Need as a trap
  • Maureen
    Posts: 678
    This is kind of a theory post.

    I recently saw someone post about how some people, if you want to do something that isn't what they'd ever want to do, are very quick to ask snidely, "But do you really need X?" Or "Why would anyone ever need Y?"

    One of the commenters said that he hated this argument, and that it wasn't just a bad way to think but a verbal trap. As soon as you start to answer their "need" question, you've tacitly accepted their "need" terms of argument. You've given them power and moral authority to decide what is necessary and what is not, and you can only plead your cause to their lordly ears. You have also admitted that their feelings and experiences are more valid than yours or anyone else's. So they will most likely use their power to grind you under their bootheels, unless they decide they like it better when they see you crawl and grovel.

    Obviously, in the Church, we do have moral authority vested in some people, and some people do actually have power over us. But the "need" argument is still a very bad one. What we "need" to do is to give worship and praise to God with a free hand and open heart. Usually the "need" argument is used to make entire churches grovel and strip themselves, supposedly in the name of noble simplicity or care for the poor, but really just for joyless power plays or winning aesthetic arguments against the innocent and doomed.

    So if anybody asks us "Why do you need to do polyphony or Gregorian chant?", what we really need is to reframe the conversation as quickly as we can, and then make explanations from there.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,215
    Thanks for these observations. The person making such arguments is saying that the Church's instructions and ideals don't matter.
  • Jeffrey CogginsJeffrey Coggins
    Posts: 360
    Okay, I'll start the simulation:

    parishioner A: "Why do we need to do Gregorian chant? The hymns in the Gather hymnal are fun to sing, and everyone enjoys singing them here."
  • noel jones, aagonoel jones, aago
    Posts: 6,611
    We must return to singing words that reflect the theology of what we believe. The church once served to tell us what songs were true to the faith, just as they still rate movies, and you have to agree that the movie guides are especially helpful when deciding which movies you should let your kids see. No good Catholic would just let their kids see any movie without investigating it. And you wouldn't want your kids coming home from CCD to find out that the teacher was teaching them that Jesus really isn't present in the Host. You, as a good parent, cannot be everywhere. And you have to rely on others for their judgement. And that's where the Imprimatur comes in handy.

    The church has said that Bishops must begin approving music again, and once that is up and working, things will be easier. But right now singing music that has the imprimatur is the only way that we know that the music that we are singing truly is teaching what the church is all about correctly. One of the major hymnals is printed by a company owned by a diocese and that Bishop approves all the music in it. It's wrong when a Bishop approves books that he and his diocese profit from and we hope that the church will take action about this. He doesn't give the Imprimatur but gives blanket approval for the publishing of the music. This needs to be changed.

    There are hymns and songs that people like to sing that are not Catholic, and they are sung in Catholic churches. Other denominations don't permit Catholic songs to be sung because they aren't Catholic. Why are they smarter than we are?

    The church has always had fun music to sing at camp and devotions, but the Mass isn't about fun. It is about the crucifixion and death of Jesus and we need to sing music at Mass that honors what He did for us. Music during Advent can be full of hope, at Christmas and Easter full of joy. In Lent there is serious, solemn music. But every Mass is the gift of Jesus in His life given for us. It's never fun. Gregorian chant and polyphony is serious music. There is not much new music that is serious enough for Mass.

    [long paragraphs for Kathy]
  • newmanbenewmanbe
    Posts: 76
    How about medium paragraphs?
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,509
    No! No! This is great!!!
  • francis
    Posts: 10,821
    I think Noel should put his thinking into metrical, measured sentences that can be set to a hymn tune. (jk, Kathy!)
  • francis
    Posts: 10,821
    Noel:

    Does this spec it out for you?
    (Sorry Kathy. I couldn't help myself from this alluring project!)


    We must return to singing
    The words that tell the trooth.
    Not like the movie goers
    That flock to ticket booths.

    The young must have a shepherd
    To know where God resides
    Parents aren't omnipresent
    And need a rule that guides.

    All songs need preapproval
    So all our writin's good
    So we don't wind up singing
    The trash that no one should.

    How come we keep on usin’
    The hymns that don't belong
    In Roman Catholic places
    Instead of our own song? (chant)

    The Mass is bout the suffrin'
    And dying of the Christ
    So why do we insist on
    What's fun and ‘specially nice?

    Our music can be hopeful
    When Advent is in vogue
    Or celebrating Mary
    Rescuer of the rogue.

    But when we sing a new song
    let's get it through our gourds
    That music for the liturgy
    Must sound the sacred chords.

    Written by Anonymous
    (please do not attribute this text to the author)
  • francis
    Posts: 10,821
    ... I forgot the tune

    c | c d e f | e c
    c | c d e f | e (d c)
    c | c d e f | e (d) c
    c | c d e f | e
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,215
    Not Aurelia?
  • francis
    Posts: 10,821
    O Chonak... didn't you count the verses! It's not an even number! And besides... my hymn tune is far more obnoxious.
Add a Comment