I know very little of Rembert Weakland, former Archbishop of Milwaukee, other than the controversy in recent years over the destruction and modernizing of his Cathedral, and his disgraceful resignation last year. Imagine my surprise when I encountered this article from the Feb. 20, 1999 issue of America, in which he gives what I would consider a very balanced account of the state of liturgical reform. Regarding liturgical music, this passage stood out:
Finally, one should mention the nature of the music and the disagreements about its quality after Vatican II. Some might say that this is only a matter of taste, but the church has always seen a deeper relationship between word and music that takes it out of the question of taste and puts it on the level of the very nature of liturgy itself. Unfortunately, most of the new music created for the liturgy has been and continues to be trite in both musical form and text, more fit for the theater and the pub than for church. Music is one area where the market has been in command and not the reformers. New music of limited value and with no one in charge of "quality control" keeps being introduced, so that there is little stability and a general ennui among the people. Children learn no consistent repertoire of liturgical music that belongs to the Catholic tradition and that will serve them for their whole lives. Are our people being asked to sing too much new music that does not enhance the nature of liturgy, that is of poor quality and that does not begin to form a standard repertory that will be long-lasting?If he, whom I thought to be one of the most progressive-minded bishops around, is advocating stability in the Liturgy, maybe other progressives will see the wisdom in his advice. Once we can agree there ought to be stability in liturgical music, then we can have a meaningful discussion on what that stability ought to entail.Music is but one aspect of the influence of contemporary American culture on the whole nature of liturgical worship. One could ask if the models injected into worship have kept in mind the specific nature of worship and the "sacred" qualities S.C. called for. Has music, instead, tended to be inspired by the theater, the concert stage and by models from entertainment and religious programming on television?
I know very little of Rembert Weakland
Once again I recommend the two books:
J. OVERATH (ed.), Sacred Music and Liturgy Reform after Vatican II. Proceedings of the Fifth International Church Music Congress, Chicago/Milwaukee, 21/28 August 1966 (Rome 1969)
xxiv + 290 pages, $ 10,--
R. SKERIS (ed.), Cum Angelis Canere. Essays on sacred music and pastoral liturgy in honour of Richard J. Schuler. (Saint Paul 1990) 416 pages, $ 20,--
Both titles are available from the CMAA (have you paid your dues yet?). The appendix of the latter book includes the series of articles from Sacred Music precisely about the shenanigans of the late sixties on the official level, in which Archabbot Weakland played a prominent rôle in derailing liturgical music reform. Archabbot Weakland was both president of the Church Music Association and its principal critic as he absented himself from the majority of its proceedings.
Quick and free information is available by googling
archabbot weakland "church music association of america"
As one of the primary promoters of the hootenanny for "children's" (i.e., everyone's) Masses and pleased by the singing in 1964 at Holy Mass at St. Vincent's in Latrobe, "He's got the archabbot in His hands, methinks His Excellency doth protest -- far -- too much.
Yes, Rembert Weakland is probably a better church musician than I am, but he actually used that knowledge as a license to reject it all. Something like his personal scandal while he was bishop. He apparently did that, as Bill Clinton said with respect to ML this week, "because [he] could."
The rest of the article brings a certain amount of impatience to all parties as Archbiship Weakland does not much understand positions that he is opposed to. He sets up and brings down each straw man in a few sentences.
The Archbishop quite rightly rejects the insertion of individual personality into the Liturgy (think about that L-word: he is probably talking about Holy Mass; how would we feel about similar nonsense during Evening Prayer?). However, the urgent and wilful manner in which the cathedral wreckovation (with a beautiful new pipe organ) was carried out certainly seemed to say that, after all, it was all about Rembert's needs.
Whoops! That should read:
Yes, Rembert Weakland is [probably] a much better church musician in knowledge and ability than I am ...
I guess he is not the only one who has been on an ego trip!
He seems a most complex man.
Daniel, apropos of another matter, that may be to your advantage, may I ask you to email me, immediately, should you read this? (I cannot seem to make the email links on blogs work.)
GeriOMHILdreth@netscape.net
Peace, Daniel.
I'm surprised at you: an inability to accept what has been Weakland's long position in favor of traditional music forms and his opposition to the worst in contemporary music. I certainly think there is far too much protest over Rembert Weakland coming from you. Surely you have other targets more worthy? Surely there's not a pastor in your area who refuses to hire a music director, repair the church's pipe organ, or shell out for a good hymnal?
Let me give you a clue: Weakland is old news, a has-been. If we have to go back five years to see what was published in America, then I fear for the future of the Church.
Dear Todd:
Once again, you appear to be making a point of principle out of missing the point. Paul was noting that Weakland was making what Paul thought was a balanced view of the liturgical situation, and was neither a protest against him nor an attack upon him.
I do wish that you would learn to read critically. It would assist you in presenting your own points, and in understanding the points of others.
Bernard,
I think you missed the early part of the discussion. Todd was responding not to my comments, but to Daniel's, which were, I admit, harsh. However, I am unqualified to speak to whether or not the Daniel's comments were justified. Apparently, there is a longer history to the situation than I was aware.
In light of that, Bishop Weakland's comments do look a bit odd, so I can see where Daniel is coming from. However, Todd's point is also well-taken. He doesn't think we should waste effort criticizing has-beens, but focus on what's happening today. In one sense, I agree, yet the historical connection Daniel raised does raise some interesting questions.
the historical connection Daniel raised does raise some interesting questions
Such as: why have the CIMS and CMAA (have you ... ?), the official Catholic organizations of liturgical music, been by and large marginated in this country? To the extent that there was a hole big enough for Father Funk to drive a truck full of six-stringed WMD's through in the 1970's?
This has everything to do with the present situation: the CIMS, CMAA, and NaPaM are all with us today. And like everything else in the present, its roots are in the past: in this case, beginning with the first president of the CMAA, Archabbot Weakland, a well-educated church musician, his leadership of the parallel Music Advisory Board, and his precipitate rejection of the planned and papally-approved agendum -- actuosa participatio populi -- of the 1966 CIMS congress.
To anyone who might disagree:
Buy the book. (My copy is not available; it is autographed.) Read it. Then we can talk.
Peace, Daniel.
Have your two organizations been "marginated," or did they just lose touch with parish liturgical musicians over the years and fade naturally?
My main problem with your premise is not your love for traditional music, but the way you seem to relish the trash-talk of people and styles you care little for. If it's as bad as you say, your comment adds nothing to the discussion.
If well-meaning people play the guitar well and join NPM instead of CIMS or CMAA do they deserve the implication of being violent rogues? Is the Body of Christ served by such language?
And if church music was going along so well in the heyday before Vatican II, how could a conspiracy so thoroughly have turned things sour? And is my time really well-served hunting down obscure books when my parishioners might appreciate some research on the CMPD for some nice choral music? Or maybe we'd be better off in my parish if I just practiced more and improved my musicianship.
I might not be the most careful analyst of posts petty and otherwise on the net, but I hardly think bile is an appropriate fluid for Christians, except perhaps in the digestive system.
>If we have to go back five years to see what
>was published in America, then I fear for the
>future of the Church.
Yeah, it's a doctine of the modern church, nothing old is of any interest or use, didn't you know?
A has-been? Not so, all of us are yet-to-bes.
Peace, Marge.
Good points, on their own merits, however ...
What Archbishop Weakland wrote in America in 1999 is hardly a matter of doctrine. I've heard the man speak and I've read other articles he's written. His views on liturgical music are well-known for people who stop long enough to read them. His emphasis on chant and classical music is hardly surprising to those of us who know his scholarly background and monastic sensibility, Mr Muller's conspiracy theories notwithstanding.
And yes, we are all works in progress in the sense we have yet to achieve heavenly glory and eternal union with God. However, many people feel rightly betrayed by the archbishop's dalliance and subsequent hush money. I would join many of his supporters in suggesting his retirement is an appropriate one, and others are available to take up the mantle of promoting good church music. And his detractors seem pleased to bring up all sorts of stuff, so I still ask: what's the point here?
I'm a Milwaukean, and a witness to the archbishop-emeritus' ongoing, mostly unsuccessful, fight for excellence in music for liturgy, his love of chant and insistence that the best of all eras of music had to be preserved and used, and the junk promptly and permanently deep-sixed. The music at the Cathedral still reflects this; since he _was_ successful in teaching the Cathedral parishioners that it did not matter what all the other parishes and dioceses are doing, this is the Cathedral and we have to do everything the right way, and set a good example!
His proposal, back in the mid-70's before his consecration, that the bishops develop a set of the best of new and old music for a "Catholic Book of Worship" was killed by Cardinal Dearden, who insisted that the bishops had to allow for the free market --- "this is not Europe!" I wish he'd had the rank and authority at that time to override Cardinal Dearden on that, we'd have a sizeable pool of excellent and thoroughly beta-tested hymns and Mass settings by now, with little lingering dreck.
karen marie
the gal with three bishops on her blogroll, including our beloved archbishop-emeritus.