have their participation at Mass be a reminder of their abuse.

6. This is a minor point, but there is some really strange stuff in his most popular works. Must of have been his subconscious speaking. Do we really want to sing a song with the words "I will come to you in the silence...I claim you as my choice...I love you and you are mine" written by a serial sexual predator? Can you sing the words "we are called to act with justice" with a straight face knowing that the author used his entire career as a liturgical musician to subvert justice for the women he abused?

David Haas needs to live the rest of his life in prayer and penance. We need to pray for his conversion. Even moreso, we need to pray for his victims. Our primary goal as a Church should be to care for his victims. In light of the considerations above, it seems clear to me that Haas' music ought not to be played in Catholic parishes.

@kathybot

There is more than enough sacred music already published and approved than one choir can sing in its lifetime, its just a matter of bringing things back around to the way they should have been; yet, the ingenuity of musicians is such that new masterful works are still being composed and performed, and they will continue to be. This is the blessing of the Church to its members.

@jclangfo

You are very correct in what you say, and I agree. For those whose life has been exposed, who will pray and do penance for them that they maybe come to accept God's grace and be one in the body of the Church again? If we just fall into the pit of anger and rage (these emotions do have a time and place), then we will be no better than the cancel culture of just denouncing people to their ruination.

Finally, only men of known piety and probity of life are to be admitted to form part of the choir of a church, and these men should by their modest and devout bearing during the liturgical functions show that they are worthy of the holy office they exercise. It will also be fitting that singers while singing in church wear the ecclesiastical habit and surplice, and that they be hidden behind gratings when the choir is excessively open to the public gaze.

Another example of Rome speaking but not setting any worthy example. If only 'Men of Known piety and probity in life' were admitted to the seminary or elevated to a bishopric?

For once, jclangfo and I have little on which to disagree.

I also wonder, how would we react if this was a contemporary composer of polyphony instead of christian pop?

It shouldn't matter. This shouldn't become some kind of partisan crusade. Either the composer's offenses are serious enough to warrant this action being taken, or they aren't. The quality of the music has no impact on that specific criterion.

I was not trying to make this a partisan issue; I'm sorry if you interpreted my statements that way. I was advocating for a single standard. I know that there are many who wanted Haas's music gone just because it is bad music, and I didn't want us to be using his transgressions to get rid of the music. That is why I brought up the hypothetical of a contemporary composer of polyphony. If it was an issue of using the sin to get rid of the music then there would be a different response for the polyphonic composer. This is why I was advocating for the art to stand alone from the artist and ruling based on each separately. Now the sins of the artist may overshadow the art and make it hard for people to separate them, which may make removing the art necessary.

I'm simply saying that we need neutral principles on which to evaluate things, and these principles need to be applied with logic and not emotion. I also think that the art and the artist are to be evaluated separately to the extent that they can be separated. However, in the case of David Haas, it may not be possible to separate them.

The Haas smack down occurs in light of the clergy abuse scandals. When there is no potential lawsuit, it’s “who am I to judge.” But when the lawsuits are coming, THEN a wicked man who wrote music rebranding Catholicism as a different religion must be purged.

The mercenary and Stalinist characteristic of this affair are why I’m not telling a grieving widow that she could pick a Haas song if her husband had died in 2019, but not in 2020.

(And no, I wasn’t at this job when the church purchased Gather...)