Rock Music

[John89]

hi i really like rock music and listen to it all the time, i was just wondering is it a sin to listen to it or does it go against the faith in any way ?

 

[14er]

Like many questions about “is it a sin?” this one is No, unless…

Unless it leads to sin, or the occasion of sin. Impure lyrics, or in the case of videos, impure images pose a real problem as they may cause one to lust after someone other than one’s spouse. Blasphemous lyrics, even if they don’t sway you pose a couple of problems. First it gives scandal to others if they see you enjoying them. Also presumably you paid money to someone to hear them bad-mouth God or the church, which only encourages them. And that will harm others.

I like rock too, but you must be aware of who and what you are supporting with your entertainment dollars. And you must always gaurd your soul.

 

[Biblioassistant]

Well then I have been sinning for years

I love rock music too - I won’t listen to the blasphemous kind, but I love good southern rock (Allman Brothers, especially).

 

[FrankLawrence]

There is some “rock” music that creates a mood of extreme anger, irrelevant to the lyrics. That, in my opinion, would be sinful. We furthermore must look at the inspiration behind the music. Are the songwriters claiming paganism, occultism, wicca or devil worship? If so, we should avoid the music itself(irrelevant to the lyrics.) Why, because if it doesn’t come from God, where does it come from, and what subliminal or subconscious messages may pervade the music itself, perhaps even without the explicit intentions of the song writers/performers? Scary, isn’t it? What about the lyrics, now? If it is outright obsene, blasphemous, hateful, depressing, glamorizing of drugs, or sends a message that objectifies women, then we should avoid it. Any “love” songs written for EX-lovers(other than perhaps tributes for a dead spouse) should also be avoided, as they show an attitude of a failure to move on in life, and it some cases can be depressing, or show a lack of charity in terms of letting the ex move on with his/her life. If you wouldn’t want an ex of your current significant other to write a “love” song for him/her, then neither should you listen to one that someone else wrote for an ex. Any “love” songs that cross the line of romantic love to idolatrous worship should also be avoided, as they can subconsciously instill an attitude that romantic relationships are, to use a Ferris Bueller phrase, “the end-all and be-all of human existence,” an attitude very prevelant in secular America, especially among teenagers. If the song speaks ill of love, itself, it should be avoided. If the song has lyrics that in any way conflict with Catholic truth, the song should be avoided. If it was a song that you listened to during a particularly sinful time of your life, perhaps before you chose to truly commit yourself to Christ, then the song may subconsciously trigger some attitudes that you may have had at that time, even if there is nothing actually sinful about the song itself, and should therefore be avoided. Basically, we are best off sticking with songs that give glory to God, regardless of the musical genre.

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

hi i really like rock music and listen to it all the time, i was just wondering is it a sin to listen to it or does it go against the faith in any way ?

No, not at all. You can listen to whatever you want to, it is how you approach the music genre that makes all the differences. There can be some good, moral, socially productive music in rock music songs if you listen closely.

 

[cynic]

… depressing, glamorizing of drugs, or sends a message that objectifies women, then we should avoid it. Any “love” songs written for EX-lovers(other than perhaps tributes for a dead spouse) should also be avoided, as they show an attitude of a failure to move on in life, and it some cases can be depressing, or show a lack of charity in terms of letting the ex move on with his/her life. If you wouldn’t want an ex of your current significant other to write a “love” song for him/her, then neither should you listen to one that someone else wrote for an ex. Any “love” songs that cross the line of romantic love to idolatrous worship should also be avoided, as they can subconsciously instill an attitude that romantic relationships are, to use a Ferris Bueller phrase, “the end-all and be-all of human existence,” an attitude very prevelant in secular America, especially among teenagers. If the song speaks ill of love, itself, it should be avoided. If the song has lyrics that in any way conflict with Catholic truth, the song should be avoided. If it was a song that you listened to during a particularly sinful time of your life, perhaps before you chose to truly commit yourself to Christ, then the song may subconsciously trigger some attitudes that you may have had at that time, even if there is nothing actually sinful about the song itself, and should therefore be avoided. Basically, we are best off sticking with songs that give glory to God, regardless of the musical genre.

The implication here is that anything based in human emotion is a potential minefeild and should be avoided. That’s it then, noone should be able to appreciate a van gogh painting since it glorifies depression…

 

[dafalax]

No, not at all. You can listen to whatever you want to, it is how you approach the music genre that makes all the differences. There can be some good, moral, socially productive music in rock music songs if you listen closely.

Yes, there can be some good moral socially productive rock music, but how much **** are you sifting thru to find it? When you buy rock music, you’re supporting an industry that glorifies fornication, drug abuse, and other ills. Yeah, there are some bands that have decent lyrics and i think listening to catchy songs with immoral messages is venially sinful at most (Outkast, man, why do you stick in my head!?). However, if you’re going for sainthood, and we all should be, you really ought to try to find some good G-rock. Yeah, most of it’s sappy and over-produced, but you won’t be in purgatory over it. And if you’re willing to wade thru the immoral looking for the good tidbits, you should be willing to navigate the waters of the lame looking for the catchy tidbits that actually glorify God.

 

[dafalax]

The implication here is that anything based in human emotion is a potential minefeild and should be avoided. That’s it then, noone should be able to appreciate a van gogh painting since it glorifies depression…

That’s not the implication at all. The implication is that sinful actions are often glorified in music. Yes, there are usually powerful emotions attached to those sinful actions, but those actions are what we Catholics should object to and the glorification thereof is to be avoided in what we choose to listen to. With all due respect, your argument has the logical appeal of a sullen 13 year old.

 

[cynic]

but we aren’t just talking about obscene gangsta rap or death metal (which tends to be awful anyway). Really good music is caught up in this moralising, for eg, Bob Dylan, Bowie, Tim Buckley, even James Taylor… many of these songs have a dodgy message if you were to analyze it. But I’d much rather listen to good, emotionally affecting music with a suspect message (that can be ignored) than ‘God Rock’. I mean what’s the point in bad music?

 

[cue]

John89,
I am in the process of addressing this question as well. Here is what Rev. Basil Nortz, ORC has to say:

The emotions evoked by such music can hardly be considered virtuous much less Christian. The passions of sensuality, rebellion, pride, power, and irreverence are commonly evoked by the rhythms characteristic of these types of music.

He then goes on to name the other effects that rock has on an individual. Afterward, he says:

These physical repercussions also serve as indicators of the effect this music can have on the moral life. Since the moral virtues of temperance and fortitude do not reside in man’s purely spiritual faculties of intellect and will, but in the passions of his soul they are more easily disturbed by such bodily changes.

Then he contrasts rock with plain chant, explaining how plain chant effects a person.

The point is not that plain chant is the only good music, nor that all good music is like chant, except in that all good music stimulates the emotions in a way consonant with reason.

So where I am right now with the question is that rock is definitely not leading me God and is very likely leading me away or at least making it harder to stay close to him. Thus, yes, it would be venially sinful.

The article I quoted from may be found here The Moral Power of Music.

 

[cenpress]

Any “love” songs written for EX-lovers(other than perhaps tributes for a dead spouse) should also be avoided, as they show an attitude of a failure to move on in life, and it some cases can be depressing, or show a lack of charity in terms of letting the ex move on with his/her life. If you wouldn’t want an ex of your current significant other to write a “love” song for him/her, then neither should you listen to one that someone else wrote for an ex.

You have got to be kidding, right?

I shouldn’t listen to a song because it can be depressing or because it encapsulates the emotions one feels when going through a break up?

There is NOTHING inherently wrong with that kind of music. There is nothing wrong with listening to songs about unrequited love or failure in love or love lost … because we are human beings. We crave human emotion. And mind you, there is no such thing as a “bad” emotion … only bad actions that stem from those emotions. But the arts (music included) … the arts are meant to be a constructive release of emotion and of intellectual thought. The songs you mention breed compassion and feeling and thirst for life. They, themselves, are a way in which people help themselves to move on. Whether it is a song I have written … or one I have listened to in a time in need.

This black and white nonsense that deems all these songs something we should avoid is close-minded and absurd, and it negates one’s own inherent ability to listen to the internal moral compass we inherited from God.

If a depressing song about an ex-love makes you feel uncharitable, then don’t listen to it. But don’t tell me that same song is inherently wrong to listen to if it picked me up in a time of need and gave me something to relate to, to identify with, and to help me better understand (and deal with) the emotional torment that was going on inside of me at the time.

That’s like saying “One ought not view another performance of Hamlet because it is about revenge and revenge is bad and everybody dies at the end.” What a bunch of hooey.

Music and art and poetry and film are all ways in which we attempt to better understand the human condition, our place in this world … both as an audience and as artists ourselves. They are ways in which we enrich our lives. And they can bring us closer to God. To deny such art is to deny a large part of our personhood. So go on and listen to those sad songs, embrace your emotions, and let yourself cry. Even Jesus wept.

 

[cue]

They, themselves, are a way in which people help themselves to move on. Whether it is a song I have written … or one I have listened to in a time in need.
(…)
But don’t tell me that same song is inherently wrong to listen to if it picked me up in a time of need and gave me something to relate to, to identify with, and to help me better understand (and deal with) the emotional torment that was going on inside of me at the time.

You are very right to say that music, especially rock and other emotionally provocative genres, can be ways people cope or deal with things. However, that does not make them good. An addiction to drug or alcohol abuse can be an unhealthy way that people deal with things. This does not make those addictions right.

We crave human emotion. And mind you, there is no such thing as a “bad” emotion … only bad actions that stem from those emotions.
(…)
So go on and listen to those sad songs, embrace your emotions, and let yourself cry. Even Jesus wept.

It is not a question of embracing or denying emotions; it is an examination of which emotions and in what way do I want to foster specific emotions. Embracing emotion in itself is not necessarily a good idea and neither is denying emotion. The Catechism says:

No 1768 Passions are morally good when they contribute to a good action, evil in the opposite case.

(Emotion, as I understand its use on this thread, is the same as passion). In the same paragraph, the Catechism mentions that passions can be disordered. It is that order that we are concerned with. An excessive provocation of emotions can bring about an egotism in a man because the emphasis has been placed, not on God or others or the world around him, but on his experience of it. The man is then shallowed up in this abyss of his emotion because the most basic passion, love, cannot be satisfied in the self-centered universe he has imagined. He is unable to reach and love God or others because he has conditioned himself to operate only on his immediate experience of the event. What we have described is very much a “passion addiction,” an obsession of one’s emotions to point that his emotions become disordered, that is, not ordered under a love of God and reason.

But the arts (music included) … the arts are meant to be a constructive release of emotion and of intellectual thought. The songs you mention breed compassion and feeling and thirst for life. They, themselves, are a way in which people help themselves to move on. Whether it is a song I have written … or one I have listened to in a time in need.
(…)
Music and art and poetry and film are all ways in which we attempt to better understand the human condition, our place in this world … both as an audience and as artists ourselves. They are ways in which we enrich our lives. And they can bring us closer to God.

We have to agree that with rock music, we may not talking about the arts.

 

[cenpress]

Thanks for your comments, cue. I appreciate your taking the time to reply.

My point is such music isn’t inherently evil, or base, or wrong. Sure, it might lead someone to a distorted view of themselves or the world, but that isn’t cause to dub the material bad. But neither can one call such art inherently good … not even if it leads one closer to God.

Follow me: If I listen to a song about lost love, perhaps I might 1) turn inward and wallow in hopelessness at the misery of having lost my own love and as a result, drift further from the Lord … or I may 2) identify the emotional torment within me, build up a resolve to overcome such misery, and turn to my Lord for strength.

BOTH of those actions are just as likely to happen were we to give the same material (or art or song, say) to two different people. But NEITHER action appropriates the song itself as being inherently good or evil.

To say “Rock music (or most Rock music) ought to be avoided” simply because it tends to embrace or depict human emotion is invalid. Art (and yes, I DO include Rock music here, and Metal and Punk and Hip-Hop) can be beautiful and it can be ugly. It can even be beautiful in its ugliness and ugly in it’s beauty.

But to make a blanket statement like the one above is flawed. In large part, because too much depends upon how it (art) is received. Art is not just about creation. It is about conversation … between artist and audience. It is too subjective to be lumped into categories and subcategories and wholly ignored.

What you might find disgusting, I might find beautiful. But that reaction (almost always) is based more on what we bring to a song or a painting, rather than the song or painting itself.

 

[cue]

So where I am right now with the question is that rock is definitely not leading me God and is very likely leading me away or at least making it harder to stay close to him. Thus, yes, it would be venially sinful.

Understand that I am speaking about my case. I do not mean to say that anyone who listens to a rock song is intentionally sinning. I am speaking about a consistent exposure to this genre, in my case, I was constantly surrounding myself with this music. So I don’t know that I would say that listening to a rock song is sinful, however listening to rock, that is, making a habit of subjecting oneself to rock, would be sinful, even if unintentionally.

In my case, the sin was two-fold:

1. excess of musical stimulation. I was listening to something (even Gregorian chant, which does provoke a respect for reason and love of God) non-stop.
2. the content of much of the listening was rock. The genre I was listening to did not encourage an ordered life with reason or the pursuit of virtue, but only unchecked passion. The genre did not lend itself to sobriety or moderation. Thus it only exaggerated No 1 above.

Also, cenpress, more on my ‘art’ comment. The Holy Father in Spirit of the Liturgy described what he called a “crisis of art” today.

What is more, art itself…becomes literally object-less. Art turns into experimenting with self-created worlds, empty ‘creativity,’ which no longer perceives the Creator Spiritus…it manages to produce only what is arbitrary and vacuous…" p. 131

Here he is speaking of images mainly, but I think it could apply to all of the ‘arts.’ So, in other words, modern forms of art try to discard a grounding in Christ, God, which is a grounding in our very nature (what we are called to), and thus ceases to be art, since, in rejecting Truth, it cannot be beautiful.

Please understand that this is just what makes sense to me right now in thinking about the issue. I welcome criticism.

 

[cenpress]

Thanks for further clarification, cue.

But I wouldn’t say that I agree with the Holy Father on this issue. If he were more specific on a certain piece of art, perhaps I could see his point, but I’ll tell you from my experience, art is thriving today. I am increasingly proud of the age I live in when I look to its literature, its musicians, its artists, its poets. On so many levels, we have become so much more culturally aware in our diversity that self-exploration through the arts is unifying and redeeming.

I do see your point, Cue, about music itself becoming a form of addiction. But that feeds my very argument … what is wrong for you isn’t necessarily wrong for me. If, however, my love for art became a distraction … if it became addictive and I felt less and less in control of my spiritual and intellectual growth, then there would be grounds for avoidance of it …

Take for instance, my time right now on this forum. Unfortunately, it is taking me away from work … it is a distraction. And so, for me, it has become a bad influence on my life (on this workday, anyway) … easing me toward imprudence rather than molding me into a stronger employee and soldier of Christ. (Don’t worry, I’ll get back to work here in a second.)

But that doesn’t mean this forum is inherently evil or wrong. Do you know what I’m driving at?

Well … the same goes for art!

---

Now, I will respectfully bow out of this conversation (for now) and get back to work. But I’m glad I had the opportunity to share my thoughts on the matter.

Thanks for reading them … I’ll check back later this evening for any replies.

Peace in Christ!

cenpress.

 

[FrankLawrence]

We crave human emotion. And mind you, there is no such thing as a “bad” emotion … only bad actions that stem from those emotions.

5 of the 7 “deadly sins” are emotions: Anger, lust, pride, envy, and avarice. Sloth is a lack of action(Sin of omission.) Thus, of the 7 “deadly sins,” only one (gluttony) is an action. So, this invalidates your entire premise.

 

[RenaissanceMare]

I also have to disagree with the Holy Father’s “crisis of art” statement that was quoted in an above post. For me, art is many, many things…a reflection, a comfort, a useful expression of emotions (writing an angst filled poem to me is much more useful then drinking oneself into a stupor or doing other self abusive actitives to deal with it), it’s a coping mechanism. I started writing as a way of coping with life, and I don’t think I could’ve made it this far and become the person I am without my outlet. (Except coming back to the Christian faith, of course, but that’s a given.)

Personally, I believe that if a person can listen to/read/watch/look at a piece of art and keep firm in his or her minds the boundries of reality…and reality in this case includes the Catholic teachings and Christianity…then they should be able to enjoy the kind of art that speaks to them.

For me, if I’m feeling really flunky about life I like to put on the CD “Jagged LIttle Pill” by Alanis Morissette and sing along with her. By the time the CD is over, I’ve drained the angst and anger out of me and I can move on. Through Christ I work to diminish these feelings, but they still do happen and I pray for Him to help me find safe outlets. If singing along with Alanis or Janis or Sheryl helps, what’s the foul? I do however agree that sometimes you need “pure” music, and I throughly enjoy Weird Al’s music when I feel depressed. How can you not smile when listening to “The Biggest Ball of Twine in Minnesota?”

One thing struck me though I’d be interested in hearing more about…someone mentioned that there’s alot of rockers who practice Paganism, mysticism, etc. So…should we not listen to a person’s music if we know their personal religion is not Christian? I ask because the front man, Anthony Kiedis, of one of my favorite bands, the Red Hot Chili Peppers happens to be a Wiccan. If it’s dripping into his song lyrics, well, I haven’t been able to tell with some of the beautiful ballads they’ve released like “Under The Bridge” and “Californication”. I don’t agree with Wicca, but does that mean I can’t enjoy music made by a Wiccan? Dicuss, please!

 

[cue]

But to make a blanket statement like the one above is flawed.

I must confess I am being somewhat imprecise in my language. My point is that music with a style, beat, etc. that stimulates disordered passion is sinful. Rock typically has such a style, beat, etc. Nonetheless, there are many rock songs that would be exceptions. However, as a genre, rock is characterized by the style, beat, etc. that I object to.

To say “Rock music (or most Rock music) ought to be avoided” simply because it tends to embrace or depict human emotion is invalid.

I would not say that it should be avoided because it simply depicts human emotion in general. Every genre depicts passion (I would say). However, rock usually evokes in the human spirit a tendency toward impulsive behavior, discouraging reason and sobriety. There are people, perhaps, who will not be effected in this way. But for the majority of cases, I would say, it does. The problem isn’t the presence of passion in a genre, but the genre’s treatment of passion.

I do see your point, Cue, about music itself becoming a form of addiction. But that feeds my very argument … what is wrong for you isn’t necessarily wrong for me. If, however, my love for art became a distraction … if it became addictive and I felt less and less in control of my spiritual and intellectual growth, then there would be grounds for avoidance of it …

Take for instance, my time right now on this forum. Unfortunately, it is taking me away from work … it is a distraction. And so, for me, it has become a bad influence on my life (on this workday, anyway) … easing me toward imprudence rather than molding me into a stronger employee and soldier of Christ. (Don’t worry, I’ll get back to work here in a second.)

But that doesn’t mean this forum is inherently evil or wrong. Do you know what I’m driving at?

I do. But I was only saying that a thing is not made good because it helps people cope. This is not the reason rock is sinful. I would assert that rock, in general as a genre, even if it is not overly indulged in, has a style that is conducive to unreasonable (disordered) activity (or behavior) and is therefore an occasion of sin. This means that I also believe that the style of music, separate from its lyrics, has a good or bad effect on the human spirit; it is not just neutral. That which has a good effect we call art, as it is an expression consistent with our nature (directed to God) and “bears a certain likeness to God’s activity in what he has created” (CCC 2501). That which has a bad effect cannot be called art because in its rejection of God (and the order he established) it is a rejection of the very reason of man and his anchor that allows him to love.

My point is similar to the Church’s description of Gregorian chant and how it is the best must for liturgical celebration because it truly supports the text it accompanies. I am unable to explain exactly how this is or why this is, but I am able to recognize the validity of the claim from my own experience.

My opinion of rock as a genre is supported by my experience. Perhaps I am universalizing my personal experience, but I do not think that is the case. I have ordered a series by Rev. Nortz. I have no doubt he has an argument a thousand times better. I’ll let you know what he has to say.

 

[cynic]

Here he is speaking of images mainly, but I think it could apply to all of the ‘arts.’ So, in other words, modern forms of art try to discard a grounding in Christ, God, which is a grounding in our very nature (what we are called to), and thus ceases to be art, since, in rejecting Truth, it cannot be beautiful.

That is perhaps the most narrow minded perception of art I’ve ever heard. Does the impressionist painting by Monet have a “grounding in Christ” - if it doesn’t does that make it worthless?

 

[RenaissanceMare]

Oh, I also want to add that the bulk of what I listen to is rock music. I like country because it tells stories, but I LOVE rock because it’s about emotions. I have a “theme song” for just about every emotion…and I don’t think emotions are bad if they’re kept in moderation and not acted upon in a sinful manner.

I end my argument with a quote from my second favorite fictional Catholic, Sophia Petrilo of Golden Girls. She’s decided that she won’t do a certain thing because she’s getting to close to meeting St. Peter, but then admits to enjoying a few fringe benefits of the deal. When asked about this she replies:

“I said I want to be able to stand before St. Peter, I’m not trying to take his job!”