Dissecting a failed attempt to bring sacred music back to its proper place
Take a look at this thread on the MusicaSacra Forum, and see the victim who has done nothing but attempt to be as faithful as possible to the highest aims of the Church regarding liturgical music. Not knowing the details of the situation other than those specified by the writer — who I will refer to as “the victim” — and retrospect being 20/20, there are a couple of sticky points that I see right away.
False advertising on the part of the church/erroneous inference on the part of the hire. Reading the first comment I see this right away (my emphasis added):
I was hired as a new music teacher at a K-8 school at a church that claimed to be traditional and orthodox.
When a church music position — or in this case, a teaching position at a parochial school — uses the words “traditional” and “orthodox,” applicants ought to bear in mind that these two words don’t mean a thing when it comes to liturgy today. (Heck, they may not mean a thing doctrinally either!)
The pastor requesting responsibilities outside the job description, and the victim acquiescing. Reading on, we see:
In the first week, the pastor approached me about playing organ for the 1st Saturday Masses at 6:30 AM for the pittance of $50.
Knowing what I know now, if I were in the position of the victim, I would graciously but flatly refuse a first offer, and not only because I’m not a morning person. It is simply out of the job description of teaching K-8 music.
If I were inclined to accept, I would want to know exactly what the pastor was offering and why. Moreover, if I were the reforming sort (as our victim was) I would make crystal clear to the pastor my roadmap for musical reform, and find out if any compromises or common ground could be reached, if needed. Lastly, I would hammer home the point that he, as the parish’s most immediate ordained steward of the liturgy, needs to catechize the faithful about the role of music; otherwise, he would be sure to reap the whirlwind of complaints. If he wouldn’t pull his weight, I wouldn’t accept. Especially not for the headaches and heartaches to follow, which are not worth $50 a month.
Moving perhaps a bit too quickly.
I agreed, and then a group of men approached me about forming a schola — I happily agreed and included them in every Mass after the first one. We started with English hymns (with me on organ) for the processional/recessional, Jubilate Deo for the ordinaries (except Gloria and Credo), and an easy chant hymn — i.e., Adoro te, Rorate caeli in Advent, etc. — for the offertory and communion, and we usually included the Salve Regina after Mass, which was the only thing sung well by the congregation.
Not knowing the repertoire at the 6:30 AM Mass (if any) before our victim took the musical reins, I am inclined to believe that the approach may have been a bit quick. I am assuming, of course, that only First Saturday 6:30 AM Masses were this victim’s (non-contractual) responsibility. To move from no music or the typical fare found at American Catholic parishes to a suddenly Vatican II–based repertoire is rather jolting, even if the pastor alerts the faithful to such a change. Based on the story, I assume that the pastor did not alert the faithful to changes outside of “our victim will be leading the choir at the 6:30 AM First Saturday Mass.”
If so, that’s simply not enough of an alert.
I’ve only gotten through dissecting the first paragraph of the initial comment here, and already I see so many red flags. What it boils down to in the end in my mind, however, is false assumptions all around. Communication needs to be clear between pastor and musician, and then between pastor and faithful regarding the responsibilities of the musician.
Some unsolicited advice to current and future pastors (yes, yet another tiresome layman giving you what he thinks you need to know): you are, or will be, the competent territorial authority regarding the liturgy at the parish level. Learn about the liturgy you are supposed to be caretaking and cultivating, and on whose behalf. Don’t assume you learned all you need to know about liturgy in the seminary, especially about music and its proper execution; chances are good that you didn’t, and besides, isn’t learning a lifelong process for you as well as your faithful? Lastly, take active responsibility for enacting proper liturgy instead of hanging out to dry those people who assist you in good faith under erroneous assumptions. Be proactive, not reactive. You are pastors, not focus-group coordinators. Lead your sheep!
10 Responses to “Dissecting a failed attempt to bring sacred music back to its proper place”
Comments (Leave a Comment)
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
-
[...] hear a horror story from a colleague, or you’ll be the subject of one yourself. The Recovering Choir Director sums up a story from the Musica Sacra [...]
Leave a Comment
Follow CantemusDomino
![[SMMMHDH]](http://www.cantemusdomino.net/smmmhdh.png){kind=small}
![[Listed on blogs4God]](http://www.cantemusdomino.net/blogs4god.png){kind=small}
![[Valid XHTML 1.0]](http://www.cantemusdomino.net/xhtml10.png){kind=small}
![[Valid CSS 2.0]](http://www.cantemusdomino.net/css.png){kind=small}
The point made here is a good one… liturgical musicians MUST work in close relationshiop with the Pastor and priests when it is time to begin the process of musical reform in a parish. Pope Benedict has provided an excellent model… GRADUAL change over a long period of time. Two years ago I introduced the chanted Kyrie at our Masses. This past year I began using chanted psalms for the responsorial. This coming year, we will begin using the chanted Antiphon with verses at communion. When the new translation is implemented, we will introduce a chant-based setting of the Gloria and Sanctus. That will make a total of six years to implement a mostly chanted Ordinary and begin using some of the propers. It would take another four or five years to work the chanted propers into Mass, making for a nearly ten year project all-in-all. I submitted a complete five-year plan two years ago, letting the Pastor know what I was doing and where I was going with this plan.
@Jeffrey Herbert: I recall that this five-year plan was posted on one of your websites; do you have a link handy?
Hmmm, I just thought of something after reading this, (followed from the original thread…)
Notice, that some men approached HIM about forming the schola, not the other way around.
Would I be over-reaching to assume that these too were parishioners, as much entitled to have their preferences taken into account as those who complained about the results?
Not that either is necessarily correct…
And it does sound as if he did this gradually.
If the congregation was not singing much, (duh, Father…. not enough participation? guess WHY many people attend the early Mass?) I can’t see how it mattered if he changed a section of the ordinary, and the fact that they had been singing the Salve Regina enthusiastically indicated the chant- or Latin-phobic who complained were in the minority.
I suspect the priest is advancing his own preferences under guise of being pastoral.
It’s his right, but knowing that I wouldn’t put myself out, and if possible in the current economic climate, be looking for a way to shake the dust of the place from my flip-flops…
(Save the Liturgy, Save the World)
@G: Good catch. Hopefully, now that they are free of the shackles of liturgical politics, they may continue on as a study/prayer group centered around the chant. If they do so, we may not have heard the final chapter of this story.
Aristotle;
I do have it posted at http://incarnationmusic.blogspot.com/2008/08/long-range-liturgical-outline.html
Keep in mind that the music being used two years ago was mostly SLJ tunes and lots of Haas and Haugen material. The attempt with this plan is to move towards using better music, not necessarily towards Propers chanted in Latin.
@Jeffrey: Thanks for this. I found the entire outline instructive when I first saw it, and had I not been involved in other things, I certainly would have blogged about it. I may yet do so.
What those words mean is “no gays need apply.”
“Traditional and orthodox” means different things to different people.
There is (at least) one major global Order who believes that “traditional and orthodox” means “no licit liturgical development has occurred since 1955.”
It’s useful to ask a lot of questions, as Ari has said…
@Todd: The parallel you bring up is entirely too fitting. In any case, it seems like more rigorous liturgical formation is needed for those in leadership. Come to think of it, a more rigorous formation in leadership is needed for those in leadership.