| |
 |
|
Contributions to Reader's Forum should be limited to 250 words.
Letters must be signed and must include the writer's address and
phone number for verification purposes. All letters are subject
to editing.
Mail your letter to:
The Catholic Voice
2121 Harrison St., Suite 100
Oakland, CA 94612
FAX: (510) 893-4734
Email letters to:
|
|
|
Music’s context in history
One of the wonderful breakthroughs at the Second Vatican
Council was the acceptance of historical consciousness. This is liberating
because without it we become mere prisoners of our personal experience.
In his letter (Forum, March 8) against all instruments save the organ,
Robert Lockwood does not understand the history of music in the liturgy.
In the very early period of the Church, the organ was not allowed for
worship. In fact, the only instrument allowed was the human voice (which
is still true in the churches of the Christian East and why chant still
holds primacy of place in our tradition).
Why? Because musical instruments, including the water organ, were played
in the Coliseum and other Roman arenas and temples. Like incense, it was
associated with the pagan cult, therefore it was thought inappropriate.
As time passed, the Western Church began to permit musical instruments.
By the time of the Baroque and classical periods, we have whole symphony
orchestras and professional choirs performing Masses written by Mozart,
Beethoven, and Verdi etc. And this certainly began to overshadow the full,
active, and conscious participation of the assembly. The music often overshadowed
the simplicity of liturgical and scriptural texts.
This is why the Second Vatican Council attempted to restore a “noble
simplicity” to the liturgy. The Council also urged pastors to encourage
the participation of the whole assembly in the responses of the liturgy—many
of which are set to music.
Musicians since the Council, I believe, have favored the piano over organ
because the piano is a percussive instrument. It is much easier for an
untrained ear to hear the melody and rhythm on a piano rather than an
organ. But whether it is organ or piano the main purpose for them to be
there at all is to support the assembly in its work of singing thanks
and praise to God. And sometimes that can be done best without any accompaniment.
More than the issues of piano versus organ, Mr. Lockwood’s letter
belies the crisis of the “Reform the Reform” movement. These
so-called reformers lack modern historical consciousness. They are like
a circular firing squad that, after it shoots the Vatican II liturgy,
will begin to shoot each other. For when they rid us of the Mass of Paul
VI, they will fight over the details including to what century we are
to return—Trent, Renaissance or perhaps the 9th or 10th century?
Or, more like shoppers in Costco, it will be a little bit of this and
a little bit of that to satisfy their idiosyncratic tastes. It is very
much a reflection not of past history but 21st century First World
consumerism—purchasing the best nostalgia money can buy.
We live in difficult times in the Church and world. Nostalgia, no matter
how warm and fuzzy it might make us feel, is not real. It is escapism.
We can never go back in time. If we try, it is just dress up and make-believe.
We can draw from history but not repeat it. We need to adopt the motto
of Blessed Padre Junipero Serra, “Siempre adelante, nunca atrás,”
“Always forward, never back.”
Father Ronald G. Schmit, Pastor
St. Anne Parish, Byron
Organ not developed for worship
Although Mr. Lockwood (Forum, March 8) has a right to indicate his preference
for organ music rather than piano in his place of worship, he is wrong
in stating the organ is an instrument of worship and the piano is an instrument
for entertainment.
Fact checking shows clearly they both have secular origins and were inventions
designed for the skill and preference of the musician and the listener’s
pleasure. Neither was actually intended for worship.
Wikipedia notes that the “origins of the pipe organ can be traced
back to the hydraulis in Ancient Greece in the third century BC, in which
the wind supply was created with water pressure. Bellows were added by
the sixth or seventh century AD.
“By the 17th century, most of the sounds available on the modern
classical organ had been developed. Pipe organs are installed in churches,
synagogues, concert halls, and other public buildings and are used for
the performance of classical music, sacred music, and secular music.
“In the early 20th century, pipe organs were installed in theatres
to accompany films during the silent movie era, in municipal auditoria,
where orchestral transcriptions were popular, and in the homes of the
wealthy, equipped with player mechanisms. The beginning of the 21st century
has seen a resurgence in installations in concert halls.”
“ Widely used in classical music for solo performances, ensemble
use, chamber music, and accompaniment, the piano is also very popular
as an aid to composing and rehearsal. Although not portable and often
expensive, the piano’s versatility and ubiquity have made it one
of the world’s most familiar musical instruments.”
Playing and singing music in church is a wonderful communal form of
prayer and praise and we should honor the wishes of the music director
and church community regarding choices of instruments.
Carolyn Priest
Walnut Creek
Making a ‘joyful noise’
Regarding the assertion (Forum, March 8) that the piano does not belong
in church, I invite Mr. Lockwood to join me in our Easter celebration
at Christ the King Church in Pleasant Hill. Come feel the love in making
a “joyful noise to the Lord,” even from the piano.
Florence Ball
Pleasant Hill
Importance of criticism
Regarding the letter “A hallmark of dissidence” (Forum, Feb.
22), so-called “dissidents” are vital to our Church and I
applaud The Catholic Voice’s printing of their letters. Read Church
history and you will find that the hierarchy has erred grievously in the
past on many matters, for example: treatment of the Jews, torture under
the Inquisition, Galileo, toleration of slavery, belief in the divine
rights of kings to rule.
Why should we believe that now they are immune from making errors? It
is difficult for the hierarchy to reform themselves because they are intolerant
of dissent among those financially dependent on the Church, which includes
most professional theologians.
On the other hand, most of us lay people are not so muzzled. If our conscience
so dictates, we should criticize. One way is by writing letters to The
Voice. Of course, they should be civil and eschew name-calling.
One area deserving heavy criticism is the Vatican’s refusal to deal
with the shrinking size of the clergy. The solution is obvious —
opening the priesthood to women and/or married clergy. Yet the Vatican’s
objections to women priests are, frankly, silly and the objections to
married priests not very persuasive. But any current clergy are absolutely
forbidden to support the concept of women priests.
Robert Zanger
Concord
Vocation of laity
Regarding the articles on lay ecclesial ministers (Voice, Jan. 11), the
Holy Father, visiting a Roman parish recently, cautioned against viewing
the laity as mere collaborators of the clergy. The dignity of a lay person
does not depend on his or her proximity to the ordained.
An undue emphasis on lay ecclesial ministry blurs the distinction between
lay and ordained. Ecclesial ministers are by definition the ordained;
their office is exercised within the Church, principally through the sacraments.
Certainly lay people can and should be involved in parish ministries,
and in some cases it is appropriate for them to receive a stipend for
doing so (1 Tim 5:18), but the lay office is primarily oriented outward.
Most Catholics are called to witness to Christ in the world, not in the
parish. Lay people have a reach far beyond that of the clergy. They are
called to evangelize through their secular professions and associations
and marriages, but we still tend to view the laity as less important if
not involved in parish ministries.
Should bishops be committing their limited financial resources to the
formation and hiring of Lay Ecclesial Ministers when the more urgent need
is in areas such as marriage preparation and support, promoting priestly
and religious vocations, and adult faith formation?
“Today,” writes author George Sim Johnston, “many Catholics
(including some bishops) seem to think that Vatican II was about the role
of the laity in the Church — Eucharistic ministers, lectors, and
so forth. But it was really about the role of the laity in the world.
The true Catholic life is one of personal conversion and evangelization;
it does not involve hanging around the sacristy.”
I am a catechist and RCIA coordinator outside of my professional work;
there is no need to call myself a lay ecclesial minister. If, God willing,
I am saved, it will be principally through my vocation as a married man,
not my service to the parish. We must be careful not to confuse personal
vocations or ministerial roles with states of life.
John Knutsen
Berkeley
Value of boys’ singing
Thank you for your coverage of “Boys Can Sing” at All Saints
Church in Hayward (Voice, March 8). This yearly event by Catholic schools
and the Golden Gate Boys Choir is a treat to experience.
As a youth at Saint Joachim Church in Hayward, I began to appreciate the
liturgy through the children’s choir and later as a lector and cantor.
So began my vocation to become a diocesan priest.
Father Fernando J. Cortez
Parochial vicar
Saint Leander Parish
San Leandro
Letters to the editor provide a forum for readers to
engage in an open exchange of opinions and concerns in a climate of respect
and civil discourse. The opinions expressed are those of the writers,
and not necessarily of the Catholic Voice or the Diocese of Oakland. While
a full spectrum of opinions will sometimes include those which dissent
from Church teaching or contradict the natural moral law, it is hoped
that this forum will help our readers to understand better others’
thinking on critical issues facing the Church at this time.
back
to top
home
|
