 |
| Photo credit: Neal Abbott Film & Photography |
"Never before in the history of Catholic Church music has there been so promising an opportunity for a universal reform of liturgical music according to a very positive outline. Never before had an Ecumenical Council turned its attention to sacred music in such glowing terms of praise, and with so warm an encouragement of the sacred art. Not since the days of St. Gregory the Great had the church musician been given a challenge of such magnitude for the creation of a new art.Never before had he had an opportunity for expression in his own idiom and in his own tongue of such breath with freedom to build his contribution to the heritage of centuries according to the dictates of his art and the needs and traditions of the Church. With such praise and encouragement for both composition, performance, and musical scholarship it is little wonder that musicians around the world hailed the Constitution on the Liturgy with joy and received the March (1967) Instruction with great hope.But why has this opportunity of such great promise proved three years later to have been the occasion for the almost total elimination of artistic church music in this country? What has happened to the hopes for a true renewal of church music and Liturgy? Why has the direction of the institution remained unfulfilled and in fact frustrated?The reason lies in the action of a group of self-styled liturgical experts who have blocked the attempts of musicians to implement the directives of the Constitution and have indeed completely disregarded its directives on music. The wave, in fact, refused to accept the sixth chapter of the Constitution in spite of the fact that it was approved by the two thousand Fathers of the Council.Instead of the program outlined in the constitution, this group has substituted its own ideas of what this renewal should be, and in spite of occasional lip service paid to the documents, they have conducted a great campaign against the Gregorian chant and the Latin language and the whole repertory of church music, so that today the chant is almost never heard in American churches, except perhaps in some mutilated versions that have been pasted under English texts to which the chant does not fit.They have succeeded in removing art music from the service, except for an occasional motet. In so doing they have eliminated choirs for whom there remains no reason to practice or perfect themselves since opportunities for singing the chant or part music of worth have all but been eliminated. These liturgists protest that the choir must be encouraged, but in the same breath we are told that its purpose is to lead the congregation in the singing of hymns and other unison music. These directions from non-musicians who have never created a musical sound, let alone direct a choir, are the cause of consternation among practicing musicians, both instrumentalists and singers.A great campaign of propaganda was directed toward the clergy by this group, and they have largely become convinced that Latin is outmoded as a liturgical language in their pastoral ministry. They have wallowed the corollary to this just as completely: Gregorian chant and Latin polyphonic music of any period is no longer acceptable. Even polyphonic music in the vernacular has a doubtful value.The musical theories of these iconoclasts come from the works of a pastoral theologian, Fr. Joseph Gelineau, S.J., whose book Voices and Instruments in Christian Worship (Collegeville, Liturgical Press, 1964) is the clearest exposition of the position of these men against the place of the art of music in worship according to the traditional sense of the Church as reiterated in the Constitution.Since innovations and revolution always make news, the press eagerly published the ideas and statements of these innovators, who were always anxious to report how widely and how willingly their 'reforms' were welcomes by American Catholics, except, of course, by a few reactionary musicians who did to know the true theology of music and how they insisted on holding to a verbatim reading of the Constitution.When the March (1967) Instruction made it clear that the words of the Constitution meant just what they said, a great silence and disregard on the part of the liturgists indicated how enthusiastically they received that Roman document.Perhaps there is no field where the non-competant, untrained amateur has so thoroughly moved into an area that, because of its very nature, demands the educated, skilled professional for composition, for performance and for historical studies. These amateurs proclaim that the problems of the renewal in church music will be solved by the 'theological community', which is not restricted by such disciplines as music theory, musicology, or study of Papal legislation.As a result of the invasion of this thinking, we are witnessing today not merely performances in churches by incompetent, untrained, musically illiterate folk-singers and guitar players, but we are being subjected to the incredible procedure where would-be philosophers, theologians, anthropologists and sociologists are philosophizing, theologizing, anthropologizing and sociologizing about church music! Trained composers, musicologists, conductors and organists are being lectured on what church music is and how it is to be written and performed.Not least among these new authorities in all branches of musical learning are the new breed of assistant priests who have harassed so many choir-masters and organists to the point that, to keep their faith and peace of soul, many have resigned from any association with church music.
Ultimately, it would seem the whole question of implementing the decrees of the Council must come up for review by a Papal court of law. The highest legislative organ of the Church is an Ecumenical Council within its decrees are promulgated by the Pope. These become universal law and cannot be changed or rejected except by another Ecumenical Council or by the direct act of the Pope.
Thus it is hardly necessary to point out that lower bodies cannot contradict the decrees of the Council or prevent the implementation of its directives or explain away its intentions. Even commissions set up by the Council itself for implementing its decrees cannot act contrary of the Church's stated directives or constitute itself a legislative body in decreeing matters beyond the stated commands of the Council contained in the sixteen documents that Vatican II issued.
Territorial hierarchies, or committees of these territorial hierarchies, or individual bishops or pastors, cannot themselves order procedures or permit procedures not allowed by the Council documents, nor can they forbid those things that the Council commands or permits. Needless to say, diocesan music or liturgy commissions cannot forbid Latin Masses or Gregorian chant, since both are specifically commanded to be fostered by the Constitution on the Liturgy.
Indeed, many Catholics wonder where in that Constitution are contained many of the innovations introduced througuough the world since the close of the Council by the official post-conciliar 'Consilium for Implementing the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy', itself set up by the Council.
This is especially true of many innovations which militate directly against the specific commands concerning the use of the treasury of church music. Since these conciliar documents and much of the effort of national and local bodies to implement them constitute legal, legislative procedures, they cannot be in conflict with each other.
The test of the authenticity of the rulings of lower bodies must be made in a court of law by placing themselves against the conciliar decrees. Such a court must decide whether on every level the wishes of the Fathers of the Council as expressed in their written and promulgated form (not in any so-called 'spirit of the Council') are being put into effect or prevented from full achievement.
The ultimate judgement belongs to a court of canon lawyers since law is the concern. Neither musicians nor liturgists will be competent to make the decision. The canonists must decide wether the words of the Constitution mean what they say, as the musicians maintain, or whether the reading of the conciliar documents by members of the Consociatio and the members of Una Voce, together with a great segment of the universal Catholic people, is 'fundamentalistic interpretation', which simply means that the words do not mean what they say.
Meanwhile the deterioration continues in church music in this country and the propaganda mills keep telling us that this is the fruit of the Council and that this is what most people want. "Non credo."
Why not also consider subscribing monthly/yearly to Liturgical Arts Journal? Choose the amount for yourself. Your support of LAJ and its writers makes all the difference.
