Gregorian Chant is for Radicals

Ed. Note: The text below originally appeared on Music for Sunday and is reprinted here with the permission of the author, Adam Wood.

I have made the claim that Gregorian Chant, and traditional sacred music, is โ€œradical.โ€ I said that it should be embraced by those of us with liberal, progressive, unorthodox, or even heretical beliefs, not just because it is a part of our shared Catholic faith tradition (which it is- and thatโ€™s reason enough, really) but also because of the inherent qualities of the music itself and the accumulated properties of its history and tradition.

This post begins a series of posts explaining what those qualities are and discussing why it is that this music should resonate in a particular way with people who could be described as theologically liberal, liturgically progressive, or heterodox in their beliefs.

Before that, it is important that I put a few things into context. Some of the comments and reactions Iโ€™ve recieved on previous articles about these subjects make me think that not everyone understands where Iโ€™m coming from or what it is Iโ€™m actually trying to say.

So, to begin with, here are few things to keep in mindโ€ฆ

  • I consider myself a theological liberal, in most cases. However, even inasmuch as I think my beliefs are correct/right, I donโ€™t think liberality or progressivism (or any other particular worldview) is the only legitimate one within the Church.
  • Much like my friend Jeffrey Tucker, my strong belief is that sacred music is (or should be) essentially apolitical. That is- how you feel about something like womenโ€™s ordination (just for example) SHOULD have nothing to do with whether you think Gregorian Chant is proper to the Roman Rite, or that traditional forms of sacred music are better suited to public liturgy than are pop or folk based genres.
  • HOWEVER, the unfortunate truth is that, generally speaking, the champions of truly sacred music tend to be conservative. This is clearly not true in every case, and it would be wrong to assume the world of Catholic music is filled with only two groups of people- liberal folkies on one side signing petitions in favor of gay marriage while they listen to their David Haas CDs , and on the other side traditionalist conservatives streaming Palestrina on Pandora while they make angry comments on Fr. Zโ€™s blog. Obviously, the reality is that there are many of us who find ourselves either in the middle of that spectrum, or off the narrow chart completely. But we know that many, maybe even most, of the people who would self-identify as liberal or progressive; the peace-and-justice, power-to-the-laity, why-arenโ€™t-we-ordaining-women, get-rid-of-that-gaudy-gold-chalice kinda people; the people who talk about singing a new church into beingโ€ฆ those people are not generally into Gregorian Chant, except perhaps as occaisional โ€œmood music.โ€
  • I do not believe that the liturgy is the place to pursue agendas or hash out theological or ecclesiological disagreements. However- what Iโ€™m attempting to say in this article is that those agendas which could be called โ€œliberalโ€ are better served by traditional sacred music than they are by the music usually associated with them (folk music, faux-ethnic, pop/rock). It is my personal opinion that this point is NOT the primary reason one should do traditional sacred music. But it is still a worthwhile line of thought to pursue, for intellectual interest if nothing else. Also, if it helps convince even one of my fellow folkies to move toward a more traditional approach to liturgical programming- all the better.
  • None of this should worry or be considered an attack against my more conservative brothers and sisters. This article is not about how liberals are right. It is about how Gregorian Chant is right.

Not in the dark of buildings confining, not in some heaven light years away

I grew up in a liberal, folk-Mass-singing kinda church. Like most kids, I wasnโ€™t really aware that there were alternatives to the โ€œstyleโ€ of religiosity we practiced. But eventually, I began to learn that there were (more or less, for purposes of this example) two kinds of Christians. We, the super-cool liberals, believed in โ€œbuilding up the Kingdom here on Earth.โ€ This was in opposition to the conservative view that was something more like โ€œwaiting for the reward of Heaven after death.โ€ The obvious group in that second camp was the fundamentalist mega-church down the street, but it was also evident in the more boring, more conservative, more traditionalist (it seemed) Catholic parish in the next town over. We sang vibrant songs about Social Justice, and Change, and Helping the Poor. And we also actively participated in working on those causes. I continue to be amazed by my home-parishโ€™s efforts in community work: they run a soup kitchen and a free clinic, provide shower facilities, help people pay bills and stock their pantries, advocate and demonstrate on behalf of the poor, protest at executions, visit prisons and hospitals, and bring the sacraments- from Baptism through to Last Rites- to as many people as they possibly can. Thatโ€™s what I was taught it meant to be a Christian, and (it seemed to me growing up, and still today) that this particular vision of Christianity was, wellโ€ฆ liberal. That is not at all to dismiss either the piety or ministry of those who call themselves conservatives. It is just that these things were, and continue to be, the focus of the post-concilliar understanding of Catholic life. We were taught that eternal life is not something we wait for in the next life, but something that starts now, in this life. We were taught that this, indeed, is what is meant by โ€œon Earth as it is in Heaven.โ€

And, of course, as liberal Catholics, we werenโ€™t quite content to simply mumble through the Liturgy like those boring, organ-playing, slow-hymn-singing conservatives over at Our Lady of Perpetual Ennui. We lavished the liturgy, and its participants, with what we thought was beautiful and meaningful. Our Easter Vigil fire was a huge bonfire, lighting up the night. Baptisms were an abundant drenching of blessed water. Anointings at confirmation were not a slight daub on the brow, but a generous outpouring of Chrism Oil on the head (and shoulders and face and chest) of those who were being sealed with the most-generous gift of the Holy Spirit.

I realize that there is no accounting for taste, and that beauty is a fairly subjective topic. However, I believe that Gregorian Chant is the among the most beautiful music in the world. There is certainly music that is more fun, music that may be more joyous, or has some other quality that is to be preferred or desired. But, having experienced almost every style of music in the world- from reconstructed Greek theatre choruses to Gamelan gong cycles, from steel drum bands to Indian ragas, from Beethoven to Lana Del Rey- I have found that there is no music as beautiful as Gregorian Chant, and that its closest rivals are also its closest companions: renaissance polyphony, Orthodox chant, Anglican choral music. Anyone has a right to disagree with me on this point, of course, but I would challenge those who do to spend a few days singing Gregorian chant, not just listening to it on CDs. It may never become your favorite music, but it is unlikely you will be oblivious to its beauty.

If, then, we are concerned with the business of building up the Kingdom of God on Earth, why would we not include this music of such deep beauty in our Earthly life and work? Following in the footsteps of Jesus, we do our best to lavish love on the world- on the poor, the downtrodden, the displaced. We pour out our energy, our time, and our money to provide food and shelter and comfort to those who are unable to provide it to themselves. And rightly so, for this is our call as Christians- to do for โ€œthe least of these,โ€ the things we would do for Christ Himself. We are also right to understand that all of us are โ€œthe least of these,โ€ and to act accordingly in love and service to each other within our communities. Because we know that we โ€œdo not live on bread alone,โ€ we use the liturgy (as, I think, it was intended) as an opportunity to show Godโ€™s great love for us, and we do that by showing our great love for God and for each other- in the care we take with our furnishings, the richness of the bread, the sweetness of the wine, the generosity of our annointing, the prodigous torrent of baptism, the brightness of our flames, the sensuality of our incense.

Radical communities of love, like the one I grew up in, are in a constant process of growth and improvement- we know that we can never love as we ought. We have to learn how to love each other, we have to learn how to raise our children to love better then we do. We know that change is hard, that it involves sacrifice and pain- which we also know is a part of love. Therefore, I am continually heartened to know that a small, but growing, number of communities are adding such an important dimension to the love they show God and each other. Namely, singing the great love songs of the Church, to the Glory of God, and the comfort of Godโ€™s people.

The poor, the broken, the sick in body and soul need us; that it to say, we need each other. We are both nurses and patients in this Hospital of Sinners. Medical care? Yes. Advocacy? Yes. Financial assistance? Yes. Again and again, yes- the need is great and ever growing. But these people โ€“ us people โ€“ need also the comfort and peace of the ancient, beautiful songs. Do we also need rousing gospel tunes and inspiring praise choruses? Probably so- and I certainly wouldnโ€™t suggest otherwise. But Gregorian Chant is one of the best gifts the Church has to offer, a โ€œtreasure of inestimable value.โ€ It is exceedingly beautiful, it exudes peace, it announces and creates the Kingdom.

Let us pour out this gift, liberally and generously, on all who walk through our doors. Let us train well our tongues, so that we may sing to the weary a word that will rouse them. Let us not be frugal or conservative about how much art, how much beauty, we provide to the poor in spirit, the prisoners of sin, the sick of soul. Let us sing ecstatic love songs to the widows, to the orphans, and to God. Let us sing and sing and sing until we drown out the ugliness and despair of the music of this age. Let us sing until the music of the angels is heard loud and clear everywhere on Earth, just as it is in Heaven.

Amen?

Adam Wood, composer and liturgical musician, blogs at Music for Sunday.

Other Voices

Please leave a reply.

Comments

22 responses to “Gregorian Chant is for Radicals”

  1. Brigid Rauch

    It shouldn’t be a case of either/or but of both /and!

    1. Jose Francisco Moreno

      In para-liturgies, yes. In the Holy Mass . . . yes, let’s start with both/and! We’ve had a generation of either/or.

  2. Jack Wayne

    Catholicism needs to get over the false dichotomy of “traditional worship=conservative and contemporary worship=liberal.” Many of the most liberal Catholics I have met prefer “High Church” liturgies with chant.

    Around here the most liberal liturgical Christians (the Lutherans and Episcopalians) have more traditional worship generally – they are more open to chant and traditional hymnody than even the most conservative Catholics around here are (the Latin Mass community being the notable exception). You’re also more likely to find communion rails and “ad orientem” altars in their churches too, though they don’t dominate.

  3. Brigid-
    Yes, yes.

    Jack-
    Yes, yes- that’s much of my point, and my experience generally. Although sometimes I wonder if Episcopalian traditionalism isn’t bound up with a weird sense of nostalgia, rather than a good understanding of tradition. (That would be a topic of another post…)

    At any rate- the dichotomy is obviously false… except to all those people who don’t find it so obvious. While there are plenty of people who champion both liberal values and traditional music (like our good Fr. Ruff), I know a great number of liberals who feel threatened by the apparent resurgence of Gregorian Chant and traditional liturgy. This series of articles is for them.

  4. Paul Inwood

    I think Adam is in danger of falling into the trap of confusing style with value, or at any rate idiom with beauty.

    In the same way that there is both good and bad hymnody, wonderful and terrible folk-style music, we have to be honest and admit that in the medieval literature there are acres of mediocre and frankly tedious Gregorian chant to be found, in addition to the many nuggets of gold that we are familiar with and love. It is not all beautiful just because it is Gregorian chant. Nor is all [name your most loathed idiom] music necessarily bad just because it is in that idiom. Or, to give a different example, the music of Andrรฉ Gouzes is a badly-crafted travesty of Byzantine chant (curiously, it works rather better in English than in French, when the results are ghastly), but that doesn’t mean that all Byzantine chant is equally bad.

    Probably the most we can say about Gregorian chant is that unaccompanied monody has a certain character about it which tends towards the beautiful precisely because it is monodic. The same is true of Ambrosian chant and many other forms of monodic chant.

    I say all this as someone who grew up with the chant and loves it, and still uses it judiciously.

  5. Paul-

    No doubt your assessment of the variance in quality across any style is accurate. But I think your assessment of my thoughts are perhaps less accurate.

    I don’t advocate a blind acceptance of the entire plainchant corpus. I simply want those who feel threatened by non-contemporary liturgy and music to reconsider that fear.

    1. Paul Inwood

      This article is not about how liberals are right. It is about how Gregorian Chant is right.
      . . . .
      I have found that there is no music as beautiful as Gregorian Chant, and that its closest rivals are also its closest companions: renaissance polyphony, Orthodox chant, Anglican choral music.
      . . . .
      Gregorian Chant is one of the best gifts the Church has to offer, a โ€œtreasure of inestimable value.โ€ It is exceedingly beautiful, it exudes peace, it announces and creates the Kingdom.

      That is what I heard you say, Adam.

      My response to the first is “not always”, to the second “your taste is in agreement with my own, but not everything by any means in your chosen categories is necessarily beautiful, and there are other categories which also contain beautiful things”, and to the third, once again, “not always”.

      I agree that some are afraid of music from the depths of our tradition, and there also plenty of people who are afraid of music from our more recent traditions. But the way to alleviate those fears, in my opinion, is to expose people to the best of all traditions, not to set up one tradition in particular as being the be-all and end-all of everything.

      I remember on one occasion programming an exceedingly beautiful piece of folk music, and a lady came up to me after Mass and said “What was that piece of music you used during Communion?” I told her, and then, knowing a little about her tastes, I added “You do realize that that was a piece of folk music, don’t you?” “Oh!” she said, “I don’t like folk music โ€” but I liked that.” And thus a little door was opened. I am sure that if I had tried to persuade her in the abstract that folk music was a good thing I would have failed.

      I’m also a little dubious about your suggestion of getting people to sing the chant rather than listening to it on CD. For many, reared exclusively in music that is metrically regular and tonal rather than modal, this is a stretch too far. Listening is the first hurdle. Singing comes later on.

      The same sort of thing applies to people who dislike Latin on principle. A good experience with something within their grasp is the starting point. It may be a quiet Taizรฉ chant or the Worcester Antiphoner version of Christus vincit, but it probably won’t be one of the more prolix chant Alleluias or the Berlioz Te Deum . . .

  6. I like the premise, but I think I have a slightly different experience. At home, on Pandora, I like listening to traditional music – it started with “Anonymous 4โ€, but has shifted to avoid their mostly dreadful Gloryland album that kept circling in the rotation. So, I like chant in general. When the liturgy changed, the initial decision was to change from one of the contemporary Mass settings to the ICEL chants that were freely available.

    I liked that idea for several reasons: they are simple, intuitive almost, and well within the vocal range of anyone who wanted to sing. Best of all, it seemed to me that the congregation was willing to participate and sing along.

    But it didn’t last long. There are probably several reasons, but the chief reason is that our music director really didn’t like chant musically, and she is frankly, basically conservative. I am pretty sure church politics or philosophy had little to nothing to do with he choice. She just hated chant, at least as far as leading a congregation is concerned.

  7. Linda Reid

    Adam, one thought in your thoughtful article stayed with me: “the champions of truly sacred music tend to be conservative. ”

    I am a champion of “truly sacred music”, but I imagine we have quite different definitions of this term. And I am not a conservative!

  8. In the same way that there is both good and bad hymnody, wonderful and terrible folk-style music, we have to be honest and admit that in the medieval literature there are acres of mediocre and frankly tedious Gregorian chant to be found, in addition to the many nuggets of gold that we are familiar with and love. It is not all beautiful just because it is Gregorian chant. Nor is all [name your most loathed idiom] music necessarily bad just because it is in that idiom. Or, to give a different example, the music of Andrรฉ Gouzes is a badly-crafted travesty of Byzantine chantโ€ฆ

    Firstly, I applaud the audacity of discussing a confrereโ€™s medium and craft by name and by qualified typology, Paul. But I think your rejoinder to Adamโ€™s thesis remains insufficient because we all have to live with the dichotomy that the content of the medium is always mitigated by some measure of its delivery. You might likely have been in the plenum at NPM Detroit (โ€™81) in which the now disavowed theologian Matthew Fox railed on advancing our musiciansโ€™ duty to only program music which was to be emblazoned upon the collective memories of all RCC congregations. I somewhat remember it as the โ€œHappy Birthdayโ€ thesis of music functionality. I realize a portion of Foxโ€™s contention had to do with a sort of revulsion at convention and contrivance, namely arcane hymnody or chant, and hymnals or whatnot. But his thrust was that if everyone (and he meant EVERYONE) was enjoined, then and only then was it meaningful to worship.
    Therefore, whereas I remember folks out here in Central CA were enthralled with your friend Chrisโ€™s Salisbury Acclamationsโ€™ โ€œart,โ€ your own โ€œResponsorial Acclamationsโ€ of much less auspicious craft held forth being sung with gusto for nearly two decades. And we both know that could turn on a dime to the opposite with the other parish not two blocks down the avenue.
    Everything we sing can be qualified or typified, and ought toto be recognized for what they lack and what gain they provide. There are plenteous acres of tedium in chant literature I assume. But a melismatic gradual or alleluia that would lose your interest and those of those who have grown accustomed to your philosophy and disciplines, but would be enthralling to Professor Mahrt and his protรฉgรฉs. Oneโ€™s disposition has to be accounted for in all things being critiqued.
    But I have to ask if your beef with Adamโ€™s thesis is really about his point of chant being demonstrably counter-cultural, even within its own universe, or about whether Adamโ€™s just twisted words of the old canard (to progressives) that chant is simply a โ€œmore holyโ€ idiom of sung praise?
    For me and mine, I think the jury will always be out on that latter issue.

  9. Sorry about the grammar and syntax errors. Couldn’t get back into “edit” mode.

  10. John Quinn

    Okay Adam.

    On a practical level, can you recommend any chant settings that have become as popular as ‘Eagles wings’ (which quotes from Orbis Factor), or ‘One bread, one body’.

    Which chant settings raise the roof with congregational singing?

    Beauty is certianly in the eye of the beholder. But the real beauty is in the singing and in th living out of the Word of God. Any musical setting or style points beyond itself.

    1. I have certainly heard the roof raised with the Mass XIII Angus Dei and, with somewhat less consistency, the same Mass’s Sanctus. It at least used to be the case that people could raise the roof with Snow’s adaptation of the chant for the Our Father — though chant purists object to it and it seems less-often sung than it used to be. During Lent, at least by the end, my parish was coming close to raising the roof with the Kyrie from the Missa Orbis Factor. The Salve Regina has been know to at least rattle a beam or two. And even though we only sing it once a year, the Pange Lingua gets relatively robust participation.

      And maybe it’s just my local context, but it has been a while since I’ve heard Eagle’s Wings anywhere except a funeral, and I can’t recall how long it’s been since I’ve heard One Bread, One Body. I have a sentimental attachment to both songs, since they were ubiquitous when I entered the Church in 1982 and I think they have good biblical/patristic texts, even if the music is somewhat challenging for the assembly.

    2. I agree with Fritz on exactly those same pieces. Also, I’ve heard “Humbly I Adore Thee” (English version of Adoro Te Devote) sung with a great deal of heart and enthusiasm.

      But- I think your question is in the wrong direction, because it sounds like you’re saying something like “You’re wrong about how we should sing this music, because a lot of people don’t currently know it.”

      There was a time when nobody knew “On Eagle’s Wings” either.

      As to your last point- that the real issue is how we live out the Gospel- I couldn’t agree more. I would rather see a parish community doing great social works and singing (let’s just say) bad music, then to see a parish with amazing music and liturgy but nothing else.

      Of course, I think we all know that excellence, enthusiasm, and inspiration in liturgy and music is often found alongside excellence, enthusiasm, and inspiration in other parish ministries.

  11. As I said in my over-long preamble, there seems to always be some who will misunderstand what I’m getting at here. But, a few clarifications might be in order…

    To say “not always” to my “Gregorian Chant is right” is straw-manning a little bit. Maybe I wasn’t clear, or maybe I assume to great an understanding about my own background and practices. I’m not the liberal tool of CMAA, championing all propers all the time to the PrayTell crowd. At my parish, I program more “folk and contemporary” than I do “Traditional Sacred Music.” That’s for a lot of different reasons having to do with context and community. So – I get it.

    My central point here is simply attempting to turn-around a notion I see prevalent: that traditional sacred music represents a particularly vertical, non-community-focused way of doing and thinking about liturgy and Church. Those of you already blessedly free of that notion have no need to explain to me that it is wrong- I know it’s wrong, that’s my point. I also know I’m not the first one to figure this out.

    Is there beauty in other styles? Of course. If I was writing to Traditionalists, trying to convince them to explore folk and contemporary music, maybe I’d focus on that. But I wasn’t.

    Is there bad Chant? Probably. If I was doing a survey of Gregorian literature, maybe I’d focus on that. I wasn’t.

    And maybe all of this is pointless, because perhaps my intended audience doesn’t read a lot of liturgy blogs. But- what I’m trying to say is that this music can fit, not just with the theologically liberal (e.g. agnostic Anglo-Catholic Episcopalians with refined tastes in art) but with the liturgically liberal. It is, or a least can be, community-focused, horizontal-over-vertical, mission-oriented, etc. etc.

    If you understood me to mean something remarkably different than that (Gregorian Chant is the best music in the world; we should only sing traditional music; all propers all the time) then I apologize for…

  12. Scott Pluff

    In recent years I have advocated to include chant and chant-based hymns in my parish repertoire alongside music of other styles. It’s part of our heritage, it’s beautiful, it serves the ritual, it can be done well even with a small choir, etc. In my previous parish, I set a goal of teaching the dozen or so pieces of chant found in the Breaking Bread hymnal.

    Result? It kind of worked. After a few times teaching/rehearsing the assembly, and repetition over weeks, months and years, it kind of worked. In a parish long known for strong singing, they would take up these pieces at a modest level of enthusiasm. Music I introduced of “contemporary” styles (gospel, folk, rock) tended to catch on like wildfire. Janet Whitaker, Dan Schutte, Bob Hurd, Grayson Warren Brown, the Spirit & Song collection, etc.

    Getting my congregations to sing chant has been much like getting my 10-year old daughter to eat broccoli. With persuasion, I’ll get her to eat a few bites because it is good for her, but she really doesn’t like it, and probably will never go running into the kitchen to snack on it. I still make her eat a few bites as part of a balanced diet, but I’m not kidding myself that with the right exposure she’ll learn to love it.

    So while I find chant sublime, most people don’t. After I moved to a new parish last summer, my previous parish has dropped all of the chant I taught them–it just never caught on. But they’re still singing Alleluia Raise the Gospel, Gather the People, Go Make a Difference, Here At This Table, In the Day of the Lord…

  13. Charles Culbreth

    Scott, I have to preface the body of my response to you with a notion that I believe is commonly overlooked in our musical deliberations, and which you provided me a soapbox. You mention having efforted greatly and deliberately to inculcate some specific chant pieces in BB at your previous parish which since have attrited away from its current repertoire since your leaving. What’s wrong with this picture in theory? This was YOUR effort and now YOU’RE gone. Here’s my soapbox rant: who stays in one place for decades now? I’m into my third at our four parish conglom. My shortest tenure over four decades was four years. This isn’t a critcism of any DM who needs to move to greener pastures in this economy or for other reasons. But it’s my experience that parishes with high turnover rates of DM’s have revolving door repertoires that are based upon the personality cult of the current occupant of that office. DM’s, try to stick around to make a generational difference. Now…
    Again, we’re discussing “chant” (Gregorian or otherwise) as if it’s: a. a commodity like one brand of cereal among hundreds in the breakfast aisle of the market; or 2. an arcane oddity of a theorem like Schroediger’s Cat fit only to be “used” academically.
    I believe our blog host most succinctly described it as “NOT music, NOT text, NOT form, NOT style, etc.” in his magnificent book. As I recall, AWR ventured to describe chant as a singularity example of sacral language, which still cannot by definition completely suffice.
    How we deign and dare to demean its import across millenia of Christian and other ritual worship traditions by issues of taste, pedantic debate or fashion as arbiters says more about us than the chant itself.

  14. Jack Rakosky

    Two questionable premises underlie the article.

    First, that the existence of some stereotype โ€œliberalโ€ parishes and some stereotype โ€œtraditional โ€œ parishes means that Catholics in general are divided into people having certain musical tastes that are associated with their religious and/or political cultural tastes. Most of the sociological evidence is that โ€œredโ€™ states and โ€œblueโ€ states is media hype. For example Evangelical Christians are more likely than the average person to watch public television even though it has a reputation for being liberally biased in its news programs.

    Second, is that people are not eclectic in their music tastes, that one cannot like many, many different styles at the same time. My extensive liturgical music collection is very eclectic and the people that have listened to it seem to be similarly eclectic. Most of them on hearing something that is not used in the parish say โ€œwhy canโ€™t we have that in our parish?โ€

    I suspect if someone developed a website that enabled people to pick and choose among the various things done in Catholic parishes, one would end up with a very eclectic repertory. One would find things like Gather Us In, Eagles Wings, but also things like the Gregorian Lordโ€™s Prayer.

    From asking people in a survey about their own hymn preferences, I suspect most people are sensitive to other peopleโ€™s preferences, e.g. while they might prefer to sing a lot or to sing certain types of things, they are very aware that not everyone else is as interested in music as they are or have their preferences.

    We would not have any problem if we let the people pick the music. The problem is that pastors and pastoral staff pick the music, and inevitably they pick music that some people like and other people dislike. They do too much of some things and too little of other things.

  15. Jack, you say “We would not have any problem if we let the people pick the music. The problem is that pastors and pastoral staff pick the music, and inevitably they pick music that some people like and other people dislike. They do too much of some things and too little of other things.
    .”

    Are you channelling your inner Matthew Fox, Jack?
    I’d try the Mick Jagger/Curia solution before such an anarchy ensued: “You can’t always get what you want, but you can always get what you need.” ๐Ÿ˜‰

    1. Jack Rakosky

      Charles,

      If you read what I have said about liturgy over the past months, now stretching into years, on this blog, it is all centered on the Vibrant Parish Life study of 126 parishes with 46, 241 respondents. About a thousand of those respondents were my fellow parish members (I was out of town the Sunday they filled it out during the homily).

      Before the VPL Study I was a liturgical elitist, probably with good reason. I think that any objective evaluation of the books that I have read, and the knowledge that I have accumulated over the years would place me in the upper 1% of Catholics with regard to liturgical expertise. When I was bored and disgusted with the local liturgy, I told myself that I just have too high standards; that I have seen too much good liturgy.

      But the VPL caused a real conversion because its results were so sensible. I found a welcome home with the rest of the people in the pews who rate the Liturgy as the most important priority but half way down the list in being well done (i.e. mediocre). Same with regard to parish community. When I discovered my parish results were almost identical to the diocesan results, I volunteered to spend four years as a parish council member just so that I could walk around the parish and practice seeing it through the eyes of the VPL study not through liturgical elitist eyes.

      Sorry I think the elitists of the left and the right are the problem not the solution.

      As for Matthew Fox, I hardly know anything about him. Something about creation spirituality whatever that might be. Never was interested enough to find out. When it comes to spirituality I am a very traditional Jesuit Benedictine Solitary. Iโ€™ve never needed much else. That is plenty to handle.

      What is the Mick Jagger/Curia solution? I really find your jargon very unintelligible much of the time. Maybe its musician jargon? Maybe its California jargon? Honestly when I read your comments, I often ask myself what is this guy trying to say.

  16. Charles Culbreth

    Sorry Jack for having confused you. Yes, I am generally highly unintelligible, but my last one was just for levity. The Jagger reference was in the song I quoted:
    “You can’t always get what you want” That’s all. I appreciate all of your contributions. Thanks for the fraternal charity and correction.


Posted

in

,

by

Discover more from PrayTellBlog

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading