What/who regulates the use of music in liturgy?

[OraLabora]

You know that better than I do.

Thanks for your work, btw.

It truly is my pleasure. Nothing lifts me quite like being in the middle of the schola chanting at Mass. The thing that comes closest is chanting the Divine Office especially when I have the patience to use the monastic version of our abbey and feel really in synch with the monks’ prayer

 

[27lw]

I am further amused by the fact that our local symphony will soon be performing “Carmina Burana”. No doubt there will be a large audience. All for music being sung in a Dead Language (along with some medieval German / French too, of course). How will the audience understand it?! How will the choirs sing it?!

 

[27lw]

The matter you are referring to is hortatory, not mandatory, but you wish to make it mandatory.

That is the first problem.

The second problem is that you obviously do not like any contemporary church music. You are certainly entitled to like something different, but your characterization of it comes across as bordering on a pretentious snobism. Pardon me if I, along with the rest of the majority of pew sitters, am/are lowbrow.

It should be pointed out that each major change in liturgical music over the centuries was at first rejected, and only eventually became accepted. Go check your musical history sources.

I am not going to say you are wrong if you like certain types of liturgical music; that is your opinion and I have no problem with it. As I said, Rome is undoubtedly aware, after 50 years of history since Vatican , that precious few people are attracted to either Gregorian chant, Palestrina, and etc.

If Rome felt that the parishes in the US were in the wrong, they could have said so in the multiple revisions of the GIRM, or in Redemptionis Sacramentum (correcting abuses) or in another document.

The silence has been deafening.

No one is prohibiting parishes from using that music; but it is clear that very few have any desire for it. Just as it is clear, if one pays attention to the area of classical music in general, that very few are attracted to it; that is why symphonies struggle to make budget in many areas.

I do not wish to debate with you. Rome has shown, after 50 years of silence, that the type of music is not an issue with them. I would hope that you could find a parish within a reasonable distance to you, which could fulfill your desire for the music you prefer.

I am quite happy with my parish.

Hmmm. That is interesting that you believe that GIRM and the documents of Vatican II are “hortatory, not mandatory”.

I do like contemporary CHURCH music. What I don’t like is pop/rock music masquerading as CHURCH music.

You say " Pardon me if I, along with the rest of the majority of pew sitters, am/are lowbrow."
Yes, - - but why are you musically low-brow? Because you have been exposed to poor-quality music for Mass and you think that is normal and acceptable. If you had more musical education, and were exposed to higher-quality liturgical true sacred music, we might be on the same page.

 

[buc_fan33]

I’ll say this…in my experience working in youth ministry, millennials absolutely prefer contemporary Christian music. Personally, I’m not a fan of the “big four”–Haas, Haugen, Schutte, Landrey–but love contemporary praise and worship. (E.g. Matt Maher, Chris Tomlin, For King and Country, etc.). I’m not in favor of using this music in Mass ALL of the time, but I’m also certainly not in favor of forbidding its use.

I know we are constantly told that chant attracts young people, but my experience has been quite the opposite. Rather, young people WANT and strongly PREFER contemporary music, just as they prefer homilies that connect with their world.

I know this is always a huge debate. But the Church’s first purpose is to evangelize. In my opinion and experience, Steubenville youth conferences are absolutely among the best, if not the best, tools of evangelization of young people. I would argue that a key factor in this (not THE key factor, but A key factor) is their employment of contemporary praise and worship music within the liturgy.

 

[otjm]

Well, the topic of music at Mass is always a hot one!
It’s just too bad that at the very least, that music directors and priests could strive not to choose irreverent music and instruments. I do find it interesting that some people think that some parts of Vat II can just be ignored, and since the Vatican hasn’t spoken, we can keep on safely ignoring that which we do not like.

If it were “some” people, I would agree with you.

When it is somewhere between the great majority and the vast majority, then I would not agree; and part of your statement implies that any and all changes must come from the top down.

The history of the Church would show otherwise.

“The Vatican has spoken” takes a hortatory statement and makes it into a mandatory one; but in the real wold of the Church, that is not so.

And as noted, 50 years later and the Church has seen fit to remain silent. It is clear that a small minority would like to impose their will and taste on all. Rome seems to think otherwise - just as they did 50 or so years ago.

I really do not believe that Rome is a gutless wonder. Rome is eminently capable of saying what the rule and the law is; and the statement in the V2 document to which you make reference is neither. It is hortatory. No matter how much you may wish to the contrary, and even insist to the contrary.

 

[otjm]

Hmmm. That is interesting that you believe that GIRM and the documents of Vatican II are “hortatory, not mandatory”.

I do like contemporary CHURCH music. What I don’t like is pop/rock music masquerading as CHURCH music.

You say " Pardon me if I, along with the rest of the majority of pew sitters, am/are lowbrow."
Yes, - - but why are you musically low-brow? Because you have been exposed to poor-quality music for Mass and you think that is normal and acceptable. If you had more musical education, and were exposed to higher-quality liturgical true sacred music, we might be on the same page.

Plenty of people have been exposed to what you seem to think is higher quality music, and it is not to their liking.

I have had music education - it was 2 classes I took while in college seminary, likely before you were born, and possibly before your parents were born. As in, before Vatican 2 was completely signed and finished. I also was part of a schola which cut a long play vinyl record of Gregorian chant, so spare me - okay? I love Gregorian chant, but it is not something which can be sung by a parish; and I agree with St Augustine that he who sings, prays twice. I do not want to go to Mass to hear a choir sing; I prefer to sing along with the congregation.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Yes, - - but why are you musically low-brow? Because you have been exposed to poor-quality music for Mass and you think that is normal and acceptable. If you had more musical education, and were exposed to higher-quality liturgical true sacred music, we might be on the same page.

This statement is so repugnant for its condescension – and for its absolute error – that it is nothing short of breath-taking.

 

[ProVobis]

It truly is my pleasure. Nothing lifts me quite like being in the middle of the schola chanting at Mass. The thing that comes closest is chanting the Divine Office especially when I have the patience to use the monastic version of our abbey and feel really in synch with the monks’ prayer

I’m sure you’ve been there too, but to me there is nothing so painful as to watch people walk out during the singing of Gregorian chant. And I never listen to it at home or elsewhere.

 

[ProVobis]

I know we are constantly told that chant attracts young people, but my experience has been quite the opposite. Rather, young people WANT and strongly PREFER contemporary music, just as they prefer homilies that connect with their world.

You mean generally or specific songs? Not to change the story line here, but I remember “American Bandstand” when several were asked to rate a new song and their reasons. I don’t think many were especially tuned to the lyrics when they responded with a “I like it because it’s easy to dance to.” The point? We seem to have various reasons why we like or hate a particular song. I don’t know, maybe it’s like those experiments in laboratories where mice are given intermittent doses of food given a stimulus. It seems to have a more powerful effect than when constant dose of a food is given. It was somewhere during the one year of psychology I took in college. I love these discussions.

 

[felsguy]

I am further amused by the fact that our local symphony will soon be performing “Carmina Burana”. No doubt there will be a large audience. All for music being sung in a Dead Language (along with some medieval German / French too, of course). How will the audience understand it?! How will the choirs sing it?!

Interesting that you mention Carmina Burana (one of my very favorites, by the way) in this context. I thought about bringing it up in response to post #64 which reads in part:

To me, if it sounds like a 1970s musical play, it isn’t of a sacred nature.

What makes music sacred? or profane? or simply mundane? It may be an oversimplification but it seems to me it’s often a question of what significance or sentiments we, as individuals that is, associate with the “sound” of various types of music because of the influence of the “musical mores” of a particular time and place or simply what is pleasing to our own ear. Gregorian chant has for some centuries raised minds and hearts to God but not if you’re watching the Inquisition scene in Mel Brook’s History of the World. And there’s that melody from the “hit” The Book of Mormon, reminiscent of “Hakuna Mitata” from The Lion King which in itself might set Broadway devotees’ heads bobbing and toe tapping and yet it has the foulest most blasphemous title and lyrics imaginable. (and if you are not familiar with it, be thankful and PLEASE do not go Google it…trust me).

But back to Carmina Burana, one of the most popular pieces in the classical musical repertoire, that rich and vibrant cantata so redolent of the music of Stravinsky, performed in a concert hall by an enormous symphony orchestra and a majestic chorus with stirring arias by baritone, tenor, and soprano. And the lyrics? All 13th century poetry, mostly about love and lust and drinking, almost entirely in Latin as mentioned above, lyrics which even National Public Radio once described as “virtually X-rated.” How will the choirs sing it? From their sheet music if not from memory. How will the audience understand it? They won’t, at least the vast majority but they’ll love it.

So what is sacred music? I suggest that it is music that generally is or has been associated with the sacred or used for sacred purposes rather than music which has some special character which makes it sacred in itself. I’d say the same about musical instruments and even about language but these would best left for another time.
Do I think this could include any and all types of music (and musical instruments and languages)? I’m hesitant to say yes but that could just be because of personal taste. I’m okay with “Amazing Grace” on the bagpipes and I find “Let All Mortal Flesh Keep Silence” done as an instrumental on a tenor sax extraordinary but I don’t think I could make the case for kazoos or slide whistles.

In short, I -]see/-] hear it as different -]strokes/-] notes for different folks……at different times……in different places.

And by the way I do have my ticket for our local symphony’s performance of Carmina Burana next month and I can’t wait. :yup:

 

[buc_fan33]

You mean generally or specific songs? Not to change the story line here, but I remember “American Bandstand” when several were asked to rate a new song and their reasons. I don’t think many were especially tuned to the lyrics when they responded with a “I like it because it’s easy to dance to.” The point? We seem to have various reasons why we like or hate a particular song. I don’t know, maybe it’s like those experiments in laboratories where mice are given intermittent doses of food given a stimulus. It seems to have a more powerful effect than when constant dose of a food is given. It was somewhere during the one year of psychology I took in college. I love these discussions.

I’d say generally. A few weeks ago, I was meeting with the youth group of our parish, and we were discussing how to increase Mass attendance among their peers. The topic of music came up. I pulled out my phone and played three songs/hymns as examples and said, “Which of these do you think your peers would find most attractive?” The three pieces were: Oh God Beyond All Praising, Our God, and a piece of Gregorian chant. The response was immediate and all but unanimous: Our God by Matt Redman.

Every time I take students to Steubenville, they come back wanting to pray more, wanting more Eucharistic adoration, wanting to come to Mass, open to the possibility of a religious vocation, wanting to celebrate the sacrament of confession more frequently, excited about their Catholic faith, etc. And when asked, almost universally, they respond by attributing this in some way to the music. Like it or not, contemporary music draws young people in a way that chant doesn’t.

 

[Generic_Name]

Interesting that you mention Carmina Burana (one of my very favorites, by the way) in this context. I thought about bringing it up in response to post #64 which reads in part:

What makes music sacred? or profane? or simply mundane? It may be an oversimplification but it seems to me it’s often a question of what significance or sentiments we, as individuals that is, associate with the “sound” of various types of music because of the influence of the “musical mores” of a particular time and place or simply what is pleasing to our own ear. Gregorian chant has for some centuries raised minds and hearts to God but not if you’re watching the Inquisition scene in Mel Brook’s History of the World. And there’s that melody from the “hit” The Book of Mormon, reminiscent of “Hakuna Mitata” from The Lion King which in itself might set Broadway devotees’ heads bobbing and toe tapping and yet it has the foulest most blasphemous title and lyrics imaginable. (and if you are not familiar with it, be thankful and PLEASE do not go Google it…trust me).

But back to Carmina Burana, one of the most popular pieces in the classical musical repertoire, that rich and vibrant cantata so redolent of the music of Stravinsky, performed in a concert hall by an enormous symphony orchestra and a majestic chorus with stirring arias by baritone, tenor, and soprano. And the lyrics? All 13th century poetry, mostly about love and lust and drinking, almost entirely in Latin as mentioned above, lyrics which even National Public Radio once described as “virtually X-rated.” How will the choirs sing it? From their sheet music if not from memory. How will the audience understand it? They won’t, at least the vast majority but they’ll love it.

So what is sacred music? I suggest that it is music that generally is or has been associated with the sacred or used for sacred purposes rather than music which has some special character which makes it sacred in itself. I’d say the same about musical instruments and even about language but these would best left for another time.
Do I think this could include any and all types of music (and musical instruments and languages)? I’m hesitant to say yes but that could just be because of personal taste. I’m okay with “Amazing Grace” on the bagpipes and I find “Let All Mortal Flesh Keep Silence” done as an instrumental on a tenor sax extraordinary but I don’t think I could make the case for kazoos or slide whistles.

In short, I -]see/-] hear it as different -]strokes/-] notes for different folks……at different times……in different places.

And by the way I do have my ticket for our local symphony’s performance of Carmina Burana next month and I can’t wait. :yup:

So if you couldn’t understand English, and heard “Hakuna Matata,” I’ll bet you wouldn’t confuse it with Church music. And I doubt you’d think Bach’s “Ein Feste Burg” was on the hit parade if you didn’t know German. The standard 4-part hymn would never be confused for a top-40 hit, but for some reason we have a tune in our “hymnal” that is a complete rip-off of “Take Five” in every sense: rhythm, harmony, and melody. And it gets used, often, in multiple parishes in which I’ve assisted at Mass.

There are certain criteria one can objectively use to evaluate style, as sacred music has generally developed in a separate sphere from popular music.

I love Carmina Burana, but I’m not sure I would want to hear a Mass seeing ripped off from it - aside from the text the music has a profane feel to it. Lovely music, but entirely inappropriate for Mass.

And “Let All Mortal Flesh Keep Silence” as a tenor sax solo? Yikes!

So what makes a saxophone (primarily associated with secular/commercial music) suitable for church, in your mind, but not a kazoo? I’d argue that they’re both out of place in a church setting, but perfect for Saturday cartoons.

 

[27lw]

I’d say generally. A few weeks ago, I was meeting with the youth group of our parish, and we were discussing how to increase Mass attendance among their peers. The topic of music came up. I pulled out my phone and played three songs/hymns as examples and said, “Which of these do you think your peers would find most attractive?” The three pieces were: Oh God Beyond All Praising, Our God, and a piece of Gregorian chant. The response was immediate and all but unanimous: Our God by Matt Redman.

Okay, what if the questions were: “Which song is the most fitting for Mass? Which one elevates our hearts and minds to God? Which is the best fit for Mass, when there is a range of different ages (i.e. not just college students)?” Also - - your contemporary choices seem a bit limited. Why not some Kirk Franklin, or Hezekiah Walker?

What if the younger parishioners express that they don’t find a traditional crucifix meaningful, or it doesn’t relate to them. Maybe we should ask them if they would rather have a statue like “soccer coach Jesus”, or something in an anime style. Same with stations of the cross - - maybe a superhero portrayal would be more to their liking. Liturgical vestment style - - that can’t appeal to the young, right? What would be better - - maybe an anime-style cosplay outfit! Or a sharp pinstripe suit…lots of choices that may appeal more to the young.

Why is it that only liturgical music is subject to the changing fads of the young - - and what the Church has stated doesn’t seem to matter?

 

[jmcrae]

Okay, what if the questions were: “Which song is the most fitting for Mass? Which one elevates our hearts and minds to God? Which is the best fit for Mass, when there is a range of different ages (i.e. not just college students)?” Also - - your contemporary choices seem a bit limited. Why not some Kirk Franklin, or Hezekiah Walker?

What if the younger parishioners express that they don’t find a traditional crucifix meaningful, or it doesn’t relate to them. Maybe we should ask them if they would rather have a statue like “soccer coach Jesus”, or something in an anime style. Same with stations of the cross - - maybe a superhero portrayal would be more to their liking. Liturgical vestment style - - that can’t appeal to the young, right? What would be better - - maybe an anime-style cosplay outfit! Or a sharp pinstripe suit…lots of choices that may appeal more to the young.

Why is it that only liturgical music is subject to the changing fads of the young - - and what the Church has stated doesn’t seem to matter?

Excellent questions. I’ve also been working in Youth Ministry for a long time, and I find that the Juniors like classical music, until the older kids teach them that it’s “un-cool”. Then they get into the dreck.

 

[felsguy]

So if you couldn’t understand English, and heard “Hakuna Matata,” I’ll bet you wouldn’t confuse it with Church music. And I doubt you’d think Bach’s “Ein Feste Burg” was on the hit parade if you didn’t know German. The standard 4-part hymn would never be confused for a top-40 hit, but for some reason we have a tune in our “hymnal” that is a complete rip-off of “Take Five” in every sense: rhythm, harmony, and melody. And it gets used, often, in multiple parishes in which I’ve assisted at Mass.

There are certain criteria one can objectively use to evaluate style, as sacred music has generally developed in a separate sphere from popular music.

I love Carmina Burana, but I’m not sure I would want to hear a Mass seeing ripped off from it - aside from the text the music has a profane feel to it. Lovely music, but entirely inappropriate for Mass.

And “Let All Mortal Flesh Keep Silence” as a tenor sax solo? Yikes!

So what makes a saxophone (primarily associated with secular/commercial music) suitable for church, in your mind, but not a kazoo? I’d argue that they’re both out of place in a church setting, but perfect for Saturday cartoons.

But in a sense that’s what I’m trying to say. How we deem certain melodies or genres of music to be sacred or profane, as in not sacred or secular, seems to me often to be more a case of what we associate them with or what emotions they evoke in us rather than something inherent in the music itself. And I suggest that these associates (labels, if you will) which we make are primarily conditioned by the commonly held opinions of others and our own person preferences. And I’m not saying this is good or bad, but simply something to be considered in discussions of “sacred music.”

“Hakuna Mitata” certainly doesn’t bring to mind anything sacred but its catchy little melody is not that far from some of the contemporary pieces my grandkids and a couple hundred fellow students sing during chapel service at their Lutheran school and singing their hearts out these kids raise the roof praising God. Queen’s “Bohemian Rhapsody”, certainly not comparable to but with some similarity to “Ein Feste Burg,” was one of the best-selling hits of all time in both the UK and the US. And while hearing (and hopefully singing) “Sing of the Lord’s Goodness” as a recessional hymn may conjure up shades of Dave Brubeck in the minds of some jazz fans, I think it causes a lot of other folks to indeed reflect on the goodness of God as they hum snatches of it coming over to have coffee and donuts with friends or whistling it as they walk through the parking lot on a sunny spring morning.

So what makes a saxophone (primarily associated with secular/commercial music) suitable for church, in my mind, but not a kazoo? The fact that in my mind I can easily associate it with hymns of praise. (Now I’m thinking I’ve got to go on YouTube and hunt for an instrumental version of “Jesus Christ Is Risen Today” done on a sax.) Is the organ a “sacred” instrument? Not very likely when it was used in movie theaters and certainly not when it was used in burlesque theaters. And my tongue-in-cheek reference to the kazoo notwithstanding, I couldn’t make a case for it being a musical instrument let alone a sacred one even if you tied me down and made me listen to one non-stop for hours on end.

I wonder, is there a distinction that can/should be made between “sacred music” and “church music,” with sacred music referring to its intended purpose and church music being a label applied to those types commonly and/or historically associated with worship?

To mangle another truism, I would say -]beauty/-] sacred is (often) in the -]eye/-] ear of the beholder.

 

[jmcrae]

But in a sense that’s what I’m trying to say. How we deem certain melodies or genres of music to be sacred or profane, as in not sacred or secular, seems to me often to be more a case of what we associate them with or what emotions they evoke in us rather than something inherent in the music itself. And I suggest that these associates (labels, if you will) which we make are primarily conditioned by the commonly held opinions of others and our own person preferences. And I’m not saying this is good or bad, but simply something to be considered in discussions of “sacred music.”

“Hakuna Mitata” certainly doesn’t bring to mind anything sacred but its catchy little melody is not that far from some of the contemporary pieces my grandkids and a couple hundred fellow students sing during chapel service at their Lutheran school and singing their hearts out these kids raise the roof praising God. Queen’s “Bohemian Rhapsody”, certainly not comparable to but with some similarity to “Ein Feste Burg,” was one of the best-selling hits of all time in both the UK and the US. And while hearing (and hopefully singing) “Sing of the Lord’s Goodness” as a recessional hymn may conjure up shades of Dave Brubeck in the minds of some jazz fans, I think it causes a lot of other folks to indeed reflect on the goodness of God as they hum snatches of it coming over to have coffee and donuts with friends or whistling it as they walk through the parking lot on a sunny spring morning.

So what makes a saxophone (primarily associated with secular/commercial music) suitable for church, in my mind, but not a kazoo? The fact that in my mind I can easily associate it with hymns of praise. (Now I’m thinking I’ve got to go on YouTube and hunt for an instrumental version of “Jesus Christ Is Risen Today” done on a sax.) Is the organ a “sacred” instrument? Not very likely when it was used in movie theaters and certainly not when it was used in burlesque theaters. And my tongue-in-cheek reference to the kazoo notwithstanding, I couldn’t make a case for it being a musical instrument let alone a sacred one even if you tied me down and made me listen to one non-stop for hours on end.

I wonder, is there a distinction that can/should be made between “sacred music” and “church music,” with sacred music referring to its intended purpose and church music being a label applied to those types commonly and/or historically associated with worship?

To mangle another truism, I would say -]beauty/-] sacred is (often) in the -]eye/-] ear of the beholder.

Okay, you’re talking here about culture, which is also what the quote from the Catechism was mentioning, in an earlier post.

That which is considered “sacred” by the local culture is what should be used at Mass. Rather than saying, well I don’t know why the organ is considered sacred, so I’m going to use a guitar instead, and maybe by using a guitar in Church I can get it to be considered "sacred ".

The Mass is not the place to be conducting social experiments.

 

[buc_fan33]

Okay, what if the questions were: “Which song is the most fitting for Mass? Which one elevates our hearts and minds to God? Which is the best fit for Mass, when there is a range of different ages (i.e. not just college students)?” Also - - your contemporary choices seem a bit limited. Why not some Kirk Franklin, or Hezekiah Walker?

What if the younger parishioners express that they don’t find a traditional crucifix meaningful, or it doesn’t relate to them. Maybe we should ask them if they would rather have a statue like “soccer coach Jesus”, or something in an anime style. Same with stations of the cross - - maybe a superhero portrayal would be more to their liking. Liturgical vestment style - - that can’t appeal to the young, right? What would be better - - maybe an anime-style cosplay outfit! Or a sharp pinstripe suit…lots of choices that may appeal more to the young.

Why is it that only liturgical music is subject to the changing fads of the young - - and what the Church has stated doesn’t seem to matter?

With respect, this is PRECISELY the problem with this never-ending debate, encountered here and elsewhere. Anyone suggesting that contemporary music be employed in the liturgy is accused of wanting everything you listed above. It’s a dishonest leap and it skews the actual debate by setting up a straw-man.

To answer your questions, I think those are all good points to bring up. I would have no problem posing those questions. But, the fact of the matter is that for most young people, not all, but most, their hearts will be lifted more to praise and glorify God through Chris Tomlin’s music than through chant.

As for Franklin and Walker, I’m not sure who they are. I’m not familiar with their music.

I think a big problem in this debate is an equivocation on the term “contemporary.” When I use the term, I am speaking about music one might hear on K-LOVE or SiriusXM The Message if one is familiar with these stations. I’m NOT speaking about the banal, usually ego or communal-centric pieces written in the 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s (again, think the “Big Four” Landrey, Haas, Haugen, Schutte).

Matt Maher, Chris Tomlin, Matt Redman, Johnny Diaz, Britt Nicole, Laura Story and others are so far removed from that genre as to really make them incomparable in my mind.

 

[felsguy]

Okay, you’re talking here about culture, which is also what the quote from the Catechism was mentioning, in an earlier post.

That which is considered “sacred” by the local culture is what should be used at Mass. Rather than saying, well I don’t know why the organ is considered sacred, so I’m going to use a guitar instead, and maybe by using a guitar in Church I can get it to be considered "sacred ".

The Mass is not the place to be conducting social experiments.

I take it then that you consider an organ to be sacred but a guitar not so?

Respectfully, for the sake of discussion, I ask “Why?”

 

[buc_fan33]

Excellent questions. I’ve also been working in Youth Ministry for a long time, and I find that the Juniors like classical music, until the older kids teach them that it’s “un-cool”. Then they get into the dreck.

I guess we just have had different experiences. Again, I’ll appeal to Steubenville Conferences. For those who may be unfamiliar, these are conferences that originated at Franciscan University in Steubenville, OH (long known as one of the leading Catholic universities in the United States and known for their faithfulness to the magisterium).

These conferences quickly spread and there are now around 25 around the United States and Canada. (I’m not sure of the exact number). Each conference accepts registrations from thousands of teenagers. They bring in dynamic speakers and dynamic priests and bishops.

They encourage and offer: Eucharistic adoration, Mass every day while at the conference (culminating in a huge Sunday liturgy), confession (I usually hear around eight hours of confessions there each weekend), opportunities for young people to make a personal dedication of their life to Jesus Christ, time for prayer and fellowship in small groups, and encouraging them to think about religious vocations. Each year, hundreds, yes, HUNDREDS of young people come forward at the end of the final Mass and say, “Yes, I have heard Jesus this weekend invite me to consider the priesthood and/or religious life.”

In other words, these conferences are not out in left field somewhere. They are orthodox, faithful to the magisterium, and have the ringing endorsement of most, if not all, of the U.S. bishops, precisely because of the fruit they are bearing.

All of this is in spite of “banal” music that goes against what the Church teaches/desires.

 

[27lw]

With respect, this is PRECISELY the problem with this never-ending debate, encountered here and elsewhere. Anyone suggesting that contemporary music be employed in the liturgy is accused of wanting everything you listed above.

You say that like it’s not already happening.

Seriously though, why is the music up for grabs? Why does Steubenville have to be the authority, and not Church authority?