Imperfect world, imperfect composers, imperfect musicians, imperfect regulations... that is why chant and Catholic polyphony is the best choice for the liturgy.

Personally, I don't promote Mozart, VW, Beethoven, Haydn, and a slew of other composer's works utilized in the liturgy and I don't program them if I can help it. For concerts, different story. The divide between opera and truly sacred liturgical music was blurred signifcantly in the last few hundred years, and it has done great damage to the liturgy and the purity of the repertoire that belongs. Messiaen is also highly questionable as appropriate for liturgy in my book. But in commenting as I have, you will probably find widely disparaging thoughts on the matter.

St. Thomas Aquinas explains that the practical virtue of art -- right reason applied to things to be made -- is somewhat independent of the moral virtues. That is, you can have a saintly person who writes crummy music or paints sappy pictures, and a vicious person who, having the art (the "craft," one might say), churns out masterpieces. Examples abound: Caravaggio in painting, Faure's Requiem in music. Naturally, the only reason this can happen is that there are rich and profound artistic traditions that atheist or agnostic or hedonist artists inherit, and they are borne along these traditions. Sadly, if you lack such a tradition, you can be as good as gold and still churn out garbage, because the skill, the craft, is no longer there. This is not elitism; it is a recognition of the conditions for the exercise of a real practical virtue called art, which is not identical to moral virtue, much less holiness.

Though it has been decades since my graduate work in philosophy, as I recall Thomas Aquinas wrote very little about music. His distinction (given above) between moral virtue and artistic craft however applies as well to composers of our cherished liturgical chants.

I guess I've been reading a different group, because I haven't seen any ad hominems against Composers We Don't Like. That seems pointless; if there's an issue, it's with the musical style. I'm also not a disinterested party, having written a fair bit of Catholic music while still a Wiccan. I think my style and approach have changed now that I've converted, but it's a fairly subtle distinction. The Holy Spirit speaks through those that are available.

And as for the old masters...
Gombert: made a galley slave for child molesting
Dominique Phinot: possibly EXECUTED for child molesting
Johann Rosenmuller: jailed for child molesting in Leipzig (capital crime), broke out and escaped to Italy.
Clemens non Papa: thought to have gotten his sobriquet from a distinct lack of holiness
Thomas Weelkes: "noted and famed for a comon drunckard (sic) and notorious swearer & blasphemer"

So the question arises: are we not to do these people's music in the sacred liturgy? Just asking...

I think these are two separate issues: whether a liturgical artist is a ruffian, or an unbeliever.

May I suggest we all review Blessed Pope John Paul's 1999 Easter Letter to Artists? One of its key themes seems to be that through art at the service of the Church, the artist can go through art and find God. The Church needs art. "But can it also be said that art needs the Church?"

http://www.adoremus.org/7-899ArtistLetter.html

"Artists of the world, may your many different paths all lead to that infinite Ocean of beauty where wonder becomes awe, exhilaration, unspeakable joy."

Kathy: well put. That's sort of how it worked for me.

RVW is, of course, not the devil. And neither is Marty Haugen--he's just a substandard composer.

JL's summary above serves as an example of what ought to be avoided in these forums, and what ought to be deliberated. It serves no meritous purpose whatsoever for any of us to adjudicate any dead or living person's integrity as a soul or value to a particular economy of purpose, in this case musical composition.
We've been down this route so many times before, especially with living artists; one should question whether one would say to another's face, "You're a sub-standard composer" before blithely typing it in a box and hitting "send."
Like it or not, when any of us engages in any form of condemnation or condescension of another's personhood or artistic integrity, it reflects poorly upon us all who subscribe to the mission and efforts of the forum and CMAA.
Mind you, I'm not saying a debate cannot be had about the merits of individual works and any inspiration underlying them, but care should be taken about judging "OTHERS" as we are thus liable to be judged and found wanting in personal integrity ourselves.
YMMV.

"What about the composers who were lost to history? Is history not written by the winners? Let's not kid ourselves into thinking that we don't cling to the big names over, for example, Cecilian composers of the 19th century..."

At the Mac (Immaculate Conception Cleveland) they do a fair bit of anonymous music, and actually create more by leaving the author's name off so the choristers won't prejudge. History IS written by the winners, and the Caecilians won in the sense that they defined the Palestrina style as being the sacred one...so why not have the real thing? 19th c. Catholic church music is terra incognita for many of us, a vein I'd like to mine.

Paix,

with all due respect, there are lots of things that we can do. That does not mean we should do them, or that doing them would be the charitable thing.

If someone is annoying me sufficiently, I can bite his head off (verbally), punch him in the throat, or give him the Three Stooges eye-poke. However, in practically no circumstance would anyone agree that those would be the prudent or charitable things to do.

As my dad used to say (may he rest in peace),

Son, it's good to tell the truth.

But is isn't always go to go around tellin' the truth.

Here endeth the lesson.

PGA, I fear you have totally misconstrued what I recommended, none of which had anything to do with censorship, or refraining from discussion as such.
And this is not just a message board, it is a respectable forum (as opposed to, say, a message board touting the Oakland Raiders) where we are called to a higher standard of discourse, and to a much higher standand of moral integrity. Again, YMMV.

Questions:

1) Do RVW's texts promote, endorse or otherwise advance heresy? (Oooo . . . he said the "H" word!) So far as I can tell, one of his "Mystical Songs" actually quotes (both the plainsong melody and text in Latin) O sacrum convivium, and while the poetic texts are from the pen of an Anglican priest, they're far more orthodox that anything Haugen, Haas and others have "crafted" for the Church.

2) Is RVW's music true art? That is one of the criteria established for music suitable for "the temple."

3) RVW was an agnostic, not an atheist. He had doubts about the existence of God, but he didn't say, "there is no God." By that same token, shall we discount the writings of Blessed Mother Theresa of Calcutta? After all, she herself admitted that she spent much of her life enduring "spiritual dryness."

Answers:

1) We "attack" the work of Haugen, Haas and others because the texts they use are based in a clearly heterodox (or at times heretical) perspective. And some of us attack their character, because they advance their cause with such smug self-satisfaction and haughtiness. Pridefulness and false humility, last I checked, are serious sins.

2) Their music is "cheap, trite, cliched and not appropriate for the temple". Their compositional styles are drawn from popular, folk and "world music" models, not from studied forms of high art.

3) They do not admit, as Bl. Theresa did, that they strive for holiness and struggle for worthiness and fall short, but live with the struggle none the less. They would have us believe that they are fully in tune with the "will of God" and that their "nay-sayers" are backward-thinking and merely seeking to oppress them. They would have us believe that they are in pastoral service to "the people" rather than in service to the liturgy. Although it is not our place to judge the state of their souls, we know by the fruit they bear that their work is not in line with the Mind of the Church. Period. We eschew their work because there are those among us who recognize it's destructive power, and the Church has repeatedly warned us to guard against the admission of such dreck to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

As for this indictment against RVW, I will tuck it away in the same file with the bilge that suggests we shouldn't use the music of J. S. Bach, Mozart, et al, in the liturgy because they weren't living their lives in conformity with Catholic Teaching.

This nonsensical thread is made of the stupid stuff people worry about while the Evil One prowls the earth devouring souls, destroying all that is beautiful, because true beauty is capable of transforming souls, or at least that's what St. Augustine tells us and Hans Urs von Balthasar has spilt a lot of ink about. The Devil doesn't want us to possess, encounter or enjoy beauty because it mocks his cruel ugliness. He'd much rather have us wallow in base emotionalism and resigned acceptance of the commonplace. True beauty is too dangerous, because it contains within it the possibility of transcendence. True beauty is a window into Heaven; commonplace junk reflects our fallen nature.

(Oh, and if we're going to be about the business of "clearing the decks" of artists, etc., who may be of questionable faith or spiritual health, we better be ready to paint over the Sistine Chapel and throw the "Pieta" in the rubbish bin . . . there are plenty of nasty rumors about Michelangelo's predilections, of which the Church says, "No.")

The musical composition (content) of a particular selection is completely separate from the persons dedication to the church, or his/her 'purity' of heart. I don't care if the composition came from Amadeus or Marty Haugen, but the Ave Verum (Mozart) is cheesy and not particularly 'sacred music' in my book. At best, it is a hybrid between good art and opera, and opera has NO place in the liturgy. Do I use it at Mass? Sometimes... am I perfect at excersizing my office as DoM? Not this day and age! I still have to feed my family and live with those who haven't a clue... Idealism is wonderful, but you still have to live in reality. So there is always a 'straddle' between two worlds... the ideal and realistic... your weight bearing foot is totally dependent upon your particular situation.

The difference is, I am not afraid to aspire or reach for the ideal constantly and to promote it, even though I can't live it at the moment. But it is ever important to hold it high... like holding up the Catechism or the Summa or the Graduale... we (authentic Catholics) do have standards, and we should shoot for them, no matter what the situation. Just because sin abounds, I don't lessen calling a spade a spade as not to offend. God forbid! My voice may change a person's destiny for eternity.

So I don't want the bull about charitable, or non-judgmental, or being polite here... we judge music on its face value, and those who know what is and what isn't appropriate to the liturgy are certainly members on this forum... this is the place where it is decided... being "charitable" to the point of excepting 2nd best and mediocrity is why the church owns the trash it does today and is false charity. Out with the trash and the trite, and In with the authentic and what is truly beautiful. I play Bach... he wasn't Catholic... not sure about his morality, but his music is sublime.

RVW? Questionable as a 'serious composer' in my opinion. Is his music fitting for RC liturgy? I don't program his music. Poulenc, Part and Barber are far more appropriate than RVW.

(stepping down off soap box)

It is sadly apparent that what people actually write does not necessarily actually get read accurately. I respectfully bow out of "this nonsensical thread." I yield the other cheek, if required. I will look for the log in my own eye. And I can not cast the first nor any other stone, miserere mei, Domine. God help us, I hope those senseless behaviors offend no one.

Kathy,

There's a vast difference between American "folk" music (faux folk, really . . . "Kumbaya" and all that) that so many of today's "contemporary Catholic" composers employ and the indigenous folk melodies Vaughan Williams drew from for the hymn tunes he arranged.

Here's the short list of tunes and their commonly-associated texts that are a part of the corpus of hymns adopted by the Catholic Church:

FOREST GREEN ("O Little Town of Bethlehem")
CRADLE SONG ("Away in a Manger")
KINGSFOLD ("I Heard the Voice of Jesus Say")
CHRISTE SANCTORUM (various texts; a Paris Antiphoner melody)
LASST UNS ERFREUEN/VIGILES ET SANCTI ("All Creatures of Our God and King" and "Ye Watchers and Ye Holy Ones"; a German Catholic melody, text drawn from St. Anthony and John Athelstan Riley, respectively)
AR HYD Y NOS ("Day is Done")

And here are some original tunes by RVW with their associated texts:

SALVE FESTA DIES ("Hail Thee, Festival Day", text by Fortunatus)
SINE NOMINE ("For All the Saints")
KING'S WESTON ("At the Name of Jesus")
DOWN AMPNEY ("Come Down, O Love Divine", text by Bianco de Siena)

With respect to the first list, I cannot see a comparison between RVW's employment of "folk" melodies and the faux-folk melodies composed by today's usual suspects. Additionally, many of the texts (with the exception of the two Christmas carols) set to these tunes are drawn either from Catholic sources or are free poetry that are of themselves of quality and are free of blatant heterodoxy. (Wait for it . . . someone will sit down with a fine-toothed comb and tease out every little theological inconsistency they can find to refute the previous statement.)

As I've stated before, I consider myself a serious-minded Catholic sacred musician committed to the "reform of the reform" and the advancement of chant and sacred polyphony. It seems to me that some would employ their own tastes, preferences and prejudices to refute any recognition of RVW's hymn tunes and harmonizations as crafted according to the accepted definitions of high art, or even present ideological arguments against the use of RVW's hymns in the liturgy (based on the "melody & text versus Propers" positions), thus making the better the enemy of the good. Indeed, even when placing an original hymn-style tune of someone like Haugen together with it's text (by Haugen, Dufner, Duck, Dunstan,Troegger or whoever) side by side with one of those above, I believe that from a purely academic analysis standpoint the RVW tune with it's text stands head and shoulders above the former.

And, as for RVW and others not being Catholic, there is within Catholic theology the notion that while God, through Christ, established the Church as the vehicle by which the tools of our salvation are delivered, God distributes His gifts equally throughout all of creation. (Bl. John Henry Cardinal Newman wrote on this). It is possible, therefore, for someone like Bach or even RVW to produce something of true beauty suitable for consumption by Catholics, even if the artist is not Catholic or in a state of grace. (I believe this falls under the economy of salvation and grace; the same argument that says that a Priest need not be in a state of grace to confect the sacraments validly, he only need intend to do what the Church requires).

Would I be crazy to say that the question of whether music is made inappropriate for liturgical use by RVW's agnosticism, or Bach's Lutheranism, or your favorite "Glory & Praise" composer's liberalism is a personal decision? Perhaps not personal, but solely left to the leadership of a particular parish? At least given that the text is in accord with Catholic theology.

Personally, I'm very much against the use of "Ode to Joy". The text is fine and dandy, but I can't get over the use of a tune which is the anti-religion Enlightenment fight song. If one of my other respected colleagues uses it, I have no complaints. It's a sturdy tune, sounds great on organ, and I can sing along in German. I use Bach at church, even Catholic churches. If my boss, the parish pastor, were to tell me that I may not use music by Lutheran composers, I would submit to his judgment. (Ok, actually I'd quit, but for the 2 weeks left I wouldn't play any Bach) If a priest tells me to use Bach, I'll submit to his judgment. If a colleague I respect doesn't use Bach (which might affect the "respect" part), that's fine for him, but I have no reason I should submit to his judgment.



And regarding the side-conversation about the treatment of our Least Favorite Composers and Notorious Bad Guys, I would ask how we wish to be treated. There are composers on this forum whose work I find horrible. This has led me to take the following actions:

- I will not use these composers' works in my own parish.
- I will not make a recommendation of those works to my colleagues. (But neither will I encourage them NOT to use them)

Is there more I should be doing? Do I need to publicly insult them or their music, deride their character, accuse them of being in league with the devil? Or am I doing enough against them?

"The expression of an individual's perspective done in the abstract through a medium" (memorized definition from Music Theory)

DougS

I'm sure you're asking as a rhetorical question, or perhaps as an agent provocateur. However, I'm going to answer the question: Those definitions and qualities that are expressed through the science and study of musicology and music theory.

For another example, nobody would look at a Renaissance painting of the Madonna or one of the paintings of El Grecco side by side with an image of Elvis on black velvet and mistake them all for high art.

By that same token I don't think anyone would place much of the currently composed music by the usual suspects of the commercial Catholic music publishing industry side by side with that of RVW and others and mistake them both for high art, either.

If there isn't a basic accepted definition of high art, then all of our work is for naught, and all of the writings from the Church regarding music that is "suitable for the temple" are hollow, meaningless and built on a false premise. If that be the case, the purposes of organizations such as the CMAA are also for naught and the whole endeavor should abandoned.

As it stands, there are accepted and defined standards (although some argue about them, just as they would argue that a black velvet Elvis or a "paint-by-numbers" Last Supper are on an equal footing with the work of Botticelli, El Grecco or even some modern artists), and the pursuit and study of them is one of those things that some of us have dedicated our lives understanding and advancing.

David,

Basically, then, we can't define high art but we know it when we see it. If that's true, then we fall into the elitist trap that the original poster (perhaps unintentionally) did such a nice job of indicting.

It is true that many Catholics (and even more Anglicans/Episcopalians) "revere" Vaughan Williams's original hymn tunes, I suppose this is for the very reason that you describe: they consider it "high art." Yet mention the name William Billings in Catholic or, worse, Episcopalian circles and all you will get is raised eyebrows or, worse again, pooh poohs.

Eliminate Haugen from the discussion, because I don't think there is any pretense that his work is "high art." A better question is why one composer, Vaughan Williams, would rise above arguably "equal" composers. The answer is sociological, not music-analytical. Audiences want to hear Mozart, not Pleyel, despite the fact that Pleyel's string quartets are very good from any kind of "objective" standard. Mozart has a mystique; Pleyel does not.

Personally, I would like to know what the origin of the mystique surrounding Vaughan Williams is, and maybe the original poster would too. My hunch, without really looking into it, is that his original contributions to the EH 1906 were popular from the beginning and no one really questions why. But if that's the case, why don't we love Pleyel? He was extremely popular in his own day. What happened?

@Jeffrey Quick and Doug Shadle,
Gentlemen, I did find the video recording of our schola performing the J. Cummings Peters GLORIA from "Mass in D Major" circa 1861 edition, and two motets by Albert RoSewig, O SALUTARIS HOSTIA and an AVE MARIA for soprano (that I arranged for SATB.)
Would it be of interest to post them up at the Cafe?

Francis,
I'm a little surprised that you question RVW as a serious composer and as a suitable composer of church music. The hymn "Come down, O Love Divine" is worth hundreds of contemporary "Catholic" hymns. It is sublime, beautifully proportioned, devout, and perfectly suited to the medieval prayer it sets. In general, RVW's contributions to the English Hymnal are splendid and worthy of every Catholic choir's cultivation.

Francis,
Yes, I quite agree; I don't know why people like "For All the Saints" and "Hail Thee Festival Day" -- they both annoy me greatly, they are cloying and too bombastic. But "Come Down O Love Divine" is simply sublime. And thank you for playing the organ with the Wyoming Catholic College choir this weekend. It was a glorious occasion.

With due respect, Adam, I must admit that I think that RVW's compositional craft is much, much better than Rutter's. Also, I think him much less sentimentally-inclined, especially if one is looking at choral music.

Yes, Adam... wasn't focusing... happens from time to time... glad Peter caught it or you all would have been in consternation for weeks!

huh?

I'll just focus on the complimentary part of that statement, as I like both "flourish" and "pizzazz."

I do not know much about Williams, but there is an old principle in regard to validity of sacraments which, while strictly speaking has no bearing here (since it does have to do with sacraments and not liturgical music), I believe we can modify and adapt to this scenario.

"As for the proud minister, he is to be ranked with the devil. Thus the gift which flows through him is not defiled. If the gift flows through defiled beings, the gift itself is not defiled."

Consequently, the Church permits non-Catholic priests and deacons, validly ordained, and who have subsequently professed the Holy Faith, to minister in the Holy Church.

In like fashion, the Church has found it suitable to use even the music, beautiful and worthy of use in divine worship, of non-Catholics, indeed, in this case, an avowed agnostic, for use in the Holy Church of God.