Busted Halo . BustedBlog » Features » The Church, like a marriage, is the same fights over and over. And also love.

recent features We all suffer for each other, and gain by each other’s suffering; for man never stands alone here, though he will stand alone hereafter; but here he is a social being, and goes forward to his long home as one of a large company. — Cardinal Newman We live and die; Christ died and lived! — John Stott Unplug Tonight! SXSW 2010: Forgiveness on Film and Barbara Smith Conrad “It’s today!” said Piglet. “My favorite day,” said Pooh. — Winnie the Pooh A Laptop Pilgrimage: Day 1: Travel along the Camino de Santiago with our Busted Halo pilgrims without leaving your home busted blog Hello from Syria! What I say to people who tell me I’m motivated by pride to question the Church Why I love First Things Catholics and Republicans on same-sex marriage and public reason Please don’t leave the Catholic Church! So, being 28… On Overthinking (and Susan Boyle) How Heresy Becomes Theology Why talking to certain Catholics is like talking to communists Changes to the Blog More Blog Entries	BustedBlog April 20th, 2009 The Church, like a marriage, is the same fights over and over. And also love. by Jeff Guhin Thanks to Jake for his continued comments despite an upcoming law exam. A few quick thoughts in response to his: I should be clear that I’m not going for a “self-esteem” selection criterion. I’m not arguing we should keep Haugen et al. for giving it the college try. If the community thinks the music is terrible, then don’t use it! I’m all about wanting and demanding excellence. Here’s the trick though: a lot of people actually don’t think it’s terrible, in fact, they really like it, and I’m trying to situate that within a long, long tradition of tension between popular and elite devotion. (I also think we should be humble in our manner of criticizing, in that none of us are honesty that great even at the things we think we’re great at. If all Aquinas could pull of is straw, then I think a good dose of humility is helpful for all of us. And, again, I’m not saying there is no good and bad, or that we shouldn’t be clear about what works and what doesn’t. Let’s just try to be humble about it, that’s all.) So, back to the topic at hand: A lot of people like Haugen and the St. Louis Jesuits, etc, and I think this is basically a good sort of “here comes everybody” moment in the Catholic faith. There’s always a tension in the Church between giving the people what they want and enforcing discipline to the final degree, no longer just in terms of dogma, but even in the minutiae of practice. Too much of the former and the Church falls apart (this is what a lot of folks say happened after Vatican II); too much of the latter and the people stop listening (this is arguably the case in parts of French history and almost certainly in Italian; it also happens when the Church denies certain miracles actually happened; some say its the case with the ban on birth control in the US). The response might be that there are structural problems with the new music that makes it different from earlier songs. For example, it was easier for a whole congregation to sing the old songs; now its easier for a soloist to dominate. I’m not sure that’s entirely true; however, even if it is true, it’s certainly not historically unique. Think of what happened when choirs sang in Latin. Lots and lots of folks could not sing along then (obviously people had memorized the parts of the Mass in Latin, but that’s a different bit. Those aren’t hyms). I’m sure there are lots of other precedents too. I’m not trying to diminsh people’s problems with new liturgical music. Frankly, I prefer the old stuff too. I’m just trying to point out that (a) this is usually a direction that much of the congregation is excited about and (b) these sorts of changes are not without precedent in the Church. print email editor comments (2) 2 comments about “The Church, like a marriage, is the same fights over and over. And also love.” Jacob Torbeck -- April 21st, 2009 at 2:32 am Perhaps our chief criterion should always be a remembrance that the Church is indeed “holy,” “catholic,” and “apostolic,” that is, music should be set apart for its purpose, that is, to worship. It should reflect the worship of the universal church, and finally, it should reflect right belief and attitude. These concerns, I feel, cover most facets of quality that I can think of. But who shall hold us accountable for our art? Are we our own worst critics, or are we too permissive in what sort of work we allow to be used in sacred settings? The broader culture can and will scrutinize art created for non sacred purposes… but what of our sacred creations? Jake -- April 21st, 2009 at 1:32 pm Thanks Jeff for continuing the discussion. I agree with Jacob (nice name!). I understand there’s a tension between the magisterium and the “sensus fidelium”. The question is striking the right balance. It is important to recognize what the laity wants…too little of that happened prior to Vatican II, and in some ways, it still happens today. But the pastor, the liturgical director, and others involved in music selection (and really, any artistic selection the church) should strive to pull people out of their current situation, to challenge them in their spiritual lives. THAT is the call of the Church. So if the people want Haugen, they can have a song or two in the Mass. But there should also be a recognition in the Mass of the sacred other-worldiness of our calling and mission. Whether that is done by singing the Gloria and Agnus in Latin, or including the more austere, “intellectual” hymns of past centuries, or some other way, should be decided in each local context. But it should be done. post a comment Your Privacy Matters Please note that the editorial staff reserves the right to not post comments it deems to be inappropriate and/or malicious in nature, as well as edit comments for length, clarity and fairness. Name (required) E-Mail (required)	sponsored links interested in this space?