Yeah, that's what I'm wondering... Maybe I'm totally wrong. Maybe Copland is fine, but...where's the line? Why is Wagner's wedding march not ok, even though very few people are aware it's actually from a secular opera?

According to canon law, only sacred music is allowed at concerts in churches (in sacred spaces) and admission must be free (or by donation).

(edited by author: this is not really true, canon law only prohibits use that is out of harmony with the sacredness of the place, and says nothing at all about admission charges. I should have said "according to the CDW")

The law says it has to be in "harmony with the holiness of the place". I think this includes anything dignified for organ, even if not sacred (liturgical), because of the status of the instrument. I doubt if it includes Bach orchestral music.

There has to be specific permission from the bishop, too, although that's not quite on topic.

From the Congregation of Divine Worship, Nov. 5, 1987, in regard to concerts in churches:

The principle that the use of the church must not offend the sacredness of the place determines the criteria by which the doors of a church may be opened to a concert of sacred or religious music, as also the concomitant exclusion of every other type of music. The most beautiful symphonic music, for example, is not in itself of religious character. The definition of sacred or religious music depends explicitly on the original intended use of the musical pieces or songs, and likewise on their content. It is not legitimate to provide for the execution in the church of music which is not of religious inspiration and which was composed with a view to performance in a certain precise secular context, irrespective of whether the music would be judged classical or contemporary, of high quality or of a popular nature. On the one hand, such performances would not respect the sacred character of the church, and on the other, would result in the music being performed in an unfitting context.

The rest is available here

Just because something has been done, one can't assume that the Church's norms approve it.
There's a specific set of norms about concerts in churches.
I've heard secular works in churches too: e.g., an organ transcription of one of Satie's "Gymnopedies" during holy communion. It wasn't unpleasant, but it probably wasn't really in conformity with the norms.

I've heard secular works in churches too: e.g., an organ transcription of one of Satie's "Gymnopedies" during holy communion. It wasn't unpleasant, but it probably wasn't really in conformity with the norms.

Yet and still your faith remains strong and bold, RC!

I've heard secular works in churches too: e.g., an organ transcription of one of Satie's "Gymnopedies" during holy communion. It wasn't unpleasant, but it probably wasn't really in conformity with the norms.

Church music has always tended to pick up elements from secular music - parody masses, little dances played alternatim with chant in 18th century France are but two examples.

We are pushing the envelope when we include entire compositions perhaps but while the work may originally have been secular, adapting and playing it in this situation might elevate it beyond its original condition.

Is God going to be better served by adapting a secular work to his purpose or by my awkward amateurish attempts at improvisation?

In Toronto and Hamilton dioceses this issue is a (admittedly small) matter of current controversy, occasioning clarifications of the rules by the chancery. Not a purely theoretical issue, to be sure.

HOLD IT.
I'm in trouble.

I had no idea Canon Law prohibited secular music in the church PERIOD. I just started a concert series at my church (oops, Strike #1) last year as a major fundraiser (oops, Strike #2) and insisted that any performing groups' repertoire lists included at least some sacred music (aaaand.... Strike #3). While something in me quietly objected to secular music in the church building, I reasoned that it was outside liturgy.

Not to hijack this thread... but what now? Going against Canon Law would seriously undermine the validity of my reasoning for better music DURING liturgies.

Thanks Chris. I was just going to post that.

....and, not all Offices of Worship are staffed competently.

I will chime in with the more "moderate" voices on this. I'm sure this particular issue of secular music concerts in churches could be abused - and perhaps it was in Europe - perhaps that was what prompted the CDW document listed above. But I will say that, at least in my experience, I have not seen egregious abuses of it in the US. In other words, all of the concerts I've attended in churches have had programs where even any non-sacred pieces on the concert were still pieces that did not overtly profane the sacred space.

Anyone here familiar with "Peter's Way Tours"?

This travel agency coordinates trips to, among other places, Rome for choirs and ensembles primarily from Catholic parish churches and the like. During the tour, the coordinators arrange for these groups to do quite a bit of sight-seeing, visiting churches and other points of interest, and . . . give concerts at places like Chiesa de la Gesu, the Lateran Church, San Ignatio, etc., as well as sing for Masses at St. Peter's Basilica and elsewhere. However, the majority of the performances scheduled are concert-based and not liturgy-based.

Now, I belonged to a community-based choir that had been formed for the express purpose of studying, advancing and performing the music of the Western liturgical traditions (primarily Catholic and Anglican music) that went on one such tour in January of 2006. The tour was coordinated by Peter's Way, but the director of the choir was most adamant that the choir would not give concerts, but rather wished to sing for liturgical celebrations exclusively. Peter, the owner, was very uncooperative and in some cases the director had to make contact with the proper authorities at the various venues to secure permission himself. And even at that, many of the locals objected strenuously to our desire to sing liturgical music for liturgical celebrations rather than just give "concerts." We sang for public Mass at St. Mark's Venice, the Gesu, and for the Saturday afternoon Mass at the altar of the Chair of Peter as well as, and this was the coup de grace, vespers in the extraordinary form for the Feast of the Chair of Peter at the Lateran Basilica. We sang chant and polyphony as well as the various responses and settings of the Ordinary required of us by the local churches. We did NOT give concerts. Period.

My point? Apparently in and around Rome and in Italy generally, the local churches, basilicas and cathedrals have no problem permitting touring choirs from trouping into their sacred spaces and regaling the local populace with 60-plus minutes of the latest and greatest sacro-pop garbage accompanied by every form of profane instrument (drums, bongos, saxophones, flutes, guitars, etc.), but will exert influence and cite local regulations, canon law, etc., to exclude liturgical choirs from performing liturgical music during a liturgical rite of the Church.

So, as far as I'm concerned, this whole debate is a non-starter. If an ensemble wishes to come to my church and provide some culturally nourishing, decent, appropriate classical music entertainment, they are most welcome. And I wouldn't waste the ink writing for permission from the local authority in the diocesan office who thinks that sacro-pop at Mass (http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1104656.htm) is perfectly fine but would quote canon law to exclude decent music of our Western culture from a concert in the same space where the sacro-pop drivel is troweled out mercilessly week after week.

And I wouldn't waste the ink writing for permission from the local authority in the diocesan office who thinks that sacro-pop at Mass is perfectly fine but would quote canon law to exclude decent music of our Western culture from a concert in the same space where the sacro-pop drivel is troweled out mercilessly week after week.

A little (large?) part of me died reading that article.
However, my Director of the Office of Worship is (I think) a CMAA member himself and attended the last Colloquium so I trust him to give a fair, well-reasoned response.

My problem, though, is if anyone happens to realize what I'm running is technically not in harmony with Canon Law, how can I then use the documents to argue against Praise & Worship or for Gregorian Chant and plainsong? I imagine many people will ask, when I explain I sought Diocesan approval, why we can't do the same to allow for contemporary music.

I seem to remember then-Cardinal Ratzinger saying that the great symphonic music of Brahms, Beethoven and Bruckner was one of the greatest proofs to him of the existence of God and purpose in the world (paraphrasing). Still, I tend to avoid purely secular instrumental music in my own cathedral concert series.

I think this has to be a judgment call, based on the content of the music and its modern cultural context. If the music is abstract (a "prelude" for example, or a "sonata" - a "sounding" of the instrument) I don't see a difficulty. "Awake, lute and harp..." If the very stones cried out in praise of God, would they incorporate a plainchant cantus firmus?
The music of Bach or many other Baroque or Classical composers will be experienced by the assembly or audience merely as "high" or "classical" music. The pieces no longer have a cultural "sacred" or "secular" association. And I suppose in our current church music situation, I will leap at anyone's desire for, or appreciation of, music that is elegant, beautiful and well-crafted.

There is also the question of performing forces - smaller groups or even soloists can be very unobtrusive than a symphony orchestra. And I suspect that the ethos of a Bach cello suite is more suited to sacred space and contemplation than some operatic oratorio works.

The whole tone of the 1987 document is difficult for me to digest - it seems to be directed at outside entities "using" the sacred space for their own secular series and subscriber bases. But what about the church's own choirs performing works in their home parish? Or what about the church inviting great performers to offer the community sacred music in a space conducive to reflection? In other words, I don't see an understanding of (or at least, an emphasis on) a concert series as a ministry of the parish itself. What about when the bishop, beyond merely allowing or tolerating a concert, desires a series, as an outreach of his cathedral? To my mind, when we invite the Tallis Scholars to a cathedral we are offering attendees a glimpse of the glory of the Church's polyphonic tradition. This can make a real difference in the church music scene in our culture, among other things.

Finally, I wonder about some of the specific limitations or rules in article 10. Am I splitting hairs? It seems that this phrase...

"In order that the sacred character of a church be conserved in the matter of concerts, the Ordinary can specify that:"

...offers suggestions to bishops, rather than hard and fast articles of canon law. "can specify". Is there some other source for saying that ticket sales are forbidden by canon law? Especially knowing that in any performing arts series, ticket sales will never, ever turn a profit (or even meet the basic expenses).

Just some musings, from a cathedral music director getting a sacred arts series up and running now.

pieces that did not overtly profane the sacred space.

...our pieces profane in secret.

I stand by my above statement about using legality as a defense of Sacred Music. However, @francis makes a very good point.

Maybe recourse to technical legalities isn't the best argument for Sacred Music at Mass.

(Just sayin'.)

Fair point. That isn't to say the documents are the ONLY source of support on which I rely, but they certainly help. And it's more in the preference expressed in the documents than the true technical legalities.
Out of curiosity, Adam, while we're on the topic, what would you say IS the best "argument"? (For the record, I try not to use that word to avoid hostility but figured everyone here would understand that.)

Actually, with respect, I submit that the law and legislation are the ONLY argument. Otherwise, it boils down to "taste" and what will "engage the youth," etc. etc. etc. et al

with regard to organ symphony music, if the music composed was intended for use in church, it is usually considered sacred music, but that is not a singular judgement on appropriateness to the liturgy, where it could be a singular judgement on use in an organ concert.

I don't dispute that legislation is the ultimate argument, but is it really the only argument? And if it is, then how do you present it?

Thumping down a copy of the relevant codes and legislation on the conference table might be appropriate when you are discussing building a multi-story office block, but in a parish which survives in large measure on the goodwill of volunteers then this approach seems very likely to come across as a direct challenge to that goodwill.

We are all bound by these documents but there are different ways to both convey their requirements and to interpret them. (Rules are meant to be applied, while laws are to be interpreted).

Citing the law isn't everything, but if you're talking with someone conscientious, they might be willing to accept that the law is a teacher, and it can help show us what the Church really wants.

Somehow I suspect that the person saying such things is not as close to being a youth as you are.

each "Yes" was accompanied by a "Thumbs Up" and each "Lord" was accompanied by an L-shape.

Not even correct Sign Language.
Sigh...

"Yes" = closed fist, bottom forward about head level, two quick "nods" (as if the hand was a head nodding "yes")
"Lord" = The L shape doing:
a) a swoop forward and up at about head level (as done in the song choreography)
OR (more commonly in Catholic circles)
b) drawn across torso from left shoulder to right hip in "deacon's stole" outline (or, more accurately, a mid-18th cent. French-style royal sash)