Everything I have read indicated Liszt was a notorious womanizer.

CharlesW

Liszt gets that reputation for some reason, but he was actually very faithful to the woman who left her husband for him! In any case, he took holy orders later in life and most of his religious music comes from his time as a priest in Rome.

Interesting. However, I have never read anything implying Liszt was homosexual. Some of his religious music is very nice, and I have used it.

I think MA, Singing Mum, hit the nail on the head. Neither Liszt nor other composers referenced, are alive spreading error to the faithful.

and in so much as the texts of their music conform to liturgical texts, they cannot present a danger to the faithful when used in sacred liturgy.

Not to be too picky, but if I set John 8:16 (e.g.) to the melody of "Mary Had a Little Lamb" would that make it 'useable in sacred liturgy'?

Please remember that the music must illuminate the text AND be structurally faithful to principles of the art of music, not merely passable.

And he published music books for children. I had one in grade school a hundred years ago. LOL

I didn't know that. Interesting. I'm going to look him up and learn more.

"I won't name any names, but there are many Lowell Masons today--those who look anywhere but home for "worthy" musical expressions."

You got that right!!

And one should read that two volume bio of Liszt by Alan Walker. Am I remembering his name correctly? I'm sure Doug will know. I am talking after a bottle of wine and Limoncello afters. LOL

Haha yes, Donna, despite its flaws, the Walker is the definitive Liszt bio.

withdrawn

To be fair to the person who brought up homosexuality, he was stating that his own priest refuses to have Schutte's music sung in Mass because he believes Schutte lives an openly homosexual lifestyle. Biases, stereotypes, prejudice, and other value judgments are part and parcel of dealing with people in the world, and clearly this person has run up against the question of sexuality in musical planning. If beliefs about a person affect musical decisions, then I think the question is at least worth considering. It is only the mere speculation about someone's sexuality that doesn't really belong on this forum, but I didn't read anything like that.

Well, Charles...

I don't know that it's quite as simple as saying 'he/she has a tragic flaw, ergo we won't use his/her music/art/architecture.'

Using the works of X, Y, or Z is not the same as admiring (or even approving of) their lifestyle. For that matter, attending a Mass celebrated by Rembert Weakland does not constitute approval of his lifestyle, either.

I think you're making a category-error.

And, by the way, it seems that many people who have a 'lifestyle' problem are also exceptionally talented. You would be amazed at how many doctors & lawyers are drug- or alcohol-addicts. Does that make their work unacceptable? (Yes, in SOME cases.)

I do not doubt Thomas Aquinas' dictum that 'sin darkens the mind.' That's a problem for the sinner.

But the work they leave behind--assuming it meets established criteria for excellence--that's another thing entirely.

But what's the point in enriching someone who holds to beliefs and practices that undermine the teachings of the Church? Did anyone ever say that people get to heaven because they are exceptionally talented? What about the example those lifestyle problems present to others? At what point do we say that we stand for Church teachings and that they are not negotiable? As for Weakland, let's not go there.

What subject did he teach? I understand he was/is a talented musician. But he seems to have trashed his own name in recent times.

Charles, art work is one thing.

The life of the artist is another thing, separate entirely.

Further, scandal per se does not "undermine" the teaching of the Church. Only arguing AGAINST the teaching of the Church does so (if at all.)

Excellent art does not "undermine" Church teaching. In fact, it can easily be argued that excellent art leads to more, not less, knowledge of God.

And I used the name of RW as an example. I live in Milwaukee. I'm entitled.

There are other composers of "Catholic" music that "don't believe or practice" the faith, as CharlesW states. I think we can all think of other contemporaries.

http://insidecatholic.com/Joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3286&Itemid=80

Yet, people don't seem to have a problem with it when they do this music.

This could become an interesting discussion about artistic criticism, actually. At what point does the art separate from the artist and gain a life of its own? Is understanding the artist relevant in any way to understanding the art? In literary crit. circles, the debate rages on. I tend toward the New York School (the art has a life of its own and should be evaluated on its own merits) myself.

I do think that CharlesW and the others are talking about two different things, though. It is one thing to use the music, sculpture, poetry, and art created by imperfect and even critically flawed people, if the art escapes contamination with those flaws. There have been many brilliant writers and artists with vices equal to their virtues or worse. CharlesW is talking about a living person, however, who is putting himself up as an authority on things Catholic, but does not himself adhere to Catholic teaching. It's not just his music that we're encouraged to accept, it's his advice, his opinion on things. He's holding workshops and acting as a spokesperson for an institution that he is not truly a spokesperson for. There's where the trouble is.

If I misunderstand, let me know. I personally believe that once a piece of art is complete, it lives on its own and the author's intentions for and opinions on it are no longer relevant. Real art transcends time and place and authorship. Ergo, no matter how awful an author is as a person, it is possible he can create a masterpiece. Highly unlikely, perhaps--but possible. It's an entirely different story to take a hypocrite for an authority figure.

"I personally believe that once a piece of art is complete, it lives on its own and the author's intentions for and opinions on it are no longer relevant. "

Well... if that be true, then all of Bach's efforts to incorporate the essence of Lutheran theology in his music were for naught. There are degrees of meaning in every work. A composer's intentions are quite important for analysis and for hermeneutics, but intentions are only those. There are aspects outside of the composer's control that are just as important to take into consideration. A composer's abilities greatly influence the effect of those intentions and historical, artistic, and institutional contexts all have bearing on the reception of the work. Then there is the changing landscape of all those contexts as time marches on. Each generation must evaluate a work for its acceptability and effectiveness. In the case of Mr. Haugen we have a new phenomenon -- the artist who also openly promotes doctrine while promoting his work. In previous ages, artists let their music speak for the most part. If they needed promotion, they let others do that. Reminds me of the good old days when politicians thought it unseemly to campaign on their own behalfs. In any case, Mr Haugen, through his self promotion begs to be held to a different standard IMO.

"Well... if that be true, then all of Bach's efforts to incorporate the essence of Lutheran theology in his music were for naught."

well, not necessarily. If the art clearly speaks Lutheran theology to people who had no idea that Bach meant for it to, then he would have succeeded in that arena. I mostly agree with what you're saying, as it's a more moderated view of the issue, but I tend toward an extreme view for discussion's and simplicity's sake.

+1 to IanW for using the word "oleaginous" in a post

Jam, Bach's close attention to Lutheran ideology at times was likely lost on a St Thomas congregation, but there are other times where he is quite plain. IIRC he even keeps some of it intact in his Bm Mass, since it began on the foundation of a Lutheran Mass (Kyrie-Gloria). No doubt he took great satisfaction in this. Music like this rewards close inspection of theological points. I was addressing the point of a composer's intention, and subtle intentions are as relevant as obvious ones, I think. Anyway, that's just my look at it.

This why not heeding Noel's advice can backfire upon us.

http://catholicsensibility.wordpress.com/2010/06/29/cmaa-adventures/

Hi Jam, I can appreciate your argument, but I don't think I can divorce the entire contextual fabric. That road leads to hearing what one wants to hear, rather than what is there. You are right, the composer's intent is neither paramount nor the only issue, but it cannot be dismissed entirely, which brings us back to your original desire (i.e., dismissing intent for effect). I just can't do that. One may be more compelling, but neither can be ignored. In the case of Bach, one must be careful about employing his music at Mass. It can be done, but this is why we need thoughtful, educated musicians in charge of Catholic music (and I include you in that category, to be sure). Music is a powerful thing and its power is often wielded carelessly.

In the case of Bach, one must be careful about employing his music at Mass. It can be done

There are lots of chorales which are use-able, but perhaps best placed before or after Mass. Same with most of the organ music. But yes, one should review the text for assertions which are un-Catholic.

I'm beginning to regret having started this thread. My intent was not to throw Mr. Schutte under the bus.

Mr. O'Connor -- I think we agree more than we disagree, really. Wonderful discussion to be having, I think. Reminds me of University (I've only a year left after this summer!!)

Dad29 -- I agree that the artist does not necessarily contaminate the art. Some brilliant things have come from some very strange people...

As for Mr. Schutte, I actually don't know anything about him save for briefly glancing at that website. Perhaps I should have phrased some of my arguments in more general terms.