In this last in a series of six articles, Father Basil Nortz adds more weight to the argument that "...good music disposes man to virtue whereas bad music disposes man to vice. The music generally accepted by a civilization will profoundly determine its moral health, and ultimately its growth or demise. It is important to note that philosophers do not say that music produces virtue or vice, but rather disposes one for the acquisition of one or the other. " But how is this accomplished? Intuitively, we can see that repeated exposure to any message, especially when voluntary, presents a compeling force which urges the listener to take on the message and make it personal.
Every form of human art must take from the created order elements that it imitates and arranges so as to articulate a feeling or conviction which the artist wishes to express to his fellow man. As such they have an effect on man. What does music imitate? It is capable of imitating various things in our experience such as the sound of a blustery storm, the rushing of troops into battle, or the hectic bedlam of rush hour traffic. But the motion of musical sounds, expressed in various types of melody, harmony, rhythm, timbre and tonal texture, most importantly are capable of imitating man’s own inner passions or emotions.Further, this effect can be intensified by corresponding lyrics, but not necessarily so. The music, in itself, carries sufficient power to have an intended or unintended effect.
Music consists neither essentially nor primarily in the lyrics. Whether a piece of music has words or not is accidental to the music itself insofar as it imitates and affects the passions.That is why, in a liturgical setting, it is still wildly inappropriate to incorporate modern music, even when the lyrics are about holy things. The contradiction between music and lyrics will render even holy lyrics impotent at best, and sacrilegious at worst.
Many people think that the goodness or badness of music can be judged simply by its lyrics. It cannot be doubted that the lyrics themselves may be good or bad. Bad lyrics certainly magnify the depravity of bad music, and also vitiate otherwise good music... But the point of our present argument is, as Marshall McCluhan observed: “The medium is the message.” That is to say, the music: its melody, harmony and rhythm, all by itself disposes man to virtue or vice by moving the emotions. Therefore, the way in which they move the passions should serve as a principle basis for judgment on whether any given piece of music is good or bad.But then what impact does this have on formation? Clearly, liturgical music intends to co-operate in the worship of Our Lord, and as an aid for the participants to enter into the Mystery more deeply. So, what does it take to "form" the people in mind and heart, in a manner appropriate to the task at hand? The formation of children can give us a clue.
It is an unfortunate mistake to think that moral formation consists simply in teaching children the Ten Commandments. Such instruction provides good and important intellectual formation, but it is not moral formation. Moral formation is the formation of the will and the emotions, accustoming them to delight in their proper objects. How can we teach our passions to rejoice in accord with right reason? Music is one of the most powerful means.But what is it about music that makes it good or bad? Some say that any music played well must be good.
In a word, good music will stimulate the emotions in such a way that these faculties of the soul, under the guidance of reason, are made to more effectively pursue the good of the individual and his neighbor. Bad music tends to absolutize the passions, making their pleasure or hate a good in itself, such that right reason more and more loses dominion with the result that the individual falls victim to the passions. Hence, it is not perchance that disordered music naturally advocates libertinism, rebellion and chaos.So, what music is most appropriate for liturgical worship? Clearly, it is one in which both the lyrics and the music are able to accomplish that moral formation of which we speak.
Plain chant has been preferred for sacred worship in the Church, and even before Christ in the Jewish praying of the psalms. Such is the case not simply because it so perfectly serves to convey the meaning of the text; but because plain chant itself conveys a sense of peace, reverence, purity, and humility. The point is not that plain chant is the only good music, nor that all good music is like chant, except in that all good music stimulates the emotions in a way consonant with reason.Can it be maintained that contemporary pop-style music fits into this category? I don't believe even its proponents could maintain such a position. The conventional understanding of the purpose of this musical style is primarily as a bait to lure and retain those whom we fear may not otherwise be willing to come to Mass. Actually, it is quite an insult to those people, who are being targeted, to imply they are not sufficiently holy to respond positively to music which inspires "peace, reverence, purity, and humility".
It seems a great paradox that this hour in history which enjoys an unprecedented accessibility of music should suffer from a correspondingly unprecedented ignorance or denial of the incredible power and influence that music has on the moral formation of man. As [David Tame] puts it: “Possibly the greatest weakness of the modern materialistic outlook upon the world is its inability to perceive the causes behind effects. If anywhere, it is here that the philosophers of ancient China, India, Egypt and Greece deserve our fullest respect, since it could be said that they specialized in seeing to the cause and core of things. And they most certainly would have agreed with Thoreau, that music can destroy civilization.” The ancients may yet have a thing or two to teach us which bear upon the survival of western civilization, if only we have the humility to learn.
