Help with a Response?
  • BenBen
    Posts: 3,114
    A friend recently wrote me, and I'm having trouble on how to respond. Normally, I'm pretty good at responding to things like this one, but now I'm stuck.

    Context.

    Thoughts on how best to respond?

    I was actually *at* JMJ Madrid. I *liked* our theme song. Yes–you are correct in saying that it is a little cheesy in English. But it was beautiful in Spanish. Consider the fact that it was written by a couple of teenagers with very little musical training. Yes–World Youth Day deserves better. But when you hear the song coming from a hundred thousand throats–youth gathered together for one purpose–then it is beautiful.

    You want to hear the Te Deum, O Sacred Head Surrounded, Ave Maria. I do too. The majority of people our age? Their reaction is “Huh?” Yes–we need to teach them. Educate them in the sacred glory that is our beautiful faith. World Youth Day is not the time or place. The purpose of World Youth Day is to set our youth on FIRE! Expose them to the passion of Catholicism! Wake them UP from their tired little paradigms, sleeping in the pew on Sunday. World Youth Day is to remind the youth that WE ARE CATHOLIC. And to be proud in that. And when they go home, they take that pride, that fire with them, so that they will WANT to learn more about our faith, our music and liturgy.

    Do not take me wrong, though. I am ashamed that my Pentecostal friend Paul has had more exposure to liturgical music than most Catholic teens I know. I am ashamed that he knows the Mass responses better than the kids at CCD. But when I was in Spain, and 1 million teenage voices screamed out “VIVA LE PAPA! VIVA MARIA!”, I was proud. I was so proud, I was bursting with it. When the kids I went with went to confession -BY CHOICE- for the first time in years, I was proud. When they came home and said, “I never knew our faith was so beautiful. I will never say Mass the same way again.”, I was so proud of them, I started crying.

    The song is supposed to be simple, and catchy. In Spanish, it was. It’s purpose is to kindle a fire in modern youth, who don’t understand, and don’t want to understand, the simplistic beauty of the Latin Mass. But in Spain, when Pope Benedict sang the Latin Mass, I watched tears roll down the cheeks of a self-professed whore. I held her hand as she walked to the Confessional. If this “nerve-grating” music inspires such disgust in you, Ben, then shame on you. If you in your arrogance cannot see the good it did, then I wash my hands. You weren’t there. Yes, when I went, and my teens didn’t know what Adoration was, when they couldn’t recognize the Rosary in Latin, I hung my head in shame. But I held it high with the rest of them when they picked it up. I held my head high when a gangbanger friend of mine started weeping in Adoration when we started singing this song.

    They haven’t had our education, Ben. And that is on their parents and teachers. But let them taste Catholicism. Let them be exposed. Let them see the unity. Then they will crave the knowledge, crave the taste of the Latin on their tongues.
    The Pope hands us, the teachers, the reins when the kids get back on the plane. “I inspired them. You teach them.”
    If however, instead of picking up those reins, you condemn and criticize the method by which these teens remembered their Catholicism, then all I can say is this. What kind of Catholic are you?

    If you had gone to JMJ with us, you would have complained the entire way because we didn’t sing Latin. We didn’t go to Confession and Adoration 4 times a day. We went shopping. We went sightseeing. We played Ninja with 40 OTHER COUNTRYS instead of saying the Rosary with them. But you know what we did do? We sang. We went to Mass. We went to Confession. We knelt before the oldest recorded Eucharistic miracle. We said Mass with the Pope. We received his blessing in person. And the faith and fire that lay dormant in teens who didn’t understand their faith was rekindled. I think that *that* was a miracle all in its self.

    You, kneeling in your pew, murmuring Latin, are far too conscious of your own holiness. Latin does not save souls. The very fact that these kids went to Mass–and LIKED IT, is a miracle worthy of my Mother. I cannot in good conscience allow you to complain about crappy music when souls are being saved by that same stuff.
    I am a crappy Catholic. I often doubt the mercy of God, and I don’t go to Confession nearly enough. I don’t say my Rosary every day, because I don’t think anyone is listening. But you, holding yourself so very high because you say Mass in Latin, and know the difference between good and crappy music, that is just as bad as me.

    You are my friend, Ben. I like you an awful lot, and you are incredibly smart. You are a good Catholic. But with knowledge comes responsibility, and you have been blessed with great knowledge. Instead of pride in that, take a friend to Mass. Show them the beauty of our faith, instead of railing against the injustice of the fact that the coordinators of World Youth Day had the audacity to pick something other than Latin for a theme song. There are worse horrors.
  • irishtenoririshtenor
    Posts: 1,325
    It's missing the point.

    It's fine to have a theme song for an event that is in a popular or contemporary style. It is not fine to use that same pop song during the Sacred Liturgy.

    There is a time and a place for everything, and during Mass is not the time for a pop song written by untrained teenagers. It's a fine song for devotional use, but the liturgy demands more reverence, regardless of how it made her (or anyone) feel.
  • Ben,

    Mass is the worship of God, not an emotional experience whose desired result is for the children to be "on fire". If the only purpose of a retreat (or mission, or World Youth Day) is to light a fire, then think of the question this way: with what do you want the children to burn? Fires are not all created equal. I was reminded of this recently when I tried to light a barbeque fire for my son's birthday, but anyone who has tried to light a fire knows that what feeds the fire matters. If what feeds this particular fire is the love of God, well and good. If what feeds this fire is emotional experience and group think, this is not so good-- and can even be toxic. I know at least one person who went to WYD in Denver years ago, and shortly thereafter stopped practicing her faith. Was WYD evil? I don't know, but if the "high" can't be rekindled because it's based on something the youth won't find "back home", it's inviting disappointment.

    (Of course, since I'm a convert, I just don't understand the third stage of the Church's development, as someone once called it.)
    Thanked by 1barreltone
  • SkirpRSkirpR
    Posts: 854
    Ben, I do believe there is something to be said for your friend's comments. If nothing else, it's absolutely honest, and in my youth I was always conflicted by these arguments - even within myself. I don't criticize a number of these kind of movements because I do believe good comes out of them - and to some extent, I think they're the only way to accomplish some of that good - or at least the best way in these times.

    Draw people in, sure. The problem is where do we go from there? Or more specifically, how do we go from drawing people in who would otherwise be apathetic to the faith to educating them on liturgy. I've not seen an example of this yet, because those who are really good and creating these kinds of "draw them in" environments never seem to get beyond that stage - at least liturgically, and those who are interested in liturgy don't put much stock in the "draw them in" events. I honestly believe there could be a connection, but I don't know what it is.

    We all love the liturgy, that's why we're here! In fact, for many of us, it drew us into our faith. I'll admit it won't always work that way for everyone, and that's something most of us seem to forget because we think everyone is like us.

    Now, I wouldn't argue that traditional liturgy would necessarily be a turn-off for people (and if it was, I don't know how ready they'd be for growing deeper in their faith in general), but I think some of us need to admit it won't draw all people to the faith the way it drew us in.
    Thanked by 2melofluent CHGiffen
  • BenBen
    Posts: 3,114
    Considering my past discussions with her, I think I'm going to go the route that cgz suggested.

    Thanks for the ideas guys!
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,216
    The music we present in Masses for young people is, for better or worse, part of their "formation" in living the faith as mature Catholics. And the summit of Christian life is the Holy Mass.

    The Mass, if you reflect on it, is an event of tremendous gravity: it is the holiest of all events. It is called the Holy Sacrifice; that is, it is the service in which Christ is offered to the Father, or rather, Christ offers Himself to the Father. And this event lets us be present! It is a wonder: Christ reaches across time and space to bring his full self-giving, his death on the Cross, into our presence. The crucifixion of Christ on Mt. Calvary becomes present on the altar.

    Can anyone think that pleasant Amy Grant songs or charming Brazilian dance tunes are really the best preparation to pray and be attentive at such an event?

    If rock music or dance music were part of the Church's vision for the Mass, then it would make sense to use those styles in Masses for young people.
    Thanked by 1Jani
  • melofluentmelofluent
    Posts: 4,160
    I heard an interview with a bystander as HHF's van was stalled by the crowds in which she bemoaned being suppressed by security trying to see and touch him. She was so impassioned that she offered as how touching HHF would be the equivilent of touching Christ. That flummoxed me for a bit. She bypassed Cephas, I thought. Why? The cops who were actually restraining her are, theologically speaking, "Christ" literally to her as well. He said precisely that. So, where's the disconnect?
    I may be greatly exaggerating, but aren't all these papal event pilgrimages made de rigeur by Bl.JPII a contemporary phenomenon akin to Jesus' entrance into Jerusalem? The demarcation between raw emotion and piety is not so clear. Therefore, in the midst of this now accepted giant milieu, a million souls are supposed to submit and subsume everyone of their agendas and preferences to actually focus upon the sublime and complex sacrifice in the upper room nearly 2000 years ago?
    The least of Roman Catholic worries about all this should be the regard by any ideological perspective of what is being sung and who is singing it. The Mass experience there may be all that and wonderful for the 1M, but the dichotomy between Ben's perspective and his friend's is one that our modern culture has allowed to be fostered.
    What happens that matters is what the WYD attendees do when they return home. I'm not a skeptic, but the fact of the matter as I see it is that most return enthused in the etymological sense, but many cannot sustain that "fire" the friend speaks of on the home front. As the exegencies of adulthood become priorities day to day, the ardor slips.

    Still our music and youth ministries labor long and hard, and hopefully cooperatively, to engage the young in the truth and beauty that are the constituent and whole elements of the Church. But we've had WYD's rock on for quite some time, and the problems facing the Church have increased and new ones crop up regularly. The friend's characterization of Ben's zeal and rock solid faith as "off-putting" is in error, if only because their experiences and encounters with the Christ have different premises perhaps. But Ben labors in the right vineyard, locally, where his neighbors ARE. Going to WYD is not a pilgrimage of suffering (despite whatever miscomforts some have) like walking the Way to Compestuela. There's no panacea answer for solving the differences of POV between Ben and his friend, save common prayer, repentance by all, and reconcilation that acknowledges the Living Christ at our altars, and in repose in our tabernacles. That should be enough for us now, parades and huge Masses aside.
  • I automatically bristle at phrases such as "mumbling in your pew in Latin," such as your correspondent used. Such caricatures seek to reduce someone's prayer life to meaninglessness and are based on ignorance, not to mention meanness. I think I would have stopped reading at that point. Similarly, there's a book titled "Get Up Off Your Knees," about how to do a U2 Eucharist. Can't get past the title, as I strongly believe more of us need to be on our knees. (And I'm not interested in U2 music at worship, either.).
  • Jani
    Posts: 441
    Ben- this isn't meant to be patronizing- I think you are a great kid. I have children your age and in some ways they can communicate with adults the way you do here, but you've reached a level of maturity that is impressive, to say the least.

    And with that out of the way.....first, if I may ask, what is the age range of this person? The (barely) contained anger suggests possibly someone older than you, but the self-centered, vitriolic aspects suggest someone young.

    For anyone else who noticed: how can one invoke the name of the Blessed Mother more than once, but willfully neglect praying the rosary "because no one is listening?"

    There are also some contradictions in the letter- it makes no sense, to me anyway- to believe that an intense, emotional experience that happens at a gathering like WYD would instill in a kid the desire to be exposed to Latin. I can't imagine being at an event like that, then coming home to the same-old same-old, if that wasn't I'd been fed on in the first place. My point is, the writer says the kids went to Mass and liked it. Well what happens when the Mass doesn't fulfill them, when it's boring?

    The Mass is a solemn and wondrous thing as it is- if every Mass celebrated had the same intensity as those described above; if every confession was as dramatic; if every new friendship was as exciting, we'd soon drop dead of sheer exhaustion. It's just not sustainable, any more than that high level of emotion is sustainable in any love relationship. If it isn't doable as is, then it's empty.

    I'll be interested in hearing how this plays out. You're a better person than I am- I would have probably told the writer to get over herself, right out of the gate.
  • GavinGavin
    Posts: 2,799
    I would just ignore or delete the comment.
  • BenBen
    Posts: 3,114
    Gavin,

    Well, normally, I would, but in the past, I've gotten in conversations with her (in person) similar to this one, so I'd like to have a good response, because this is one of the few sacred music questions I don't have a good answer to. Yet. :)
  • Scott_WScott_W
    Posts: 468
    I would just ignore or delete the comment.


    Nah. Just make a special Ecce suckage! section of your blog. :)
  • GavinGavin
    Posts: 2,799
    You can't really argue with the comment though, because it's her opinion. She prefers to practice certain options in the vast variety of legitimate options within Catholicism. It's a pretty big tent. I guess my question to her would be why your own opinions and preferences aren't as valid as hers?
  • Ben,

    Thank you for your generous thoughts. I hope what I have already written is helpful in your combat.

    I hope you won't mind if I enlarge a bit on what I wrote previously.

    Charles Darwin (ok., everybody, just hold your breath!) accepted the theory of evolution as logical in part because he conceived of the cell as very simple, which we now know to be false. We now know differently. When truth presents itself, we have an obligation to cling to it. The other side keeps trying to make Earth older, so that there is enough time for some (if not all, yet) of the changes to have happened to millions of species. These people are detached from reality.

    In debates about many topics, we forget that which is real, and get muddled in appearances. This is what has happened to your friend, it seems to me. The "feelings" are the sum total of the Mass, because Mass is a Sunday gathering, nothing more. She knows, instinctively, that it would be inappropriate to play cheery songs, say "Pop goes the Weasel", for the anniversary of the attacks of September 11, 2001. People were brutally murdered that day, and only someone who is sick in the head would think that "Pop goes the weasel" would be appropriate. What if someone played "Turn, Turn, Turn" on the sound track at a Holocaust museum. Of course these are absurd choices, but that's just exactly the point. To honor the memory of the departed, one should choose something which honors them. Since God is truly present on the altar and in the tabernacle, and since we are very really invited to the foot of the Cross on Calvary, it's not appropriate for what we sing to be all about us.

    One final thought, for now. Would we consider it proper manners and decorum to attend a special event in someone else's honor, and make that event entirely about ourselves instead? We call such people's behavior boorish, for that's exactly what it is. Do we want to teach others, on purpose, to be boorish? Really?
    Thanked by 2irishtenor eft94530
  • KARU27
    Posts: 184
    I finally got around to reading the "Rebuilt" book. It's the same central question in there that bugs me. It seems to be a given (for some people) that the "lost" or "unchurched" can only be reached through pop/rock / P&W music. There's not necessarily a sense of nourishing the people in the pews, just getting as many people in the pews to listen to the pop/rock/music and uplifting homily.
  • ClergetKubiszClergetKubisz
    Posts: 1,912
    @KARU27, you're absolutely correct. I think that in the 50s and 60s, the church officials saw people leaving the church, or something, and decided to make the changes that we now have in effect today. Because of that, they are still very afraid of losing population in the parish. Think about it, will they let you do anything as a musician that might "turn people off?" Absolutely not. No risks here (even though sacred music shouldn't be a risk at all), because people might leave. I have found that (at least one of) the pastor's main goals is to pack the pews with people every Sunday, and use it as a measure of the success of the church. One of the ways to do that is to pander to them musically. It's a compromise, in essence: give them a little of what they want, and they will sit through our weekly lessons.

    I'm reminded of a quote by Georges Bizet, regarding one of my favorite operas, "Carmen." In this quote, he is referring to the Toreador song: "The people wanted their trash, and I gave it to them."
    Thanked by 1KARU27
  • irishtenoririshtenor
    Posts: 1,325
    But how to argue against that? Some people will say, "The Pentecostal church down the road is bursting at the seams, and those people seem to love the praise band they have over there. Why don't we get a praise band like them?"

    I imagine this issue rears its head for many of us at some point or another, and I have trouble responding without referencing Church documents and boring/confusing everyone.
  • Scott_WScott_W
    Posts: 468
    But how to argue against that? Some people will say, "The Pentecostal church down the road is bursting at the seams, and those people seem to love the praise band they have over there. Why don't we get a praise band like them?"


    My local Wal-Mart down the road is bursting at the seams with people who seem to love cheap, mass-produced and mass-marketed products. That's what, (as Varietates Legitimae puts it) "transient cultural expressions" (like typical modern pop-music, and even the "youth culture" in and of itself) do when they infiltrate liturgical practice: reduce the Faith to yet another trivial and ephemeral consumer product sitting on a shelf competing with other products for attention.
    Thanked by 1KARU27
  • BenBen
    Posts: 3,114
    Here is what I finally decided to write back. As I said, if she weren't a friend, I probably wouldn't put this much energy into the response, but here it is:
    -----------
    Darby, I enjoy your friendship as well, but I find your comments hurtful and unnecessary.

    First, I'll give you that the second song I posted above may have been better in a different language, different instrumentation, being sung in a group, etc...but I do feel right in saying that WYD would be an appropriate time and place to begin to teach these things. It wouldn't need to be all out. You could start incrementally, just adding a little bit of chant, and also polyphony, which is sometimes easier appreciate to the modern ear.

    Also, it could go without the personal jabs. I am not criticizing conversions. Thanks be to God for all conversions and reversions. That is truly wonderful.

    But at the same time, we can't simply disregard the teaching of the church, which also encompasses what types of music are acceptable in the Liturgy. Of course, outside of the liturgy, we can sing whatever we want. It may be hard to believe, but I actually *like* Praise and Worship, outside of Mass, adoration, and other liturgical services.

    You may have heard of the phrase "Lex orandi, lex credendi" (roughly translated as "The law of worship/prayer is the law of belief"). This has always been a constant guiding principal in the liturgy, meaning that the way we pray affects what we believe.

    One application of this principal is the use of chant and polyphony. We are called to be counter-cultural. We believe that when we pray the Mass, we are, in a way, lifted from earth to peer into the eternal liturgy in heaven, a reality that should be manifested by all our actions, separating us from the common actions, gestures, and sounds of the profane world (and I use profane in a completely neutral sense, simply meaning "worldly", no negative connotation attached). That is one of the many reasons the music we are supposed to use is so radically different than anything else we know of.

    To say that "latin doesn't save souls" is misleading, at best.

    While it could be technically true, is to go against the church's wishes. Keep in mind, until 1970 or so, Latin was the exclusive language in the liturgy, and we still had people converting. Gregorian chant was the primary music of the liturgy, and people still converted. Who are we to believe that we know better than nearly 2 millenia of the Church's traditions? There were a great many people (and saints!) who converted and were sanctified by going to Mass completely or nearly completely in Latin. Clearly, there is value in this. We may not see it, but that doesn't mean the value doesn't exist, that just means we don't understand it, in which case it is we that are lacking, not the Latin language and not the church.

    Vatican II called for the continuing use of Latin during the majority of the Mass. Clearly, there is a reason the church has been so clear about this. Christ, through the church, saves souls, and He, again though the church, has asked for Latin, in accord with the tradition of the church, who has used latin from the very beginning.

    You, kneeling in your pew, murmuring Latin, are far too conscious of your own holiness.


    This statement, particularly, seems quite needlessly inflammatory. Again, if you are going to accuse me of praying in the way the church sees best (go look yourself if you don't believe me, Sacrosanctum Concilium, no 36.1: Latin is the norm for the liturgy), the error seems to be in your perspective, not in my mode of prayer. I'm sorry to say, but there's no getting around that. And to flippantly accuse me of pride in that manner? Completely uncalled for.

    Also, I can assure you, I evangelize at every opportunity I can. I love to spread the beauty of our Catholic faith.

    But it's not an either/or. One can evangelize without, and also work to fix problems within.
  • Ben,

    I feel impelled to answer: The Pentecostal megachurch may have such a praise and worship band, but so what? A large quantity of people used to watch public lynchings. Are the people who play in that band drawn or drawing others closer to God, and therefore to their final end, or do they merely feel good in the moment?
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 3,177
    I actually *like* Praise and Worship, outside of Mass, adoration, and other liturgical services.


    Heu, heu! My world is falling apart! First a Jesuit Pope, now this! Next thing I know Kathy Pluth is going to say: "I actually like religious dance, outside of Mass, adoration, and other liturgical services." Is the Apocalypse immanent?

    Joking aside, I think this is a good response, Ben. Your line of thinking seems to go along with what +Sample said in the address to the Colloquium, and is a line of thinking that I fully agree with. Best of luck.
    Thanked by 1Ben
  • GavinGavin
    Posts: 2,799
    Great response.
    Thanked by 1Ben
  • GavinGavin
    Posts: 2,799
    "The Pentecostal church down the road is bursting at the seams, and those people seem to love the praise band they have over there. Why don't we get a praise band like them?"

    For the same reason we don't have revivals or altar calls or happy hour: we don't do that here.
  • melofluentmelofluent
    Posts: 4,160
    Don't you try and sell me on they don't have happy hours down in Houston, Gavin.
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,482
    The sad counterpart...

    "I actually like chant and polyphony in concerts and to listen to as background music. But at Mass we should be able to sing along."

    Yup. Heard it.
    Thanked by 1ZacPB189
  • Previously unwritten remarks duplicated here.
  • ryandryand
    Posts: 1,640
    @Adam,

    Yeah, we ought to sing along, and the hippest thing is that we can literally pray across time with the church universal, singing with the saints and the Christian community throughout the ages with melodies that transcend our limited human experiences with culture, geography, personalities, and time.

    Pretty sweet. Caught my attention as a 19-year-old youth looking for a powerful spiritual experience anyway.
    Thanked by 1eft94530
  • Mark M.Mark M.
    Posts: 632
    You know, I've started to try to articulate this a few times (particularly in response to Todd F.'s downers over on the Café comboxes), but have always backed out.

    Briefly: I just feel that so many of us want at least the option of a fully traditional music approach at a given Mass. I'm guessing that all but those of us at the smallest parishes have more than one Mass on a given weekend. (Mine has seven!) And as far as I'm concerned, if other Masses want whatever other types of music, fine. Not my preference, certainly, and I can quote all sorts of things against it. But if it works for you, fine. Live and let live.

    But I'm much less interested in telling you what you shouldn't hear at the Mass you attend than I am in telling you what I do want to hear at the Mass I attend. Please, for just one Mass… sacred music, per our tradition, in accordance with virtually every document and pronouncement since St. Pius X. Devote enough attention and resources to do music at that one Mass as best as possible.

    The frustrating thing here is that all too often, we can't even find such a Mass… not at any of the Masses at our parish, and not at any other parish in town. We'll hear excuses such as "no one's interested," or "that music just doesn't serve the needs of our parish," or (paraphrasing Todd) "propers have been dying a long, slow death, and we should just let them go."

    And thus we're marginalized… a minority of folks who just want the traditional music of the Church available to them, somewhere. I'd bet that many other folks (including Catholics, former Catholics, "seekers," and so on) would appreciate it and even like it, too… if they just heard it.

    Thinking a bit about what Ben brought to us in his original post, and echoing what many of you have already said here: At some point, a lot of us just find that "upbeat" music (of whatever stripe) rather silly. And so do some non-Christians and others hostile to the faith: Many will recall this parody of a modern church service on YouTube -- comments there include "Christianity has become a joke," "Christians are such dorks," and worse.

    Compare that with any number of responses to sacred music, especially when performed in sacred spaces… some will say, "I'm not religious, but man, hearing this almost makes me believe."

    End of rant.
    Thanked by 2CHGiffen eft94530
  • Mark M.Mark M.
    Posts: 632
    "I actually like chant and polyphony in concerts and to listen to as background music. But at Mass we should be able to sing along."

    Why, why must I hear fantastic music only in a secular space?

    The music was written for the Offertory, or whatever. It was intended for be heard while some other sacred action was taking place. But now I have to watch some choir singing it, in their choir robes, here in an auditorium. The focus is on them, and on the music itself, rather than the purported Subject of the text.

    The music makes me want to kneel, to pray. I sense that I should be seeing stained glass windows around me, with fellow churchgoers to my left and to my right. But no. I'm in a cushy chair, next to concertgoers fiddling with programs, all watching the conductor gesticulate here and there.

    I hear the Latin text. I know the translation. O great mystery, O wondrous sacrament… where's the sacrament? Oh, right… keep all those thoughts, those feelings to myself. Pray on your own. This is a concert.

    Sunday will come soon enough, and then we can all just sing along.
    Thanked by 2CHGiffen eft94530