Catholic Sensibility

Vatican II says it; you can't get around it: "The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services. But other kinds of sacred music, especially polyphony, are by no means excluded from liturgical celebrations, so long as they accord with the spirit of the liturgical action, as laid down in Art. 30." But in the usual St Blog's music discussions this week, Sacrosanctum Concilium 116 is tossed about without regard for what it doesn't say. It doesn't say chant is the only acceptable kind of music. It doesn't say that given a choice, one must always prefer a chant over another style of music. So what exactly does SC 116 say and how does a Catholic church musician interpret it? Gregorian chant is specially suited to the Roman liturgy. Why? Because Rome says so? No. Because the genre has proved itself to be suitable over a period of many centuries. Why is chant specially suited? The reasons are not theological, but pragmatic. 1. Chant makes the text primary. It does so in two main ways. First, that the melody serves the text, not the other way around. If you're composing chant, the primary object is the words the people will sing. A Scripture passage, a poem or reflection on some theological or spiritual aspect of our faith--this is a given. The melody is worked from there. Second, that the melody, when completed, moves to the forefront of presentation, above the considerations of rhythm and harmony, the other two components of Western music. Without rhythm and harmony on a more equal footing, the literal text is emphasized in a single dimension: the movement of the vocal line in terms of pitch (how high or low it sings) and tempo (how fast or slow it moves). 2. Maintaining the integrity of the text maintains the integrity of the liturgy. Singing the given texts of the liturgy steers worship along a safe course close to Scripture and (some cynics might add) close to doctrine and uniformity. Is it a surprise this emphasis is coming from conservative quarters? Not when one considers the overall climate of crackdown. 3. Chant is also well-suited simply because of its pedigree. We have 1400 years of repertoire to choose from. Every psalm, every liturgical text has been set dozens, if not hundreds of times. Odds are that one in a hundred works, and that the ninety-nine others have been gradually weeded out Therefore, chant should be given pride of place, with a provision: other things being equal. What does that mean? It means church musicians have been given considerable room to wiggle on this. You have a choice between a Communion Song people know, let's say "One Bread One Body" or "Gift of Finest Wheat," or even "On Eagles Wings" and a chant (which they might or might not know). Is the Communion antiphon based on Psalm 91 (like On Eagles Wings) but the chant not? Even if people know the chant, it's not quite an equal playing field for your music. A sensible planner goes with the contemporary song. Suppose your chant is based on some Eucharistic text, but the people don't know it. Does the parish prioritize the people singing at Communion or the choir? That gives you another clue: an uneven playing field. SC 116 refers back to SC 30, which reads, in part: "To promote active participation, the people should be encouraged to take part by means of acclamations, responses, psalmody, antiphons, and songs ..." The proper focus for liturgical music is singing the liturgy (note the listed priority in SC 30: "songs" are in last place) not singing at the liturgy. Even the much-reviled David Haas has preached this for over twenty years: trust me, I know; I attended one of his workshops before he became famous. The "treasury of sacred music" must fit into these guidelines for active participation of the worshipping assembly. Most alienated music directors I know are focused (over much, I would say) on the classical or performance repertoire at the expense of the liturgical repertoire. This is wrong. And where pastors or liturgists have called them on this flaw, the correction has often been apt. Part 2 on getting back to basics on chant still to come. Meanwhile, any comments?