While everything you wrote here is perfectly sensible, I would offer that, generally speaking, hostility and fear of change are not rational processes, and so rational argument tends to have little effect. It even, sometimes, makes it worse.

Reassure people, let them know that their "contribution" to the liturgy will be enhanced this way. Tell them that they aren't being hidden in the back, but rather raised up as an example. Make sure they know the loft will be accessible to people who have a hard time climbing stairs (btw: make sure the loft will be accessible to people who have a hard time climbing stairs). Be positive. Spontaneously mention how exciting it is that a choir this good is finally getting the kind of loft they really deserve.

"They probably think that their appearance is important to people in the parish. Ugh."

It is, for what that's worth.

I often wonder when I see things like this, would it be so bad to say honestly, "a choir loft has these positive features, but also these negative features. Due to the benefit gained by a loft, we will be planning for one."

I wonder if most of the people who complain do so because they really don't believe anyone has thought of their points before. (such as discontinuing back massages for the organist!) Perhaps taking a more honest and balanced approach would do a lot to diffuse complaints? Just a theory, I probably could be wrong on this.

An objection that I have often heard is that it is difficult for the choir to go to communion and still sing for the communion. A solution, though one we have not used, is to have a communion minister bring communion to the loft.

In Masses in which the congregation sing the ordinary we sing from a position at the side in the front of the church, in a location in what amounts to a small transept, facing perpendicular to the nave; when the choir sing a polyphonic ordinary, we sing in the loft. I hear continuing objection, occasionally strenuous, that being so far from the altar affects the participation in the liturgy for choir members. After using both positions, I take the objection seriously.

In my experience, the choir is tempted not to maintain liturgical deportment in the loft; a lot of talking; I once watched a choir member (not in my own choir) read a magazine through the canon and then go to communion. This could be minimized by having the choir wear choir vesture—robes, albs, something that emphasizes their liturgical role, and by occasional reminders to the choir.

In my opinion, having the choir in the sanctuary facing the congregation is a serious mistake. It makes a show of it. A hint that this is taking place is when the choir is given applause after a piece, or even at the end of the Mass.

Oh my, Ambrosius, that is SPLENDID! The organ is so perfect for the loft and enhances the beauty of your church! Wow!

canadash

Yes, it's good. (The architect wanted to make a modern 'statement' with the organ and gallery, but we put our foot down, insisting that it should look right in our neo-gothic building). We are hoping that the new organ and gallery will, in time, improve our musical offerings. We are an unauditioned choir of ordinary parishioners, but still attempt, after much rehearsal, to do a good deal of traditional SATB stuff as well as the usual modern things.

Ambrosius, tell us more about the organ. Who was the builder?

CharlesW - The organ was built by Kenneth Tickell, Northampton, England. Here are a couple more pics. One shows bishop in choir gallery incensing it at the Dedication Service in February; other shows chamade trumpets.

Palestrina (see post above) is right about acoustics. But why is Communion a problem? (Also: having moved to gallery, we have experienced no deterioration of behaviour - perhaps even an increase now that the sanctuary and church are in our line of sight...)

Gorgeous. If it sounds as good as it looks you are truly blessed.

That looks absolutely beautiful.

The GIRM says something similar.

One thing nobody has yet mentioned that might be a concern for some of the choir members is, are there people in the choir with mobility issues? Unless an elevator is planned (as it sometimes is [EDIT: glad to see there will be one in this case]), climbing the stairs to the loft can be a challenge for some people, especially for older folks. This is especially true when it includes the prospect of descending for Communion and then having to climb back up again.

Speaking of Communion, there are a couple of different things that can work. As Liam says, planning to make them receive outside the liturgy is not really a good practice, and contradicts several of the things about "being part of the congregation" that Fr. Coonan's letter lays out. Sending up a eucharistic minister is okay, although if typical practice in the parish is for reception under both Species then this will not be possible for the choir, as nobody should climb stairs with a chalice. Not the end of the world, but a little dividing line that people may not like.

The best practice I have seen is as follows. Choir sings the Communion antiphon while the priest takes Communion. As Communion is being given to the other extraordinary ministers, the choir goes down and lines up first. During this time, the Communion hymn is begun by the cantor; an antiphon-verse hymn or chant with a simple congregational antiphon intercalated between verses sung by the cantor. (A parish should have about six or eight of these in its repertoire.) The choir receives Communion and then returns to the loft, having time to make personal thanksgiving until, as the Communion of the congregation is just winding down, they begin an anthem or motet. This covers the purification of the vessels and allows the congregation a few minutes to recollect themselves as all.

YMMV, but, as I said, this is the best-functioning practice I'm aware of. The only downside is that the choir looks like VIPs by getting to line up and receive Communion first, but I think since they have to return to the loft and get ready to sing that people are understanding.

the budget would not allow a lift to the loft. I have one handicapped singer who was devastated by this news.

Do the powers that be know about this?

You are in danger of running afoul of Federal Law, moral law, and common decency. (A parfait of awfulness.)

i believe the originator has redacted it

Very fascinating discussion, and I have a great deal of sympathy for the idea of choirs in lofts. At our former parish, a huge cavernous modern building, the organ and choir were for many years adjacent to the sanctuary, and I always imagined how much better it would be for many of the same reasons Fr. Coonan articulated for them to be moved to the large unused loft.

However, some years later, when the organ and choir were actually relocated to the loft, the results were less than felicitous. The organ and schola/choir could barely be heard despite a complex system of microphones and amps being installed.

I remember clearly how appalled the schola members were at having to sing the propers with microphones, but it was an absolute necessity.

Perhaps it was the fact that the church was largely made of concrete which absorbed the sound, or the organ was not built for the space, etc., but it clearly was not the best solution in our case.

I've always thought it was interesting how in some French cathedrals, the schola is located in the middle of the nave, surrounded by the congregation, although the organ is up in the loft of course. That is the case at St. Nicolas du Chardonnet in Paris as you can see in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mA5BCu2N19I.

Perhaps that might be a useful option in some situations.

Adam

Unpainted coarse concrete can absorb a fair bit of sound at certain frequencies.

Thanks for pointing that out, Kevin--- having two organs does appear to be case in St. Nicolas, and I remember seeing it at Notre Dame Cathedral as well. I've also seen in videos of EF Latin Masses in France that the schola will sit in the front pew of the church and the rest of the choir will be in the loft. There are even instances in France of someone like a song leader (if you can imagine that at the traditional Latin Mass!) directing the congregation to sing the parts of the Mass. This is actually discussed in De Musica Sacra (96, a).

I guess the point is that if the acoustics in your church building are not friendly to chant or acapella choral music, there are alternatives to the traditional choir loft approach---as satisfying as that may be in the usual case.

The problem with the situation at the Cathedral of the Madelein is that the retrochoir (in the apse) has the tabernacle smack in the middle. The choir sits directly behind the tabernacle and the director just beside it, a distinct conflict of functions. I directed a colloquium choir from that position and found it quite disconcerting.

We also have both a "Grande orgue" and smaller "orgue de Sanctuaire". Both can be played from the console in the loft although the sanctuary organ has it's own console. This is very useful for accompanying the psalmist.

Dittos here about being in the apse behind the rrrrrrood (Scot's accent) scrrrrreen.
But I thought it went well acoustically, and unlike Dusquene, If I collapsed in a cardiac arrest at least no one would notice and the Vespers would continue, yay!