Liturgical Musical Chairs

By now, most readers will have heard about the whiplash emanating from the Diocese of Jefferson City, Missouri, as Bishop Shawn McKnight’s decree of October 28 on liturgical music was revoked by November 5. The original document arose from the Ordinary’s desire to fulfill his pastoral responsibility to ensure that the lex orandi truly reflected the lex credendi or, put otherwise, whether the former was reinforcing or weakening the latter.

Although I do not know the Bishop well, I was very favorably impressed with his work for the Secretariat for Clergy, Consecrated Life and Vocations at the United States Catholic Conference from 2010 through 2015. Further, his October 28 decree was hardly earth-shattering; in fact, it did no more than make local applications of the document of the bishops’ conference on the same topic from 2020–his action being no different from that of many other bishops. Interestingly, the liturgical norms set forth for the Archdiocese of Portland in Oregon in 2018 (without the support of the Conference document at that point) are much more far-reaching, producing little if any backlash.

Now, let’s step back a bit for some historical background to all this, which involves the Sacred Liturgy (its music in particular here) and how such decisions are (or should be) made–topics dear to my heart, about which I have written extensively over the years.

The back story

The Committee on Doctrine of the United Conference of Catholic Bishops completed work on a document dealing with the doctrinal content (or lack thereof) in hymns used in the Sacred Liturgy in September 2020, releasing it under the title of “Catholic Hymnody at the Service of the Church: An Aid for Evaluating Hymn Lyrics.” The document is a damning critique of the harmful diet many Catholics have been fed by the liturgical establishment of the past half-century. It should be noted that this text deals only with doctrinal concerns, not the musical quality of hymns, which is a different (but not unrelated) element for consideration.¹

The bishops’ paper begins by linking truth and beauty, following the logic of Hans Urs von Balthasar. In fact, even the title of the paper is instructive: “Catholic Hymnody – at the Service of the Church.” Sometimes one could get the impression that one wag got it right by asking, “Is it, ‘What’s the place of music in the liturgy’ or is it, ‘What’s the place of liturgy in the music’?” And so, we are reminded:

There is a necessary and direct relationship between the living Word of God and the Church’s worship. Thus, the sacred texts, and the liturgical sources which draw on the living Word, provide something of a “norm” for expression when communicating the mystery of faith in liturgical poetics, or hymnody.

Calling on the Catechism of the Catholic Church (which, in turn, is having recourse to Vatican II’s Sacrosanctum Concilium), the text teaches:

The harmony of signs (song, music, words, and actions) is all the more expressive and fruitful when expressed in the cultural richness of the People of God who celebrate. Hence “religious singing by the faithful is to be intelligently fostered so that in devotions and sacred exercises as well as in liturgical services,” in conformity with the Church’s norms, “the voices of the faithful may be heard.” But “the texts intended to be sung must always be in conformity with Catholic doctrine. Indeed they should be drawn chiefly from Sacred Scripture and from liturgical sources.” (n. 1158)

We are reminded that “Christian tradition, both Eastern and Western, has from antiquity been acutely aware that hymns and other songs are among the most significant forces in shaping – or misshaping – the religious and theological sensibility of the faithful,” as we have already seen. With that in mind, the document lays out “two general guidelines”:

1. Is the hymn in conformity with Catholic doctrine?

2. Is the hymn expressed in image and vocabulary appropriately reflective of the usage of Scripture and the public liturgical prayer of the Church?

These two standards are designed to support the liturgy as what the Catechism calls “the privileged place for catechizing the People of God” (n. 1074). Hence, the bishops warn:

It is important to avoid language that could be easily misconstrued in a way that is contrary to Catholic doctrine. The poet always has a certain “license” for language chosen to serve an aesthetic purpose. But in assessing whether a paraphrase or restatement is an appropriate use of poetic license or an inappropriate distortion, Guideline 2 can provide assistance.

While the direction given is quite needed, it is regrettable that, not only in this instance, but frequently throughout the document, one finds the expression, “to be avoided.” If a text is theologically problematic, it should not be “avoided”; it should be banned.

At the time of the document’s promulgation, I wrote in these pages:

A final assessment: This is a most welcome contribution to the life of the Church in the United States, however – and it’s a big “however” – this is, in all likelihood, too little too late. From my initial expression of alarm to Cardinal George in 1999, we find ourselves over two decades later with a document that, most regrettably, has no teeth in it – there is no enforcement mechanism. As a result, the people guilty of these abuses will just say, “Thanks, but no thanks,” and move along on their merry way, continuing their ecological pollution of Catholic worship. This paper will be helpful, however, for embattled laity and priests at least as an authoritative document with which to push forward the battering ram of opposition to these heretical texts.

Enter the Diocese of Jefferson City

On October 28, Bishop McKnight promulgated “Suggested Mass Settings and Prohibited Hymns,” listing four suggested Mass settings and twelve hymns prohibited for use at Mass, all of which had been identified by the USCCB’s Doctrine Committee as being doctrinally problematic for various reasons, including for deficiencies in their presentation of the Eucharist, the Trinity, or the Church. His document further decreed that all works by composers David Haas, Cesáreo Gabarain, and Ed Conlin were prohibited for liturgical use in the Diocese because the composers have all been credibly accused of sexual abuse.

A fire-storm erupted, resulting in a walk-back document on November 5, abrogating the original policy and providing a new one, eviscerating the first decree. The new document is entitled, “Promoting Active Participation in the Liturgy through Sacred Music,” in which the Ordinary essentially apologizes for the first document, which had been intended to “foster the active participation of the laity in the liturgy by providing common Mass settings for singing by the whole assembly in diocesan liturgies,” but which was not the product of “an authentically synodal process,” according to the Bishop–a strange assertion because the first document evolved over a long period of time and had received input from a wide variety of sources and had been approved by the Diocesan Presbyteral Council!

Oddly, to justify his involvement in matters liturgical, the Bishop cites a passage from Pope Francis’ Traditionis Custodes, which had clamped down on the Extraordinary Form of the Mass. I say “oddly” because hundreds of prior documents establish that responsibility for an Ordinary but even more so because that document was anything but an example of a “synodal” or “consultative” document.

At any rate, the replacement document no longer refers to the four Mass settings as “approved” but merely encourages their use. The list of the twelve previously prohibited hymns (identified in the USCCB document) disappears completely, with only the criteria for hymn review from the episcopal conference mentioned.

The November 5 text holds to the prohibition on works by composers credibly accused of abuse, offering this explanation:

It is vital that we ensure the greatest care be taken to prevent scandal from marring the beautiful celebration of the Eucharist. Therefore, it is forbidden to use music by composers who have been found by his or her diocesan bishop or competent authority to be credibly accused of sexual abuse.

This kind of special pleading is concerning. Let’s be honest: 99% of parishioners know nothing of the problematic composers (and they are that), so that the risk of “scandal” is minimal. But what about the true scandal of exposing the faithful to clearly heretical hymns? Why are those hymns not even mentioned, even though it is admitted that “some hymns in current distribution may not be appropriate for use in Catholic liturgies. The use of such hymns could damage our communion as Catholics in what we believe”?

The new policy takes effect immediately and is approved ad experimentum for one year, during which time the Diocesan Liturgical Commission will conduct a year-long consultation of diocesan pastors, music “ministers” and the laity, and will then suggest potential revisions for a final policy.

A defense of the walk-back is offered by the diocesan communications director Jacob Luecke:

After publishing the original decree, we received comments and saw reactions online to articles. Seeking to harness the fervor and passion for this topic, Bishop McKnight chose to use this as an opportunity to deepen our community’s appreciation for a consultation that was more synodal. We feel it’s vital that we use this as an opportunity to give people an option beyond “obeying” or “‘disobeying.” This is truly a synodal moment in our diocese, when the baptized laity can exercise their co-responsibility in the life of the church.

As though there is something wrong with obeying!

Luecke further opines:

Rather than the faithful being relegated to the outside as commenters on a decision, with their only response being either obedience or disobedience, it is better to invite everyone in our diocese into a discernment process. The Holy Spirit is working through each one of us. When the people of God speak, we have a responsibility to open ourselves to listen, even when that means changing course and trying a different approach.

The Bishop himself also weighs in:

I am excited about moving forward with an open mind and an open heart. Music is such an important part of who we are as Catholics. The act of singing is intensely personal, helping us to encounter the mystery of Christ and the Church. I am eager to hear from everyone, in a synodal process of deep listening, as we embark on this process together.

Which misses the fundamental issue: The original document was not a pastoral or liturgical or even a music document at root; it was a doctrinal text, which had those other elements.

In other words, this was not the case of a dispute between a musician and cleric over the relative merits of a Palestrina Mass setting versus that of one by Byrd Hence, as a doctrinal promulgation, input from the non-ordained is totally out of place. Shall the “baptized laity” be voting on the Trinity next week?

Which leads to my next point.

The nature of consultation in the Church

Parish priests are inundated with meetings: staff, pastoral council, finance council, school board, liturgy committee (if a priest–or bishop–needs advice from lay people are how to celebrate the Sacred Liturgy, he ought to hand in his collar). On that final item, the 2004 Vatican Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum is crystal clear:

Although it is appropriate that [the priest] should be assisted in the effective preparation of the liturgical celebrations by various members of Christ’s faithful, he nevertheless must not cede to them in any way those things that are proper to his own office. (n. 32)

Many church historians have pointed out the risky business of synods and councils. The future Paul VI is alleged to have responded to John XXIII’s call for the Second Vatican Council with these prescient words: “This holy old boy doesn’t realize what a hornet’s nest he’s stirring up.” In Cardinal Newman’s Apologia pro Vita Sua, he observed: “Living movements do not come of committees,” an insight he may have gained from St. Gregory Nazianzen’s attitude toward synods: “If I must speak the truth, I feel disposed to shun every conference of bishops; because I never saw a synod brought to a happy issue, nor remedying, but rather increasing, existing evils” (Ep. 55).

Now, to be clear: There is nothing inherently wrong with consultation, including in the Church. Only a fool would not take the temperature of the water before diving in. I have been involved in administration of parishes, schools, universities, and national organizations for my entire forty-seven years as a priest; I have always taken the “temperature” as part of my decision-making process–if the matter admitted of various valid outcomes. The Jefferson City situation did not.

Firstly, “religious” music is not the same as “liturgical” music. The former can be a matter of taste, while the latter always concerns doctrine–which is why debate or a show of hands is an inappropriate process, because it is giving people the impression that all “opinions” will have equal weight when they do not and cannot. Frankly, it is disrespectful of someone’s dignity to mislead him into thinking that he will have something to say when he really won’t–or shouldn’t.

Secondly, it is also equally clear that the response to Bishop McKnight’s first document was exaggerated and orchestrated. The opposition from the liturgical musicians was born of emotion and finance, as well as a well-established pattern of control. There is no form of clericalism worse than that exhibited by lay bureaucrats. A mantra was popular in the 1970s: “What’s the difference between a liturgist and a terrorist? You can negotiate with a terrorist.” The truth of that adage is alive and well.

St. John Henry Cardinal Newman knew a thing or two about divine worship. Here are but three of his more salient insights:

Persons who put aside gravity and comeliness in the worship of God, that they may pray more spiritually, forget that God is a Maker of all things, visible as well as invisible; that He is the Lord of our bodies as well as of our souls; that He is to be worshipped in public as well as in secret … there are not two Gods, one of matter, one of spirit; one of the Law, and one of the Gospel. There is one God, and He is Lord of all we are, and all we have; and therefore, all we do must be stamped with His seal and signature. We must begin, indeed, with the heart; for out of the heart proceed all good and evil; but while we begin with the heart, we must not end with the heart.— Parochial and Plain Sermons. VI 304 (23.9.1839)

Men are to be seen adopting all kinds of strange ways of giving glory (as they think) to God. If they would but follow the Church; come together in prayer on Sundays and Saints’ days, nay, every day; honour the rubric… I say that on the whole they would practically do vastly more good than by trying new religious plans, founding new religious societies, or striking out new religious views. — P.S. I 154 (6.11.1831)

Rites which the Church has appointed, and with reason,–for the Church’s authority is from Christ,–being long used, cannot be disused without harm to our souls.— P.S. II 77 – 78 (1.1.1831)

Conclusion

When the bishops’ conference produced their liturgical music document in 2020, I wrote this cautious assessment: “Let’s hope that, despite legitimate expectations to the contrary, this document will have a salutary effect on the liturgical life of the Church in our nation.” I was right not to be overly hopeful, apparently.

Last but not least, a pervasive problem in the Church over the past five decades is that the seminaries have too often not been training shepherds; they have been raising sheep, scared of their own shadow. The vast majority of today’s clergy are not leaders, and since nature abhors a vacuum, all kinds of other folk have stepped into the breach.

Synodality” cannot be an end in itself. There has to be an end-game, as the inimitable G.K. Chesterton put it so succinctly: “Merely having an open mind is nothing. The object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid.” Or, as a philosophy professor of mine was wont to put it, a bit more crassly, “It’s good to have an open mind, but no so open that your brains fall out.”

Or, better yet, to end on a more prayerful, liturgical note, we can have recourse to a prayer found in the Roman Missal:

O Lord, . . . . direct the hearts of Priest and people to be so disposed
that the obedience of the flock may never fail the shepherd,
nor the care of the shepherd be lacking for the flock.²

Catholic World Report