a question was posed on my favorite forum about whether it is ok for a church to specify that they want to only hire someone of their own denomination. Sadly, the discussion got rather emotionally out of control, but I do think that I have some very helpful thoughts to contribute, that I want to re-post here.
But shouldn't "be a practicing Catholic" be one of *many* helpful qualifications for a job? If people of similar qualifications were applying for a job at an Episcopal church, wouldn't the person who had been Episcopal (and attending Episcopal services) for their whole life be more experienced and knowledgeable about little details about various services? And I would be interested in hearing if anyone disagreed with the idea that someone who was born and raised and still a practicing member of a particular denomination would have a *personal* attachment to the church that would make them more devoted and attached to their job, compared to someone who had the *exact same* qualifications otherwise?
But of course if it were just one qualification among many, you ought to hire someone with superior keyboard/conducting/people skills over someone who was "just" a Catholic but lacking in other musical areas.
So is the question, can one make ANY assumptions about a possible future employee based on whether they are applying in a church of which they are already a theologically-agreeing member?
If *I* were a church in the position of hiring someone, I would certainly hire someone who was that denomination over someone who wasn't (with the same qualifications,) because I would have to assume that the person of that denomination had better reasons for wanting to work there. (and for the same reasons I think it is very appropriate and permissible to ask.) What I mean by that is, I could safely assume that the person of that denomination wanted to work there because, as I mentioned above, they probably have a personal attachment to that particular church, BUT I would have to wonder about the person not of the denomination: why do they want to work in my church? Isn't it "just a job" for them? WHY do they care about making the music in my denomination better? --Since I cannot think of another reason off the top of my head, I am very curious to hear people's reasons who are not Catholic for wanting to work in the Catholic church (other than, it happened to be open when I was looking for a job and the pay is ok, etc.)
I can say all of this because of my own personal views on my current job-- I view it as a vocation, a calling. I'm not working just for a salary. I'm working to make the music of the RC church as best as it can be. I would probably do this even if there was no money in it for me. I do this precisely because I believe that the fullness of the truth is found in the RC church, and therefore I should give it everything I have. How could a similarly-qualified non-practicing-Catholic have as much dedication to their job as I will to mine? (I really think it would be helpful to this conversation to hear any reasons.) And if there aren't any, then of course a church should hire someone belonging to it's denomination.
[Also, a side question after my main point- Wouldn't (or shouldn't) a Catholic school ask if someone was Catholic, and consider them a more appropriate teacher EVEN if they were teaching a non-religious subject? If so, why? Would the same reasons apply to a MD?]
Friday, October 30, 2009
Thursday, October 22, 2009
organ music suggestions
I can't believe that I'm actually asking this here... I'm almost afraid for the responses!
I just reached a funny point where I am about to finish a couple of big pieces (I think) a little faster than either myself or my teacher expected. And my teacher said yesterday, "so, what should we have you learn next..."
So I have a couple suggestions I can get from the music library...but I'm looking for more!
Any ideas?
I especially love pieces I can use as postludes (toccatas, etc, but I'm really not super good, so like Widor's is probably about the hardest level I'd be able to use right now, plus I'd rather have shorter pieces cuz it only takes about 2 minutes for the church to clear out!)
or else pieces that can be used as preludes. And I mean real stuff, like, I've got loads or crap that I can noodle around with and not even practice, but any suggestions of some *real repertoire* that I'd have to work at but sounds great and would be perfect as a prelude?
I just reached a funny point where I am about to finish a couple of big pieces (I think) a little faster than either myself or my teacher expected. And my teacher said yesterday, "so, what should we have you learn next..."
So I have a couple suggestions I can get from the music library...but I'm looking for more!
Any ideas?
I especially love pieces I can use as postludes (toccatas, etc, but I'm really not super good, so like Widor's is probably about the hardest level I'd be able to use right now, plus I'd rather have shorter pieces cuz it only takes about 2 minutes for the church to clear out!)
or else pieces that can be used as preludes. And I mean real stuff, like, I've got loads or crap that I can noodle around with and not even practice, but any suggestions of some *real repertoire* that I'd have to work at but sounds great and would be perfect as a prelude?
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Erasmus on church music
I just came across a quote from Erasmus while reading for my Renaissance Music class,
"We have brought into sacred edifices a certain elaborate and theatrical music, a confused interplay of diverse sounds, such as I do not believe was ever heard in Greek or Roman theaters. Straight trumpets, curved trumpets, pipes, and sambucas resound everywhere, and vie with human voices...People flock to church as to a theater for aural delight."
interesting.
so many churches today seem to be trying for the equivalent of "elaborate and theatrical music," and yet to these churches people do not seem to be "flocking..."
"We have brought into sacred edifices a certain elaborate and theatrical music, a confused interplay of diverse sounds, such as I do not believe was ever heard in Greek or Roman theaters. Straight trumpets, curved trumpets, pipes, and sambucas resound everywhere, and vie with human voices...People flock to church as to a theater for aural delight."
interesting.
so many churches today seem to be trying for the equivalent of "elaborate and theatrical music," and yet to these churches people do not seem to be "flocking..."
pandora
I do love pandora.com, the internet radio station where you can listen to songs of a particular style and rate them to create a station that you completely like.
It has every song categorized with such things as "a large chorus" or "major-key tonality."
However, one characterization that amuses me that it lacks is what the topic of the lyrics is.
One of the stations that I have created which I enjoy listening to, I have labeled "classical religious," and I rate songs so as to exclude all non-choral and non-religious pieces, as well as those I simply don't enjoy.
But the part that amuses me is that I am sure that I thoroughly CONFUSE the station when I say I "like" a Handel oratorio, but then "dislike" a secular piece by him with all of the exact same characterizations! (the station must think I am really really picky...too bad it has no idea why!) :-P
It has every song categorized with such things as "a large chorus" or "major-key tonality."
However, one characterization that amuses me that it lacks is what the topic of the lyrics is.
One of the stations that I have created which I enjoy listening to, I have labeled "classical religious," and I rate songs so as to exclude all non-choral and non-religious pieces, as well as those I simply don't enjoy.
But the part that amuses me is that I am sure that I thoroughly CONFUSE the station when I say I "like" a Handel oratorio, but then "dislike" a secular piece by him with all of the exact same characterizations! (the station must think I am really really picky...too bad it has no idea why!) :-P
Monday, October 19, 2009
photographers part...?
I was playing for a wedding at another church on Saturday, and as I was walking downstairs to the piano up front during the vows, I heard a little high-pitched, "tweedle-dee" from the organ.
Apparently, the photographer sat on the organ while trying to get a good picture. oops.
(ok, not quite that bad. She really just bumped a couple of the top keys with her fanny.)
but still, seriously. Try to be a little more careful!
Apparently, the photographer sat on the organ while trying to get a good picture. oops.
(ok, not quite that bad. She really just bumped a couple of the top keys with her fanny.)
but still, seriously. Try to be a little more careful!
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
I wish I had a photographic memory...
so I've read all of these church documents, once or twice, and I know it says somewhere, you know, such and such a thing about what we should or shouldn't do, but you know, whenever I really need that knowledge, I can't remember where it's from, and then I'm just spouting off show-off-y nonsense!
It happened recently, that a priest was visiting, and I sort of wanted him to sing the "Through him..." part, so we could sing the Amen, and he was kind of like, "oh I probably won't..." Which was fine, and so we didn't sing it.
but... I wish that at times like those I could explain myself a little better, and then when they're like, "huh? what are you talking about?" I could be like, "well, in such-and-such a document it says..."
I think I'm afraid of even beginning those conversations unless I am fully prepared in advance. Because otherwise I know that I will end up saying something like, "well, uh, I know that somewhere it says something about why it's important for the priest to sing certain parts..." And yeah, like, no one is going to listen to that.
But is it pride? either that I want to be able to show off my knowledge, or that I don't want to be embarrassed if I can't properly quote something? hm. no...rather, just that I want to be able to make a proper case for my point, really, I want to have things done *right!*
just ramblings, I don't really have time to go into more detail, I'm off to bed. Don't read into that too much, either; no, I'm not off to change the world and prove everyone wrong at every possible opportunity! I'm just thinking...
It happened recently, that a priest was visiting, and I sort of wanted him to sing the "Through him..." part, so we could sing the Amen, and he was kind of like, "oh I probably won't..." Which was fine, and so we didn't sing it.
but... I wish that at times like those I could explain myself a little better, and then when they're like, "huh? what are you talking about?" I could be like, "well, in such-and-such a document it says..."
I think I'm afraid of even beginning those conversations unless I am fully prepared in advance. Because otherwise I know that I will end up saying something like, "well, uh, I know that somewhere it says something about why it's important for the priest to sing certain parts..." And yeah, like, no one is going to listen to that.
But is it pride? either that I want to be able to show off my knowledge, or that I don't want to be embarrassed if I can't properly quote something? hm. no...rather, just that I want to be able to make a proper case for my point, really, I want to have things done *right!*
just ramblings, I don't really have time to go into more detail, I'm off to bed. Don't read into that too much, either; no, I'm not off to change the world and prove everyone wrong at every possible opportunity! I'm just thinking...
Sunday, October 11, 2009
oh yes, I know I've hardly been blogging lately...
I can't even begin to describe how weird I feel on Sunday mornings. It is the morning that I wake up the earliest in the whole week, and precisely because it is a Sunday and I know that no one else is awake that I feel absolutely blah.
I mean, not even blah. The point of this whole post is to say how weird I feel. It's the one time during my week when I absolutely HATE my life. From 6:40-7:40 am-ish. I wake up and I think, "argh..." and then as the morning continues and I realize how dark and lonely everything is, I think, "why the heck am I doing this?! I hate my job!"
But of course I don't hate my job! Every other hour of the week I love it and I feel SO blessed!
But I think the strangest things, like about how I just want to die because life is so horrible and dark!
And sometimes (like this morning,) it lasts even longer, even until 8 or 9 am until I start to fully wake up. I play through the first Mass, just like,...totally....blah.
But really, the problem? Wintertime. Waking up without a single fleck of light in the sky. Oh it's awful. And I guess I should compare myself to other more normal working people, who wake up that early *every morning* of the work week, but, I just can't help but thinking, "woe is me...boo hoo..."
and so that is what this entry is about!
I mean, not even blah. The point of this whole post is to say how weird I feel. It's the one time during my week when I absolutely HATE my life. From 6:40-7:40 am-ish. I wake up and I think, "argh..." and then as the morning continues and I realize how dark and lonely everything is, I think, "why the heck am I doing this?! I hate my job!"
But of course I don't hate my job! Every other hour of the week I love it and I feel SO blessed!
But I think the strangest things, like about how I just want to die because life is so horrible and dark!
And sometimes (like this morning,) it lasts even longer, even until 8 or 9 am until I start to fully wake up. I play through the first Mass, just like,...totally....blah.
But really, the problem? Wintertime. Waking up without a single fleck of light in the sky. Oh it's awful. And I guess I should compare myself to other more normal working people, who wake up that early *every morning* of the work week, but, I just can't help but thinking, "woe is me...boo hoo..."
and so that is what this entry is about!
Monday, September 21, 2009
It's a Brand New Day =/= Bring Flowers of the Rarest
I started this discussion:
http://musicasacra.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=2400
and I cracked up when I read (approximately) the 75th comment, mentioning "It's a Brand New Day..."
That song was a bit of a joke back during college with some of my friends...they discovered it and kind of liked it, but I think still recognized the silliness of it.
So they made this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMcGaxHDDNM
(a little bit of my double life...)
http://musicasacra.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=2400
and I cracked up when I read (approximately) the 75th comment, mentioning "It's a Brand New Day..."
That song was a bit of a joke back during college with some of my friends...they discovered it and kind of liked it, but I think still recognized the silliness of it.
So they made this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMcGaxHDDNM
(a little bit of my double life...)
Friday, August 28, 2009
picking hymns...sigh
once again, here I go...picking hymns for Mass. I used to think that was one of the best parts of my job, and people still ask me if I "get to pick the songs," but now that I look at the Proper texts for the Entrance, Offertory, and Communion for every week, and I try to pick songs that match those, I'm frustrated and struck by how different the feeling is behind all of the options for hymns, compared to, for instance, the Introit.
Maybe it's just the texts for this upcoming time of the year, but almost all of the entrance antiphon texts fall along the lines of, "Have mercy on me, O God, I call upon you, have mercy on me..."
How many of our hymns even remotely have that as an idea?!
ugh.
All of the protestant hymns that I use are just "praise, praise, praise," and the contemporary Catholic shmaltz (which I try to avoid using but is the other half of the hymnal,) is just "everyone is welcome, we love everyone..."
well, there is a time and a place for both of those...but for the first 1,950 years of the Roman Catholic church, it wasn't most of the opening texts of the Holy Mass!
Maybe it's just the texts for this upcoming time of the year, but almost all of the entrance antiphon texts fall along the lines of, "Have mercy on me, O God, I call upon you, have mercy on me..."
How many of our hymns even remotely have that as an idea?!
ugh.
All of the protestant hymns that I use are just "praise, praise, praise," and the contemporary Catholic shmaltz (which I try to avoid using but is the other half of the hymnal,) is just "everyone is welcome, we love everyone..."
well, there is a time and a place for both of those...but for the first 1,950 years of the Roman Catholic church, it wasn't most of the opening texts of the Holy Mass!
Saturday, August 15, 2009
book review
I'm reading a pretty interesting book right now (trying to stuff it all in before I get too busy with grad school...)
"The Signs of the Times--Understanding the Church Since Vatican II"
yes. exactly what I want to understand.
It's a compilation of short writings/essays by Fr. Richard Gilsdorf, who passed away before the book was put together, I've never heard of him until now, and he requested Patrick Beno to put his writings together.
I like reading it, because it is kind of chronological, and you can sort of see what was going through the mind of a devout, obedient, and very smart priest from Vatican II onward.
For example, he starts off with an article on "unity," and how not everyone can be right: there must logically be rights and wrongs. (Not relativism.) Particularly as they relate to different Christian denominations. You can see where this is going as it relates to both the questions of ecumenism that V II brought up, as well as growing disobedience within the church.
He then continues with an article on the tension that was particularly increasing within the church at that time. "Salvation lies in huddling close to and embracing Christ in faith, hope, and love..." yeah! it's actually pretty simple!
He continues on with many shorter essays, surprisingly readable (the editor had a warning that they might not be that easy to read in the beginning,) for example, the one I'm reading at the moment is on the terminology "People of God" rather than "Family of God" which was proposed at V II. While he discusses that "Family of God" is quite theologically accurate, "Since the Council (and contrary to its spirit), we have seen a corrosive attempt to interpret "People" in a way strictly equated to some transient form or purely human political society."
Oh yes, a political society. That does seem to be a pretty accurate summary...
"We see Machiavellian maneuvering for positions...and the aping of the secular in a direction exactly counter to that of the Incarnation."
And I'm only 82 pages into this 500+ page book, and every chapter is filled with quotable gems like that!
While you can see how all of the widely varied topics do tie into the atmosphere of the past 40 years, the book is broad enough that I think most Catholics interested at all in "wtf happened" would find this a good read. (It's not all so strictly discussing the actual problems of interpretation of the Council.)
"The Signs of the Times--Understanding the Church Since Vatican II"
yes. exactly what I want to understand.
It's a compilation of short writings/essays by Fr. Richard Gilsdorf, who passed away before the book was put together, I've never heard of him until now, and he requested Patrick Beno to put his writings together.
I like reading it, because it is kind of chronological, and you can sort of see what was going through the mind of a devout, obedient, and very smart priest from Vatican II onward.
For example, he starts off with an article on "unity," and how not everyone can be right: there must logically be rights and wrongs. (Not relativism.) Particularly as they relate to different Christian denominations. You can see where this is going as it relates to both the questions of ecumenism that V II brought up, as well as growing disobedience within the church.
He then continues with an article on the tension that was particularly increasing within the church at that time. "Salvation lies in huddling close to and embracing Christ in faith, hope, and love..." yeah! it's actually pretty simple!
He continues on with many shorter essays, surprisingly readable (the editor had a warning that they might not be that easy to read in the beginning,) for example, the one I'm reading at the moment is on the terminology "People of God" rather than "Family of God" which was proposed at V II. While he discusses that "Family of God" is quite theologically accurate, "Since the Council (and contrary to its spirit), we have seen a corrosive attempt to interpret "People" in a way strictly equated to some transient form or purely human political society."
Oh yes, a political society. That does seem to be a pretty accurate summary...
"We see Machiavellian maneuvering for positions...and the aping of the secular in a direction exactly counter to that of the Incarnation."
And I'm only 82 pages into this 500+ page book, and every chapter is filled with quotable gems like that!
While you can see how all of the widely varied topics do tie into the atmosphere of the past 40 years, the book is broad enough that I think most Catholics interested at all in "wtf happened" would find this a good read. (It's not all so strictly discussing the actual problems of interpretation of the Council.)
Monday, August 10, 2009
grad school
Can't remember if I've told my blog yet that I'm heading to grad school in the fall. (Well, not really heading, rather, I'll be continuing all of my duties as Music Director as well as teaching my 15+ piano students.) I shall be busy...
I will be attending the great U of M to attain the degree "Master of Church Music." An excellent sounding title for a resume. And I don't have to give a memorized recital!
however, I wish that the program had slightly more emphasis on the Catholic liturgical aspect (it's more of an "ecumenical" program.) I've been allowed by my professor/adviser to pursue options I may have to incorporate more of this. I thought originally that I had a bunch of "elective" credits available, but I actually don't. So, that makes extra classes or studies...extra work. Which I don't exactly want. So, I'm open to any ideas.
(a few nights ago, I had the perfect opportunity to speak with the music professor at the local seminary...but, silly me, I didn't say anything! I think it's cuz I am afraid the conversation would go something like,
"hi Doctor, I'm going to be attending grad school in the fall...do you have any ideas of how I might incorporate some more liturgical aspects into my studies?"
"hmmm...not off the bat...what were you thinking of?"
"well, maybe I could do some extra research or take one of your classes?" (and then? as I've mentioned, I don't really have any available credits, unless I really want to do extra work...)
"ummm...not really...")
the end.
I will be attending the great U of M to attain the degree "Master of Church Music." An excellent sounding title for a resume. And I don't have to give a memorized recital!
however, I wish that the program had slightly more emphasis on the Catholic liturgical aspect (it's more of an "ecumenical" program.) I've been allowed by my professor/adviser to pursue options I may have to incorporate more of this. I thought originally that I had a bunch of "elective" credits available, but I actually don't. So, that makes extra classes or studies...extra work. Which I don't exactly want. So, I'm open to any ideas.
(a few nights ago, I had the perfect opportunity to speak with the music professor at the local seminary...but, silly me, I didn't say anything! I think it's cuz I am afraid the conversation would go something like,
"hi Doctor, I'm going to be attending grad school in the fall...do you have any ideas of how I might incorporate some more liturgical aspects into my studies?"
"hmmm...not off the bat...what were you thinking of?"
"well, maybe I could do some extra research or take one of your classes?" (and then? as I've mentioned, I don't really have any available credits, unless I really want to do extra work...)
"ummm...not really...")
the end.
Sunday, August 09, 2009
article in GIA Quarterly
by Virgil Funk
in the Summer 2009 issue, "On This Issue: Musical Leftovers"
sort of a summary, and my inevitable thoughts:
He describes what happened to the music in the Roman Catholic liturgy during the 1960s, and how it applies today. (basically this decade is currently the question of my life...but as in, "wtf happened?!")
He connects it to the social movements of the times, "the inspiration for their music was...the protest style of music (Dylan) now transformed into a 'commercial' version." (and he is able to state it so bluntly...how on earth was that ever supposed to be a GOOD thing?!)
He quotes Ratzinger (from "Communio" 13, no. 4) and how Ratzinger critiques "this developmental dynamic and its effect on a community's theology..." as in, this sense of protest and rebellion is going to affect the music at Mass. (and he STILL thinks that could possibly be a good thing?! good grief!) of course the result of that is going to be terrible theology!
Somehow he moves on to discuss composers writing new songs, contrasted with the fixed repertoire in the old hymnals and chant books. Once again he ties it together with a totally true statement of a horrible ridiculous fact, as if it's supposed to be a good thing, "apart from much older repertoire, there is no free music...church music is a commercial enterprise..." He goes on to list some of the reasons-one of being the Vatican and its translators copyrighting the texts. Sad, but true.
Continuing to claim (perhaps truly, but I don't know enough specific history,) that the roots of this are from the protest movements, he then goes on to mention Humanae Vitae. Absolutely fascinating in my opinion. I believe its (40th?) anniversary has recently occurred, and so I have read a couple articles recently on "what happened that fateful summer" at CUA when a bunch of priests were secretly gathered to then publicly voice their disapproval of the document...without ever having read it, and without being given a chance to discuss it. (The only thing that matters is that the Church doesn't permit artificial birth control...not that the reasons matter or anything, and there is certainly no possibility that the Church might actually have some good facts or arguments about why not! We certainly wouldn't want to read them!) And how the atmosphere of the era-as well as subtle, smaller, previous rebellions by bishops and priests-had made RIPE for the outright rebellion among bishops, priests, and down through the laypeople, that followed. (I could write my doctoral dissertation on that. Just amazing. a side note.)
(insignificant note: this is then the only article I have ever read where the "continued on page..." leads to a previous page. Space filling, I suppose.)
On the last page, he implies that "fallen-away" Catholics "fell away" due to their protest groups dissolving in the 1980s. No consideration to the possibility that they were "falling away" throughout the 60s, 70s, and 80s, as they saw what they thought was their church being taken over by various forms of "protest groups"... (It would be interesting to see a serious study, somehow but I'm not sure how, analyzing exactly when- if it was at a single time- the most number of Catholics "fell away." And why was it?)
He begins to close the article with a list of, "So what remains of the '60s in today's liturgy," as if they are good things:
-"A strong Catholic music publishing industry" -- bad in that it has a complete monopoly on what Catholics sing. Good if you want to have Catholics singing the same thing in every parish. Good in that we now have an easy and existing system set up to distribute good music...just whenever the "for-profit" publishers ever decide there is a market for it. (not to mention that there is already loads of excellent free music, written by the masters from over the centuries online already! Oh wait, maybe that's why the publishers don't want that to become too available-they know that would put them out of business!) And of course bad if (and since) this music publishing industry uses its monopoly to distribute cheap and chintzy versions of folk or popular music for use in the Liturgy...
-"a residue of protest-style musical forms" --he has previously described this as traditional folk-music: easy to sing, and easy to remember, as well as attempting to stir up emotion and forming an identity within "the group." Not good if you know that none of those are or should be the goals of music during Mass.
-"and a belief that God exists or is present when the music produces cohesion of the group." Could be interpreted in different ways. Yes, we worship corporately, BUT, we also worship individually. And more importantly, worship has NOTHING to do with the "us" or "me." That is the main theological error of the Catholic "progressivists." Too much emphasis on the "WE" of "We are the Body of Christ," rather than "Christ." And of course God exists and is present whether or not there is any cohesion of the group! He's present Really and Truly simply through the Eucharist! (oh...wait...most "progressivists" don't believe that...hmm..it's all starting to make sense now...)
And while at the beginning of the article, I wasn't even sure which direction Funk leaned, I can only quote the ridiculousness of the last sentences,
"As the institutional authorities attempt to reassert control over the text and musical shape of the dialogue between the altar and the rest of the assembly ('And with your spirit' set to one tune found in the Roman Missal), the urge to protest arises. The leftovers from the 1960s that still shape our singing may begin to touch your smoldering resistance."
Good grief...talk about an aging hippie... I have smoldering resistance? (sorry Fr. Funk, I think that's only your generation...and you're on your way out! My generation actually believes in obedience!)
in the Summer 2009 issue, "On This Issue: Musical Leftovers"
sort of a summary, and my inevitable thoughts:
He describes what happened to the music in the Roman Catholic liturgy during the 1960s, and how it applies today. (basically this decade is currently the question of my life...but as in, "wtf happened?!")
He connects it to the social movements of the times, "the inspiration for their music was...the protest style of music (Dylan) now transformed into a 'commercial' version." (and he is able to state it so bluntly...how on earth was that ever supposed to be a GOOD thing?!)
He quotes Ratzinger (from "Communio" 13, no. 4) and how Ratzinger critiques "this developmental dynamic and its effect on a community's theology..." as in, this sense of protest and rebellion is going to affect the music at Mass. (and he STILL thinks that could possibly be a good thing?! good grief!) of course the result of that is going to be terrible theology!
Somehow he moves on to discuss composers writing new songs, contrasted with the fixed repertoire in the old hymnals and chant books. Once again he ties it together with a totally true statement of a horrible ridiculous fact, as if it's supposed to be a good thing, "apart from much older repertoire, there is no free music...church music is a commercial enterprise..." He goes on to list some of the reasons-one of being the Vatican and its translators copyrighting the texts. Sad, but true.
Continuing to claim (perhaps truly, but I don't know enough specific history,) that the roots of this are from the protest movements, he then goes on to mention Humanae Vitae. Absolutely fascinating in my opinion. I believe its (40th?) anniversary has recently occurred, and so I have read a couple articles recently on "what happened that fateful summer" at CUA when a bunch of priests were secretly gathered to then publicly voice their disapproval of the document...without ever having read it, and without being given a chance to discuss it. (The only thing that matters is that the Church doesn't permit artificial birth control...not that the reasons matter or anything, and there is certainly no possibility that the Church might actually have some good facts or arguments about why not! We certainly wouldn't want to read them!) And how the atmosphere of the era-as well as subtle, smaller, previous rebellions by bishops and priests-had made RIPE for the outright rebellion among bishops, priests, and down through the laypeople, that followed. (I could write my doctoral dissertation on that. Just amazing. a side note.)
(insignificant note: this is then the only article I have ever read where the "continued on page..." leads to a previous page. Space filling, I suppose.)
On the last page, he implies that "fallen-away" Catholics "fell away" due to their protest groups dissolving in the 1980s. No consideration to the possibility that they were "falling away" throughout the 60s, 70s, and 80s, as they saw what they thought was their church being taken over by various forms of "protest groups"... (It would be interesting to see a serious study, somehow but I'm not sure how, analyzing exactly when- if it was at a single time- the most number of Catholics "fell away." And why was it?)
He begins to close the article with a list of, "So what remains of the '60s in today's liturgy," as if they are good things:
-"A strong Catholic music publishing industry" -- bad in that it has a complete monopoly on what Catholics sing. Good if you want to have Catholics singing the same thing in every parish. Good in that we now have an easy and existing system set up to distribute good music...just whenever the "for-profit" publishers ever decide there is a market for it. (not to mention that there is already loads of excellent free music, written by the masters from over the centuries online already! Oh wait, maybe that's why the publishers don't want that to become too available-they know that would put them out of business!) And of course bad if (and since) this music publishing industry uses its monopoly to distribute cheap and chintzy versions of folk or popular music for use in the Liturgy...
-"a residue of protest-style musical forms" --he has previously described this as traditional folk-music: easy to sing, and easy to remember, as well as attempting to stir up emotion and forming an identity within "the group." Not good if you know that none of those are or should be the goals of music during Mass.
-"and a belief that God exists or is present when the music produces cohesion of the group." Could be interpreted in different ways. Yes, we worship corporately, BUT, we also worship individually. And more importantly, worship has NOTHING to do with the "us" or "me." That is the main theological error of the Catholic "progressivists." Too much emphasis on the "WE" of "We are the Body of Christ," rather than "Christ." And of course God exists and is present whether or not there is any cohesion of the group! He's present Really and Truly simply through the Eucharist! (oh...wait...most "progressivists" don't believe that...hmm..it's all starting to make sense now...)
And while at the beginning of the article, I wasn't even sure which direction Funk leaned, I can only quote the ridiculousness of the last sentences,
"As the institutional authorities attempt to reassert control over the text and musical shape of the dialogue between the altar and the rest of the assembly ('And with your spirit' set to one tune found in the Roman Missal), the urge to protest arises. The leftovers from the 1960s that still shape our singing may begin to touch your smoldering resistance."
Good grief...talk about an aging hippie... I have smoldering resistance? (sorry Fr. Funk, I think that's only your generation...and you're on your way out! My generation actually believes in obedience!)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)