While I was walking on Drake's Beach in Marin County, CA, with a very attractive devout Catholic of the opposite sex in July, the subject of sacred music naturally (:-)) came up in the conversation. Fresh from the June 2007 Church Music Assocation colloquium, I ventured to articulate enthusiastically some of the ideas that I had been reading and hearing, which I had found very convincing.
For example, I told my friend that Gregorian chant is unique among all forms of music that could be used in the liturgy because it has only been used for worship. Because of its origins within the liturgy of the Church as it developed over the early centuries, chant brings into the ritual no profane associations with external things.
I told him that some say poetically that chant is sung prayer. Chant is not something added to the liturgy like hymns are. Chants (such as the Introit, the Kyrie, the Gloria, the Sanctus, and Communion chants) are an intrinsic part of the liturgy.
I added that in spite of the claims of those who I believe hijacked Vatican II, the council’s first document--on the sacred liturgy--said that Gregorian chant should have pride of place. It also said that polyphony should be allowed, that the organ was the canonical musical instrument because it raises one's mind to higher things.
As a matter of fact, I told him, Latin was not excluded by 2nd Vatican council. The documents actually said that the vernacular should be "allowed" in cases where it would aid understanding, as in the proclamation of the Gospel. It is a far cry from allowing the use of the vernacular to the notion that Latin was to be forbidden from then on.
My friend, who not coincidentally sings the new music happily (including songs by the St. Louis Jesuits, who many traditional-music-lovers abhor) and plays guitar and bass at his church, red-facedly started figuratively pawing in the sand and roaring that those who put these arguments forth just don't like modern music.
His arguments were all ad hominem. According to him, we all use these arguments only because we prefer the old way.
I am disappointed in this fellow, who is otherwise a good conversationalist, well-educated, well-adjusted, devout, and pleasant (not to mention cute). I believe he is doing what he accuses us of doing, arguing from his own preferences.
He, for his part, did not offer any arguments to back up his dislike of the official sacred music of the Church. His only argument was that what I was trying to tell him was hooey.
We somehow fell into the same argument this week again during a phone call, and I reproached him for not giving the points I raised any consideration. The fact that he will not address this topic on an intellectual level lowers him a great deal in my estimation.
What do you do with someone like that? He was born in 1956, and so probably grew up mostly hearing only the new music.
Dear Melodious but Malcontented in Marin County,
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, remember the axiom, "talking about music is like dancing about architecture." The music speaks for itself.
That being said, the traditional music of the Church runs counter to the perceptions of even devout Catholics, for the following reasons that cannot be refuted.
-- Traditional Catholic music is EXCEPTIONALISTIC. Despite the influence of chant and polyphony on Protestant hymnody, Gregorian chant and Palestrina will not be the mainstays of Evangelical Protestantism any time soon. Considering the influence of same on many faithful Catholics, some just don't want to descend into the fortress of too brash Catholic identity.
-- Traditional Catholic music is ELITIST. As then-Cardinal Ratzinger said in "The Theological Implications of Church Music" in 1983, music with artistic pretentions (rather than popular pretentions) is part of the very nature of Mass, even if its practice in the Mass is presently the exception, not the rule. And artistic pretentions are, well, pretentious -- or perceived as such, in any case. We live in a culture where if you don't "get it" immediately, you change the channel. That's populism, and that attitude is in the backs of the minds of faithful Catholics who make all kinds of other sacrifices. Chant requires formation, as does polyphony, and that's not the way people consume music.
-- Traditional Catholic music is UNFAMILIAR, 90% of the time. People tend to place their own personal experience - of God, of the Church, of morality - as their informal Magisterium, that will what they will countenance, and what they will reject. Familiarity takes time, and if you've spent 25 years in happy ignorance of St. Gregory, the idea that your innocent love of music that largely rejects that tradition will not be getting the imprimatur of the Bishop of What I know -- not immediately.
Melodious, I worry that your opinions put forth in charity were percieved as a putdown, not as a sharing of newly-acquired knowledge, and that it's not going to be an easy road convincing your friend to put down the guitar, pick up some square notes, and learn to pronounce his Latin. Now, that's not to say that you have your opinion, and he has his, so you should let it be (although you may want to let it be for a while). The Church is what it is, the Council is what it is, and you are right to fight for both.
Drop the subject for a while, but invite your friend to your church one Sunday, if he's willing to listen with an open mind, and let him know how important and life-giving this music is to you. Let him know how it nourishes your faith. And leave it at that: it's all you can do.
One more thing: remember that, as a rigorist, you have to be twice as nice as everyone else at all times, no exceptions.
Good luck!