Should Catholic Church musicians be paid?

[englishredrose]

What about the regular worshippers who put their personal time in to actually being in church to worship. They should be paid too if listening to the logic here because without the worshippers the choir is pointless as no one is there to hear them sing. Without the worshippers all those others who perform duties in the church be pointless because there be no duties to carry out as no worshippers to carry them out for.

Yeh fine, pay the choir if you want to pay everyone but remember that without the worshippers there to listen and be guided by the music it all be pointless. You can do away with the choir but you can’t do away without the worshippers. They are the most important people in Church and get very little acknowledgment for being there yet without them the church building wouldn’t be there.

so instead of paying the choir of which a church can function without them, pay the worshippers for worshipping at the services without adding on their fingers the number of hours they are there for. The church building cannot stay open without them. Lets get who is really the important people here. The priest and assistant priests, and the worshippers. The rest are just nice to have but not necessarily. If we are going to pay anyone pay who keeps the building open and that is the worshippers not some choir director or some other person who does lots of paper shuffling hours. Let us pay respect to the worshippers for once who do not count the number of times they are at a service that they pray each day at home that they are 100% Catholic in all they do think and say and that they go to confession and that they are in the pew when the choir aint there. Let us remember the worshipper as they are whats important as without them there would be no church but without the choir there would be a church

 

[SMHW]

What about the regular worshippers who put their personal time in to actually being in church to worship. They should be paid too if listening to the logic here because without the worshippers the choir is pointless as no one is there to hear them sing. Without the worshippers all those others who perform duties in the church be pointless because there be no duties to carry out as no worshippers to carry them out for.

My only answer to this is that most paid Church employees I know work more hours than those for which they are actually paid. I dare say for most, the time they actually spend in scheduled Masses is probably above and beyond the number of hours specified in their salaries. And such employees have as much responsibility as any other parishioners to financially support the Church.

And in my experience choir members at the parish level are are usually not paid.

 

[englishredrose]

My only answer to this is that most paid Church employees I know work more hours than those for which they are actually paid. I dare say for most, the time they actually spend in scheduled Masses is probably above and beyond the number of hours specified in their salaries. And such employees have as much responsibility as any other parishioners to financially support the Church.

And in my experience choir members at the parish level are are usually not paid.

doesn’t answer the question that the worshippers are most important part of the church because without them there wouldn’t be a church service. If choir members are paid then the Worshippers should be paid too because without the Worshippers there be no need for choir members never mind paid choir members. Your answer side steps my question

(Im in a church choir and we are paid for weddings but we put it into a fund that pays our way and helps the church in that it pays for the music licence, books, gowns, donations to the church, Priest’ own charity appeal, etc. We don’t get cash in hand so to speak and that has been our own choice as a choir)

 

[The_Curt_Jester]

What about the regular worshippers who put their personal time in to actually being in church to worship. They should be paid too if listening to the logic here because without the worshippers the choir is pointless as no one is there to hear them sing. Without the worshippers all those others who perform duties in the church be pointless because there be no duties to carry out as no worshippers to carry them out for.

Yeh fine, pay the choir if you want to pay everyone but remember that without the worshippers there to listen and be guided by the music it all be pointless. You can do away with the choir but you can’t do away without the worshippers. They are the most important people in Church and get very little acknowledgment for being there yet without them the church building wouldn’t be there.

so instead of paying the choir of which a church can function without them, pay the worshippers for worshipping at the services without adding on their fingers the number of hours they are there for. The church building cannot stay open without them. Lets get who is really the important people here. The priest and assistant priests, and the worshippers. The rest are just nice to have but not necessarily. If we are going to pay anyone pay who keeps the building open and that is the worshippers not some choir director or some other person who does lots of paper shuffling hours. Let us pay respect to the worshippers for once who do not count the number of times they are at a service that they pray each day at home that they are 100% Catholic in all they do think and say and that they go to confession and that they are in the pew when the choir aint there. Let us remember the worshipper as they are whats important as without them there would be no church but without the choir there would be a church

So you’re claiming that musicians don’t worship, don’t pray, don’t go to confession, and will never attend Mass if they aren’t there to “perform”? I can see trying to talk any sense into you is a complete waste of time.

 

[TrueLight]

So you’re claiming that musicians don’t worship, don’t pray, don’t go to confession, and will never attend Mass if they aren’t there to “perform”? I can see trying to talk any sense into you is a complete waste of time.

As an aside, some don’t attend mass unless performing and I think that is a very important issue that musicians should be mindful of.

I find sitting in the pews to be a different experience than ministering.

It might be good to have at least one mass per week that one attends where one gets to sit in the pew.

 

[englishredrose]

So you’re claiming that musicians don’t worship, don’t pray, don’t go to confession, and will never attend Mass if they aren’t there to “perform”? I can see trying to talk any sense into you is a complete waste of time.

Actually from the experience of my own choir sadly that is very true without giving anyone away. and we aren’t even paid

 

[gjwandkids]

I read the entire thread and didn’t see anything about paying the CHOIR.

In my reading the question concerned whether or not to pay the music director, who is in fact in charge of overseeing the entire music program besides being the principal organist for the parish. Which is generally speaking a full time occupation. If he/she isn’t paid a living wage, how pray tell should he/she go about providing for his family?

To suggest as one member did, that the responsibilities can be shared is to invite chaos.

A well run program of any sort needs one person to oversee the whole. That person should receive a living wage for his/her efforts.

I also have one comment directed at those who posted that Mass can happen without music.

A person can also receive nutrition through a feeding tube. That is not however the normative way.

The Mass is INTENDED to be sung. In all the documents concerning liturgy, the SUNG Mass is the standard and qualifications are made for deviations from that standard.

Last but certainly not least…if guitars are the only instruments you have available, I highly suggest you start singing the Propers and avoid instruments entirely. The Propers are in fact what should be sung, and are now available in English.

If you don’t know what the Propers are…here is a very clear definition.

musicamsacram.org/what-are-the-propers/

Pax Christi.

For the curious…I’m not a church musician, although I sing in our parish choir. (for free).

 

[pnewton]

What about the regular worshippers who put their personal time in to actually being in church to worship. They should be paid too if listening to the logic here because without the worshippers the choir is pointless as no one is there to hear them sing.

Your analogy has only* one* point of comparison with* one* reason to pay musicians. It is not valid for most reasons mentioned here. For example, preparation and training are not needed by parishoners.

 

[pnewton]

As an aside, some don’t attend mass unless performing and I think that is a very important issue that musicians should be mindful of.

I find sitting in the pews to be a different experience than ministering.

It might be good to have at least one mass per week that one attends where one gets to sit in the pew.

I totally agree with this. Unfortunately, with on two regular musicians, one who works out of town a lot and with me working shift work, it is a rarity I have that luxury. Back when we had three to rotate, I could to that. Hopefully, I will get to again. For now, it is a rarity.

 

[TrueLight]

I totally agree with this. Unfortunately, with on two regular musicians, one who works out of town a lot and with me working shift work, it is a rarity I have that luxury. Back when we had three to rotate, I could to that. Hopefully, I will get to again. For now, it is a rarity.

God willing you’ll have that chance again!

 

[pnewton]

I read the entire thread and didn’t see anything about paying the CHOIR.

I have heard this happens, but quite rarely. When it does, the demands on them are increased, as is the level of talent that is required.

 

[The_Curt_Jester]

Actually from the experience of my own choir sadly that is very true without giving anyone away. and we aren’t even paid

You can’t use experience at your own church to paint every musician out there. There are worshipers in the pews who are only there because they have to be there, but that doesn’t mean you point to the entire congregation and tell them that they are all the same.

 

[SMHW]

doesn’t answer the question that the worshippers are most important part of the church because without them there wouldn’t be a church service. If choir members are paid then the Worshippers should be paid too because without the Worshippers there be no need for choir members never mind paid choir members. Your answer side steps my question

(Im in a church choir and we are paid for weddings but we put it into a fund that pays our way and helps the church in that it pays for the music licence, books, gowns, donations to the church, Priest’ own charity appeal, etc. We don’t get cash in hand so to speak and that has been our own choice as a choir)

Your logic doesn’t make sense to this math major. For Catholics the choir is part of the assembly so the choir is made up of worshipers. (The choir could be the only worshipers.) The choir is going to be at least as important as the group of worshipers as a whole.

I don’t see that church musicians are paid to make a Mass possible or because they are more important than anyone else. I see that they are paid to make the Mass more beautiful than it can be without musicians. Unlike physical art in a church, musical art is ongoing and does have a performance competency component. (The actions of the priest, readers, altar servers, etc. have performance components too.)

There are all kinds of reasons that Church musicians might be paid: union regulations, custom, diocesan regulations, credentials of said musicians… But when push comes to shove parishes pay Church musicians because they think it is better to pay them than not to pay them.

 

[clem456]

Parishes pay people to the best of their abilities because it is right and just. So different opinions can parse the issue to death with a fine microscope, with all kind of exceptions and deviations from the norm. But at the end of the day, Christians have a responsibility to treat each other justly, to the best of their abilities. A living wage is part of that. I’m left wondering, why is that so difficult for some to understand?

And I just reject the notion that a priest must be the director of litugy, which entails chairing the committee, selecting the music, training, playing a pipe organ and piano, managing musicians with phone calls and emails, directing choirs, charging the committe with decorating properly, finding music, purchasing the music, copying it, training the choir some more…all the things we have talked about. Our priests simply could not even begin to sniff the requirements of the job. There are not enough hours in the day. In fact our director is way more qualified to do this than the priests. He is trained for it, and does continuing education for it. Why is that so hard to understand? This is not a matter of debatable opinions, it’s a matter of people can only work so many hours. That’s a fact of life.

 

[The_Curt_Jester]

And I just reject the notion that a priest must be the director of litugy, which entails chairing the committee, selecting the music, training, playing a pipe organ and piano, managing musicians with phone calls and emails, directing choirs, charging the committe with decorating properly, finding music, purchasing the music, copying it, training the choir some more…all the things we have talked about. Our priests simply could not even begin to sniff the requirements of the job. There are not enough hours in the day. In fact our director is way more qualified to do this than the priests. He is trained for it, and does continuing education for it. Why is that so hard to understand? This is not a matter of debatable opinions, it’s a matter of people can only work so many hours. That’s a fact of life.

I believe you are mistaking liturgy director with music director. Liturgy directors (unless in a combined position) do not play the organ, manage other musicians and the choir, etc.

 

[TrueLight]

Parishes pay people to the best of their abilities because it is right and just. So different opinions can parse the issue to death with a fine microscope, with all kind of exceptions and deviations from the norm. But at the end of the day, Christians have a responsibility to treat each other justly, to the best of their abilities. A living wage is part of that. I’m left wondering, why is that so difficult for some to understand?

The reason it is so hard to understand is that some of us come from backgrounds where people - talented people-- volunteered for everything as part of their ministry. In my experience, I found that happened more at smaller churches that could not afford to pay people. Why is it hard to understand that talented people might actually refuse payment? It is a personal decision.

My mom, who is a talented guitar player, singer and composer sang at concerts for free and led small choirs for free because she wanted to.Granted, she also was a nurse so she didn’t make a living out of singing. She also recorded three CDs with her own money and gave them out for free.

My sister, who is a teacher, taught an English class, to newly arrived immigrants once a week for free at the church. Now this was a church of about 300 members, so it was small.

I hope that helps you to understand better.

That is not to say that it is wrong for a musician to be paid and I don’t think we need to keep repeating that if someone works full-time, then of course they need to be paid a full-time salary.

 

[Sarabande]

As an aside, some don’t attend mass unless performing and I think that is a very important issue that musicians should be mindful of.
**
I find sitting in the pews to be a different experience than ministering.**

It might be good to have at least one mass per week that one attends where one gets to sit in the pew.

When I worked at another parish which had several masses in the morning, I would attend the choral mass in the pews and then cantor the next mass. For several years, I even was a part of the volunteer choir and then also worked as a paid cantor at the same parish, until other work did not allow me the time to attend week night rehearsals and music prep. My husband still was able to, so it was nice to be at mass in the pews and then do the other mass every week.

But, now that we have a young family and the way the masses are set up at the new parishes where I work, we are unable to attend two masses a day together. One parish where I work almost every week has only one mass a Sunday. The other parish where I work has three masses a Sunday, so I’m expected to cantor for all three masses as it is my responsibility. With a newborn and toddler it’s impossible to expect them to make it through several masses. It’s hard enough for one.

Also most organists and other instrumentalists I know are never able to attend a mass in the pews because they are the only ones available to play all the masses on a Saturday and Sunday.

That said, while I agree that it is a different experience, I would say that it is not a better experience. I am a little more in tune and focused with the mass and prayer when I’m “working”. I do like just being a person in the pews as well because I can relax and not have to hold myself up to my own standards so that i do not disappoint or insult God during the mass. (I would be this way whether or not I was volunteering. Just how I am.)

I do think it is unfair to assume that if a chorister, instrumentalist, cantor, etc. don’t attend another mass before or after their “working” mass, they are somehow not really worshiping God, not praying, not going to confession, etc. I’m sure (in fact, I know) there are some who are like this, even volunteers, but there are also people in the pews who do the same. I’m not there to make assumptions or judgments of others, though. I’m there to give my best way of praising God, prayer and hope to aid in the worship and prayer for others attending mass.

 

[Sarabande]

The reason it is so hard to understand is that some of us come from backgrounds where people - talented people-- volunteered for everything as part of their ministry. In my experience, I found that happened more at smaller churches that could not afford to pay people. Why is it hard to understand that talented people might actually refuse payment? It is a personal decision.

…

That is not to say that it is wrong for a musician to be paid and I don’t think we need to keep repeating that if someone works full-time, then of course they need to be paid a full-time salary.

I do agree with you. Although I work as a musician for a living , I have on occasion volunteered my services for various parishes, individual people or even for non-church events. Some of my family and friends don’t like it when I do it, because there have been times when I’ve been taken advantage of, like trying to squeeze blood from a stone after I’ve given everything I could possibly give, especially when other volunteers drop out. (I admit that I can be a sucker and one when I give my word, I always follow through even if I’m being used) I continue to do it, though, because I have the hope and belief that not everyone is like that and have seen so much love come out of it. It doesn’t always happen, but when it does, it’s beautiful.

To me, if a parish wants and can pay for a music director or other musicians, I don’t think there is anything morally wrong with it. If a musician wants to give of their time for free, that is also great and a blessing.

 

[SMHW]

The reason it is so hard to understand is that some of us come from backgrounds where people - talented people-- volunteered for everything as part of their ministry. In my experience, I found that happened more at smaller churches that could not afford to pay people. Why is it hard to understand that talented people might actually refuse payment? It is a personal decision.

Someone brought up the principle of subsidiarity earlier. At the time I couldn’t see how it applied to this discussion. Maybe now I do.

Small communities often practice a socialistic lifestyle. They are likely to trade goods and services rather than to use currency. But when communities get larger it’s usually necessary to switch to some sort of currency because it becomes too difficult for people to know each others strengths, weaknesses, talents, needs, surpluses, etc. Larger communities can offer more opportunities to people but a lot of people will not appreciate those opportunities because they are isolated from labor and materials necessary to provide the opportunities.

Parishes are like this too. A small parish can usually rely on volunteers because everyone knows everyone and it is quite obvious what needs doing and who can and will be available to do it. I suspect that the people who do the work in small parishes are often rewarded for their service in non-monetary ways that still have financial value. Small parishes might make use of a local organist and I’d be willing to bet that organist gets rewarded with pies, chickens, and dinner invitations especially around the holidays. (Remember when lots of people had little organs or pianos in their homes and knew how to play them and would entertain guests by playing? Neither do I but I’ve met older people who had them and I’m told that’s what happened.)

But as parishes get larger the parishioners become more and more removed from the day to day operations and needs of the parish as a whole. It can’t be helped. The communication factor tends to drop considerably each time you add an additional hundred or so people to a group. And the work involved in supporting the parish becomes more difficult as the number of people served by the parish grows. So it often becomes necessary to place a monetary value on the work done by parishioners to make sure things are fair. Some people contribute money and some contribute time. Presumably everyone benefits, some of them monetarily.

Larger parishes can usually have more elaborate music than small parishes. Large parishes will also usually have to pay for that music with money rather than trade for it.

 

[clem456]

I believe you are mistaking liturgy director with music director. Liturgy directors (unless in a combined position) do not play the organ, manage other musicians and the choir, etc.

Our guy does all that. Plus on the liturgy side he chooses music to fit the gospels and Church seasons. He has to do research to find music. We have to pay for the music.
He trained the congregation in the new Mass responses.
He trains the deacons to do the Praeconium Paschale or exultet at Easter. That is a full time job right there,
Trains the priests how to do chants and sung consecration, practices with them staying on pitch.
The guy has a music degrees in keyboards and voice and attended seminary before meeting his wife. He is very qualified to do what he does. He is underpaid.

Why is this important?
At Chirstmas eve Mass a couple years ago a non-Cathloic guy was attending Mass with his Catholic wife and young family. He had been resisting conversion despite his wife’s gentle prodding. At the end of Mass we do Joy to the World with full on pipe organ, trumpet and a large choir. It is an awesome experience. The Church literally shakes with the Holy Spirit. The man had a conversion experience right there. He was overwhelmed with the Holy Spirit. What he says is “I could no longer resist having that joy”.

Thats the end point of all the hard work and talent. It is right and just to pay the person who helps make this kind of thing possible.