Exception to the rule

Jeff Miller over at The Curt Jester started a pretty intense discussion on the correlation between one's stance on Church teachings (orthodox vs heterodox) and views on liturgy and architechture...

I have noticed that when it comes to discussions on liturgical music and church architecture on my blog and on others that there is a direct correlation between the theological views of the commenter and whether they like or dislike something pertaining to those subjects. Those that accept all Church teaching are usually critical of much of what goes for modern liturgical music and church architecture, while those that disagree with one or more Church teaching are generally approving of these forms.

I've been chewing on this post for a few days, trying to figure out the best way to articulate my stance on this. I defeintely see Jeff's point, that the more heterodox someone is, the more they're likely to want to throw out the established traditions from the past for what is "in" now.

However, I think I tend to exist as a bit of an exception to that rule. (as a note, I'm going to approach these as different topics, because I think the discussion lends itself to being separate). As many of my liberal friends will attest to, when it comes to Church teaching, I try to be as absolutley orthodox as they come, and if there is something that I have difficulty with, I work towards understanding and assent rather than jumping to outright rejection.

That being said, as far as architechture goes, I feel no draw one way or the other. I think I attribute that to how I was raised Catholic in my family. We belonged to one parish, but consistently attended Mass at another - although we would often catch Mass at a few churches in the area depending on our schedules. As such, as a child I was constantly exposed to all manners of church design, from the very old and traditional churches closer to downtown Cleveland, to a parish up the road designed with a traditional Jewish synagogue structure, to the parish we belonged to, which would probably be considered "modern" - half round , smaller oval elevated sanctuary, stained glass just on the side doors, etc. So there's not one design that outright appeals to me. Now, don't get me wrong, I think the LA Cathedral and the Oakland Cathedral are pretty much ugly as sin. So maybe I have some aesthetic judgement when it comes to church architechture, but I'm a little more forgiving with some of the more "modern" designs.

In the same vein, I'm definetely more accepting of what are considered "modern" liturgical trends, particularly in music. I should point out, for those that don't know, that I work with one of the traditional whipping boys on this topic. I'm a Core member for the Life Teen program at my parish. Over the past few years, I've discovered that those two words can easily provide some nervous twitching amoungst traditionally minded Catholics. I also thouroughly enjoy going to Franciscan University of Steubenville, be it for the youth conferences we take our kids to every year, or going down for their Festivals of Praise each month. Some may consider this coming from a "progressive" background. I don't tend to think it is though. I think that this is an area where "legitimate diversity" comes into play.

See, my view on music in liturgy is that the music shouldn't exist for the sake of itself. The music should exist to draw the congregation deeper into worship. Done well, a "choir" that consists of guitars and pianos and drums can be just as effective as drawing people into worship as a giant pipe organ or a chant choir can. The important point is the "done well" bit. I know that most negative reactions to the use of such music is "If it can't be done well, just don't do it at all, go back to what works traditionally." There's an inherent contradiction in that mindset though. A Gregorian chant choir done poorly is just as damaging from a worship standpoint as a "modern" worship group done poorly. The "done well" caveat applies to ALL liturgical music. Chant done well draws people in; done poorly, it turns people off. An organist with a single vocalist accompanying done well draws people in; done poorly, it turns people off. Same is true for choirs (example of poor: my parish's Easter Vigil). The same is true for modern worship music. I challenge anyone to listen to Matt Maher and tell me that a good deal of what he writes has no place in the liturgy. One of the big risks of modern worship music is that it can easily turn into a concert, with each member of the "band" trying to draw attention to what they do. But is that any different from a choir that's poorly organized? Because we've all heard that choir, that has the one woman always right by the mic, always showing off what she can do, and always distracting from worship. No form of music is inherently more reverent than another. It is how the music is performed, and how it either draws people into or distracts people from what they're there for - to worship God - that makes the music good or bad.

The other thing is, from a liturgical standpoint, the music isn't the most relevant item. You could have a choir that smokes at Gregorian chant, but have a priest that, through whatever words or actions, distracts from that tone. Same is true with a modern worship group - they can be as incredibly reverent as you can imagine, and that tone can be destroyed by one ill-timed joke (trust me - been there, done that).

If you were to ask me, I think an ideal parish would be one that offered a diversity of "styles" (I dislike that word here, but I can't think of a better one) all done extremely well. An extremely orthodox Tridentine Mass complete with chant; an extremely orthodox mass with a choir accompanied by an organ; an extremely orthodox mass with a group leading modern worship songs; etc. Everyone is drawn into worship differently. Different forms of worship does not make one superior to the other on face. It's what that form of worship focuses on, and what (or should I say Who) it leads people to.