Vidimus Dominum

(via Chiesa)

Valentino Miserachs Grau, the dean of the Pontifical Institute of Sacred Music, blows a clarion call to the leadership of the Church. Will they listen to him?

by Sandro Magister

ROMA - Valentino Miserachs Grau, 60, from Cataluña, has been for eight years the dean of the Pontifical Institute of Sacred Music, the liturgical-musical "conservatory" of the Holy See, the body charged with forming Church musicians from all over the world.

But - as he explains in the conference shown below - neither he nor PIMS has normative authority in regard to liturgical music. Neither has the Vatican any office so commissioned.

Do you want evidence of this absence of authority? While PIMS bases its formation on the three columns of Gregorian chant, polyphony, and organ music - in fidelity to the instructions of the Second Vatican Council - almost the entire Church, including its leadership, is going in a completely different direction.

Miserachs sees the effects of this as nothing short of disastrous, even to the point of musical and liturgical illiteracy. "Never," he says, "has there been a degeneration like the present one."

But the dean of PIMS does not despair. Just as on the other occasions in the past when the Church has responded to crisis situations in sacred music with energetic reforms, just so can it do today.

His proposal for a new reform is explained in the text that follows. It is a conference that Miserachs gave last October in Barcelona. Ample selections from the introduction and from the final chapter are presented here:


The Church and Sacred Music: Past, Present, and Future

by Valentino Miserachs Grau


Beginning in 1995, when I was named dean of the Pontifical Institute of Sacred Music, PIMS, in Rome, little by little my life has gone down a different path. From the time of my priestly ordination in 1966, I have alternated my ministry with musical activities. [É] In 1973, I began working as the choir director at the Basilica of St. Mary Major, a post I still occupy. [É] So for thirty years of my life I have dedicated myself to composition, to the direction of the basilica choir and of other choral and orchestral groups, to teaching, and to performance.

From 1995 all of these activities have been curtailed, for better or for worse, due to my responsibilities and obligations for directing the institute. [É] A sort of moral responsibility relative to the general situation of sacred music in the Catholic Church has fallen upon my shoulders. Many approach the institute as if it were a normative body in regard to liturgical music. [É]

But when I considered the matter, it struck me that there is no specific pontifical body that oversees liturgical music. [É] This has led to a scarcity of Church documents on the question. Apart from the fourth chapter of the constitution ´Sacrosanctum Concilium´ (1963) of the Second Vatican Council, which is dedicated to sacred music, and the subsequent instruction ´Musicam Sacram´ (March 5, 1967) from the Congregation for Rites, very little else has been said on the subject. There have been noble efforts to follow the right path, but this silence has permitted an anarchical proliferation of the most disparate experiments - conducted, perhaps, in good faith. These experiments, in many cases, have introduced into liturgical music a bundle of banalities adapted from pop music or other extravagantly exotic sources, in disregard of what Paul VI himself said in 1968, speaking to the participants at a national congress of AISC, the Italian Association of St. Cecilia: "Not everything outside of the temple is worthy of crossing its threshold". [É]

On the occasion of the imminent centenary of St. Pius X´s motu proprio ´Inter Sollicitudines´ (November 22, 1903), which represented an historic turning point in the reform of a Church music contaminated by the excesses of the most decadent theatrical style, I believe that a new reform should be set in motion. This reform should better diffuse and coordinate the positive efforts, both past and present, of the local churches. While taking account of the different situations and possibilities, it should also aim to recover Gregorian chant, polyphony, and organ music, the triad extolled by the Second Vatican Council and recently re-proposed forcefully by John Paul II in a speech he gave during an audience granted to PIMS on January 19, 2001, the 90th anniversary of its foundation. In so doing the reform must watch carefully and resolutely for anything in the words or music that is unworthy of or inconvenient to worship, or that does not have the characteristics of true art.

In this regard I recently went to the highest representatives of the Catholic Church to ask them to consider the possibility of creating a pontifical body with the task of overseeing sacred music and, more specifically, liturgical music.

The thesis I would like to illustrate [É] is the following. It has become almost an historic constant that a good praxis will end in abuse, and that the way marked out as being good will not be followed as it should. This provokes, or should provoke, a corrective reaction - or, put in a simple and comprehensive way, a reform.

Has the time perhaps come to undertake a reform? What must be done? We will try to answer these questions in the fourth and final part of my address, after examining in the first three parts [1. The Middle Ages, 2. The Council of Trent, 3. St. Pius X] the lesson we may gather from what has come forth from some of the moments in the history of liturgical music. [...]

4. THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL AND ITS AFTERMATH

[É] On December 4, 1963, the Second Vatican Council unanimously approved the constitution ´Sacrosanctum Concilium´ on the sacred liturgy, whose splendid fourth chapter is dedicated to sacred music. It contains the following excellent working declarations:

1. The Church approves and admits to divine worship all forms of true art endowed with the proper qualities. The aim of sacred music is the glory of God and the sanctification of the faithful.

2. The patrimony of sacred music must be preserved and augmented with the greatest care, and a commitment must be made to promote the ´scholae cantorum,´ without disregarding the active participation of the faithful.

3. Musical formation and practice must be cultivated carefully in the seminaries, in both men´s and women´s novitiates, and in other Catholic institutes and schools. We also recommend, if it be opportune, the erection of higher institutes of sacred music.

4. The Church recognizes Gregorian chant as proper to the Roman liturgy: thus, in liturgical celebrations, as conditions allow, it should be given pride of place.

5. Other forms of sacred music, and especially polyphony, should by no means be excluded from the divine offices.

6. The pipe organ is greatly honored as a traditional instrument in the Latin Church. Its sound is able to add marvelous splendor to the ceremonies of the Church, and to elevate souls powerfully to God and to the supreme realities. Other instruments may be admitted to divine worship, provided that they be adapted to sacred use or may be adapted to it, that they be fitting to the dignity of the temple and truly favor the edification of the faithful.

7. Musicians, animated by the Christian spirit, should feel themselves encouraged to cultivate sacred music and increase its patrimony. They should compose melodies that can be sung, not only by the greater scholae cantorum, but also by lesser ones, and that favor the active participation of the faithful.

The instruction ´De Musica in Sacra Liturgia,´ published by the Sacred Congregation for Rites on March 5, 1967, delves much more deeply into particulars, but without detaching itself in the least from what was deliberated by the Council.

What a marvelous panorama opens up before the eyes of one reading these texts! But what a desolate landscape have we instead been given to inhabit, after the Council´s prescriptions have been ignored, and a contrary course frequently followed, for forty years!

The Council has been betrayed by the reckless daring of some and by the cowardly passivity of others. Do you want a recent example? A person who occupies a place of high responsibility in the field of sacred music, in an interview given to an Italian daily, responded to the question of what should happen to the music of Bach, Mozart, and Palestrina with these enlightening words: "These remain pages from the past, to be studied attentively and performed in concert. But in many cases they are not at all suitable for the liturgy."

How does one reconcile such a judgment with the thoughts of Vatican II mentioned above? How does one reconcile it with what John Paul II, on February 2, 1994, wrote to Monsignor Domenico Bartolucci, the permanent director of the Pontifical Musical Chapel, on the occasion of the fourth centenary of the death of Palestrina? The pope, after extolling Palestrina as a musician, as a Christian, and even as a "liturgist," continued by saying:

"He let himself be guided by the liturgical spirit in the search for a language which, without renouncing emotion and originality, would not fall into outworn and banal subjectivism. These qualities, always present in his vast musical opera, have contributed to the creation of a style that has become classic, universally recognized as an exemplar in the field of composition destined for the Church."

Continuing, the pope put his finger on what I believe is the real wound:

"Today, like before, musicians, composers, the cantors of liturgical groups, Church organists and instrumentalists must realize the necessity for a serious and rigorous professional formation. Above all, they must be attentive not to exempt any of their compositions or interpretations from the obligation of being inspired, correct, and attentive to esthetic dignity so as to become effective prayer." [É]

During the 1970´s in Rome, we witnessed the phenomenon of the so-called "beat mass" . [É] It had the effect of a nuclear meltdown, with the fatal consequence of recognizing the "right to liturgical citizenship" of a practice as dangerous as it was reckless. That is to say, liturgical music now could be - or even must be? - a simple transposition of the profane music then in style. Mass-market music - inconsistent, insipid, and ephemeral - was then erroneously and unjustly dubbed "popular," just as its disconcerting, clamorous, noisy, twisted manifestations that so delighted huge, undiscerning crowds were erroneously called "concerts." It is precisely this false "popular" genre, imposed by the overwhelming force of the means of communication at the service of unscrupulous vendors, that has dried up the pure springs of Gregorian chant and of cultured popular music that constitute the most beautiful decoration of our churches and celebrations. [É]

We were greatly comforted by what the Holy Father said during the audience granted to PIMS on January 19, 2001, on the occasion of the 90th anniversary of the institute´s foundation:

" [É] The study and practice of music using the forms and instruments that the Second Vatican Council designated as privileged - Gregorian chant, sacred polyphony, and the organ - should be preserved and promoted. Only thus can liturgical music fulfill its duty worthily in the context of the of the celebration of the sacraments, and in a special way, of the Holy Mass."

That "only thus" is as good as gold, but who will listen to the voice of the pope? Now that adherence to those principles, consolidated by a centuries-old tradition, has been diminished, we have fallen so far as to see the liturgy (even in the more or less prestigious cathedrals) turned into so many festivals of pop music. [É] The teachings of the Church have been distorted with the pretext of a necessary modernization, of a rightful updating, of an inculturation that will render the Christian message and the celebration of its mysteries more comprehensible to the people. [É]

I don´t know whether the competent authorities truly appreciate the scope of the malignant musical praxis that has in some measure spread everywhere, and its negative repercussions on the ´lex orandi,´ and thus also on the ´lex credendi´. [É] An unequivocal sign of the current abasement of the incorrect understanding of the function of singing within the liturgy are the expressions unfortunately now in use, such as "the liturgical celebration was performed, accompanied, gladdened by the such-and-such choir of so-and-so." It is in fact evident that those who express themselves in this way consider liturgical singing nothing other than a more or less pleasing pastime.

Doesn´t it seem to you that the current situation, at least in its most strident forms, [É] presents many analogies with the three historical moments previously outlined, and in particular with the situation that brought about the reform of St. Pius X?

But we must note an important difference: the reforms of the past had to deal with forms of music that were, perhaps, "excessive," but formally correct. But much of the "music" that is written today ignores, I will not say the grammar, but even the ABC´s of musical art. In the more or less critical situations that we have considered, there was never a degeneration like the present one. [É]

It seems evident to me that a reform is necessary that will inspire a commitment of faithfulness to the council. This question must be taken seriously, beginning with formation. Priests of a certain age will recall how much importance was accorded to musical formation in the seminaries. In the current ´Ratio Studiorum´ music is not even mentioned; this is certainly not what the council desired. What is needed, therefore, is a change in mentality, to consider liturgical celebrations - including music - as requiring our foremost attention.

What is the use of having beautiful churches, precious vestments, excellent translations of the liturgical texts, if the music is frightful? We must take into account the good proposals made by the diocesan or inter-diocesan musical commissions, and find a way to provide the churches with organs (we have lost so many), primarily with pipe organs. If many are not installed, it is also because the electronic ones have been greatly perfected. We must get used to the idea that it is necessary to set aside funds for musical expenses; volunteerism is very praiseworthy, but we must ensure that those who work in this field be well-prepared, musically and liturgically. If this is hard to accomplish, we must turn to expert professionals, guaranteeing them at least a decent remuneration. We must accelerate the creation of ´scholae cantorum,´ large or small as conditions permit. [É]

We must insist in every way possible that schools of sacred music be created. [É] Or, at the very least, we must create courses in sacred music at the music schools and conservatories that already exist, as is already beginning in Italy. There are many organists who know how to play concert pieces, but don´t ask them to accompany the choir, to improvise, to invent an accompaniment, to make musical selections for a well-structured celebration - all things a Church organist should know how to do - because no one has ever taught them this.

Let´s put aside all of the objections against Gregorian chant and Latin: let´s take our example from the Nordic countries and even from the mission territories. Should we be the most recalcitrant ones - we, who are Latins by language, culture, and music?

We are awaiting assistance from Rome that will aim to coordinate these things in a manner worthy of the Catholic Church.

In essence, I believe the time is right to initiate a reform in the sense I have tried to illustrate, a reform adapted to the historical moment in which we are living, a reform that will aim not to conquer, but to convince.

Let us make all possible efforts to restore or establish good music in our churches, taking our inspiration from the motto that illuminated the pontificate of St. Pius X, and which constitutes the program that should stimulate us to an untiring renewal: "Instaurare omnia in Christo," to renew all things in Christ.