I'll repost here what I had written here some time ago and welcome corrections

St. Pius X had forbidden women to sing in scholas in his 1903 encyclical but Fr. Anthony Ruff's new book Sacred Music and Liturgical Reform demonstrates two very important points with regard to this prohibition.

1) The prohibition against women singers was completely ignored all over Europe and especially the United States. The encyclical itself had a huge impact on the Catholic world but for this narrow point. In fact, "indults" to depart from the letter of the law were being issued by the Pope personally just days after publication, and ever more leniency was in effect within a few years at the hands of legislative bodies overseeing the liturgy.

It was nowhere enforced, and one can tell that just by looking at pictures of chant classes conducted by Justine Ward in the United States: more than half the students were girls and women. Indeed, women were at the forefront of the movement. The tradition of women singing at Mass has always been integral to life in a convent, and there are extensive records of women singing polyphony in England. As for the Vatican itself, its practice of using only men and boys to sing reflected a long-standing tradition and not so much an adherence to doctrinal norms. Later, as is well known, Pius XII legislated in favor of permitting women to sing, legislation which didn't change the practice much either since the original edict had not had much effect in any case.

2) Fr. Ruff further demonstrates that the edict of Pius X had nothing to do with discrimination but rather stemmed from a widely held position of the Cecilian movement that the choir performed a clerical roll in the liturgy and hence it should share as closely as possible in the features of the clergy. The Cecilians believed that the singers should be men because the priesthood was limited to men; they further hoped that the vocation of schola member would be lifelong and that singers would, for example, under the ideal, receive tonsures.

And why did the Cecilians hold this view? They were responding in excess to what they saw as the pervasive low view of the choir's role as merely adding a soundtrack to liturgy. They hope to heighten the role of music to being part of the liturgical structure rather than merely an addendum to it. To push this idea further, they latched onto this idea of the clerical purpose of the singing and pushed it as far as it could go. In other words, this view stemmed from a strategic consideration fashioned into a plausible theological one.

Of course this view was later backed away from with another view that was similarly taken too far: the postconciliar view the schola is part of the people. This view led to the critical problem in modern times of viewing the choir and its parts as having no distinct role at all. Here Fr. Ruff is very strong in arguing the contrary case.

Fr. Ruff discusses this back-and-forth tendency to go from one extreme to the other while arguing that the real role of the choir does not have a literal analogy to any other role in liturgy apart from the most ancient view that the choir stands in proxy for the choirs of angels. The issue of women, then, has long proven to be a great distraction from this more substantive issue, and Fr. Paul (of St. Peter's, Rome) is certainly to be commended for pushing progress here both in the direction of using the best musical forces available to him as well as fully embracing chant and the classical repertoire.

Many people share that pastor's opinion, and many places have all-male scholas, so it is at least an established local custom. There is an undeniable preference in the universal law for male singers at the EF (thanks for the citations, Mr. Z).

This preference does not prohibit good music, but rather prevents doctrinaire feminists (many of whom--both male and female--have office in the Church today) from ruining good music in pursuit of their agendas. For example, it is forbidden by law to eliminate a musically competent all-male schola cantorum and replace it with a group of women who can't read music simply to be politically correct. Such an act would violate the right of the parishioners to the EF.

The phrase "can be permitted" in De Musica Sacra 100, cited above, does not mandate the pastor to permit it. The faithful can be gravely scandalized by liturgical changes, and it is the pastor's responsibility to care for his flock. The EF is provided, in part, to care for people who have been gravely scandalized by liturgical changes.

I interpret De Musica Sacra 100 to allow women's scholas to exist alongside men's scholas if the men are only capable of singing well half the chants at Mass according to the melodies in the Graduale. It is my opinion that in such a case that the men and women can divide the work.

The Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei responded to a letter on this topic a while back, in which they relied on custom and usage.

G, What do you mean?

Just so that we are clear, the Vatican's letter here expresses no preference for men over women or women over men etc. The letter speaks of both contributing to the sacred liturgy.

While I've never encountered in my personal experience a case of a women's schola keeping a men's schola from singing on political grounds, I've known many of the opposite cases: struggling men's scholas dominating the singing while competent women are pretty well shut out based on a wide variety of issues. In fact, probably once a week I receive a note concerning these cases, notes from concerned men and women. I always find it disturbing.

Just on a theoretical level:

Pius X, with his staunch admonitions against the heresy of all heresies, i.e., modernism, would recoil at the thought of a "time sensitive" aspect to his pronouncements. Along the lines of Jeffery T. very fine fleshing out of this issue, we might want to grant to Rome the right of outlining a pronounced "ideal" to which we strive for with an unspoken understanding the we "bend" certain aspects according to local or circumstantial concerns, but I would think this "of this time only and not for all times" aspect would be anathema to his way of thinking along this line. IOW, we should guard against any hint of the idea that the expansion of roles of the laity in general, or women in particular, is the result of some sort of epoch related enlightenment, IOW, progressivist thinking.

AOZ is correct in saying one should not distrust women's motives concerning liturgical matters just because they are women. The expansion of "actors" roles afforded the laity inside the liturgy, of both men and women, has not been a particularly positive development in the Roman rite IMHO. I would think most here could think of many examples so I will not bore anyone with the local cases I know of that outline how egregiously this can play out.

One of the reasons I find so much solace within the Eastern rite that I attend is that these liturgical issues are more or less settled, having remained in place for centuries; there are no liturgical wars being fought, especially gender related. Women do sing in the choir, if anyone might have been wondering, but that is about it. I see no evidence of disgruntledment on the part of women, quite the contrary, it would seem, though I haven't seen any polling on the subject.

Chrism, there's a James Joyce story, "The Dead," set in 1904 or so, where the way women have been suddenly turned out of the loft after years of service, (by the recent motu proprio,) is part of the conversation.

(Save the Liturgy, Save the World)

Pius X, with his staunch admonitions against the heresy of all heresies, i.e., modernism, would recoil at the thought of a "time sensitive" aspect to his pronouncements.

I am afraid you are mixing apples and oranges. Pius X had no problems changing DISCIPLINES of the Church. You might be very surprised to learn about the changes he made in the breviary. But you are mentioning things that pertain to DOGMA, which do not change. Heresy is still heresy. Doctrine cannot change, but disciplines can. An example: we can eat meat on Fridays now, as long as we make some other sacrifice. This has nothing to do with doctrinal changes.

"...struggling men's scholas dominating the singing while competent women are pretty well shut out based on a wide variety of issues"
While I personally have not experienced that, I have seen it and I too find it disturbing. Thank you for being a voice of reason, Jeffrey.

As yet another aside, this delicate matter was one factor which Wendy and I encountered when going to our first local EF, which I believe I described in another thread. In this circumstance, there is a modest, capable schola of three vested gentlemen who assemble within the sanctuary "within" the altar rail. As I mentioned, this compelled us to decide whether it was appropriate to sing the Ordinary, beyond merely the responses. We (and others) obviously do not constitute a "choir" under provision #100 (and as there is a schola, there presumably is no need for one) so, as described, issues of ownership and active participation can be a bit dicey when you're not a home, and in someone else's Rome. I don't want my lyric soprano to feel she has to sing spinto tenor in the EF, wink wink, nudge nudge.

I would just like to point out that my woman's intuition tells me that eft94530 has a clearly gender-based fondness for spreadsheets. :)

mjb, yes, I like spreadsheets.
It might be a guy thing to create them.
So far only CMAA guys with Google accounts have revealed spreadsheets in the forum.
You can blame or praise @aristotle for starting the trend! :-)

The spreadsheet layout is compact and complete.
Google Documents help to collect and organize and share data that will be
available from work and home and elsewhere, and are automatically backed up.

Information gathering and presentation for this Discussion is not done yet (assistance welcome!),
but, to fulfill your secret desire, lest you and other forum readers be disappointed ...

http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0Aka8xAr4afVwdDRYZEhNdndEdUc2Nlh5bFQ4UU4teHc&hl=en

As far as DISCIPLINE goes, when the Church abolishes a pious disciplinary rule that proves too difficult to keep in present circumstances (war, plague, etc.), she will usually exhort the faithful to keep the former practice if they can, which remains a sort of ideal form. This is the case with fasting, which we could get into detail about. This is also why St. Pius X in 1903 recommended clerical choirs--which had gone out of fashion during the Black Plague--while not requiring them.

The response from PCED cited by Jeffrey and me above does not purport to abolish the "strict requirements" of the law related to sacred music effective in 1962 which applies to the EF today, but rather tolerates its modification based on custom contra legem and usage. This does not abolish the ideal--clerics and boys who might some day become clerics. The response exhorts that "some way" be found for all to contribute. There is a lot of wisdom there.

Reading Jeffrey's comment about "struggling men's scholas dominating the singing", I wonder if discussion of this issue isn't sometimes masking an underlying power struggle between factions at a particular parish. The PCED response ought to provide a way forward. If only the groups involved can agree on an acceptable arrangement for both to contribute, then spiritually damaging putsches and schisms can be avoided.

AOZ is right that there are doctrinaire anti-feminists in the world, and I would end by suggesting that they might have more cultural influence in Alabama than, for example, Berkeley.

Vis., "There are probably about as many practicing Catholics in Berkeley as there are in Alabama."

Not going there, no way, no how, in any world of feminism or Catholicism.

1143 For the purpose of assisting the work of the common priesthood of the faithful, other particular ministries also exist, not consecrated by the sacrament of Holy Orders; their functions are determined by the bishops, in accord with liturgical traditions and pastoral needs. "Servers, readers, commentators, and members of the choir also exercise a genuine liturgical function." (Sacrosanctum Concilium 29.)

This quote from CCC certainly reinforces the main division as that between the ordained priesthood and that of the common priesthood, and that the choir assists the work of the common priesthood. To that extent, it seems hard to justify forbidding women from being in the choir, or even from serving at the altar, as the common priesthood is a calling given to us at baptism, and in baptism there is no woman or man.

But even if one prefered the Levite middle ground, it is not altogether clear that those who perform that function must be male. Although it is not clear that Pius X intended his statement to be merely of a discipline nature (like not eating meat on Friday; pace Chrism), neither did he pronounce it ex cathedra. I think it's pretty clear to say that the question of roles and functions in the liturgy was unclear even before Vatican II, and it certainly seems even less clear in the days following it. At least the Pian understanding of roles had some objective form to it based on previous practice and consistent with the theology of the action of the liturgy. I'm not sure I see much else that does.

Having attended Berkeley, I would say that there may be more practicing Catholics than in Alabama if you count all the students there Aug-May.

Do the documents of Vatican II affect Traditional Mass following 1962 Missal too?

miacoyne, for all practical purposes, no. The EF follows the 1962 rubrics exclusively. The only issues that arise are due to calendar conflicts in a parish.

The 1955 letter of Pius XII was also called "The Christmas Gift to Musicians"...

The Milwaukee Archdiocese interpreted the letter to allow women as members of the 'choir of the faithful'; at that time, (and until about 1975) Milwaukee was a fastidious liturgical environment.

MEN were the 'schola,' singing the Propers; women (and men) sang Ordinaries, motets, etc. In the typical parish setting, the choir of the faithful would be in the loft, and the men of that choir would serve as the schola.

That was also the interpretation in St. Paul, where Mgr. Schuler used exactly the same scheme.

I think it makes sense. I was going to ask whether it would be ok to have the choir in the loft, and men and women sit speratedly, and men sing Propers. The entire choir can join in other parts.

Perhaps Musicae Sacrae could be such a citation:

74. Where it is impossible to have schools of singers or where there are not enough choir boys, it is allowed that "a group of men and women or girls, located in a place outside the sanctuary set apart for the exclusive use of this group, can sing the liturgical texts at Solemn Mass, as long as the men are completely separated from the women and girls and everything unbecoming is avoided. The Ordinary is bound in conscience in this matter."[26]

The assumption outside this was that the schola would be men.

I'm not sure that the assumption would no longer apply. Ecclesia Dei's statement is non-binding and simply an opinion (albeit it should be given due consideration because of its official capacity, but even the way Monsignor Perle phrased his response is lacking in force). What seems most important here is liturgical principle. Both historical practice and official statements (some of them binding) of the hierarchy express the notion that the schola cantorum is a clerical entity, and that laymen filling this role act as a sort of pseudo-clerical class (similar to the role fulfilled by lay altar servers). This keeps consistency with the ideal that Pius X expressed when he spoke of the "choir of levites," an ideal which, in turn, keeps continuity and consistency between the NT liturgy and the OT liturgy.

This is not to say that exceptions, born of necessity, cannot be made, or that women should be utterly excluded from chant. But there does seem to be a clear precedence that must be given to the all-male schola (assuming it is capable of fulfilling its office worthily). It seems fitting that mixed choirs sing all of the Ordinary chants of the Mass and any devotional hymns that might be added. But where a dedicated schola cantorum is available, the propers (i.e. prayers that are only said by the priest at the altar and not recited by the faithful) ought to be their exclusive domain.

Absolutely missionary. Yes!

rbjmartin,
So, let me see if this is correct. There is a group of singers who don't intend to sing Gregorian Chant that is precluding an all male schola from singing the proper chants for the E.F.? Does this parish choir even want to sing the E.F. propers and know how sophisticated they are? This may not be the "embarassment of riches" scenario cited above.

it took many years to dig out from that old Caecilian perspective

Did it happen before 1962?

That passage on sex from the MP of 1903 was never applied in the U.S.; indeed it was widely ignored. In Europe too: the Pope himself granted indults immediately. Again,, I'll cite Fr. Ruff here. I think I need to write more on this.

It is striking that many of today's newbies to the EF, suspicious of anything not 100 years old or older, are digging up this one passage and reapplying it in ways it was never even applied back then - having no knowledge of the historical context or application.