SPLIT: Sacred Music Versus Artistic Creativity

[pnewton]

In another thread, I was sorely tempted to go completely off the reservation with this topic because I found this so fascinating. From:

musicasacra.com/theological-problems/

We see one of the true liturgist of our times expound on the problem I think so many of us face why we often find our selves at conflict with each other. It is good to know this has been a problem over the whole history of the Church. But then, as the article points out, it is not so much a problem as a natural conflict. In this, my heart leans more toward the traditional and the sacred, while practical concerns foister on me the need to often depart into more mainstream Catholic music.

It is pleasing to have company in my conflict, both from the past and from the top.

 

[Cat]

pnewton, please indulge me.

I read the first few pages and had no idea what the Pope was saying. The language is too high for me. I’m sorry to have to admit that, but after all, I do live in the U.S. and graduated from public schools and I work in the hospital lab where we talk in initials and Latin (names of bacteria).

Could you please summarize the main points of his article in plain English? I would be very grateful, and I’m guessing that other CAF members would, too, even if they aren’t as brassy as I am about admitting it!

To be honest, I think that Pope Benedict XVI needs a translator to put his writings into plain, street American English. For high intellectuals, he is very appealing, but for those of us who consider American Idol and Cops durn good entertainment, he’s kind of out of our league.

Thank you.

Cat

 

[Brendan]

Cat,

We do not primarily intend to discuss the artistic crisis which is affecting church music along with all other forms of art at present. We shall rather discuss the crisis conditioned by the situation of theology, in other words the properly ecclesiastical and theological crisis of church music, which actually seems to have fallen between two widely differing theological millstones which apparently agree only in grinding musica sacra down to dust.

he basically starts out by saying that he is going to leave the artistic element alone for now, and focus on the theologic (God) and eccesial (Church) elements that are under attack.

On the one side stands the puritanic functionalism of a liturgy conceived in purely pragmatic terms: the liturgical event, it is claimed, should be made non-cultic and reduced to its very simple point of origin, a community meal. Everyone knows that the Second Vatican Council described the position of the individual in the liturgy with the phrase “participatio actuosa,” active participation. This concept, in itself quite meaningful, has not seldom led to the opinion that the ideal goal of liturgical renewal is the uniform activity of all present in the liturgy. Accordingly, we have witnessed the reduction of specially prominent tasks and in particular, festive church music was widely considered a sign of an inappropriate “cultic” view which appeared incompatible with general activity. On this view, church music can continue to exist only in the form of congregational singing, which in turn is not to be judged in terms of its artistic value but only on the basis of its functionality, i.e. its “community-building” and activating function. The lengths to which the renunciation of musical quality can go, are illustrated by the statement of a leading German liturgist. After the Council, he declared, none of the traditional church music could satisfy the liturgical norms now in force: everything would have to be created anew. Plainly, in this view liturgical music is not regarded as art, but as a mere commodity.

Here he talks about one ‘side’ of liturgical music, the side that looks to music as a community event. They view “active participation” as requiring everyone to do a uniform action, in the case of music, they overly stress community song, and erronously belive that the pre-Vatican II music is somehow in violation of the new post-Vatican II norms.

He calls this first faction ( or millstone grinding at true Sacred Music) “puritanical functionalism” that is this group is really hard headed on music as communinity 'sing along"

The second ‘millstone’ grinding at real Sacred Music, he calls the "functionalism of accomodation

the second millstone, which I should like to call the functionalism of accommodation. It has been repeatedly characterised as curious and indeed contradictory, that parallel to the disbanding of church choirs and orchestras, new ensembles often appeared, to perform “religious” jazz.

This second group stresses performance pieces similar to the old Baroque choirs, but with modern music (jazz etc…)

He compares all of this to the Iconoclisms of the Eastern Churches and the Western Caroligian age ( when icons and statues were destroyed as not being part of authentic Christianity)

And he is not very flattering about what modern ‘art’ is putting in place of the musical icons.

And many aspects of the whole art industry in recent decades can at bottom only be understood as deliberate mockery of that which previously was art, as an attempt to liberate itself from the greatness of art through mockery and ridicule, an attempt to overtake and to supercede art and to regain the ascendancy vis-à-vis a claim with which we are simply unable to catch up.

Against the ‘functionalists’ Pope Benedict notes that reducing art to simply a community event makes true art impossible

Here, there is no longer any place for artistic events which are unique, since all that is unique must be replaced by the merely calculable. Art falls under the laws of the marketplace, and the marketplace abolishes it as art

He then asks why the first millstone seems popular

Why is it that the experts today agree that enmity toward art, that Puritan functionalism is the genuinely Christian attitude? As a matter of fact, the idea has a twofold root. The first lies in the fact that the transition from the Old Testament to the community of Jesus Christ appears as escape from the Temple into the worship of the commonplace.

He notes that many hold that Christ abolished the deeply liturgical worship of the Temple for a more ‘common’ type of worship. He follows by showing that is it not the case, as Christ simply extended on Temple worship, not abolished it. That, at it’s heart, authentic Christian worship is a evolution of Temple worship, not a break from it.

… I write more later. My wife informs me we have to go to the birthday party

 

[pnewton]

The article draws a dichotomy between two opposing forces. On one side is the pragmatic, the pure, the way things are. On the other we have the artist. We see that through time, these element oppose each other and yet compliment each other.

To the artistic, the article praises the role that art plays in praising God. This includes not just the old forms of music, but the newer ones as well.

“Of course, one cannot expect timeless recipes in these conciliar texts. Otherwise, succeeding doctrinal statements, such as those made in our own century by Pius X, Pius XII and Vatican 2, would be superfluous. But the structure continues to remain valid: the liturgy demands an artistic transposition out of the spirit of the faith, an artistic transposition of the music of the cosmos into human music which glorifies the Word made flesh. Such music must obey a stricter law than the commonplace music of everyday life: such music is beholden to the Word and must lead to the Spirit.”

It also told of the history of the transition of organ from pagan worship to liturgy. It spoke of why polyphony chant was forbidden.

“The Council of Trent confirmed and deepened these provisions. In Masses celebrated with singing and organ music, “nothing profane should be intermingled, but only hymns and divine praises;” it should not be a matter of mere empty pleasure for the ear,** but the words must be understood by all**,”

In balance to this, we see that liturgical music is given the highest of calling. Nothing profane can be admitted. Period.

This is my opinion now. While some may debate where the line is, one can not read this and deny the existence of that line, just as one can not deny the beauty of new musical expressions.

 

[Cat]

Sorry, I still on’t get it. Art vs. what? Common people?

What does this mean to the average American Catholic?!

Honestly, I admire some of you for understanding this stuff. I consider myself a fairly well-educated person. I have a B.S. in Medical Technology. I play piano well. But this stuff reminds me of the philosophy class that I was required to take in college, and never understand any of (but still got an A because I wrote down whatever the professor said on the tests).

Perhaps my lack of understanding of the Holy Father’s writings will help some of you to comprehend why so many Catholics (just like me) truly love the Haugen and Haas songs. We can understand them. They make sense.

 

[m134e5]

Wow…that’s a tough read (I can’t read this from a computer screen). Basically, he’s saying that the ecclesiastical and theological problem of today’s church music point to two problems which only have in common the destruction of sacred music. One problem over-emphasizes the community. The other problem says that traditional liturgical music should be regarded more as a museum piece- and can’t be used practically today.

 

[Cat]

Wow…that’s a tough read (I can’t read this from a computer screen). Basically, he’s saying that the ecclesiastical and theological problem of today’s church music point to two problems which only have in common the destruction of sacred music. One problem over-emphasizes the community. The other problem says that traditional liturgical music should be regarded more as a museum piece- and can’t be used practically today.

That’s a little clearer. Thank you.

I would say that in the United States, there’s really no such thing as a community joining together to sing, other than in choirs.

We have become a nation of spectators rather than participants.

Or perhaps it has to do with cutbacks in school music programs, so people don’t learn to sing correctly and comfortably anymore.

Singing together (community singing) is simply not done in the U.S. anymore, at least, not very often. Perhaps in some isolated families who are trying to maintain old-fashioned values. I know of one family like this.

When you read old-time stories from American history, you learn that people of all ages often sang together to lighten their workload and to socialize. The Laura Ingalls Wilder books are filled with examples of family times, church meetings, sociables, school times, work projects, etc. where everyone joined together in song and enjoyed it.

Nowadays if I invited everyone over to my house for a dinner and sing-along, people would be afraid to come because they would think I had flipped out!

About the only place I see a community of people willingly sing along is around a campfire.

Heck, even when the National Anthem is sung and the community is supposed to join in, no one does! Occasional one of the Olympic athletes will gain a lot of photo ops by tearfully trying to sing it, but as a rule, we don’t see the “community” joining in with lusty voices, joyously affirming their love of their country.

I’ve pretty much come to accept the sad fact that most people do not sing in church, especially in Catholic churches, and most people never will unless something happens in our culture to make it acceptable and pleasurable again to sing in community. We are too fond of just sitting back and soaking it in.

And in Catholic churches, we are told that “I don’t have to sing to participate.” True, but it’s sure hard for two or three ex-Protestants to sing out during all the hymns and recitations and have people turning around to gape at us!

If only it could be proven that singing together helps people lose weight, lower cholestrol, shed inches, and prevent cancer and heart disease, and increase sexual prowess! Maybe then people would sing “in community.”

But in the meantime, I don’t think that community participation in singing is an issue in the U.S. anymore. People don’t do it. Does the Pope realize this?

 

[Bob_Crowley]

Sorry, I still on’t get it. Art vs. what? Common people?

What does this mean to the average American Catholic?!

Honestly, I admire some of you for understanding this stuff. I consider myself a fairly well-educated person. I have a B.S. in Medical Technology. I play piano well. But this stuff reminds me of the philosophy class that I was required to take in college, and never understand any of (but still got an A because I wrote down whatever the professor said on the tests).

Perhaps my lack of understanding of the Holy Father’s writings will help some of you to comprehend why so many Catholics (just like me) truly love the Haugen and Haas songs. We can understand them. They make sense.

I didn’t read the article right through, but I read enough to understand it was a long-winded way of saying there is, and always will be, a conflict between the pragmatic situation of “playng music in church the way it’s always been played” and the influence of current secular music, at any given time, no matter how creative.

The answer of course is to borrow from both.

 

[pnewton]

The other problem says that traditional liturgical music should be regarded more as a museum piece- and can’t be used practically today.

One of the examples given was that when polyphony chant was developed, it was forbidden primarily because it was used exclusively, forcing out Gregorian Chant. Take the case of Haugen - Haas (or Haas anyway since he is creative). His ability to write music that glorifies God is good and even necessary, although he needs to abide by Church guidelines. However, one can not allow the new to force the old and traditional aside, but must coexist with it.

 

[Sarabande]

Thank you very much for posting this, pnewton. I didn’t respond right away because it is such a deep and rich article, and in order to really get the complete essence of it (at least for me) I had to take the time to truly read it. Otherwise, it can be very easy to misread what Benedict XVI was talking about. He definitely is a greater mind than most - especially me.

Anyway, I truly enjoyed reading and analyzing the entire article. My printout looks like something from when I was in college with notes and highlights all over the place. It makes my brain work, especially now, when I tend to have high “ph” Placenta Head. hahaha! So, this is partially a mental practice for me as one doesn’t do it as often once one graduates from college. I’ve separated everything in a few posts, but this is what I got from the article.

In the first paragraph of the article he states that there is a “critical situation” in church music that came about since Vatican II. He discusses that the crisis has been separated into two different “theological millstones”: 1. “Puritanic functionalism” and 2. “functionalism of accommodation”. In his view, he believes that these two idealogies are “grinding musica sacra down to dust.”

Benedict (then Cardinal Ratzinger) goes on to describe puritanic functionalism as something very practical and simple. He describes how those in the “puritanic functionalism” train of thought really hooked into the idea of active participation, which led to the idea that the former “high art” music (ie festive church music) became impractical and not working within the idea of functionalism. (This part actually kind of reminds me of the discussions my architect brother and his colleagues have on form and function in architecture. It’s not about high-art aesthetic beauty, but practical function within society.) Thus congregational singing became popular due to its practicality and musical quality dropped significantly.

Music for liturgy was thus not held up in as high esteem and with high standards since it was then considered just as a “commodity” and not as sacred art held with the utmost regard.

He then goes on to discuss “functionalism of accommodation”. It was impractical to have church choirs, orchestras, etc. as it didn’t form to these ideas. So they were disbanded. An interesting observation he made in paragraph three of his article is that although those choirs and other ensembles were disbanded due to a preconceived elitism and impracticality, new ensembles were created which were “no less elitist than the old church choirs” yet did not receive the same kind of criticism. This all because previous western church music was considered as “not belonging to the present” and so was relegated to assuming a “museum-like” state for just the concert hall, creating this idea that this music could only be done in concert form and not at mass. The new ensembles and music represented music in the present, functionalism, and breaks with the church’s past completely.

Continued…

 

[Sarabande]

Continued:
Benedict asks a good question: “Why is it that experts today agree that enmity toward art, that Puritan functionalism is the genuinely Christian attitude?”
The first thing he reasons is that people who are of the “Puritan Functionalism” line of thought (and I think this was especially true in the 1970s when the article was first written) interpreted Jesus’ coming as a critique and the antithesis to worshipping in the Temple (ie. Church for Christians), to formality and priesthood. Thus, a church/temple was no more sacred than something within everyday life. The “profane”, or what people would consider common/popular art and music should be used within the context of liturgy.

Any “festive solemnity”, which would include the traditions, art and music from previous centuries, appeared too “sacred” because it wasn’t “profane” enough and hence was thrown out. It was too much of a “high” art and too “holy-sounding”. As Benedict described, the people of the “Puritan Functionalism” line of thought believed that worship was “supposed to be no different than everyday commonplace activity, and music can take part in worship, so to speak, on condition that it be profane.” Again “profane” meaning popular/common and that which doesn’t necessarily sound “sacred”, but “secular”. Common music, for example, would be just taking polyphony in it’s original form, when it sounded too secular and not refining it to sound sacred. Another example would to take a well-known melody in the common/popular world and then not refining it to sound sacred. So it still sounds “profane”, “secular”, “common”. Not part of another realm, such as the sacred realm. In other words, when one cannot distinguish the secular from the sacred.

Continued…

 

[Sarabande]

Continued…
Benedict continues that the thought processes above were not something people in the early Church knew about. He explains how worship in the early Church was not certainly not profane (contrary to the above line of thought of Puritan Functionalism”), citing how the Psalms of Israel were sung with Christian hymns and chants. It “opened a new dimension of cultic praise and glorification: the addition of hymnody to psalmody, of song to speech or recitation”. He acutely states that Christian worship “was the worship of God and clearly contrasted with the everyday and commonplace.” Again, everyday and commonplace would be what we see and hear in the secular world.

Within Christian worship, it is of a higher realm – a spiritual realm and thus something of what Benedict describes as “great art” two paragraphs later. The product of “spiritualization”. This “spiritualization” is what Benedict likens to the philosophical idea of de-materialization, which I had to look up myself to be sure of what Benedict was talking about since I’m certainly not a philosopher. The highest form of “de-materialization” is Nous, which is “something that comes from the outside” and thus goes within us. The immortal or divine. The de-materialization of music for liturgy thus focuses on the divine (God), leaving out anything “profane” and of this world, and then is supposed to permeate through us and lift us to a higher plain – not only by the senses, but through one’s soul.

Continued…

 

[Sarabande]

Continued…
Benedict then brings it back to the beginning: “Viewed in terms of its origin, is Christianity iconoclastic and anti-art? Or is it – precisely when it remains true to itself – a summons of artistic expression?” It appears that according to Benedict that artistic church music – music which is a product of spiritualization and de-materialization – is not contrary to the liturgy, as he spells out precisely, “church music with artistic pretensions is not opposed to the essence of Christian liturgy, but is rather a necessary way of expressing belief in the world-filling glory of Jesus Christ. The Church’s liturgy has a compelling mandate to reveal in resonant sound the glorification of God which lies hidden in the cosmos. This, then, is the liturgy’s essence: to transpose the cosmos, to spiritualise it into the gesture of praise through song and thus to redeem it; to ‘humanise’ the world.”

The “cosmos” comment with how the organ became so prominent within the Church was very interesting and now totally makes sense to me. I did not know the reasons why organ was held so high, just that it was and then comments from those who weren’t really into organ saying it was originally a non-Christian instrument. The idea that the organ was considered the “combination of all the voices of the cosmos”. It was a way to show that the Church was truly superior to that of the Byzentine Emperor and to show the importance of “the cosmic rank of belief in Christ, which is independent of and indeed superior to politics”. So now, when one hears the organ (when it is played well – again this idea of practicality) one is hearing the voice of God, who is, in essence, the “combination of all the voices of the cosmos”.

Continued…

 

[Sarabande]

Continued…
In the final few paragraphs of Benedict’s article, he then further delves into the distinction between sacred and profane music and what makes sacred music. He points out, as many trained musicians, especially those involved in church music know, that this question and the problems with it have been around for centuries. It is NOT a new phenomenon that occurred within the last 40 years, as some people may believe. Polyphony, as I have often pointed out in various threads, was one of the first forms of sacred music which was originally not accepted as an appropriate form of liturgical music. This is mainly because it sounded to secular or “profane” as is used often in the article. In the quote that Benedict pointed out by Pope John XXII, it was too “sensual”, not having enough of the spiritualization. Polyphony, if one reads contemporary writings of the time, was considered by many as lascivious and inciting lust, because it was a far cry from chant - which has all its basis on the sacred. It is why polyphony for use as a sacred function had to be refined. When you do hear sacred polyphony, you hear all the words clearly. Nothing is too jambled. Each voice part has its own melody line (not just a line to provide harmony), which can stand on its own if taken away from the rest of the voice parts.

In the conclusion of Benedict’s article, he stresses that sacred music “must obey a stricter law than the commonplace music of everyday life: such music is beholden to the Word and must lead to the Spirit.” He emphasizes that one cannot just focus on the Purticanical functionalism in music. One has to strive to achieve heightened spirituality through God, the Divine. But one must work hard by total preparation and study. Otherwise culture and humanity will “decay” and be without true beauty in art as he described in the middle of his article with regards to the modern artists of the time. It was soul-less, cheap art in a way. The music can’t just be part of the senses – something which makes us feel good or reminds of music from our everyday life. Thus, it cannot sound secular or part of the popular or secular world. It must be of a higher, spiritual realm and created of the utmost ability.

Continued…

 

[Sarabande]

Continued…

This all said, I think it would be wise to understand that in many parishes there is a need for practicality just because for some of these places they just don’t have the talent. At the same time, something should be done either at a diocesan or parish level to continue to seek and promote this higher level of spirituality – to not just keep the flock at a senses-only level. It would be easier if it starts from the top by the bishops then permeated to the head of each parish. But, unfortunately, many people are comfortable at not wanting their minds and spirituality pushed or heightened. They are brought up to think that what they have is good enough. It’s that Puritanical Functionalism train of thought. I know many people who are like that. Although, I’ve also known many who were totally changed once they allowed themselves to open up to their spiritual side.

Anyway, that’s my analysis and thoughts on the article. If anything, I think those musicians who read it should be inspired to try their best to achieve that heightened spirituality in music. It may not be perfect at first, but at least work towards that perfection. This is NOT to say that new music cannot be made. Of course it can. That is why we have such a huge repertory of sacred music at our fingertips from all centuries. But new composers today must follow a stricter guideline as to how to compose sacred music. And musicians need to understand that they cannot just leave out our past music for the new.

Okay… I’m done.

Finis

 

[iona_scribe]

Anyway, that’s my analysis and thoughts on the article. If anything, I think those musicians who read it should be inspired to try their best to achieve that heightened spirituality in music. It may not be perfect at first, but at least work towards that perfection. This is NOT to say that new music cannot be made. Of course it can. That is why we have such a huge repertory of sacred music at our fingertips from all centuries. But new composers today must follow a stricter guideline as to how to compose sacred music. And musicians need to understand that they cannot just leave out our past music for the new.

Wow, thanks for the thorough analysis, Sarabande!

I’ve pretty much come to accept the sad fact that most people do not sing in church, especially in Catholic churches, and most people never will unless something happens in our culture to make it acceptable and pleasurable again to sing in community. We are too fond of just sitting back and soaking it in.

And in Catholic churches, we are told that “I don’t have to sing to participate.” True, but it’s sure hard for two or three ex-Protestants to sing out during all the hymns and recitations and have people turning around to gape at us!

lol, Cat I know what you mean about being one of the only ones singing during Mass!

I disagree sightly though…Evangelical Christians sure do sing at their church services. That’s their primary understanding of worship. Worship = singing songs of praise to God; and they do it fervently. At least that’s my experience as a former Evangelical.

As Catholics our primary way of worshiping God is through the prayers of our liturgy and through offering Jesus on the altar to the Father. Now that I think about it, maybe that means that the average Catholic doesn’t feel the same spiritual incentive as an Evangelical does to express worship through song because they are already engaged in worship in other ways. Also I think Catholics just don’t have a culture of singing in the same way. And you’re right, it’s compounded by the fact that Americans have definitely lost their singing culture. It’s sad.

That poses another question though. If our sacred music has become more like mainstream in an effort to encourage people to participate in singing more, and they’re still not, maybe the music isn’t serving people as much as we think? I have no idea where to go with that thought since it just came to me.

Another thing is that I know Evangelicals continually wrestle with contemporary music. Are we staying relevant enough or are we still singing stuff from the 80’s? Is our music any good or just a lamer version of what’s popular in the mainstream music world? In some ways its an exhausting chase.

A third thought: It brings to mind an anecdote I read on a priest’s blog (can’t remember exactly where) about how he once caught one of his altar boys making faces at another while putting chalices over his ears He then realized that the boy had very similar crystal glasses at home used during regular meals, so he was just doing something silly that he would normally do with regular glasses. He knew then if he wanted to inspire the boys with a proper reverence for the altar vessels and by extension the Body and Blood of our Lord that they contain, he would have to replace his relatively mundane vessels with fine gold ones. He needed to set them apart from vessels used for everyday purposes.

And so I see this article saying that we have to be mindful that our music is set apart in some way from every day music. And that this can help us be mindful of what is sacred.