Rock Music

[cue]

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?

No, it certainly does not make it worthless, but it might not be art. Does that mean it isn’t beautiful? Does that mean it can’t remind us of God? No. But if everything is art, then nothing is.

According the Catechism No 2501,

…art is a distinctively human form of expression; beyond the search for the necessities of life which is common to all living creatures, art is a freely given superabundance of the human being’s inner riches. Arising from talent given by the Creator and from man’s own effort, art is a form of practical wisdom, uniting knowledge and skill, to give form to the truth of reality in a language accessible to sight or hearing. To the extent that it is inspired by truth and love of beings, art bears a certain likeness to God’s activity in what he has created. Like any other human activity, art is not an absolute end in itself, but is ordered to and ennobled by the ultimate end of man.

No one, ever, has had a better track record at fostering, inspiring, etc. the arts than the Church.

 

[RenaissanceMare]

<<< 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. >>>

So what about art (books, movies, etc.) that make no mention of God and can considered neutral? Can that be beautiful if it makes no statement on the Truth in negative or positive? An example of this that most people would be familair with is the Star Wars movies, which have no mention of God or religion, but are considered some of the greatest movies ever made.

 

[cue]

So what about art (books, movies, etc.) that make no mention of God and can considered neutral? Can that be beautiful if it makes no statement on the Truth in negative or positive? An example of this that most people would be familair with is the Star Wars movies, which have no mention of God or religion, but are considered some of the greatest movies ever made.

I don’t want to turn this into Reading Rainbow, but you will understand the Holy Father’s position much better if “you check out his book at your local library.” To be grounded in Christ (Logos as the Pope often says), art does not need to necessarily be explicitly so. A novel that depicted a criminal as good (and I mean it presents someone doing bad as someone doing good, not just a criminal who has a change of heart or something) would be inconsistent with our nature and therefore lies to us; it tells us that we can reach happiness by doing something that actually keeps us from happiness (the crime).

Ok, let me step back for a moment because I am throwing out a lot of phrases and they might not all make sense. Christ became incarnate and lived among men. He gave us the means and showed us the way to be happy, that is, to come to participate in the life of the Trinity. He showed us that this world, the people, and our bodies are all gifts from God and told us and showed us how to offer these gifts back to God so that we might share in his grace and be truly happy.

Blah, blah. We all know that, so what’s the point? When I talk about art being grounded in Christ or being consistent with our nature, I mean that the piece of art corresponds to what Christ showed us, that is, it corresponds to how we are called to use these gifts.

Therefore, as my example above, a novel that glorifies, truly glorifies harmful or sinful behavior cannot be art. That said, that harmful or sinful behavior can be glorified either explicitly or not explicitly. I cannot quite think of an example of how a novel would non-explicitly glorify sin, but it is this non-explicit-ness that is at issue with music.

With music, an example might be a piece that is one note and only one note—over and over again. It would be inconsistent with our nature in a non-explicit way because we are not alone. God created the world and what happens to one thing has an effect on the others.

That’s not fool-proof, but this is the general idea, as I understand it.Since it is inconsistent with our nature, it could not be art. However, it would also lack the skill that the Catehcism calls a necessary part of art.

 

[cenpress]

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.

First of all, it is not a sin to be angry, FrankLawrence. It is a sin to act unjustly because of your anger. But anger in and of itself is not sinful. Anger, for instance, might move one to sanctified acts against the powers of Satan. One can certainly be justified in one’s anger.

The others you mention are distortions of virtuous emotion. Lust is a distortion of love. Pride can become sinful, but we are told to take pride in our work, take pride in our actions, take pride in your identity as a Catholic. The pride you speak of is a distortion of the emotion in its truer form. The emotion in and of itself is not sinful … You and I are proud brothers in Christ.

Avarice, too, is integrity spoiled … a distortion.

Any emotion taken to an extreme can become sinful. So, truly, I see what you’re saying, FrankLawrence. We DO indeed always need to be prudent with our emotions … self-aware of the limits of our emotions … so to ensure they don’t become distortions. But maybe take another look at my post before you write it off so quickly. I’d sincerely like to hear what you have to say beyond “this invalidates your entire premise.”

 

[DanteAlighieri]

There is some “rock” music that creates a mood of extreme anger, irrelevant to the lyrics. That, in my opinion, would be sinful.

1. This is not a universal truth – that is, music that makes you angry may not make me angry.
2. That you think it’s wrong does not make it 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?

So pagans, occultists, Wiccans, and devil worshippers are incapable of writing objectively good music?

Sting is, as I understand, a devotee of Tantric yoga and such, but it is completely absent from his music. Am I to assume that, if I listen to Ten Summoner’s Tales, that I might be exposing myself to subliminal messages that will lead me away from the Church?

Or is George Harrison going to turn me into a neo-Hindu?

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.

Agreed, but I still don’t think you can say it’s universally sinful.

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.

'Fraid I have to disagree with you there. This is purely your opinion, stated as though it were authoritative. The fact is that a lot of really good art deals with the pain of love lost. Perhaps that indicates the insufficiency of human love in a way that is instructive.

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.

Your logic here is inherently flawed. B does not follow from A.

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.

Tend to agree with you, but to paint all such songs with the same brush is a bit overzealous.

If the song speaks ill of love, itself, it should be avoided.

Again, your opinion stated as authoritative fact. As before, many of the most powerful works of art deal with the loss of love, and this is instructive.

If the song has lyrics that in any way conflict with Catholic truth, the song should be avoided.

Agree with the premise here – that anti-Catholic music is unworthy. I still think you might be overreaching a bit.

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.

An excellent point – I agree wholeheartedly.

Basically, we are best off sticking with songs that give glory to God, regardless of the musical genre.

The problem here is that – forgive me, P and W fans – so much of the music that glorifies God is objectively bad music.

Creativity is one way in which we demonstrate the fact that we are created in God’s image; why not let that demonstration in itself give glory to God when we create wonderful art – be it music, sculpture, literature, paintings, etc.?

Peace,
Dante

 

[cenpress]

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.

What would you call it then, cue?

What would you call a song written by a Wiccan, such as the lead singer of Red Hot Chili Peppers, not about Wicca, not about Christ, but about a near suicide attempt that resulted in a renewed commitment to life? Or a Monet that doesn’t necessarily exemplify Christ, rather the beauty of the work of the Creator? Or a poem like “Howl” by Allen Ginsberg, a homosexual Jew who stood before Congress and fought for (and won back) our freedom of speech. Or “Leaves of Grass” by Walt Whitman. Or the cult movie Pulp Fiction. Or maybe even a book cover design by Chip Kidd, say, for a mystery novel whose hero is a little bit shady himself?

I’m curious what you would call these things, Cue. Because to deny them the title of “art” seems a little dishonest.

I’ll tell you, I adore Pope Benedict with all my heart, but I wasn’t surprised when I learned he strongly disagreed with the decision JP II made when he invited Bob Dylan to perform before him and 200,000 others at the World Eucharist Conference, and further, to base his homily on Dylan’s “Blowin’ in the Wind.” And I don’t know what you feel about that event, but I’ll tell you what … I think it was tremendous what he did. What a powerful way to reach people.

A poet … who became Pope … to appreciate the work of another poet so much that he stood beside him at the podium of the world and asked him to perform his music.

 

[cue]

What would you call it then, cue?

What would you call a song written by a Wiccan, such as the lead singer of Red Hot Chili Peppers, not about Wicca, not about Christ, but about a near suicide attempt that resulted in a renewed commitment to life?

I would not call it art, but that does not mean it is not true or beautiful. I would call it a popular song. While it might fall under the category of the ‘arts,’ it is not necessarily art. It is possible though, that the lead singer of RHCP could produce something that is entirely consistent with our nature; the fact that he is wiccan does not disable him from producing such works. It could certainly hinder him from producing that work, especially if he has a perverted view of reality, salvation, etc.

I would equate this non-art-ness to a friendly conversation or a homily. Both can be beautiful and a real encounter with truth, and both can lead us back to or closer to God. But that doesn’t make them art.

There seems to be an understanding that it is an insult not to be termed ‘art.’ I beg you to resist that thinking. Art does not have a monopoly on truth or beauty. Some of the most beautiful things on earth, the miracle of the Eucharist or of the creation of a new life, are not art and they certainly are true.

As further clarification, let me give an example of how I believe rock influences individuals - a strip club. Now the human body is a very good and a very beautiful thing. It is also good to support (financially) others that they may make a living. However, the situation of such a place, the treatment of those goods (the human body) is itself wrong and sinful. Such places are an occasion of sin. Now there is a lot of good going on—every one who is in there has a pricelessly beautiful soul, loved in the eyes of God, their bodies are good (God created them good), many are seeking love (and God) in a pitiably misguided way (but that seeking God is a beautiful thing), etc. But the overall theme, because of the treatment of the gift of sexuality (that is, perverting this gift), is sinful.

Can some people go in there and not be made to sin against purity or modesty? Absolutely, but the Church recognizes that such a place, by its very existence as a strip club, is an occasion of sin, period. Now, is it possible for some to enter out of ignorance and not sin? Sure, but here an individual weakness (ignorance) hindered the common effect of this place on a human, just as individual strength hindered the movement to sin in the other example above.

I hope this example makes my position more clear. My main objection is not to the overt sins that are commonly associated with or often result from rock—drug use, violence, rebellion, abuse of the gift of sexuality, etc. I certainly object to these, but in this discussion, my obejction is to the genre’s treatment of human passions, a treatment which discourage reason and virtue and thus becomes, by itself and apart from these other sins, an occasion of sin.

(I am a horrible typist; I apologize for any errors.)

 

[mpb74]

My first post. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I enjoy alot of rock music. Some of it is quite spiritual, in a way not inconsistent with catholic teaching. Some rock , to me is horrible music, in my opinion. Some lyrics are hateful, heretical and vicious. I have found music that has taught me things.
A Bob Dylan line I heard as a teenager presentented a spousal relationship differently than I had ever seen with my eyes. " I want to be your lover Baby , I don’t want to be your boss". That made all the difference in how I approached my relationships when I dated.
Many people know the Grateful Dead song “Friend of The Devil”. Doesn’t sound good does it. The most well known line is “A friend of the devil is a friend of mine”. That sounds even worse. But the entirety of the song explains how he made a deal with the devil and lived sinfully and is now in misery. Misery loves company so other friends of the devil are in the same boat he is in.

 

[cenpress]

Glad you brought up “Friend of the Devil,” mpb74. It’s a great song (and you make a great point).

Funny story … my wife and I recently invited our parish priest over to our house for dinner. We’ve talked about literature before on a number of occasions, so I knew he and I had similar interests. But never in a million years would I have guessed that his first concert experience was a Grateful Dead show. I was so delighted to hear that … and never would I have pinned him as a fan (he’s the sweetest, most innocent & learned man I probably know). (He also loves vampire movies … hehe)

Anyway … I remember last year getting all up in arms over a discussion on these boards concerning The Rolling Stones song “Sympathy for the Devil.” So many people simply gave knee-jerk reactions to the song and labeled it diabolical without ever paying attention to the lyrics or the overarching meaning (and I’ve seen the same with “Friend of the Devil”). It’s a shame.

 

[cue]

My first post.

Welcome to the forum!

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

I would disagree, however, that is not the point here. The point is that art is not in the eye of the beholder, because if it were, then art has no meaning other than “what I like.” So stuff you like is art to you and stuff I like is art to me. That is relativistic and authentically posits nothing.

Some of it is quite spiritual, in a way not inconsistent with catholic teaching. Some rock , to me is horrible music, in my opinion.
(…)
Many people know the Grateful Dead song “Friend of The Devil”. Doesn’t sound good does it. The most well known line is “A friend of the devil is a friend of mine”. That sounds even worse. But the entirety of the song explains how he made a deal with the devil and lived sinfully and is now in misery. Misery loves company so other friends of the devil are in the same boat he is in.

You are very right. These things can remind us of truths like our need for God. However, that does not make it art and it does not make it not sinful. Even our most serious sins can lead us to God (e.g. by bringing home that we need his help). God can use anything, no matter how perverted, twisted, or wrong, to bring us back to him. And that coming back to him is a good thing. However, I am speaking specifically about the genre of rock in general apart from other activities which may result from it.

So, yes, rock can do good for people, but that does not make it good. Martyrdom sends souls to God and often brings about inspiration and conversion in others. However, the act of martyrdom, that is, the act of murdering someone, is not made good despite the good that comes from it.

 

[Guldenat]

A similar discussion has occurred in the Writing thread.

Cue, not to sound argumentative, but you are not in a position to define what is art and what is not, neither is the Catholic Church or the Fathers of the Church. It is the Church’s purview to define, perhaps what art is morally acceptable, but not what is or what is not art.

The purpose of art is to give insight into the human condition, nature, the glory of God, etc.

Art is a vast subject, and it is not for us or the Church to define what it is, that’s for people with doctorate degrees in the Arts & Sciences.

 

[cue]

Cue, not to sound argumentative, but you are not in a position to define what is art and what is not

“Not to sound argumentative,” but you feel that you are?

Cue, not to sound argumentative, but you are not in a position to define what is art and what is not, neither is the Catholic Church or the Fathers of the Church. It is the Church’s purview to define, perhaps what art is morally acceptable, but not what is or what is not art.
(…)
Art is a very complicated subject, and it is not for us or the Church to define what it is, that’s for people with doctorate degrees in the Arts & Sciences.

I apologize if I am misunderstanding you, but your statement seems to presume an inherent separation between religion (and the realm of the Church) and everything else. This is the view of American politics. However, this view is incorrect. If we believe in the message of Christ, we believe it because we believe it is true, not because it is religiously true. When the Church speaks on morality, it is not just a good guideline nor does she speak on morals merely because she has been given the authority to do so. When she speaks about morals, she is sharing, or rather Christ is revealing to us through her the way things really are. Thus a prohibition against murder is not just a good idea in an area the Church is able to speak. Murder really harms one person in an violent way and ourselves and others in real, though maybe, not-so-visible way.

Thus laws are laws. To commit adultery and ignore the moral law is just as foolish as drinking a glass of mercury and ignoring the laws of physics and science.

My point is that there are not two types of truth (regular truth vs religious truth). Things are either true or false. There is no state of existence between existing or not existing. This is a principle we agree to when we engage in rational thought.

So we can bring this down to a question of trust. In the definition of art, who do we trust? Those to whom the proclaim of the Truth was entrusted or some random people apart from an everlasting institution (like the Church) who have made it through a contemporary education system. Or do we trust those who are appointed to speak on behalf of the Creator of Truth or some dudes with fancy pieces of paper.

The purpose of art is to give insight into the human condition, nature, the glory of God, etc. If something does not explicitly mention God or pertain to Him, that does not disqualify it from being art.

Precisely, I have been trying to explain that a glorification of God is mostly not be explicit. It does not have to be explicit. However, since he is the first cause and created everything, everything pertains to him.

 

[mpb74]

Cue, the argument that positive side effects can come about from bad things is sound. However I don’t think that is the issue here.
Instead of the terms good and bad I would rather use Godly or evil, as bad or good in art can often reflect our taste rather than an objective truth.
Very littlle rock music is either Godly or evil and that is objective truth. ( If you believe this is wrong, let me know) A lot of rock is very generic, simpistic, and superficial. Nice positve messages can be found in it. Messages of moral laxity can also be found in it. In some of the deeper lyrics you can find examples of deep spiritual truth and discovery. You can also find examples of hedonism and evil intent. I enjoy the former. when I see the evil I look away as I choose not to engage in that type of thought.
Should would dress our music in burqa’s and robes down to it’s ankles lest it tempt us to sin? Respectfully, Dan

 

[cenpress]

These things can remind us of truths like our need for God. However, that does not make it art and it does not make it not sinful. Even our most serious sins can lead us to God (e.g. by bringing home that we need his help). God can use anything, no matter how perverted, twisted, or wrong, to bring us back to him. And that coming back to him is a good thing. However, I am speaking specifically about the genre of rock in general apart from other activities which may result from it.

So, yes, rock can do good for people, but that does not make it good. Martyrdom sends souls to God and often brings about inspiration and conversion in others. However, the act of martyrdom, that is, the act of murdering someone, is not made good despite the good that comes from it.

I’m sorry, cue, but I’ve gotta disagree with you here in a very basic sense. And maybe it is a matter of semantics (and if so, then you can take your definition of art, I’ll take mine, and we can both go our separate ways). But I think what you are basically saying (and correct me if I’m wrong) is even if it leads you to Christ or influences you in a positive way, that “piece” or “work” (shall we say) isn’t necessarily to be considered art? That only work that is grounded in Christ has the right to be referred to as such?

That’s nonsense. And it IS semantic.

But even if we posit that your definition is the correct one (just to humor you for a moment ) … that Rock music “can remind us of truths like our need for God. However, that does not make it art and it does not make it not sinful” … you need to admit that it doesn’t necessarily make it sinful though either. That is a fallible argument.

Just because something has the potential to be used sinfully doesn’t make it inherently evil … or just because something can become sinful doesn’t mean it can’t be sinLESS.

And not only that, but your argument about martyrdom is completely unrelated and flawed at that. It is not the martyrdom that leads people to heaven … but the faith of the person martyred. Just as it is not the sin that leads you back to God (as you suggested a possibility), but the guilt and regret and the desire to not fall into sin again.

Either way, we are talking semantically here. My point from the beginning was that Rock music isn’t inherently evil. A song could be, sure. But not the genre as a whole. And just because the Rock genre may not be grounded in Christ, even if you don’t want to call it “art,” that doesn’t lead to the conclusion that it must be sinful.

You mentioned Gregorian Chants … let’s talk about chanting. Mantras are evil, are they not? The possessed often sing demonic chants. But I have a feeling you would be hesitant to throw that genre as a whole under the same sort of label you did with Rock. As well you should. Am I correct in thinking so?

 

[mpb74]

Cenpress, Your Parish Priest must be quite a guy. In my younger years I would follow the Dead around the east coast mostly for a couple of weeks at a time. I learned a lot and it wasn’t all good. Some of my lessons were good though. As for “Sympathy For The Devil” I always looked at it as the Devil bragging over his successes over humanity, explaining his true desire to bring us to ruin, and his groveling for sympathy as he knows he will lose the ultimate battle with God. In reality he has already lost.
On issues such as these as often refer myself to the issue of lust. If I see a strikingly attractive woman and instictively note her physical beauty I am not in sin for this. If after realizing I’m staring I don’t turn away immediately I am in sin. If I conciously continue to think of her in such a way, I am in sin. To my understanding, It is often what we do with our thoughts that lead us to sin. Dan

 

[Guldenat]

“Not to sound argumentative,” but you feel that you are?

I was concerned that the direct tone I was taking might be construed negatively, which would have been an unintentional side effect. Just thought I’d put a little disclaimer in.

I apologize if I am misunderstanding you, but your statement seems to presume an inherent separation between religion (and the realm of the Church) and everything else. This is the view of American politics. However, this view is incorrect. If we believe in the message of Christ, we believe it because we believe it is true, not because it is religiously true. When the Church speaks on morality, it is not just a good guideline nor does she speak on morals merely because she has been given the authority to do so. When she speaks about morals, she is sharing, or rather Christ is revealing to us through her the way things really are. Thus a prohibition against murder is not just a good idea in an area the Church is able to speak. Murder really harms one person in an violent way and ourselves and others in real, though maybe, not-so-visible way.

Thus laws are laws. To commit adultery and ignore the moral law is just as foolish as drinking a glass of mercury and ignoring the laws of physics and science.

My point is that there are not two types of truth (regular truth vs religious truth). Things are either true or false. There is no state of existence between existing or not existing. This is a principle we agree to when we engage in rational thought.

So we can bring this down to a question of trust. In the definition of art, who do we trust? Those to whom the proclaim of the Truth was entrusted or some random people apart from an everlasting institution (like the Church) who have made it through a contemporary education system. Or do we trust those who are appointed to speak on behalf of the Creator of Truth or some dudes with fancy pieces of paper.

Precisely, I have been trying to explain that a glorification of God is mostly not be explicit. It does not have to be explicit. However, since he is the first cause and created everything, everything pertains to him.

Perhaps you have misunderstood me. I agree we must follow the Church in faith and morals, but art in of itself does not fall under the moral or faith category. It can… but art by itself does not. Because of this, I agree the Church’s opinion must be followed if it were to claim certain pieces of art were outside the realm of moral law, however, the Church cannot make statements that are part of the deposit of faith concerning what is or is not ‘art’.

I agree with your point about truth being an over-arching umbrella of all things, whether that be religious or secular. But defining art is simply not a power that Christ gave his Church. The definition of art you give is simply not the definition of art. Perhaps we could say your definition is art at it’s best or most appropriate, but that is the extent of it. The pope can and has said that art ought to do this or that… but if it doesn’t, that does not disqualify a certain piece of music from being art.

 

[cue]

Let me defend some of my statements and then I move on to more.

But I think what you are basically saying (and correct me if I’m wrong) is even if it leads you to Christ or influences you in a positive way, that “piece” or “work” (shall we say) isn’t necessarily to be considered art? That only work that is grounded in Christ has the right to be referred to as such?

Yes, that is what I am saying. But notice your words:

if it leads you to Christ or influences you in a positive way

Here we talking about the work and a subject, a subject being either lead or influenced.

That only work that is grounded in Christ has the right to be referred to as such?

Here we are talking about only the work.

I hope that clarifies my point.

…Rock music “can remind us of truths like our need for God. However, that does not make it art and it does not make it not sinful” … you need to admit that it doesn’t necessarily make it sinful though either. That is a fallible argument.

This is not my argument that rock is sinful, but only that good effects do not make rock good. My starting position has been that rock is sinful, which I will explain and argue here in a moment.

Just because something has the potential to be used sinfully doesn’t make it inherently evil … or just because something can become sinful doesn’t mean it can’t be sinLESS.

Again, I have been trying to say that my main objection is not the effects of rock, but the genre in and of itself. I spoke about the effects when I spoke about my personal experience, but this was only mentioned additionally; it is not my point.

And not only that, but your argument about martyrdom is completely unrelated and flawed at that. It is not the martyrdom that leads people to heaven … but the faith of the person martyred.

Strictly speaking, it is only God that leads them to heaven.

Just as it is not the sin that leads you back to God (as you suggested a possibility), but the guilt and regret and the desire to not fall into sin again.

I was expressing that “God can use anything, no matter how perverted, twisted, or wrong, to bring us back to him.” I did not mean to imply that those things themselves lead us to God.

My point from the beginning was that Rock music isn’t inherently evil.

And my point is that is inherently evil, apart from the swarm of evils commonly associated with rock. I will make my case below.

You mentioned Gregorian Chants … let’s talk about chanting. Mantras are evil, are they not? The possessed often sing demonic chants. But I have a feeling you would be hesitant to throw that genre as a whole under the same sort of label you did with Rock. As well you should. Am I correct in thinking so?

Well, I am uncertain how to approach this. I am not familiar with mantras, but I find it curious that you include it in the genre of Gregorian Chant. I would not do so. Both could be included in a general ‘chant’ genre, but I would not include mantras in Gregorian Chant.

But I accept you point. Because I am unfamiliar with mantras, I cannot be detailed. I am assuming that mantras have lyrics, words. We then have to separate the words and message from the music itself and its message. The verbal message may be evil, but that does not make the musical message evil at all. I would have to determine if the music itself, apart from the lyrics, was grounded in Christ and transmitted the order of creation and reason or if it was a variance with that order and rejected reason. The question is how do we do that. Now that I have addressed my previous statements, I will move on to my positive argument.

 

[cue]

My argument is as follows:

1. Music, apart from lyrics, has a message or effect.
   Reason: The Church assumes this when she states that Gregorian Chant is most suited for the liturgy and supports the text.
2. The message of the music of the genre called rock is disordered.
   Reasons: a) The opinion of those I respect and who have studied this issue in depth have asserted this.
   b) My experience and the experience of those I know is consistent only with this view.

It is far from perfect, but as I mentioned earlier, I am getting more information and hope to offer more proof.

Nonetheless, I would challenge those who hold an opposing view to present an argument for their view. But I will warn you there are two answers I will not accept (who cares what I accept): 1. An appeal to the status quo and 2. Assuming everything is good (these are not arguments).

Guldenat,
I do not think that the definition is a matter of the deposit of faith that has been passed down from Christ. However, I do acknowledge that because of her deposit of faith and the configuration of her ministers to Christ, the bishops of the Church can speak with more certainty than someone who does not have access to those things. In other words, Catholics and especially bishops have a more realistic view of the world than those who believe in things that are untrue or deny things that are true. I therefore trust the definition of someone with a more clear understanding of reality than I trust the definition of those who are confused (sometimes confused about the most basic things). I don’t know if that makes it any clearer.

 

[Guldenat]

Guldenat,
I do not think that the definition is a matter of the deposit of faith that has been passed down from Christ. However, I do acknowledge that because of her deposit of faith and the configuration of her ministers to Christ, the bishops of the Church can speak with more certainty than someone who does not have access to those things. In other words, Catholics and especially bishops have a more realistic view of the world than those who believe in things that are untrue or deny things that are true. I therefore trust the definition of someone with a more clear understanding of reality than I trust the definition of those who are confused (sometimes confused about the most basic things). I don’t know if that makes it any clearer.

That may be so, but no bishop has the right to redefine words in the English language. Aside from that, I know bishops who listen to rock music. Their is no consensus in the Catholic community regarding rock as being objectively wrong (or declaring it not to be an artform (which they have no authority to do)).

The main problem with your argument is that it does not take into account how vast a category Rock n’ Roll is. Sure, maybe you can say it’s a sin for me to listen to Slayer, but it’s a sin to listen to Chuck Berry’s “Johnny B. Goode”? Or Christian rock? Pointing to the fact that some people get ‘angry’ and/or act ‘rashly’ while listening to rock music does not make rock n’ roll objectively bad.

 

[cenpress]

Cue, I want to tell you that despite completely disagreeing with you on this matter, I have thoroughly enjoyed taking part in this intellectual conversation with you … and the others in this thread. It is so nice that we can discuss our ideas in this format without the discussion becoming heated. Just wanted to mention that to you.

1. The message of the music of the genre called rock is disordered.
   Reasons: a) The opinion of those I respect and who have studied this issue in depth have asserted this.
   b) My experience and the experience of those I know is consistent only with this view.

Unfortunately, friend, you leave me no choice but to call you on this:

You are basing the entirety (or half of) of your argument on the opinions of people you respect and on your own personal experience? I don’t think you can posit such an argument (#2) in your theorem that concludes with: Rock music (as a genre) is inherently evil.

I’m sorry, brother, but that is not a reasonable argument. It’s reasonable that such experience and people have led you to your own conclusion on the matter, but when discussing truth, I’m afraid that becomes irrelevant. Because it simply is not grounded in logic. It’s like saying, “Yeah? Well … my dad could beat up your dad.” There are plenty of people I could cite as bearers of my opinion as well, but that doesn’t make my argument any more solid or profound.

---

My point from the beginning was that Rock is not inherently evil. It certainly can become so. But it can become good also (Christian “Rock” being a fine example of this). If Christian Rock is not, in fact, Rock music, what ought we call it? And if we play that game, are we not again in danger of falling into a semantic argument?

Rock is neither inherently evil nor intrinsically good. It is neutral. Like any genre.

---

Incidentally, I never implied that mantras ought to be included in the genre of Gregorian Chant … merely that mantras, too, are chants. As Gregorian Chants are chants.

But it strikes me as odd that the church would stand behind the Gregorian Chant as being most suitable for worship when it falls under a genre that includes satanic melodies and mantras used in meditation. Could it be because it isn’t the genre we ought to be concerned about in these instances … but the songs themselves? Hence, Gregorian Chant is good but not all chant is good. Hence, some Rock is good but not all Rock is good.

I see no need to lump an entire genre into an occasion of sin (or worse, flat out evil), when ample evidence points toward there being plenty of redeeming, good, morally based Rock songs in music’s fine and storied history.