Ken Canedo, a composer whose songs are sung in Catholic churches around the country, has written two wonderful short histories of American liturgical music in recent years. The first volume is Keep the Fire Burning: The Folk Mass Revolution (Pastoral Press; Portland, Oregon, 2009) and the second is From Mountains High: Contemporary Catholic Music 1970-1985 (2018). The whole story fascinates me because I lived through it all from the beginning. I started playing guitar at “folk Masses” as early as 1968. Psalm 96 tells us to “Sing to the Lord a new song,” and that is what we did.
The change to the vernacular and the participation of the laity combined with popular currents in folk music. This music of the poor sometimes represented activism for social justice, providing anthems for laborers. The earliest music for folk Masses attempted to imitate the styles of the Kingston Trio, Peter, Paul & Mary, Bob Dylan and Joan Baez, but was generally too simplistic. Still, young Catholics like myself were excited to be passionately involved in worship for the first time in our lives!
The music of Ray Repp, Carey Landry, Joe Wise, Sebastian Temple and The Dameans made important contributions in the 1960s, but in the 1970s, the Saint Louis Jesuits transcended them. The quality of composition with biblically based lyrics and the performance of their instruments raised the standard. We still sing many of their songs after 47 years, like Sing a New Song which was written in 1972.
When God called me to religious life, the albums of the Saint Louis Jesuits were the atmosphere of my early fervor, such as Neither Silver nor Gold in 1974, Earthen Vessels in 1975, A Dwelling Place in 1976, Gentle Night: Music for Advent and Christmas in 1977, Lord of Light in 1981 and The Steadfast Love in 1985. Playing them again today reawakens my fervor.
During this period, the monks of Weston Priory in Vermont added a mellow contemplative series of albums. On the other hand, the charismatic movement added a vibrant repertoire of glory and praise. Eventually, John Michael Talbot used his extraordinary talent to span the breadth from the monastic style to the most spirited tunes. Another influence upon liturgical music came from the tradition of Negro Spirituals.
Father Virgil Funk established the National Association of Pastoral Musicians in 1977 and served as its first president. He was truly inspired by God to bring musicians together at annual conventions to share resources and help each other grow in artistic and liturgical knowledge to enhance worship.
The rise of publishers, from little family-operations to a multimillion-dollar industry, is a sign of the vitality of that generation. Evangelical Protestants have since taken that industry to another level. Hymnals or recordings were produced by J. S. Paluch, World Library Publications, G.I.A. (Gregorian Institute of America), N.A.L.R. (North American Liturgy Resources), F.E.L. (Friends of the English Liturgy), and Oregon Catholic Press. Each cut a different segment of the market, whether traditional hymns for organ and choirs, folk style or a broader collection. Success and failure, however, led to acquisitions by one company of another. Since the People’s Mass Book, “missalettes,” Worship Hymnal I, II & III, and Glory & Praise until the annual Breaking Bread book, Catholics over time have found better aids in their pews. Meanwhile, black communities commonly use Lead Me, Guide Me from G.I.A.
Sadly, the Church had to undergo the painful process of becoming aware of the immorality of violating copyrights. When we first started, we had nothing but mimeographed lyrics with guitar chords, so an injustice needed to be corrected. When musicians sued their publishers for royalties, the latter in turn went after parishes that failed to acquire licenses to copy sheets of music.
After ordination, I continued music ministry in the parish of my first assignment, but new music began to dominate the Liturgy in the mid-1980s that was written more for wider instrumentation than just guitars, especially for piano. Besides gorgeous songs, Michael Joncas, David Haas and Marty Haugen provided Mass parts and Responsorial Psalms. Bob Hurd, nevertheless, has continued to be influential since the beginning.
Today, I am most fortunate to be in an “ensemble” at Saint Dominic’s Church in Washington, DC, where I play the electric bass along with superb musicians: a pianist, guitarist and wind-instrumentalist with harmonious voices. We do everything from chant and traditional hymns to Celtic and Hebrew folk styles. All the music that we play, nevertheless, is subservient to the celebration of the Liturgy because we are not there for a show.
If there is a sad note to this story, it is the loss of many religious and priestly vocations. After forty years as a Friar Preacher, it grieves me to learn how many of the pioneers of American Catholic liturgical music left seminaries and sometimes religious vows to get married. Some had sadly confused the reform of Vatican II with political activism, but were disillusioned to realize that that was not the purpose of the Council. Others may have found the life of musicians on the road an easy path back to the secular world or perhaps some preferred independence from ecclesial supervision. I believe that it would have been a happier story if they had persevered in the clerical or religious state.
My concern today is that the young generation seems to have lost its creativity. Are they no longer open to the inspiration of the Holy Spirit? Now, they seem to be mainly interested in returning to the Gregorian chant and organ music of the distant past. Chant has child-like innocence, but it lacks meter, harmony, a set tempo, an introduction or coda, a bridge and other variations, and seldom has even a refrain. The only variation of time is between short and long notes, so chant is a rather incorporeal form of music. Old-fashioned hymns have value, but they can be terribly square and repetitive. Although polyphonic music in the Baroque style is delightfully elaborate, it is only for performance sake, not for the participation of the congregation. Therefore, I beg the Holy Spirit to inflame the young generation with the zeal to sing a new song to the Lord.
I am in some doubt as to whether this is sincere or very subtle satire.
If sincere, let me say this: Father, the reason we young people desire to hear (and sing) Gregorian chant and polyphony at Mass is because this is the music of our rite, and because the Church herself has told us to give it pride of place, and because it is solemn and beautiful and disposes the heart to prayer. The music of the St Louis Jesuits et al. is fine for around the campfire, if one likes that sort of thing, but it is poor and threadbare when set beside our inheritance of sacred music.
You find my sincerity incredible because you don’t understand music as well as I, who began teaching music 50 years ago. Our Rite is not limited to any one or two kinds of music because it’s Catholic, i.e. universal. Although some myopic liturgists in the Curia give Gregorian chant and polyphonic music “pride of place,” the doctrine of the Church expressed at Vatican II is that everyone should participate in the Liturgy. As I said, polyphonic is for show. The people can only “participate” with their ears, but not their mouths. Reread my last paragraph and perhaps you will begin to see why chant compared to modern music is like arithmetic compared to calculus because of all the things that I listed that it lacks. Chant is infantile, but I’m not against it. I chant daily. On the other hand, what you call “poor and threadbare” is objectively far more advanced than anything composed in the time of Gregory I. Besides, there is nothing more or less “sacred” about either form of music as long as it is scriptural or prayerful. I’m glad that very old music disposes you to prayer, but why would you deny others the new music inspired by the Holy Spirit that would lift up their hearts to God? My article is about the lack of inspiration and creativity among young people. Your opinion only confirms my point. Who are the new young liturgical composers? Does your generation obey the command to sing a new song to the Lord?
‘Although some myopic liturgists in the Curia give Gregorian chant and polyphonic music “pride of place”.. I find this comment worrying at best and dishonest at worst. I will not, however, assume the worst. What you call “myopic liturgists” should actually read “one of the Constitutions of an ecumenical Council of the Church”.
Secondly, you say participation can only be done through the ear with polyphonic music and that participation means the singing of the song. However, surely the greatest participation of all is the participation of the heart. Many can speak of the profound influence that beautiful music has which can help lift the heart in prayer. Participation shouldn’t be viewed in such a one dimensional way.
I regret that phrase. I apologize. I am not for having everybody sing all the time. We certainly can participate with ears and hearts, but that is the exception to the general instruction to get the congregation involved.
It wasn’t “myopic liturgists” in the Vatican it was VATICAN II that said that in Sacrosanctum concilium. See #116 and also # 117. #54 called for the faithful to be able to sing in Latin too. http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1861.htm
Correction is a part of charity, so I thank you. I should not have rushed my reply. +
>>You find my sincerity incredible because you don’t understand music as well as I, who began teaching music 50 years ago. <>My concern today is that the young generation seems to have lost its creativity.<>Are they no longer open to the inspiration of the Holy Spirit? <<
No. But nice of your condescension to raise its ugly head again.
Of course the young generations among us are inspired by the Holy Spirit, they just know that the Holy Spirit isn't about to inspire them to change the Mass into their image.
Unfortunately, YOUR generation didn't understand that.
When you compose and perform anything remotely approaching the beauty found in Gregorian Chant please post a recording of it.
Some of my peers are guilty of trying to shape the Mass in their image, but my brethren and I have never been so bold. Your sweeping condemnation, therefore, was unjust. I live with several friars half my age. They would rather sing something centuries old than something new. Personally, I would rather sing something very fresh and recent as long as it’s well written because chant just makes me yawn. Maybe the Holy Spirit is moving young people to monastic chant like Christians fleeing to the monasteries after the fall of Rome. I am no judge of the Spirit, but I don’t see any new recordings and sheet music coming out that edifies me.
>>I am no judge of the Spirit, but I don’t see any new recordings and sheet music coming out that edifies me.<<
That's because the culture at large has become a sewer. And for decades now the "fresh" music in the Church is just so much effluent.
I fear you put too much value on the "fresh" or the "novel".
"Your sweeping condemnation, therefore, was unjust."
It wasn't unjust. It was generalized. When speaking of GENerations one speaks GENerally.
One reason we young folk seem uninspired to you older folk (with all due respect, Father) is because we refuse to be duped into believing that “divine inspiration” means doing more of what YOU did, and perhaps we resent being told that we lack creativity just because we find a musical fad in the Catholic Church that was popular between the ’60s and ’80s to be as vapid as it is historically novel.
Imagine a Dominican order without St. Dominic, St. Raymond, Bl. Jordan of Saxony, St. Albert, St. Thomas, Bl. Henry Suso, St. Catherine, and all the greats down through the centuries. Imagine the Dominicans decided in the year 2019 to forget about these old fuddy-duddies because to the modern sensibility, they are “terribly square” and exist in a “distant past” that no longer speaks to us (to borrow your words). What would that reinvigorated Dominican order look like? Well, whatever it would look like, it would NOT be the Dominican order with its distinctive and profound spirituality and history!
And imagine a young Dominican entering such a “refreshed” religious order and being told that he lacks creativity because he keeps bringing up the names and thoughts of these old dead folk, like Sertillanges, Chenu, and Congar. No, he is told, you must look forward! There is nothing to be gained from antiquity, no such thing as continuity except the present spirit and where it leads us.
As the young Dominican goes on, he notices a strange phenomenon: the Dominicans around him lose any distinction from the latest fads that “speak to the present condition,” and so many of the Dominicans simply leave the order to pursue these other interests. After all, what is so distinctive about being a Dominican if its purpose is to look and sound like everyone else around you? It moves this way and that as fashions come and go, with nothing to anchor it but the latest conclusions of pop-theology, psychology, and sociology.
How would this young Dominican feel upon discovering the vast treasures of knowledge, history, culture, spirituality, and wisdom of past Dominicans? If he had any sensibility, and the Dominicans have always been noted for their intelligence, he would feel supremely cheated, gypped. He might even rightly feel outrage. He would ask himself, “Who are these giants that came before us, and why do the older Dominicans around me dogmatically (read: blindly) insist that they have nothing to say to us today? And if they have nothing to say to us, nothing to define us as Dominicans, why should I be a Dominican?”
Or to bring it down to a simpler level, as Hank Hill once said, “Can’t you see you’re not making Christianity better? You’re just making rock n’roll worse.” It’s insulting to see Bob Dylan and the “folk Masses” in the same sentence. Bob Dylan was a lyrical genius. The folk Masses are rubbish and devoid of any originality or depth.
Just maybe, the religious feeling and mystery present in Bach, Vittoria, Mozart, Elgar, Bruckner, Franck, Gorecki, or Pärt draws the listener into a far more profound and transcendental experience because these composers exemplify the highest genius and greatest craftsmanship, which transcends all ethnic and cultural boundaries. If you don’t believe me, then you must not realize just how popular these “Western, classical” pieces are doing in Asian countries.
Do I appreciate the Korean gayageum or the Javanese gamelan? Of course. But for someone unfamiliar with these beautiful forms of music, their initial reaction may be one of indifference or boredom. So much the worse for them. Yet no one wants to admit ignorance or lack of sophistication. If one doesn’t immediately grasp the wonderful qualities of plainchant, that isn’t a reason to do away with chant. It certainly isn’t an argument that plainchant is irrelevant to modernity. You need to do a lot more work than that! It is, rather, a challenge to rise to something higher, to a deeper understanding, to a more sensitive appreciation. Mozart said he would trade all of his music to be known as the composer of the Gregorian preface. It is the challenge of culture, taste, education, in short, of civilization. Didn’t Jesus meet us where we were, but not to leave us there, but to invite us higher? What is redemption but an elevation? And so with these older forms of liturgical music, perhaps, just perhaps, they also are a call to a deeper spirituality that doesn’t simply rely on feeling comfortable because of feel-good, campy music we listen to at liturgy. If I wanted that, I’d continue going to summer camp for the rest of my life. Some of us want to grow up though and be nourished by something with a little more meat to it.
It is no coincidence that people my age (the millennials) are more and more finding religious institutions irrelevant insofar as they desperately attempt to ape secular culture, a culture that certainly needs no help from religion and can do quite well on its own. If I glean a deeper existential message out of a Bob Dylan song than the sermons of present-day Dominicans, why should I listen to the Dominicans who are blithely attempting to sound like a Dylan and pathetically failing at it?
I would never presume that chant was uninspired. On the contrary, when it was the new song being sung to the Lord, it’s composers, Gregory and others, were truly inspired. I don’t claim to be an inspired composer myself, though I’ve dabbled in it, yet there are many of my generation whose music so touched my heart that I easily recognize the Hand of God behind it. Your angry babblings about the Dominican Order do not deserve a comment. What you apparently misunderstand is Christian humanism which is the result of the Incarnation of Christ and His grace. He became a man so that we could be divinized as Children of God. Hence, we are the yeast in the dough in the secular world. We baptize all things secular, while trying not to be baptized by secularity itself and going native. If I hurt your pride, I’m sorry that it hurt, but hope that you now learn humility and control your outbursts. God bless you. +
Father, chant is superior because it only requires the Word (Logos) and the breath (Spiritus). No instument distract the chanter from gathering breath and the Word into a love song to the Father. The rythm is given by the Word. Instrumental and metered music can be fun. No argument there. But my experience is that our congregations no longer know how to breathe. Especially breathe together. That is what the chanted responses and Kyriales are all about: congregations singing and thus breathing together. Many ex-Catholics now attend yoga classes instead of Mass, because they no longer chant in church. Chant can bring them back. That is why chant is superior. I hope you get a chance to experience chanting, really chanting, with us soon. Pax Christi,
Are you saying that chant is superior music because it’s less musical, and therefore, more verbal? I detect a bit of absurdity in that. A single thread of melody certainly emphasizes the human voice, which is the greatest musical instrument, yet the words can easily be communicated in other forms of music too, especially with microphones and hymnals for all. The breath part is interesting. Personally, I see music as trinitarian like everything else in creation. Meter and tempo are the foundation, like a drummer beating. That is analogous to the Father. Harmony with a progression of chords is the flesh and bones of the Son. Melody (which is all chant is) is the soul of music, says Aristotle, and hence like the Holy Spirit. So, to me, chant is like the Spirit without the other two divine Persons. +
If there is an objective fact to be found anywhere, it is simply that electric bass is neither ancient nor noble.
I grew up with the modern liturgical movement. I’ve sung nearly every song from the Breaking Bread Hymnal a hundred times over. My only experience with sacred music was from the 90’s band Enigma. That was until someone had the good sense to introduce me to sacred music as it actually is. To say that it is infantile and lacking he breadth and musical superiority of modern music is to be as uncharitable as a miser. It should anger all Catholics that they have been robbed of the true beauty and primacy rightfully owed to Gregorian Chant that has been handed over to low bar folk music that lacks the richness of tradition.
To say sacred music is inferior to contemporary music is the same as saying modern art is superior to renaissance art. It as that point you just have a bad opinion.
I grant that the electric bass is not ancient, but it’s as noble as any instrument. Strings are found in the worship of the Old Testament, but the organ is not even in the Bible. I feel sympathy with you about singing every song from Breaking Bread ad nauseam, but any chant, hymn or song that contains the Word of God or prayer to the Lord is sacred. You must not declare some musical prayers to be unholy because you don’t like them. I never said that chanters are infantile, but chant was invented in the infancy of musical history. Since the 6th century, music has evolved with a number of methods and techniques to enrich the sound, some of which I mentioned in my last paragraph. Technology has also contributed to music. Personally, I enjoy a balanced mix of acoustic and electric instruments. I would also welcome a talented and discrete percussionist, who, like The Little Drummer Boy, brought what he had to the Baby Jesus, “Our finest gifts we bring Pa rum pum pum pum.” I’m not pushing for folk music over chant! Catholicism essentially includes all good things. I’m glad that a single thread of melody touches your heart. Please grant me the chance to hear something more elaborately composed, hopefully something that I’ve never heard before. I never said that “sacred music is inferior to contemporary music”! Holy Moly! The problem is that you think that only ancient music is sacred and that contemporary music is a desecration. That’s hypocrisy. Just think of the holy composers and musicians that you’ve unjustly condemned. +
I’m surprised that my text which was clearly stated was so misunderstood. I’m not against chant or anything else of the past. Sacred Tradition is about preserving the essentials of the past while moving forward progressively under the light and movement of the Holy Spirit. When young people talk about Gregorian chant as that “Sacred Music” that can never be surpassed, it reminds me of the Protestant heresy of sola scriptura. Just as the Protestants of the 16th century rejected Sacred Tradition because of abuses of certain individuals and went back to those Sacred Writings that were certainly inspired, they failed to recognize that the Holy Spirit keeps us going forward, despite mistakes. If millennials say that we should reject the modern tradition of liturgical music and get back to Gregorian chant, they’re basically saying that chant was the last music inspired by the Spirit that we can rely on, but what has happened in the last 50 years is trashed because some composers and musicians were not the best. Besides, by saying that chant is more “solemn,” do they deny that the music of common people who offer their worship to God is less solemn? The music that is called “campfire” stuff is the very thing that lifted up the hearts of the anawim whom God prefers. Do you think that modern organs are better than ancient strings, pipes and percussion instruments that glorified the Temple of Solomon to the delight of God? I reiterate that I am not against chant or anything else in the past, but I simply regret that the young seem to have become regressive. Where is the creativity? Are there no new composers open to the influx of the Spirit, so we don’t have to repeat the same simplistic melodies that are without metrical foundation or harmonic flesh? Open your hearts to the Holy Spirit and maybe this generation will also sing a new song to the Lord!
I’m surprised a Dominican actually wrote this poorly written and poorly thought out article.
It’s a double book review. It’s about the facts of history. Does that bother you? As a son of Saint Dominic, called by God and empowered by his grace, it’s my duty to enlighten you. What was poorly written? Did I not recount what the author wrote? Oh, you must be upset by what I said about the lack of creativity in the young. Well, what creativity can you show me? Are you open to the Holy Spirit? Are you ready for what’s to come, in music and beyond? +
Father, you are a true exemplar of our frigid “Springtime” of post-60’s Catholicism. Thankfully the newer generations are finding the True Faith, throwing away all the hippy anachronisms. Tempus fugit.
I will ignore your irreverence and arrogance. My article was basically a double book review telling of the history of Liturgical music in my lifetime that was very well written. You can’t argue with facts, but I admit that I made comments along the way, both positive and negative. Apparently, you didn’t live through it as I did, otherwise you would have seen and heard the struggle intimately. Anyone who knows the Holy Spirit well and is open to His inspiration and movement recognizes how He continuously leads us forward, and yes, we can use the word, progressively. What is “frigid” is a person who is stuck in a particular moment, especially in the 6th century, fondling old relics in a creepy way. What I advocate is the exact opposite: being alive and on fire with the Spirit to create and sing a new song to the Lord. Read my comment about how some young people are like those guilty of the heresy of sola scriptura, as if Sacred Tradition was no longer sacred because some composers and musicians were not great, so you go back to that period when music was really inspired and sacred just as the Protestants went back to Scripture. Catholics look forward to what the Holy Spirit reveals to us in every generation. Sure, we stumble and fall along the way, but it’s better than closing oneself off and becoming a so-called “traditionalist” that’s stuck and utterly frigid. I totally appreciate the past. I sing chant all the time in community. There’s nothing wrong with it, but the Spirit has taken us much farther and will take us farther still if the young respond.
Father, o was neither irreverent (like a guitar strummed Woodstock-style) nor arrogant (like a priest condemning anyone who is unprogressive simply for not wishing to wave his arms in the air in vapid emotionalism devoid of any substance). There is a time for secular music and a time for sacred music. Mass is no time for electric guitars and tambourines. You, father, have not progressed beyond the snippet in time when you were formed, the policies of which time have utterly decimated the Faithful. But the Church has time on her side. In 40 years, it will be all Credos and Salve Reginas rather than Eagles Wings and Gather Us Ins. Not one young person I know favors bongo Masses, and I do not belong to a “Traditionalist” (try not to spit too badly when you say that) parish.
I’m really sorry that you have endure liberal Masses that were almost or even scandalous. Don’t blame me. I’m sure that I have endure much worse. I’m not a liberal. Heck, I’ve been accused by the Left in the Church as being a dinosaur! What you call secular music is never played in any church. So, you’re argument fails. As for instruments, are there any that are not Catholic which means universal? The answer is no. Ironically, you say that I have not progressed, but I’m the guy arguing for progress and you’re the guy arguring to regress. Look, I’m not stuck in the 60s, 70s, 80s, or any other time. My point is: keep moving forward under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. How can you argue against that? I sure hope that in years to come, we don’t have to repeat the same old songs that have been repeated a billion times; rather, I hope that your generation will obey the Lord to sing a new song to the Lord, as we see the saints doing in the Book of Revelation. +
There’s nothing irreverant about a guitar being strummed for the Lord, but you are irreverent for insulting and falsely accusing me of things I never did or said. Why would think that you are on the side of substance and I’m the defender of “vapid emotionalism”? That’s proof of your arrogance. Who made you the pope to excommunicate musical instruments from Mass? You don’t know what sacred and secular mean. As I said elsewhere, we baptize all things secular, like yeast in the dough. You say that I have not progressed, yet you prophesy that we will regress to old ways for the next 40 years! I’m the first person who would love to see Eagles Wings & Gather Us In replaced by your generation with something new and fresh. They tell me there is new material. Where is it? For the record, Tradition is not merely about preserving the past; it’s moving forward under the guidance of the Spirit.
Hi Father,
I wanted to add my two cents, as an older millennial.
Though raised a Catholic, I was more or less a secular none from age 7 to 27. One of my influences in returning to faith was the beautiful but foreboding Dies Irae. I stumbled on it by what seemed to be chance, out of curiosity of what the monks in Monty Python were chanting. I never had the sense that there was beauty or seriousness in faith before. But these people – the ones who wrote and chanted this – they were serious. And there was beauty and mystery in it.
I came back to the Church through RCIA in 2012-2013. When I found out that the Church still had Masses with such reverent and beautiful music, I was excited beyond belief and I’ve attended the Traditional Latin Mass often (if not exclusively) ever since. Beyond the music, I found the traditional Mass is far more prayerful and contemplative.
As for the new music, it no longer feels new. It’s not what I grew up listening to, which was grunge, alternative, metal, ska, punk and hip hop, so there is no familiarity drawing me to it. It reminds me of less inspiring versions of secular music from the 1960s. It feels not timeless, a Gregorian chant does, but merely old and stale. Not to say that there aren’t a few new songs which I like, but it is perhaps 1 or 2 out of every 10.
I have nothing bad to say about those who are inspired by the new music. It may be in some objective sense be better or more complex. But as for me, it fails to stir the soul. I find myself having to remind myself, intellectually, of the glory of what is happening at Mass, rather than feeling it deep within me, such that no reminder is necessary.
So many of my generation have fallen away. Of those who remain, many of us are like me. The same chants which moved saints throughout the ages move us as well. For us, the ancient is perpetually made new again in our hearts.
Thank you for a thoughtful comment. I’m really glad that chant warms your heart and lifts it up to God. That’s wonderful. Listen to more of it and sing it, but my hope is that the Catholic Church will obey the command of the Lord to sing a new song. Who wants to listen to or sing the same song 10,000 times? Even the most alert contemplative starts to daydream. The Top-40 may not be important now as it was in my youth, but we loved to hear new songs because they were fresh and were different than anything before. Like all the senses, we want to see and taste new things. The Holy Spirit is only willing to lead us to the wonders of our human creativity, so why would anyone stay in the past? You may not be a composer or a musician, so this may not be your responsibility, but I know that we, in the ensemble in Washington, strive to enhance the Liturgy as best we can, using all our skills, to help people to worship God according to the Scriptures and celebration of the day. By “traditional Mass,” do you mean Latin? Tradition means a vibrant and progressive movement forward, not a sojourn in some past style. I admit that lots of music that I play stirs my soul negatively instead of positively, but I offer up those lousy tunes as a sacrifice which I place on the altar in union with Christ.
Thank you too Father for the thoughtful reply.
Gregorian chant is still relatively new to me, and I find new songs all the time on YouTube and Apple Music. That being said, I’ve yet to become permanently bored with the chants I originally loved.
The sojourn in a past style, for me, is meaningful because it is so different from the world in which I am immersed. It helps me focus on the transcendent.
I’ll admit that I don’t even focus on the Gregorian chant that much at Mass anymore, most of the time. I’m trying to pray the Mass. It was the chant which attracted me, but I’ve really grown to love the prayers of the Mass.
Anyway, we are both Catholics and despite our different preferences, we share the same faith and hope in Christ. And how much more do you do for Christ than I, who am a layman and does not shepherd His people, and does not offer them access to the Sacraments?
I know many people do really love and benefit from the newer music – most of the people who led my RCIA group, who were quite a bit older than me, loved to play it at the start of sessions. If it is good for them, how can I be against it?
I do try to be a devoted Catholic as best I can, and I too will a sing a new song, if I’m at the ordinary Mass, doing in Rome as the Romans do, with an open and willing heart.
Thank you for what you do for God’s people.
Hello Father. Generation X here. I’ve always been Catholic, but as I grew older, I noticed how dated the music was. It was, as you noted, folk music from the 60s to the 80s, and not great folk music at that. By now it is 35 to 60 years old and very much a product of its time. I hungered for beauty and transcendence and grandeur and timelessness and instead got “Lord of the Dance,” which sounds like a nursery rhyme. I then grew to realize a vast treasure had been denied me because I was born following Vatican Ii. I can’t tell you the peace and beauty and reverence I found in the traditional Latin Mass. Far from being infantile, the Gregorian chants are grand, and their complex structure leads me to meditate and contemplate their meaning. I’m glad you enjoy the folk Mass, but I fear you are mischaracterizing those of us who have rediscovered the beauty we lost in 1962.
Thank you for a lovely comment. I enjoyed “folk Masses” in the 60s, but we don’t have them anymore. Of course, in church, we play music from every century. Even in our “modern” ensemble, we play chant and traditional hymns, folk music, which is sometimes Celtic, Hebrew or American, with some Negro Spirituals and many other styles besides. It only shows how “Catholic” we are, encompassing everyone. I would not call the Latin Mass “traditional,” however, even though it has been with us almost since the beginning, because Tradition is not only about preserving the past, but about about being guided by the Spirit to what’s new and fresh. In Heaven, creativity won’t end; it will only begin for real! +
Dear Father,
As someone who was taught guitar at my parochial school in the 70s to play at First Friday Masses and has continued a serious, if amateur, pursuit of music ever since, let me say that the folk Mass leaves me so empty. When I was 10, it was good. Now, after 50, not so good. I love music. I have always been a singer. I used to sing on the swings in the playground when the other kids played kickball. I’ve studied pop, jazz and classical privately and in college. Church is different than secular music. I don’t want to praise God with the same instruments and melodies which I sing the theme song to, Oh say, The Brady Bunch. (“Here I am, Lord.”)
Slightly more clever than ripping off The Brady Bunch, but even more horrible was the tune I was subjected to a few weeks ago. I have no idea what it was called and only pray I never hear it again. It was in 5/4 time so it sounded like “Take 5” by Dave Brubeck. I nearly dropped the hymnal and I could not have sung if he pricked me with a cattle prod. I love jazz. Dave Brubeck was an innovator (60 years ago) but Jesus deserves better.
And for the record, I find that I am more able to give my “full and active participation” when I am not singing. I am more able to be present in heart and mind when not distracted by the need to sing. I LOVE to sing–but I am happy to play my part of praying that Father’s and our “sacrifice will be acceptable to the Lord . . . “.
Re the vocations. I don’t think it’s a mistake that so many of these musicians have abandoned their vocations. It’s the fruit of this movement. Looking at the news, just the other day I saw that David Haas is doing M.M. for Fr James Martin’s upcoming conference full of dissident speakers.
Fr, we don’t need you to be a musician. Be an Altar Christus. That’s more than enough!
Viva Cristo Rey!
We play a song in 5/4 time that I enjoy. I feel the Spirit down to my feet. 🙂 Jesus Christ is not just the King of the Universe sitting on His celestial Throne, but He’s also the Son of Man Who had nowhere to lay His Head, yet sat around campfires enjoying the Hebrew folk songs of His generation. I’m sure that He takes delight in every sincere offering of music because the subject (heart) that offers it is more important than the object (music) being offered. +
With respect, the tone of the author’s essay essentially baited many of the responses he’s getting, and expressing surprise is not very credible.
And Catholics, never known for shallow literalism, would not take Ps 98:1 in a shallow literal manner.
I am no traditionalist, but a leading edge Gen X Catholic whose earliest liturgical formation was in the so-called interim Missal era. I remember bad music from that time. I remember folk groups being a comparative fresh air. And then I remember the air coming out of the bagpipe. A great deal of the liturgical music in English (at least for distribution in the USA) created in the last 55 years is not aging well. Indeed, copyright in the hands of the industrial publishers is going to amberize that music, to its great disadvantage compared to public domain work, or works created more wisely by individuals offering Creative Commons licenses.
The author does not appear to be aware that there are composer composing settings of the Ordinary, of Propers (whether of the Gradual or Missal type) and of the Psalter and hymns and anthems that are in fact new, but not in the folk/contempo style favored by the author. They just aren’t backed by the likes of OCP, GIA, WLP, Collegeville, et cet., and one is not likely to encounter their work unless one decides to go outside one’s habitual orbit. In choral music terms, we’re in something of a Golden Age in the USA, and some of that work is in sacred music, but it’s outside the orbit of any parish that’s pragmatically conceded the exclusive embrace of Big Publishing.
A new future is coming. It’s not going to look like the 1950s or the 1970s or the 1990s – or the futures envisioned in those decades. It will include Latin and vernacular chant and polyphony, and new sacred music. Millennials and Zoomers will be part of that. And condescension by Boomers towards them may fuel moving well past the vision of Boomers.
You see that it’s time to sing a new song to the Lord because songs like On Eagles Wings and Be Not Afraid are overly used. I hope that the future is not like the 60s, 70s or anything else in the past. Your foresight encourages me, but I only play what the music director chooses. I just hope that there’s room for many different kinds of musical styles and instruments in the years ahead. +
Thank you. Here’s a link to just one example of what I am talking about – a director of music who, after over 25 years at St Cecilia’s in the Back Bay of Boston, last year became the director music for Boston’s cathedral and archdiocese. Richard J Clark is deeply conversant in a variety of musical idioms, ancient and modern as it were, but also implements the Vatican II’s privileging of chant and treasury of sacred music. A number of his works are not only premiered in liturgy, but also in concerts by various choral societies in the region, where there’s a large array of choral societies that make it part of their mission to commission new choral works. (It’s a very different model from Big Publishing’s oligopolistic capture of the Catholic “worship aid” marketplace.)
https://www.rjcceciliamusic.com/
PS: for a more concrete illustration, here are samples that were very well engaged by a very “progressive” Catholic congregation:
Lamb of God from his Mass of The Angels: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYFueBJMZek
Gloria from the same Mass setting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34HaLV7KG-4
Gloria from his Mass in Honor of Pope St John II: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SICReTsjFY
And here’s just one example of a well-received commissioned choral work:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=jBoDpANGks4
These are all “new songs” in one sense, but not in all senses.
They just don’t sound like 1950s, 1970s, or 1990s missalette or typical pastoral music convention fare. They would, however, probably be more readily “recognizable” as sacred music by more Catholics of the past than such other fare, which sound more time-constrained.
Thank you. +
Thank you. +
Father, I’m so thankful that I haven’t had my breakfast yet lest it have been spewed onto my computer screen. I’m 55, have studied music, played the trumpet, electric bass, tuba, keyboards, and sung, and had university level education in music theory and composition. I’ve led “worship teams” at a large evangelical mega church with some truly excellent musicians (and have since – praise God – converted to Catholicism). I come from a family of musicians and composers. Compared to the writing and musicianship found in some evangelical circles, the “ditties” created and “performed” by your generation of musicians are hideous. But nothing can compare to the timeless beauty, reverence, and transcendence of Gregorian chant and traditional organ music. My children have an intuitive grasp of this, without prompting from me. They hear even a well played/sung “guitar mass” and they ask me why the music was disrespectful. They attend a Latin mass, and remark on its beauty. The banal, juvenile jingles your generation produced have little musical value, are often filled with insipid lyrics, and are destined to the dustbin of history. A sorry festering pimple on the musical posterior of the Church.
Gregorian chant and traditional organ music are indeed beautiful and reverent, but they’re hardly timeless. In fact, they’re easily dated. They will always be valid and I’m glad that you love these forms. I encourage you. We chant here every day, but your criticism of compositions through which God has touched my heart is hypocritical. Words such as “ditties,” “banal, juvenile jingles,” “insipid lyrics,” etc. condemns the efforts of prayerful songwriters who have been inspired to enhance the Liturgy. Besides, I’m not praising my generation over against the young. Even if my generation stumbled in its effort to compose or perform, at least there was far greater output and great progress was made in the course of 50 years. Now, I’m afraid that progress will halt as we sojourn in the Middle Ages.
When I read this article, I initially thought it was satire, as it plays so much into the stereotypes of the so-called “Boomer priest” with his guitar and felt banners. I was even more convinced of this after reading your other articles here, some of which I think would resonate well with some of the “millenials” you reference in this one.
Even so, it appears that you are not being facetious and are genuinely perplexed by the widespread rejection of what you perceive as “singing a new song”.
I will say this – there’s a great deal of pride on both sides of this debate, and that needs to be dialed down quite a bit or few will listen to any opinion but their own.
Music that truly raises the heart and mind to God can be sacred, no matter the form. Whether or not the music is appropriate for liturgy is another matter, though it is related to be sure. Though I’m no expert on liturgy, I would say that songs that are both orthodox in content and inspire reverence to God are acceptable at a Mass. So most of the songs that composers such as Haugen and Haas wrote should not be treated as heretical unless they actually ARE heretical. There is a diversity of culture and taste within the Church, and this style of music can certainly fit into that tapestry. LifeTeen Masses likewise – maybe not your cup of tea, but probably shouldn’t banned either. If they truly draw people to Christ, there is good in them. Accepting these things would be a mark of humility on the side of those against “folk”-type hymns and would probably be a more Christian attitude than some have taken.
That being said, there are several things that are absolutely untrue. Firstly, the idea that one is not “participating” unless one is doing the same thing everyone else is doing. We do not recite all of the prayers of the priest at Mass – to do so would be inappropriate – and yet that is not a defect in our participation. So if there are polyphonic anthems that are only sung by the choir, or Gregorian chant only chanted by a cantor or the priest, that also is not a defect in participation. Hearing a beautiful rendition of “If Ye Love Me” by Thomas Tallis, or perhaps “Ubi caritas” by Ola Gjielo – and having one’s mind raised to God by it – that is participation just as much as singing “On Eagles’ Wings” – again, as long as one is focused on God by it.
Saying it was “myopic” men in the Curia who put Gregorian chant, the pipe organ, and polyphonic music as having pride of place in Church music is not acknowledging the source – the Second Vatican Council itself. The fathers of the Council wrote that, and not without reason. It’s certainly not doctrine or dogma, but it is also more than just some old guys’ opinions. To reduce it to that also reduces other non-dogmatic statements in the Council to mere opinion that can then be disregarded. Like the wisdom of the use of any vernacular language in the liturgy.
Your statement that there is no creativity today in the realm of sacred music is absolutely off. I know of a young composer (Daniel Knaggs) who has a project to compose and publish 50 Ave Marias, one per year, from 2005 to 2054. He’s already published 15 of them and they, as well as his other compositions, are being sung in churches now. There are also other great composers who make beautiful sacred music – Ola Gjielo, Morton Lauridsen, Philip Stopford, Arvo Part, John Rutter – the list goes on. In my church choir alone, there are two people in their early-30s who are studying for a master’s degree in sacred music.
“Millenials” are flocking to more traditional styles of church music precisely because it increases their “participation” in the liturgy – it raises their minds to God. For the most part, they are not going to hear a “performance”, they are there to worship. This should be seen as a good thing, since our ultimate goal should be the salvation of souls.
If people were flocking to folk Masses in droves now, I would say something good is happening there. Now that these older forms of music are drawing people into worship, why discourage this?
For many of them – these “millenials” – all they had ever been exposed to was the folk-style music of the Gather hymnal. When they found out that these other musical forms (still) existed, they found that those types of music brought them closer to God. They may sometimes speak derisively of the folk-type form because they felt like the older forms of music were being discouraged or kept from them, and only the 1960s-80s hymns were sung in their parishes. I’m a Gen-Xer, and this was definitely my experience up until several years ago.
In 2000, I was told by our director of music that a hymn in Latin could not be sung at our wedding – even though it was in our hymnal! – because the choir wouldn’t be able to pronounce it and he obviously had no interest in teaching them.
A few years and a new music director later, only during Lent the choir began singing the Agnus Dei in Latin. After Mass, I went up merely to compliment the choir and the conductor and her response was a terse “don’t get used to it”. I don’t know if that was a reflection of her disdain for the Latin, or for the priest’s preference, or what, but it was hardly an encouraging or welcoming attitude. And this, at a parish that prided itself on its cultural diversity and a welcoming spirit.
About four years ago I visited for the first time the parish I now attend. The Mass was as reverent as any I had ever seen – and it was in English. The Mass began with a processional hymn, and then a chanted introit. I was familiar with Gregorian chant from some chant albums I’d heard, and had very briefly been in a small beginner’s chant schola, but nothing beyond that. Our parish and most of the parishes I visited had not ever used it to my recollection.
I immediately realized this Mass was a different experience than I had been accustomed to. After the offertory proper, a choral anthem began – Palestrina’s “Sicut cervus”, if I recall correctly. I do remember that it was literally the most beautiful music I’d ever heard, as if sung by a choir of angels. The communion hymn – sung by the choir and entire congregation (in a packed church, no less) and led by the pipe organ – was “I Heard the Voice of Jesus Say”, sung to Tallis’s Third Mode Melody. By this time, I was literally in tears. Where had this music been before? I had no idea who Palestrina or Tallis were, but I knew I wanted to hear more. At the end of Mass, our friend who brought us there said every Sunday was like that. We had been looking for a new parish anyway, and immediately decided this was it. Even my three tween/teenage kids, who I expected to balk at the suggestion, were excited to go there. When we later mentioned this music and its beauty to some friends at our old parish, we were actually met with eye-rolls and condescension. Kind of like the attitude I’d gotten previously from the music directors.
Since then all three of my kids have, at various times, sung in one of the several choirs at our new parish. My middle daughter and I are now regular members of the principal adult choir. Singing and hearing this music is not just being present for a “performance”. It is a clear reminder that it is God Himself that inspired this music originally in the minds of these composers, and that we are giving Him glory, both in the singing and in the hearing.
Perhaps it’s not for everyone. That’s fine. If I understand correctly, that’s quite consonant with the catholicity of the Church. Casting aspersions on people because they prefer particular styles of sacred music that are specifically praised in an ecumenical council is not, and certainly is not conducive to a conversation about what music is appropriate and acceptable at Mass.
Thank you for your personal and prudent contribution. I said nothing about preferences of style, but the readers assumed that I was putting “folk music” against Gregorian chant. It’s not about one or the other. As you say, in the Catholic Church, there is room for all. “Folk Masses” may still be going on somewhere, but the Church passed that stage about 30 years ago. An ensemble with multiple instruments playing multiple styles is not “folk music.” I have lived most of my life singing in choir stalls for the Liturgy of the Hours, now with a house of friars mostly younger than me. Sometimes when they carry on chanting in Latin, they seem to me to be like the monks in Monty Python’s Holy Grail. Unfortunately, I can’t pray in Latin because I only had one semester of it. Latin in the Mass excludes me, sometimes forcing me to find the English text to read while it’s being sung. So, yes, I prefer the vernacular and a rhythm that’s more charismatic and less sedative. +
With respect, Father, Latin in the *Mass* should not in and of itself exclude you, especially in the Ordo/Ordinary. I can get that with the Propers or their substitutes – which change daily/weekly – it would be different. But for the Ordo/Ordinary, the fact of the matter is that the advent of the vernacular liturgy is what makes using Latin in those parts of the Mass more “plausible”. This goes against the typical talking points of trad vs prog liturgy polemicists. But, where the use of Latin in the Ordo/Ordinary *accompanies* the vernacular use *over time* (I am thinking movie, not photo here), you and I and others know what the Kyrie/Gloria/Sanctus/Agnus Die et cet. and dialogues *mean* because we also sing them in the vernacular. You don’t need to be able to *compose* and *congugate* fluently in Latin to not be excluded from it. Fluency is the terrible and wrong measure of exclusion; when it’s used in this context (I am not saying you did so here, but I’ve seen it used frequently over the decades for this point of contention), it’s not to be taken seriously. The good news is that the reformed vernacular liturgy also opened up the aspects of the traditional liturgy that carried over into the reform. Let’s celebrate that rather than be anxious or concerned about it!
I do as you say, but I still don’t know that Latin Gloria well. :\ Besides, I only recently learned the Memorial Acclamation in Latin, after keeping a little cut-out of the music & text in my Magnificat. I’m trying to adjust. +
Shut up boomer.
Imagine someone speaking that way to a priest called by God to repeat His command to sing a new song to the Lord (Psalm 96:1)! Shameful, but I will approve your comment anyway to expose it to the public. +
One more thing and I’ll leave it at that, as it’s clear we don’t see eye to eye. You had mentioned you were hurt by insults to David Haas’s talent. I think the online traditionalists make too easy a target of him. To my mind, he’s certainly no worse than the other St. Louis Jesuits, the Protestant Marty Haugen, Bernadette Farrell, or others. Still, doesn’t it trouble you how many of these folk singers require the parishioner at Mass to sing as if he or she were God or Jesus? For example, Do not be afraid, I am with you; I the Lord of sea and sky; I am the Bread of Life. It’s no wonder there has been a loss of belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the sacrifice of the Mass when people are compelled to sing as if they were God. I realized what a problem this bad folk music was when it occurred to me that the Protestant hymns we were occasionally compelled to sing at Mass (e.g., Amazing Grace, How Great Thou Art) were more reverent than the 70s and 80s folks songs that were supposed to be Catholic hymns.
You have a wide definition of “folk” singers. The St-Louis Jesuits were folk artists, but I wouldn’t call the others that. I’m sorry, but I had to smile when you talked about lyrics as if singing lines from Scripture means that we’re actors reading a script as we play God! 🙂 Singing these most encouraging lines spoken by Our Lord doesn’t replace Him with the singers; rather, it encourages the singers with His promises and revelation. Such lyrics don’t get between us and the Eucharist; they tell us Who we adore. Besides, what is reverent? Were the Pharisees that washed their hands more reverent than the Apostles who didn’t? Hm, I can’t remember a single song that I have played in 50 years in Church that was irreverent. If there was such a thing, I wouldn’t have played it. If the subject (composer/player/singer) lifts up his or her mind and heart to God in prayer, then the object is certainly reverent.
Hello Fr. Gerard,
I have to admit I find this article of yours to be troubling, and I also find your “talking down” to people in the comments to be worrisome. No, I have not been teaching music for fifty years, but I am a music student, in the fourth year of my undergraduate degree, where I’ve focused on composition and have taken pipe organ lessons outside of my schooling.
I am a cradle Catholic, but I felt increasingly at odds with the music and the liturgy I experienced on Sundays in the Novus Ordo that I grew up with. With secular-sounding music, no matter how well-intentioned, I found myself having to punch through several layers of accumulated irreverence in order to get to the Eucharist. Having discovered the Traditional Latin Mass two years ago, my eyes were opened to beauty of chant, which I strongly disliked in my high school years for reasons not too different from those you list. Suddenly, with the Extraordinary Form, the Mass came alive. My belief in the Real Presence has grown substantially in these last two years, and I feel closer to God than I ever did. Chant, which is beautiful to sing, also brings me a profound sense of peace and meditation. I will never tire of hearing those melodies. They’re simultaneously complex yet subtly simple, and I will never get to the bottom of how wonderfully transcendent these ancient melodies are.
Your point about creativity in your last paragraph is particularly distressing, as I have been working diligently on hymn writing for some time. Since February 2018, I have been collaborating with a young organist and text writer named Christian from Australia. He writes the words, and I write the music. Our hymns are traditional sounding, and are written with congregational singing in mind. We are currently working on compiling 24 of our hymns to self-publish. I will happily send you a copy when it’s ready, and I will attach links to some videos of my hymns, and I hope you enjoy them. I assure you, the Holy Spirit is still moving and inspiring young people like Christian and myself to write new music. Yes, the Lord calls us to sing a new song, but where is it implied that we must continually progress further and further? What happens when there is nothing recognizable left of the music that makes it sound sacred by both believers and non-believers alike? Have we already surpassed this point with “folk hymns” and the “folk Mass?” Where is there left to go?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxGhyLd86jw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzIlVake-kQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSh-VOYDZ0g
Thank you for a respectful reply and for giving me hope. I’m glad that chant and Latin move you to God, but they don’t have that affect on everyone. I can pray with chant, but Latin separates me from God because I don’t know it well. I am no advocate of folk music or folk Masses. I probably haven’t been to one since the 1980s. Those days are long past. Contemporary liturgical music is broadly inclusive, but it seems to be slowing down. So, I’m delighted to read that you and others are working to sing a new song to the Lord. Thanks for the links. Keep up the good work. +
Father, I think that you aren’t a musician. Contemporary musicians have recognized the value of Gregorian chant when composing. Jean Langlais, M. Duruflé, M. Dupré, Arvo Pärt, etc….
These are the new times. Spirit times. Tath you don’t hear.
When did I ever say anything bad about Gregorian chant?! I totally appreciate its value. I made no judgment about it at all. Rather, I simply recognized the objective fact of its simplicity which is due to the early stage of musical development.
Father, in these comments you clearly completely misunderstand where the issue lies. This is not about tastes or styles. The very ideology you represent, that philosophy of badly understood progress and caricature of organic development, is, thank God, finally dying off for good. Time that, in accordance with your own assumptions, the likes of you accept its demise. May it be swift and imminent
I never said that it was about tastes and styles. I would welcome any style of music as long as its well written and fresh. I’ve lived in the House of the Lord for generations, so it’s no wonder that the repetition of tunes causes monotony and makes one jaded. Thank the Lord, Jesus Christ, nevertheless, Who promised at the Last Supper that the Holy Spirit would guarantee progress, not only to all Truth (orthodoxy) but to all that is right (orthopraxis). There are two heresies with regard to Sacred Tradition. Modernism either ignores the past or attempts to redefine it in the sense of adapting it to new times. Integralism is the vicious attack of people who are wrongly perceived as modernists simply because they’re open to inspired progress. I’m certainly not a modernist, but whether you are an integralist is a valid question.
Wow. Just wow. I fully grasp how this could have made sense in the 1960s. Coming from the solid ground of centuries of tradition and a well-formed, well-catechized laity and a well-instructed clergy, innovations and experiments made a lot of sense. The Dialogue Mass had some traction in Europe and the now-classic 4/4 Methodist hymns had found a place among some Catholic worship. It was a moment of optimism for the future.
But 60 years later, the experiment has failed and failed spectacularly. No one is rambling on about Rahner or Bultmann. Catholic parishes are still singing the same garbage hymns from the Damiens or they’ve abandoned Catholic music altogether and embraced whatever pop Praise & Worship songs are on the local Christian radio station. I agree, there was a moment when Catholic music could have experienced genuine organic development. But rather than Haugen and Haas growing as musicians and passing the torch to others, they dominated and, ultimately, left the Catholic Church. Now, we have a handful of popish young musicians turning out uninspired music like “Open my Eyes Lord” or Matt Maher’s Mass of Communion…
The only music that is being made by Catholics who are serious about music, THE faith, and THEIR faith is the incredible chant and polyphony coming from CC Watershed and other organizations which are very specifically traditional. We should also be clear, Chant is not simple, it doesn’t “lack” harmony or rhythm. That misunderstanding is a strong condemnation of your own musical prowess.
As for priests in parishes, most of us are facing the consequences of the awful leadership of these years of experimentation and the idolatry of “participation.” We have angry choirs who are mad that the people won’t sing “Let us break bread together” and that the pews are emptier and emptier. They’re furious that they can’t use the worn-out Mass of hootenanny from 1974 because the translation was changed 10 years ago and no one has updated it. We have deeply entrenched liturgical assistants who complain loudly when the new, young, JP2-generation pastor insists that the rules be followed. And we have entire congregations slowly coming to realize that the experiments to which they were subjected – at the risk of their eternal salvation – were just experiments. They weren’t based on the Catholic Faith or a revelation of the Blessed Virgin Mary or a consensus of Bishops… They have been forced to endure one cult of personality after another from priests who shepherded themselves on their flocks…
It’s amazing to me how well chant and polyphony are accepted once they are explained and implemented slowly and patiently. So few people miss singing unsingable swill like “Earthen Vessels.” I’ve kept a few copies of Glory and Praise around just so that when I’m old, I can show the young clergy how bad things got!
I should add, I’m a diocesan priest in an Ordinary Form parish. I’m not ICRSS or a traditionalist. I’m a guitarist and pianist who got my start in Christianity in the Charismatic Renewal. At most, I’m a realist who is watching with horror the implosion of American Catholicism thanks to a failed experiment… It’s a cause for weeping – but not about a lack of creativity.
Wow indeed! Thank you for your contribution to the discussion and your opinion. It’s hard for me to believe that I have spent most of my life celebrating liturgies that were nothing but a doomed experiment. Is it not rather that Catholics with all their skills and weaknesses bring whatever they have to the altar and offer it up in Christ, for better or worse? The Liturgy is not like radiation treatment where the patient lies still while God shines down on us. We are in Christ and He is in us, so we must participate actively. It the last 50 years, I’ve have seen great progress from the days of “All You People Clap Your Hands” to “Worthy is the Lamb,” but I would be the first to celebrate if we moved beyond the St-Louis Jesuits and the Breaking Bread Book. I have been imbued with chant for almost 65 years, hence I’m most bored by that. I appreciate its value, and still chant every day, but it puts me to sleep. I also appreciate the value of Earthen Vessels in its historical context. It lifted my heart and mind to God in prayer in its day, but it too is worn out with age. People are sensitive by nature. We need stimulus to captivate our minds. I need more than a single line of melody, so I’m encouraged by the young who have told me that there is new creative music on the horizon. I can hardly wait.
I love music and the mass and most of all I like masses that have NO music beyond the bells at the consecration.
When I want good music, I listen to Bach’s Goldberg Variations, when I want to be with God I enjoy most the “sacred silence” of the low Latin mass.
This is an Interesting thread of discussion though. What is undeniable is that there is a “lack of unity” which is a mark of the one,true church. Musical division is simply a symptom of the larger problem. I would bet that there are probably almost irreconcilable theological, philosophical, ecclesial, liturgical, sacramental, cultural and moral differences at play if we were to descend into details.
It would actually be worthwhile to do that. Set up a single point and drill down on it and move onto the next.
Questions to ask would have to be foundational about what exactly Christ Himself founded the Catholic Church for….and do Liberal Modernists, contemporary Novus Ordo Catholics and the various strains of Traditionalist Catholic embrace the totality of that Catholic message?
At a pool party a year or two ago, among friends that all go back to Catholic grade school. I put the question out..”What is the mission of the Church?” Answers were an ambiguous mishmash of “…be Christ-like” and some cherry picked Gospel quote taken out of context. The concept of “..the salvation of souls” never occurred in the answers.
Is the Church (through music) something that is supposed to captivate the mind as Fr. states and therefore needs to change with the the zeitgeist? Or is it as Chesterton stated the thing that prevents someone from suffering the degrading slavery of the age in which they live? Does repetition bring boredom and familiarity or security and enrichment? Or is it simply the attitude we bring towards something? Are there objective standards and ideals that should be strived for or is it all subjective based on intent?
I love silent Masses too, but bells at the Consecration disturb the intimacy of the profound moment for me. They started being used when priests faced the back altar and the music was not timed for the parts of the Mass. The bells notified people what was going on, but that’s not necessary now because we see and hear everything. If somebody rang bells at the feet of a husband and wife every time they kissed, it would spoil the atmosphere, don’t you think? Secondly, I’m glad that you can be with God at a Latin Mass, but nothing separates me from God more than Latin. It cuts off prayer between God and me because I don’t know it well enough to communicate. Hence, I can’t commune with the Lord in Latin.
Thirdly, the division that you speak of is most distressing. There’s always a generation gap, but it’s never been such a chasm. I liked my parents music, from big bands to Sinatra. They had a harder time adjusting to the Beatles. Still, they danced when I played a mixture of old and new music in a band. I put myself through college playing in bars and at weddings. We did every from The Girl from Impenema to disco. I appreciate all kinds of music except rap and hip-hop. That’s the only kind for which I have no tolerance.
In liturgical music, the only thing I find irritating is very simplistic or repetative songs. I apologize to Paul Inwood, who’s a fine man and composer, but his Psallite often drives me nuts, like Chinese water torture: drip, drip, drip… The idea is to repeat a mantra without a hynmnal in your hand when you walk to Communion, but they’re often worse than those of Taizé. It’s funny that you should mention zeitgeist because I played in another band around 1970 called Zeitgeist! 🙂 You are right that we need to remain subjectively with God and each other despite objective differences, particularly in matters of styles. Otherwise, some people may get so angry about hating something like music that they’d be willing to break away into sectarianism or schism. It’s bad enough that people shop around for a parish instead of supporting their territorial one.
“But 60 years later, the experiment has failed and failed spectacularly. No one is rambling on about Rahner or Bultmann.” How very true and the list could be longer 🙂
I agree with just about every criticism of so-called modern or contemporary liturgical music that is offered in these comment and any others one could think of. Like many others who commented here, I was born in the 1970’s and raised with the St. Louis Jesuits and later with Marty Haugen, et al. Low grade, banal and in some cases theologically incorrect stuff.
All that being said, the point that hasn’t been addressed which I would respectfully ask Fr. Lessard is this: since chant and Latin and in many cases pipe organs were banished from the liturgy in many places, all of the following have occurred: the percentage Americans who consider themselves Catholics has declined dramatically; the percentage of Catholics who attend mass weekly has dropped to around 20% from a high around 80% in the 1950’s; vocations to the priesthood and religious life have collapsed; enrollment in Catholic schools and religious Ed programs has declined steadily and steeply while hundreds if not thousands of parishes and schools have closed since the 1960’s; majorities of self-identified Catholics dissent from church teaching on many moral issues; and according to a recent Pew survey only 30% of Catholics believe in the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist.
Given all of that, Fr. Lessard, do you really think the Spirit of Vatican II (as opposed to what Sacrosanctum Concilium really says) and the “new songs” have been a success? Given virtually every development in the church since the liturgy was modernized, why should we younger folks take the advice of the generation that presided over all of this? I mean that as a serious and not rhetorical question. If young people, those who are still Catholic and are thus the future of the church are drawn in growing numbers to tradition and reverence, should not the middle-aged bishops and priests perhaps reflect on why that is and whether it might make sense to take it seriously rather than dismiss it as ignorant, infantile or lacking imagination?
I have never experienced theologically incorrect music and never knew that chant, Latin and even organs were ever banished from any place. They’ve surrounded me everywhere I’ve been. Trying to correlate participation in the Church to music is not scientifically feasible. Actually, the people who remained faithful despite the exodus of infidels are the heroic ones that sing the music that you hate. Most of us tend to receive strength from God by praying songs. We cannot attribute the success or failure of Catholics to music. Either they’re in a state of grace or not; the rest is superfulous, e.g. who the priest is, the homily, the furnishings, stained glass, music and the friendliness of the congregation. The Spirit of Vatican II is the breath of fresh air breathed upon the Church by the Holy Spirit to put all 16 documents into effect. Why concentrate on a few radicals on the margin? Young people should respect their elders in the Church who didn’t preside over its collapse as if we’re guilty of chasing people away, but rather kept the Bark of Saint Peter afloat in the terrible storm. We’ll be decorated with medals in Heaven for persevering. I do wonder greatly what could possible attract young people to ancient and medieval trappings. Is it a kind of romanticism or escapism mixed, of course, with sincere prayer? I never said that anybody was infantile, but that chant was created in the infancy of musical history. Nor did I call anyone ignorant, but some young people in this discussion have encouragged me with their creativity. Evidently, “big publishing” is blocking their way. That’s news to me.
Father, while I disagree with your viewpoint on chant vs. contemporary catholic music, I must say that I am heartened by the mostly charitable way in which you replied to much of the criticism in the comments. (truth in lending…i didn’t read every comment, but enough to get a sense of the pushback you received & replied to).
I am a convert who profoundly experienced the call of God through contemporary catholic hymns….oh how many times on my journey to the catholic faith did I (a sinner) openly weep during mass hearing songs of forgiveness and redemption and love written by Hass, Haugen, and Joncas. Nearly ten years after my reception into the church, I was exposed to the beauty of sacred polyphony and chant (let me be specific….chant done right!). God introduced me to a new love! One that, to this day, co-exists with my first love (contemporary). God gave me the gift of appreciating “Both/And”….instead of making me choose “Either/Or”. My preference is for sacred polyphony, but there will always be a place in my heart for contemporary.
It really does drive me nuts when I hear the liturgy/music snobs (take your pick…the “libs” or the “trads”) purport that one style is superior to the other. God uses multiple forms to reach people at different places in their journey with Him. If He can be present in both forms (contemporary vs. chant), then how can we possibly reject one, since that is, in a way, to reject Him & His wisdom to use that particular form? If someone has a preference, fine. But I wish everyone would just stop with the divisive snobbery.
As for your point about singing a “New” song….Father, I propose that does not always mean “new” as in its never been heard or created before. The words “Go forth, your sins are forgiven” are thousands of years old….but the penitent hears them anew each and every time he encounters God in the confessional. To the one who is sincere & contrite, those ancient words are anything but “stale” or in need of updating. So rather than pine for a fresh new (or old!) song or composition that “fits” our stylistic preference, lets look inward to our hearts and ask God to give us the grace to hear His worship & music with a new outlook and a new appreciation. And at the same time, lets also ask Him for the grace to find Him in new places.
Your brother in Christ
Dane, thank you for your affirmation. The Church is Catholic because it’s universal. Not only does it accept people of every race, nation and tongue, men and women, young and old, knowledgeable and ignorant, but even every kind of painting, music, sculpture, architecture, cuisine and technology if can be used to honor the Lord. You are right to be inclusive of the old and the new, like the scribe for the Kingdom of Heaven (Mt.13:52). Everybody has a preference because God made us unique. Everybody has his own tastes (de gustibus). I never said that one kind is superior to another, but it’s an historical fact that music has developed new elements and methods over the centuries. That doesn’t mean that the simple solitary line of melody in chant is inferior to the more complex songs of today that have changes of meter or key, changing refrains, a bridge and a coda with a crescendo. Some commentators tried to put me down because they wrongly perceived that I put them and their preferred music down, but I would never cause hostility and division by claiming that my preference is the best! It’s true that chant is new to many young people, but I’ve been immersed in it since 1954, so “new” to me means something that I’ve never heard. Some repetition is good. Heck, I pray three Rosaries every day, but at least my mind can consider Mysteries against that audible background. Your suggestion that we hear even old music with a new heart is beautiful. Your comments are delightful.
This seems to be obviously written as bait, but I’ll bite, as a third-year music student with more than seven years’ experience leading and participating in amateur and professional sacred music, and as a specialist in the connection between Catholic liturgy and chant.
The published and recognized Gregorian repertoire consists of over eighteen Ordinaries, six Credi, and at least two sets of Propers (x5 per week for the GR, less for the seasonal propers of the Simplex), most of which are never heard. By contrast, many of the St. Louis Jesuit-inspired parishes have a song selection that barely cracks ten or fifteen repeated ad nauseam. So the whole “wanting to hear a new song” spiel seems irrelevant when it’s been the same old tired 1960s selections from that school over and over again. The propers for the Missa pro defunctis would be far newer to most ears than On Eagle’s Wings for the umpteenth time.
I’m concerned by your references to actual Church authority like the Second Vatican Council and, indirectly, figures like Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI as “myopic liturgists”. These “myopic liturgists” like Archbishop Bugnini are what made the music you claim is suitable for Mass even allowable, as a distant, lowest-tier option if nothing (GIRM 48, 87) Is it also “myopic liturgism” to insist on a common Lectionary, a common Biblical translation for Scripture readings in Mass, or even a common rite? After all, the cycles of Propers were not assembled for no reason, but as a carefully crafted complement to the three-year Lectionary. The fact that no “contemporary” composer of popular music has touched those texts is telling; I suppose that’s left to the “myopic liturgists”.
If I take issue with the Old Testament reading at Mass, that it’s too much fire and brimstone for my modern sensibilities, does that mean it can be excised at will from the rite? Forgive me for quoting from the “myopic liturgists” once more: “in the readings, the table of God’s Word is spread before the faithful, and the treasures of the bible are opened to them. Hence, it is preferable that the arrangement of the biblical readings be maintained, for by them the unity of both testaments and of salvation history is brought out. Nor is it lawful to replace the readings and responsorial psalm, which contain the Word of God, with other, non-biblical texts” (GIRM 57)
However, that’s exactly what’s been done in many contemporary hymnals, using the songwriter’s own paraphrase of the Psalm texts instead of one that’s been approved. This approval process exists for a reason – to prevent theological error or distortion from being presented to the faithful. Otherwise, what stops us from using the Bible misprint with “Thou shalt commit adultery”? That might move some people a lot more than the correct version.
I find your thinking fallacious in many respects and hard to take seriously because your arguments actually support things you would abhor. If we’re assuming that musical complexity and progress is the only marker for what’s best, then sacro-pop has to go – the structure is too predictable. Let’s bring in Stravinsky’s Mass, Messiaen organ music, and the most intricate electro-acoustic music from today’s composers. (A healthy dose of polyphony from the “myopic liturgists” would fit, too.) If that “takes away the congregation’s voice”, then the Scriptural readings, Canon, and homily are out of the rite, too – who wants to listen to some lector or, Heaven forbid, the priest talk for several minutes without being able to say anything themselves? How could one participate in the Mass at all? To apply these, frankly, ridiculous ideas to music and not the rest of the liturgy undermines not only the logical basis for what you’re saying but the close connection that chant, as elevated speech, and the remainder of the spoken liturgy have traditionally enjoyed. The combination of sacro-pop with an exclusively spoken Mass is an uncomfortable juxtaposition of music and non-music that is alien to the rite.
At the end of the day, I try to discover what the meaning of the Mass actually is. It’s the re-presentation of the sacrifice at Calvary. It’s not a Protestant service that has to win people in with gimmicks and flashy imports from the secular world. It’s certainly not an excuse to let ego get in the way, even if that means giving some ground to the “myopic liturgists” in the Vatican (y’know, the ones that were guided by the Holy Spirit during the Council). I’m personally a bit disgusted that you’d refer to Church authority that way, but that has nothing to do with your arguments themselves. Not all of the music that I personally like is suitable for Mass, but that doesn’t bother me. In God’s house, I do what God’s church has commanded, and that’s the end of the argument. I’m unsure how anything else would enter into the equation.
Jeremy, you have greater expertise than I in some matters of liturgical music. I believe that we could have a fruitful discussion face to face, but a stream of text is too easily misunderstood. Apparently, you were triggered by an expression for which I had already apologized twice, so there was no need for you to beat a dead horse again and again and again… Who I meant by “myopic liturgists,” nevertheless, was certainly not inspired authorities of the Church! Rather, I meant those who defy the ancient Catholic doctrine: In the necessary things unity (in necessariis unitas), in the dubious things liberty (in dubiis libertas), yet in all things charity (in omnibus caritas). Any time someone claims that a certain form of art or matter of style, taste or preference is the one to which we should all conform, he becomes a tyrannical heretic when he should be a liberator.
The balance of this doctrine is rooted in the very Incarnation itself: Jesus is fully God and fully man. By assuming human nature, Our Lord blessed everything that is authentically human, whatever the quality. Immature musicians are like toddlers who draw a picture with crayons, yet please their parents so much that it gets displayed on the refrigerator door with magnets. Our Holy Mother Church reacts the same way when innocent worshippers offer all that they have, for better or for worse, to be united to the Sacrifice of Christ.
Don’t be so quick to lump poor quality with evil abuses. I have seen my share of liturgical atrocities, but not since my sabbatical in Louvain in 2001. Perhaps, there are still parishes at which the musicians use songs or paraphrased Psalms instead of the approved text, but we would never do such a thing. The words of the Mass are among the “necessary things” that demand unity. I once witnessed a religious sister dressed as a clown doing a pantomime in front of the altar. I was appalled because it was most inappropriate at a reenactment of the Crucifixion, but still the Eucharistic Sacrifice of Christ took place and that’s what really matters.
Part of our Dominican motto is to bless (benedicere), that is to sanctify and lift up all things to God. That which is sacred as opposed to profane is not a static quantity, but the demarcation of the moral battle between the Kingdom of God and of Satan. The whole cosmos awaits with eager longing the revelation of the Children of God. Then, all the subjects of art and science will be conquered for Christ, blessed and incorporated in the Eschaton. There are no forms of music, kinds of instruments or methods of performing them that are inherently evil or good, but even the simplest lyrics offered to God are quite prayerful. Your pejorative term, “sacro-pop,” is a sinful insult therefore to those innocent ones whose gifts are acceptable to God. You may prefer classical music, but then you limit us to participation with ears only. To bless is not to “import” “flashy” secular “gimmicks” like Protestants; it’s to baptize the world for Christ. Besides, those things that you disdain lift many hearts up to the Lord, so be careful of hypocrisy.
You sound desperate when you say that its “irrelevant” to obey the command of the Lord to sing a new song when some songs have been repeated ad nauseum. That’s precisely why God called me to repeat His command, and having done so, I have been greatly encouraged with hope by young composers who offered their new creations as examples that there is inspired progress. Thank God. I doubt that music ministers in any parish have a repertoire of 15, but I sympathize with your exaggeration. We probably play over 100 songs of every kind, yet even that seems too limited for me because repetition can lose our attention.
My thinking may be inadvertently “fallacious” as you say, but not as blatantly as your own when you say that all the elements of the Liturgy should adapt if music does. That’s the error, again, of mixing the necessary and the dubious, the essential matters that remain preserved and those that move forward in due course. You may think that the whole Mass should be sung, but that is contrary to the gradual degrees of celebration: not every day is a Solemnity. Besides, I agree with my Holy Father Augustine that if it’s not written to be sung, “sing not.” It’s hardly a “juxtaposition …alien to the rite” to combine the sacred texts with sanctified musical offerings. There is much more “elevated speech” than you imagine.
I suppose that if you had realized from the beginning that I’m not some modernist attacking Pope Benedict or some such authority, you wouldn’t have assaulted me with such a long harangue, yet you make some good points which appreciate. May God bless your musical career. +
Joachim Kelecom,
Pardon my late response to your comment on my article, Sing a New Song to the Lord. For some reason that I don’t understand, the notification from WordPress went into my junk folder, and it took me over two weeks to discover it. Now that I try to approve it to appear on the webpage, it doesn’t. So, I’m writing to you directly, trusting you with my personal email address.
Why so many people were triggered by my word “infantile” confounds me. I never called anyone “infantile,” certainly not those who appreciate chant! Chant itself is infantile because it is a kind of music that was created in the infancy of musical history. Perhaps I should have used the word “seminal” or “fetal” to describe its simplicity and immaturity compared to all that has developed in the last 1500 years. A human voice singing lyrics to a melody without accompaniment, meter, harmony and all the other things that I listed in my article and others that I didn’t mention, is the most basic and simple example of music possible. I made no judgments about whether it’s a good or bad kind of music. I just stated the fact that it’s music at its skeletal minimum. In that sense, it’s infantile.
In the comments, I shared my personal preferences, but opinions are like grains of salt. I have listened to chant for 65 years and have sung it daily for much of that time, so for me, it’s a bit stale. I acknowledge the fact that young people may be discovering chant for the first time, so for them, it’s fresh and new. That’s great! I hope it lifts up their spirits. I wish that it lifted mine, but it just puts me to sleep like a lullaby.
I pity you, though, for abhorring contemporary liturgical music because that consists of perhaps a dozen different styles of music. If you’re that fastidious about your taste, you must be extremely hard to please. I’m sorry because I appreciate every kind of music, except rap and hip-hop. I not only enjoyed my parents’ music, I earned an income playing it. I enjoy everything from Mozart’s Requiem to Jesus Christ Superstar.
I never implied “out with the old, in with the new” because I called for creativity. Sacred Tradition preserves and clarifies the past while continually moving forward under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. It’s not a matter of either but of both. We don’t exclude old things, but a tendency to be liturgically regressive opposes the Spirit of God. Some young people encouraged me with the projects they’re working on for the future. I’m looking forward to playing new songs for the first time written by young composers. It’s not about “inventing things from scratch every 20-odd years,” but about an openness to the Holy Spirit Who leads us to make progress in every age as we build up the Kingdom. It’s God Himself that moves us forward, so we shouldn’t drag our feet. Christianity isn’t static, but dynamic and alive!
I agree that one can participate with ears and heart, and that mouths are not always required, but I have trouble with any language other than English and French. A Latin chant or a Spanish song can be exclusive of me, forcing me to stop praying and wait until it’s over. That’s not participation.
I do not argue that the prescriptions of the Church should be interpreted by individuals. That’s an unfair criticism. There’s a vast difference between the Magisterium and liturgists. The former requires adherence; the latter have serious issues and are hardly a solidarity. Don’t ever challenge my Dominican fidelity. Your belligerence is unjustified and comes from your misunderstanding. You’re defensive against nothing offensive. The only offense is in your imagination. I do not advocate the heresy of Modernism!
Besides, no one knows for certain whether Pope Gregory composed some of the music that bears his name or not. There are theories. The probability is that some of it was merely attributed to him, maybe all of it, like all the Psalms are attributed to David who only composed a few. It may have taken eight centuries after Christ or longer to get music even to that starting point. Now, maybe young people need to go back to chant to start at the beginning if they’re ever going to grow in appreciation of what music has achieved since ancient times.
The beauty of Catholicism is that it’s universal. There’s nothing truly human that cannot be baptized and assimilated into the spirituality of the Church. Prudent art is always welcome. We don’t believe in some incorporeal angelism or spiritualism, but in Christian humanism based on the Incarnation. Now, I hope that we understand each other better. Peace & blessings to you. +