David Gibson (below) points us to some of the emerging web commentary on the USCCBs consideration of a new document on liturgical music. Some critics of contemporaryliturgical music are hopeful that the document will lead to a greaterappreciation for the Churchs broader musical tradition and Gregorian chant inparticular.
I am sympathetic to these concerns, but I think that ToddFlowerday (see comment on David's post) is correct that simply issuing documents is not going to do much toimprove the quality of liturgical music in most parishes. Even less useful, I suspect, would be the creation of another Vatican office orinstitute.
An important thing to remember is that this is a discussionthat has been going on for more than a century. Amy Welborns suggestion that we should sing the mass, not sing in themass, is, of course, a reference to Pius Xs famous dictum to pray the mass,dont pray in the mass. Piuss 1903 motuproprio Tra le sollecitudini is oftenremembered for its famous phrase that active participation in the liturgy isthe source of the true Christian spirit. What is less well remembered is that the document sought to recoverGregorian Chant as the music of the liturgy. Among other reasons, Pius believed that chant was more conducive tocongregational participation than baroque or classical compositions.
The idea that ordinary Catholics might be taught to singGregorian Chant at the mass was something of a revolutionary suggestion. Particularly in the United States,the overwhelming majority of Sunday masses were Low Masses without music, andCatholicsparticularly those of Irish descenttended to view congregationalsinging of any type as something done by Protestants.
Many of the early figures of the liturgical movementembraced the idea of teaching Catholics to sing chant. The Belgian Benedictine Lambert Beauduinincluded the idea in a famous 1909 speech that is often cited as marking thestart of the modern liturgical movement. In the United States,Justine Ward founded the Pius X School for Liturgical Music in 1916 andeventually trained more than 13,000 teachers in her method. Virgil Michel, one of the towering figures ofthe American liturgical movement, later joined her faculty.
Like the liturgical movement itself, however, the movementto encourage the singing of chant did not have a major impact on most Americanparishes. There were exceptions, ofcourse, such as Fr. Martin Hellriegels Holy Cross Parish in St. Louis and parishes in Chicagoled by liturgical pioneers Reynold Hillenbrand and Bernard Laukemper. But these were liturgical oases in a desert landscape.
By the 1930s, however, one can see a certain skepticismabout efforts to promote chant entering the writings of those involved in theliturgical movement. Writing in theliturgical journal Orate Fratres in1937, Ferdinand Falque suggested that efforts to promote chant had not resultedin singing of good quality:
Many contacts with chant enthusiasts and much patientsuffering at their results have convinced the writer that real damage isbeing done of the cause of liturgical reform by their studied folly. When told simply that their achievements areugly they invariably come back with the retort: Ah, but you should hear chant as it should be rendered. Thats exactly the point. It cannot be rendered as it should be,because the knowledge and devotion that can give it life are lacking; not tomention the more important fact, that the disposition to appreciate it has notbeen created in the generality of men and women, who must nevertheless submitto it, when they are entitled to something that would inspire them withsentiments of prayer and devotionPeople cannot be argued or commanded intoloving something which in its practical expression is definitely ugly.
Contemporary defenders of chant often argue that VaticanIIs Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy has been misinterpreted, citing Article116 in Chapter 6 (On Sacred Music) which states that the church recognizesGregorian Chant as native to the Roman liturgy. Therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of placein liturgical services. TheConstitution, however, also made a number of other statements that weakened theposition of chant. Article 113, which deals with the language of music,specifically references articles from other chapters dealing with the extensionof the vernacular to the liturgy. Article 114 stresses that when a service isaccompanied by chant, the whole body of the faithful may be able to contribute that active participation which is rightfully theirs. Article 116 states that other forms of music are by no means excludedfrom the liturgical celebration. Article 119 states that, in mission lands, local musical traditionsshould be incorporated into the liturgy. Taking Chapter 6 as a wholenot to mention the rest of theConstitutionit is hard not to conclude that Gregorian Chant stood in asignificantly weaker position after the Council than it did before it, and notmerely because of the way the Constitution has been subsequently interpreted.
This is not to suggest that the Council fathers at VaticanII foresaw the wholesale disappearance of chant anymore than they foresaw thewholesale disappearance of Latin. Whatthey did foresee, however, was that the national episcopal conferencesratherthan the Congregation for Riteswould be making the decisions about what kindof music would be appropriate in the liturgy in their countries. This they have done and we are living withthe results.
I dont recount this history to suggest a solutionbecause I dont have one. Speaking formyself, I find a significant amount (but not all) of contemporary liturgicalmusic to be a barrier to prayer. ButIm not sure that many of my fellow Catholics agree. Weve grown used to this stuff and I agree with some of the points made by Jeff Tuckerabout there having been a general decline in musical literacy in this country over the past century. But as Todd suggests, changing our minds willtake more than statements from the USCCB or a new Vaticaninstitute. It will take a significantcommitment of resources at the local level. Absent that, I expect to be bracing myself for another verse of Sing a New Churchfor some time to come.
