Should Catholic Church musicians be paid?

[The_Curt_Jester]

I’ve also found at almost every place I work, locking the church (and sometimes/always unlocking it) is part of the job. I’m guessing that the MD gets that job because often he is the first person to arrive anyway and usually the last to exit. Ever come down from an organ loft and actually see people still in the church? It’s like trying to find the Loch Ness monster.

 

[jmcrae]

I’ve also found at almost every place I work, locking the church (and sometimes/always unlocking it) is part of the job. I’m guessing that the MD gets that job because often he is the first person to arrive anyway and usually the last to exit. Ever come down from an organ loft and actually see people still in the church? It’s like trying to find the Loch Ness monster.

 

[Incomplete]

I’ve also found at almost every place I work, locking the church (and sometimes/always unlocking it) is part of the job. I’m guessing that the MD gets that job because often he is the first person to arrive anyway and usually the last to exit. Ever come down from an organ loft and actually see people still in the church? It’s like trying to find the Loch Ness monster.

That’s such a sad statement, and makes me more appreciative of my parish. There are always people hanging around praying or talking.

 

[Cat]

I think a distinction should probably be made between someone coming in from the outside and someone who is registered with the parish.

I would more likely be willing to volunteer for everything at my parish unless I really needed the money (say if I were not working), as opposed to volunteering at other parishes.

So for example, I might be willing to manage a website for my parish for free, but I wouldn’t manage it for free for another parish, unless I were really doing an act of mercy because they really needed it but couldn’t afford it.

There is a bit of a problem with this.

Many professional musicians aren’t too happy when people volunteer to do work that they want to be paid for. It robs them of their livelihood and cheapens their work.

Truly, I do not tell too many of my musician friends that I am unpaid for playing for Masses. It’s not a wise thing for me to spread around town. Musicians have a lot of solidarity, and musicians’ unions are fiercely protective.

I suppose to some of you, playing for free in Mass is “ministry,” but honestly, if I stop to think about it, I feel like scab labor, working for free because I can afford to, while my musician friends struggle to find work that will earn enough for them to afford their basic needs. So I try not to think about it.

If all of us who volunteered stopped volunteering, it would make things better for our musicians friends. OTOH, as Pilgrim1701 has pointed out several times, there is no requirement for Mass music, and I fear that most parishes would simply say, “Too bad, so sad, no more Mass music for our parish.”

I would be interested in how some of the full-time musicians on this board feel about the issue of unions/solidarity among musicians, and whether or not we who volunteer hurt those who are trying to earn a living. To me as a Catholic, this is a huge issue–making sure that I don’t deliberately prevent others from making an honest living.

Also, we have to consider the issue of “equal pay for equal work.” What makes playing for a Mass different when I play as opposed to when a professional musician plays? I am a very good pianist who plays professionally (gets paid)–but I don’t make a living at it. The JOB of playing is the same, whether I play or someone else plays. Are we paying for the JOB? Or are we evaluating each person who plays and saying, “You’re supporting a family, therefore you get paid. You’re buying a Coach purse, therefore, you won’t get paid.” This doesn’t seem right, when the person buying the Coach purse does the exact same work as the person who is supporting a family.

 

[Phemie]

In the “old days” when actual catechesis took place, there was no such thing as a DRE - nuns/brothers or the curates handled the matter - at least that was my experience. That the Church would expect volunteers to handle such an important matter, while not shocking, has had the expected result…sorry.

I don’t think there were any nuns or brothers or curates when my dad was in school in the 20s and there were only two sisters in the school when I went in the 60s – there had never been more than that. All the teachers, lay & religious, taught a question and answer Catechism which we learned by rote. Faith was instilled at home and that doesn’t happen much today.

I’ve been in many a parish without Catholic schools and in none of those were the catechists trained or teachers – you volunteered, you were given a textbook and let loose on the kids. I did it one year and realized that it was not something I was cut out for but since there was no one else I felt obliged – particularly since someone else had graciously volunteered to teach my children’s classes.

 

[pnewton]

And are you the person responsible for making sure the parish has hymn books and instruments, and that your various music licenses are all up to date?

I did this last time. I got together the research and presented the options for the priest to decide. Then I organized a fundraiser. But this is only a once ever twenty year proposition for us. I have no problem jumping in and volunteering in the Church in any way I can, not just in music.

I am a heck of a cook. If I am every off of shift work, I very much want to teach. It is my forte.

 

[Phemie]

I get it now. We have ‘a people of God’ and then there are the professionals.
If you can do something well, and use your talents for the church, make damn well sure you get paid for it. The comment about a Catholic that played for the Lutherans because they paid and the Catholics didn’t just underscores the weakness of such a mentality. That’s just a lousy attitude. The argument abounds that there’s a large workload, that just means one person is taking on too much, if they cant cope with a normal work/life balance. Maybe concentrate on Sunday liturgies.
Maybe greater collaboration could work, but then that would mean letting go and trusting another mere mortal, non-professional, in the sphere of religion. A travesty to be sure.
Come to think of it, I think I’m pretty good at the old praying, maybe I should charge for my services at assisting at mass. I wonder what the going rate is:thumbsup:

Do you expect the parishioners who are electricians, carpenters and plumbers to donate their services for several hours each week? If not, why are they different?

 

[dochawk]

Have you ever heard non-musicians singing chant? I’m not talking about the priests or monks–these people ARE trained to sing. I’m talking about cantors or laypeople who aren’t trained in singing–have you ever heard them sing chant?

At every single “Ruthenian” parish I’ve attended in PA, NV, CA, and AZ.

Besides, do you honestly think people just “pick up chant and do it?” Not at all.

Once again, at every single Ruthenian parish I’ve encountered. [qutoe And WHO trains people in local parishes to sing chant; who leads the Schola? It may be a volunteer layperson who just happens to have learned chant in their life.
[/quote] A cantor seems quite sufficient. hawk

 

[dochawk]

nonsense - high quality technically difficult music has been one of the glories of the liturgy…the dumbing down of music to the dreck that is the usual fare at Mass today is an abomination. Kumbaya

While I agree that the usual music found in a latin rite chuch can fairly be described as “dreck” and “abomination,” having spent years cringing from it, that doesn’t make the usurpation of the people’s role correct. Liturgy is, quite literally, the work of the people. BTW my experience is the congregation doesn’t sing at all - so much for “beyond what the laity can sing” - so we are left with poorly sung cruddy, insipid music. That’s what I see outside my parish (and very few others) - any one else? Try stopping in at a formerly Ruthenian parish (The Byzantine Catholic Metropolia of Pittsburgh, or whatever we’re called this week . Almost the entire congregation singing, without a choir , is the norm. It nearly knocked me off my feet the first time I encountered it, and now I’m “home” to stay. hawk

 

[johnnykins]

I don’t think there were any nuns or brothers or curates when my dad was in school in the 20s and there were only two sisters in the school when I went in the 60s – there had never been more than that. All the teachers, lay & religious, taught a question and answer Catechism which we learned by rote. Faith was instilled at home and that doesn’t happen much today.

I’ve been in many a parish without Catholic schools and in none of those were the catechists trained or teachers – you volunteered, you were given a textbook and let loose on the kids. I did it one year and realized that it was not something I was cut out for but since there was no one else I felt obliged – particularly since someone else had graciously volunteered to teach my children’s classes.

As said in an earlier post, there are many factors…a small rural or parish with limited resources is one thing…a large flush parish is another. When I grew up in the 50’s and 60’s (and my parents in the 20’s and 30’s) our respective parishes and all the neighboring parishes had multiple curates, a pastor and schools staffed 75% or more with nuns or brothers - that changed dramatically in the late 60’s. The kids who went to city schools were taught their religion by the nuns/brothers or curates - those in the parochial school obviously were taught in those schools.

BTW faith may have been instilled at home - but it was clearly taught in Sunday school and the parochial school. The difference being the practice and importance of a life of faith v. the what and why of the Catholic faith. The near total collapse of the latter over the last few decades is, IMHO, largely responsible for the multitude who have left the Church for another…the practice and importance of faith was taught (so people retain a practice since it’s important) but which faith to practice has become a choice…

The collapse of catechesis in the late 60’s and thereafter - the loss of vocations, the inability of the Church to respond to the changes in vocations, the failure of the Church and laity to recognize the paradigm had changed led inexorably to the near total collapse of catechesis we see today. Only now do I see any real change beginning to address these issues. The spin by the hierarchy to blame the parents and laity that arose about 20 years ago, aside from being totally disingenuous, was less than helpful.

If there are no resources to spare for trained teachers…that is one issue. To blithely claim that is the way to go in all cases is a recipe for continued disaster.

What stuns me about this thread is that people can’t see the connection between the horrible music so common in Catholic Church with the lack of a serious music program which requires paid professionals…similarly the lack of meaningful catechesis wit the lack of paid professional DRE’s.

As said before, you get what you pay for…and the vast majority of Catholic Church get the worst music programs with hordes of uncatechized people leaving the Church (second largest religious group in the USA is former Catholics), but not paying has worked so well…

Open your eyes and ears.

IF YOU CAN: pay for a decent music program: MD, organist, soloists;
pay for a DRE and teachers

You pay the priest(s), administrator,
you pay the receptionist
you pay the maintenance staff - including laundry, cleaning, sexton, etc…
you pay the accountant
if you can pay and someone wants to volunteer for something OK, but that is not the default position.

yes, if you can you pay…if you can’t, you make do.

(BTW for years I’ve pumped for NO MUSIC at all since it is not needed and is sooooo terrible way too often. Anyone who wants to say - “no music at all” - I’m right there with you.)

 

[johnnykins]

While I agree that the usual music found in a latin rite chuch can fairly be described as “dreck” and “abomination,” having spent years cringing from it, that doesn’t make the usurpation of the people’s role correct. Liturgy is, quite literally, the work of the people. “BTW my experience is the congregation doesn’t sing at all - so much for “beyond what the laity can sing” - so we are left with poorly sung cruddy, insipid music. That’s what I see outside my parish (and very few others) - any one else?” Try stopping in at a formerly Ruthenian parish (The Byzantine Catholic Metropolia of Pittsburgh, or whatever we’re called this week . Almost the entire congregation singing, without a choir , is the norm. It nearly knocked me off my feet the first time I encountered it, and now I’m “home” to stay. hawk

People can sing…not just Ruthenians, but Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Baptists, Methodists…but NOT Catholics.

It has nothing to do with usurpation of roles…that is a red herring. Paying professionals for what they add to the liturgy in no way diminishes the role of the laity…just as paying the priest in no way diminishes his role. Much of what a choir sings is to be participated in by the congregation by the congregational singing (if any!)…that which is not, is participated in by the congregation by listening…both are participating within their respective roles at the liturgy…no usurpation, simply different roles. I might add even with a wholly volunteer choir there are times when just the choir alone might sing…for the express purpose of allowing the congregation to participate by listening. How much better when the music is actually well done rather than off key? How much better when the music is beautiful rather than silly, stupid or worse?

Finally, one of the great traditions of the western church are the choirs and music unsurpassed in history…if that ain’t the Hand of God at play at Mass, then I don’t know how to explain such incredible creativity and sound. That the east may not have moved in that direction, is not to degrade the east, but that the west has moved in that direction, should not be used as a cudgel to say it’s not eastern. To have jettisoned the glorious tradition of western chant and polyphony as has been largely done is a shame of monumental proportion.

 

[superamazingman]

The best music conference I’ve been to (and it’s much more than a conference) is the annual Colloquium done by the Church Music Association of America. Unfortunately, it can be quite expensive to go and many church musicians won’t be able to afford to attend. Ahem.

I’d love to go some day.

 

[superamazingman]

There is a bit of a problem with this.

Many professional musicians aren’t too happy when people volunteer to do work that they want to be paid for. It robs them of their livelihood and cheapens their work.

Truly, I do not tell too many of my musician friends that I am unpaid for playing for Masses. It’s not a wise thing for me to spread around town. Musicians have a lot of solidarity, and musicians’ unions are fiercely protective.

I suppose to some of you, playing for free in Mass is “ministry,” but honestly, if I stop to think about it, I feel like scab labor, working for free because I can afford to, while my musician friends struggle to find work that will earn enough for them to afford their basic needs. So I try not to think about it.

If all of us who volunteered stopped volunteering, it would make things better for our musicians friends. OTOH, as Pilgrim1701 has pointed out several times, there is no requirement for Mass music, and I fear that most parishes would simply say, “Too bad, so sad, no more Mass music for our parish.”

I would be interested in how some of the full-time musicians on this board feel about the issue of unions/solidarity among musicians, and whether or not we who volunteer hurt those who are trying to earn a living. To me as a Catholic, this is a huge issue–making sure that I don’t deliberately prevent others from making an honest living.

Also, we have to consider the issue of “equal pay for equal work.” What makes playing for a Mass different when I play as opposed to when a professional musician plays? I am a very good pianist who plays professionally (gets paid)–but I don’t make a living at it. The JOB of playing is the same, whether I play or someone else plays. Are we paying for the JOB? Or are we evaluating each person who plays and saying, “You’re supporting a family, therefore you get paid. You’re buying a Coach purse, therefore, you won’t get paid.” This doesn’t seem right, when the person buying the Coach purse does the exact same work as the person who is supporting a family.

You are right. We need to not be cheapening music. In that case, it makes it even less likely that any young people will go into music or take organ lessons or anything knowing that there will be no payout.

 

[superamazingman]

Do you expect the parishioners who are electricians, carpenters and plumbers to donate their services for several hours each week? If not, why are they different?

 

[Sarabande]

I would be interested in how some of the full-time musicians on this board feel about the issue of unions/solidarity among musicians, and whether or not we who volunteer hurt those who are trying to earn a living. To me as a Catholic, this is a huge issue–making sure that I don’t deliberately prevent others from making an honest living.

I really don’t know how I feel about this. In one regard, as a professional musician it bothers me that all too often in the secular music world, classical singers are on the low end of the totem pole when it comes to pay. They are often taken advantage of because they know there are many singers who are hungry to perform, but can’t get into the larger houses/concert halls without experience. So, they’ll accept the poverty line pay or no pay or they even “pay to play”. It’s a vicious cycle. It hurts those who are at professional level and everyone always talks about standing up and insisting on being paid something, but then you might end up closing down the smaller houses which really don’t have the financial means to pay their singers well… thus you lose out on the needed performing experience with the operatic roles and such.

With church music, though, I’ve always had a slightly different outlook on it. Although sacred music is very important to me with my prayer life and connection with Christ, it is not necessary for the mass. So, my outlook has been if a parish can afford it and they believe that quality is important, then they should pay for it. If the parish isn’t financially able, then they can’t pay for it and will take what they can get. Sometimes they may be fortunate enough to have talented and gifted musicians who can give of their time. Other time, they aren’t so fortunate. I don’t really see it as hurting professional musicians because you can’t pull money out of thin air.

Also, I don’t know if this is the case everywhere, but I know in my area, most professional church musicians know that you don’t go to a Catholic parish for church work. There is also a belief that many “typical” Catholic church musicians are mediocre or poor talents and/or do low quality music, which is sad because it is partly true, but also partly untrue because I’ve freelanced in enough Catholic churches to come across some very talented musicians. It is believed that if you have a job at a Catholic church it means that you weren’t a good enough musician to go somewhere else. This has changed a little bit as there seems to be more parishes wanting better music and quality musicianship and thus, willing to to get what they pay for. So, for instance, I’ve been meeting more Catholic church organists, singers, and other instrumentalists who have equal respect in the outside music world.

One of the parishes I work at actually has a special fund which completely funds the musicians and music so that none of it comes out of the regular collections. They do it through fundraising and through the generosity of the parishioners. The parishioners want to pay for their musicians. It began after a couple years of quality musicianship. When they saw what high quality musicianship can do for their masses, they were willing to start this fund to ensure that they will always have well-trained singers and instrumentalists. It’s a large and thriving parish and in what’s considered an “artsy” community, so that does make a difference. The other parish where I work is in the city. It’s a small parish (there are two other parishes within blocks of each other) but it’s fairly well-off, close-knit and also appreciates quality musicianship and willing to pay for it.

 

[Nicea325]

Yes they should be paid like any other employee. Our liturgy director is paid a living salary. It is a full time job between planning Masses, funerals, choirs.

If the parish can afford it. Not all parish are blessed to provide a salary.

 

[Sarabande]

Also, we have to consider the issue of “equal pay for equal work.” **What makes playing for a Mass different when I play as opposed to when a professional musician plays? ** I am a very good pianist who plays professionally (gets paid)–but I don’t make a living at it. The JOB of playing is the same, whether I play or someone else plays. Are we paying for the JOB? Or are we evaluating each person who plays and saying, “You’re supporting a family, therefore you get paid. You’re buying a Coach purse, therefore, you won’t get paid.” This doesn’t seem right, when the person buying the Coach purse does the exact same work as the person who is supporting a family.

I don’t think there is a difference. What a person does with the money is not important. You pay for the position and the quality of work needed for the position, not whether or not the person who is filling the position ‘needs’ the compensation or are more deserving of compensation because he/she needs to support the family. Again, it all depends on what a parish can afford.

 

[TrueLight]

One of the parishes I work at actually has a special fund which completely funds the musicians and music so that none of it comes out of the regular collections. They do it through fundraising and through the generosity of the parishioners. The parishioners want to pay for their musicians. It began after a couple years of quality musicianship. When they saw what high quality musicianship can do for their masses, they were willing to start this fund to ensure that they will always have well-trained singers and instrumentalists. It’s a large and thriving parish and in what’s considered an “artsy” community, so that does make a difference. The other parish where I work is in the city. It’s a small parish (there are two other parishes within blocks of each other) but it’s fairly well-off, close-knit and also appreciates quality musicianship and willing to pay for it.

Sounds like heaven!

 

[clem456]

If the parish can afford it. Not all parish are blessed to provide a salary.

Right.
But you can’t then realistically expect a full time liturgy director to come to the parish, just because he should be worshipping, unconcerned about wages cause he loves God… as some of the other posters would like.

Reminds me of the sappy Eagle’s song:
"When we’re hungry, love will keep us alive "

I can just see the unpaid liturgy director singing this song to his wife, as she stuffs the mortgage bill in his mouth.

 

[TrueLight]

I’m not sure if anyone on this thread is saying someone who works full time in the Church should not be paid. After all, they could be looking for paid work elsewhere.

But suppose the parish needs some singers and there happens to be talented singers right in the parish who can learn the music. Say, they only need them for one Mass on Sundays.

Should they volunteer? Should they ask how much they will be paid?

What if one is a professional singer? Should he or she be paid?

What if one is not a “professional” but has lots of singing experience, sounds good and can read music, but does not do it for a living. Should that person be paid?

Should no one volunteer?