In doing some reading I ran across a paragraph in John Paul II's Chirograph on Tra le sollecitudini from November of 2003.

In paragraph 11, we read:

"The century just past, with the renewal begun by Vatican Council II, has seen a special development of popular religious song, about which Sacrosanctum Concilium has this to say: 'The people's own religious songs are to be encouraged with care so that in sacred devotions as well as during services of the liturgy itself, . . . the faithful may raise their voices in song.' Such songs that are particularly adapted to the participation of the faithful are to be used not only in popular devotions 'in keeping with rubrical norms and requirements' but also in the liturgy. In fact, popular song constitutes a 'bond of unity and a joyful expression of the community at prayer, fosters the proclamation of the one faith, and imparts to large liturgical assemblies an incomparable and recollected solemnity.' "

Now, ISTM that this is leaving the door wide open for arguments in favor of the use of "sacro-pop" music, praise choruses and the like. What's worse, this paragraph is buried within a larger writing that contains many very good, solid, orthodox positions on what would be considered otherwise wholly appropriate music for the liturgy (chant, chant-based polyphony, etc.)

My question is, how does one mitigate the apparent damage done by the above-quoted paragraph in the face of arguments favoring the use of contemporary music and instruments in the liturgy by folk who aren't broadly-read in the larger universe of Church writings and legislation?

This of course points to a much larger question, and that is, how do we truly, consistently and convincingly present the "mind of the Church" in the face of statements like the above?