The Recovering Choir Director

After telling a colleague of mine from the CMAA two weeks ago that I was returning to blogging, I received this remark:

Are you sure you want to do this? The blogosphere is a veritable zoo!

to which I responded:

True enough, but I don’t plan on venturing out too far from my domain…let’s see how long I go unnoticed.

Of course, I have commented on some blogs and I’ve pinged some posts, but outside of that and informing my return to a couple of friends, I haven’t publicized this revival.

I was wondering how much I had missed in the almost two years of my self-imposed blogging exile, especially in matters liturgical and musical. Among many, many other things I missed the commentary about Summorum Pontificum, and most of the commentary about the USCCB’s proposed replacement to “Music in Catholic Worship”.

And looking at the commentary on exactly two articles about these documents from the usual suspects in the liturgically conservative and liberal wings (self-styled and otherwise), all I can say is this:

Wow, I haven’t missed much, at least when pundits from these two camps come together. Same old heat, sometimes accompanied with smoke; very little light; same snarky, ironic undertones, same perceived disrespect. Not even their names have changed. Per omnia saecula saeculorum. Amen.

To practitioners of this increasingly ineffective style of punditry, I ask in all sincerity: how can you stand to read yourselves?

I suspect that certain people have the ability to desensitize themselves the deeper they indulge themselves in attacking and being attacked. But I also sense that these same people would find it quite difficult to change their well-entrenched positions in part because of their strident defense of them/vicious attacks on detractors. It’s a shame.

I’d like to think that I’ve gained valuable musical and liturgical perspectives from both camps. But the most important insight I’ve learned from both camps is neither musical nor liturgical.

I have learned that delivery is as important as the message, especially when dealing with sensitive matters. And I have learned that for me, whether online or in real life, whether in church or on the street, delivery is of utmost importance. If an argument contrary to my worldview is made civilly, I will be more receptive to it even though I may disagree with it (and ultimately accept or reject it). However, most arguments that surround the Church and her worship are uncivil to say the least. Or if they are civil on the surface, there is a palpable undercurrent of dismissiveness.

At best, they are a waste of my time. At worst, they are for me a source of scandal. Because, you see, my exposure to these methods of argument didn’t cause me to develop thick skin; on the contrary, they only served to sensitize me to their damaging, destructive nature.

So I have decided not to give ear or eye to those parties whose statements, while meritorious in content, were deleterious in presentation. I’m certain that there is enough wheat in their writings to offset the chaff of their tone. I’m just particularly sensitive to chaff, so pure wheat is rather essential for my health and well-being.

Anyway, you may see some more detailed commentary from me on those aforementioned documents, but I’m planning to blog about some other issues closer to home, as well as some ideas that might sound subversive to some, brilliant to others.

Stay tuned. I hope what follows proves to be worth your while.