There has been a good deal of interesting discussion about organs vs. pianos vs. keyboards at the Recovering Choir Director blog. From the level of sophistication in the discussion, it was easy for me to see that most of the contributors have more experience than I in liturgical music. If my thoughts seem overly simplistic, I hope you'll forgive my naivité. However, I make no such excuse for the expertise of those on whom I draw to support my argument.
Firstly, I realize that well-trained organists can be exceedingly difficult to find. Further, there are many other considerations, such as budget, church size and configuration, that might have a strong influence on short term decisions. However, I believe we need to resist strongly the temptation to remain in short term mode, because short term quite easily becomes medium term, which quite easily becomes long term. When contrary to prescriptive norms, resting comfortably in that progression does a grave disservice to the proper spiritual formation of the faithful, and may actually be damaging to their spiritual well-being. It is too easy to appeal to the exigencies of the present moment as a smoke screen for allowing personal preference to override authentic liturgical reform. All musicians come from a unique background of experiences and preferences. When these are contrary to what is required in the liturgy, clearly we ought to set aside our personal preferences, and put on the mind of the Church. Otherwise, preference becomes the implicit unjustified reason for maintaining the status quo.
Let's first agree on the ideal. For all those who already know the pipe organ is supposed to be the primary (and virtually exclusive) instrument to accompany the liturgy, you're in good company. You have the unequivocal support of the Church, at the highest level, for your views. For those who say it's not necessary, or there are better substitutes, you should know you are on shaky ground. Further, as the years go by, more and more particular churches will discover and implement the wise counsels of the Church, and you will increasingly be in the minority.
Pope St. Pius X puts the matter quite clearly and succinctly in Tra le Sollecitudini: : "Although the music proper to the Church is purely vocal music, music with the accompaniment of the organ is also permitted. In some special cases, within due limits and with proper safeguards, other instruments may be allowed, but never without the special permission of the Ordinary, according to prescriptions of the Caeremoniale Episcoporum... The employment of the piano is forbidden in church, as is also that of noisy or frivolous instruments such as drums, cymbals, bells and the like. It is strictly forbidden to have bands play in church, and only in special cases with the consent of the Ordinary will it be permissible to admit wind instruments, limited in number, judiciously used, and proportioned to the size of the place, provided the composition and accompaniment be written in grave and suitable style, and conform in all respects to that proper to the organ."
Lest anyone be confused about the relevance of those statements, you should know that Pope John Paul II, in his recent chirograph On Sacred Music, invokes the memory of his venerable predecessor no less than twelve times. Each time, he recalls some wise counsel, that was given by Pope St. Pius X, in the reform of liturgical music in the early twentieth century. He then exhorts those in positions of responsibility to take all required steps to ensure essentially the same reform is repeated today: "It is indeed important that the musical compositions utilized in liturgical celebrations conform to the criteria opportunely pronounced by Saint Pius X and wisely developed both by the Second Vatican Council and by the successive authoritative teaching of the Church."
Even in Vatican II's Sacrosanctum Concilium, we read: "In the Latin Church the pipe organ is to be held in high esteem, for it is the traditional musical instrument which adds a wonderful splendor to the Church's ceremonies and powerfully lifts up man's mind to God and to higher things. But other instruments also may be admitted for use in divine worship, with the knowledge and consent of the competent territorial authority... This may be done, however, only on condition that the instruments are suitable, or can be made suitable, for sacred use, accord with the dignity of the temple, and truly contribute to the edification of the faithful."
For those who disagree with the advice of the Council, the Holy Father and his predecessor, you need to ask yourselves on what authority you believe you have the right to do so? You must look long and hard at how it is you believe you know better what the Church needs. I urge you, for the good of your own soul and for the good of the Church, to set aside your personal preferences, think with the mind of the Church, pray with the heart of the Church, and work tirelessly to convince others to do the same. It's never any fun being on the wrong side of history. Let's work together to bring about that authentic reform of liturgical music, so desperately needed in our time.
Peace, Paul.
As a participant in said discussion, let me offer a few additional thoughts to yours here.
It is important not to lose sight of the primary musical instrument (or music minister if you prefer), namely the singing assembly at prayer. Whatever gets people singing, be it an organ, good acoustics, or any other instruments is to be praised.
The reference from Pius X is out of date regarding the use of instruments other than the organ. Everything coming down the pike since the mid-60's from Rome has admitted other instruments, even those on Pius X's spit list, as your quote from SC concedes. The spirit and prayerfulness of an instrumentalist is the primary consideration, over and above any associations with specific instruments, except in the most extreme cases.
Concerning the matter of being on the wrong side of history, but for the most part, those who have chosen to attack the organ (ca 600AD), organum (1200), polyphony (1500), protestant hymnody (1600), classical harmony (1700 and on) have shown themselves to be behind the curve of the inspirational genius of sacred music. I suspect that the Church in a few hundred years will look back very favorably on the musical reform begun by Pius X, continued by the immediate post-Vatican II musicians, and enjoined by the more skilled and prayerful musicians of today.
For those who call for musical reform, don't lose sight of the fact that this is the same reform which was needed 100 years ago. It has been but one long effort with slow, but measurable progress.
I have been looking for an English translation for the Chirograph in question.
And I love your insistence on taking a long term approach.
Yes, getting the musically illiterate and culturally ignorant (I say this not to insult anyone, but to call attention to a sad and growing problem in our society,) to sing will be easier and happen faster if you give them tunes that sound just like the advertising jingles they heard on tv last night -- but isn't is worth the trouble to go the slower route?
"Everything coming down the pike since the mid-60's from Rome has admitted other instruments, even those on Pius X's spit list, as your quote from SC concedes"
IF THEY CAN BE MADE APT.
The front page teaser for the papal chirograph (if only I had seen it earlier!) in this week's L'Osservatore_Romano in English is illustrated by a nice picture of nuns in St. Peter's and their elbows; or maybe an Ibanez; no wait, a Yamaha; no, that's not it, but a PIPE ORGAN.
Of course, not everybody seems to have time to read L'Osservatore_Romano. It's so, well, Romano.
Even Lego (TM) churches need appropriate instruments.
The tide is turning.
In my corner of the Catholic world, the two leading high school organists in the county are both young Catholic men. They grew up with OCP and guitarists at Mass.
In our parish, the 16 year old receives high praise (and a high percentage of the congregation singing along) when he sits down to play the organ. Yet the bulletin is begging for some young person to be the electronic keyboard accompanist for the "folk" group that does the children's 9 am Mass.
That's right, we have a well-received, and highly accomplished teen organist, and no teen who wants to play the more contemporary repertoire with guitars, drums, hand-clapping etc.