God as the Practical Answer

Life with God is the easiest and most practical choice that man can make...

Thomas Paine wrote that "Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as freedom should not be highly rated."  

Yet freedom, once earned, presents a quandary.  Is it possible that modern man has too many choices?  Furthermore, is it possible that he does not have the necessary spiritual formation to help him sort through the dizzying myriad of possibility before him?

Centuries after Paine, John Paul the Great said that "freedom consists in doing what we ought."  This is the quintessential truth about how to use our hard-earned freedom, and yet it is meaningless with an absolute reference point.  The freedom which Thomas Paine espoused -- and which John Paull II so perfectly defined -- needs God at its center.  To have any other reference point, be it a political ideal or a single man's will, can only lead to moral and aesthetic anarchy.  Our founding fathers understood this clearly when they used the phrase "we hold these truths to be self-evident."  Without God, nothing is self-evident.


Yet as elegant and clear as this idea is, so many modern men either ignore or outright reject their God.  I recently came across the blog of a former student, now blissfully wandering the world and glorifying hedonism.  Confusing old thoughts and values with recent hippy social disasters, he blissfully sums up his worldview with a quote from the American poet and author, Charles Bukowski:

“I am my own god. We are here to unlearn the teachings of the church, state, and our educational system. We are here to drink beer. We are here to kill war. We are here to laugh at the odds and live our lives so well that Death will tremble to take us.”

One would have to labor greatly to cram so much idiocy into such a short paragraph.  Little wonder that Bukowski led such a shallow and narcissistic life, exemplifying the utilitarian and anti-humanistic despair that his type of "un-religion" was designed to breed.  I say "designed" because the above quote from Bukowski -- and other world-views similar to his -- are not a modern invention.  They come from a far deeper malice and a far more clever deceiver than the average hippy could hope to contend with.  Notice that in Bukowski's own prose, "god" is spelled with a small 'g,' while "Death" becomes a capitalized personality.  Notice the appeal to un-education, as such a worldview requires a mind easily deceived.  Notice the appeal to anti-religion, as such a world-view needs an unformed soul to corrupt. These are not coincidences, considering the spiritual root of such a phrase, as well as the moribund destiny of anybody who would follow such a thought to its inevitable conclusion.

God, in the end, is the impractical practicality.  Belief in him is the only sensible answer.  It brings sense to our lives by giving us understanding of our world.  It explains suffering, giving us a way to use this inevitable pain in a redemptive fashion.  It puts history into an understandable perspective.  It gives us rules by which to live, while presenting an ideal by which no rules will be necessary.  It frees human love to be an infinite gesture.

In short, it provides freedom.  He who seeks to be free must seek to "do as he ought."  In asking what we "ought," there is only one sure place to gain an answer.  There is no alternative path but the role of the aimless wanderer, and he is sure to get nowhere...

John Paul II -- What You May Not Have Known (Or Heard...)

I intend this article for Catholics, and hope that you read it with the great earnestness required of such a pivotal subject regarding our faith.

Did John Paul the Second want rock or pop music in our Churches? Certainly, he showed great joy at the love and outpouring he received at various public rallies and Masses.

If any image of the late-great John Paul II has come to the forefront since his passing into glory, it is the image of a "people's champion" in Papal garb. And he certainly was that, make no mistake.

Yet such imagery, as well as the frequent misinterpretation of the dictates of the Second Vatican Council, have been used as a Devilish (yes, capital D) opportunity to rob our generation of Catholics of the true aesthetic riches of our faith.

Most of us, stepping into Churches, find ourselves the victims of the "creative thinking" of the 60's as opposed to the teachings of the Church we claim to believe in. Some Catholics are now entering their gray years without having any idea of what a Church is supposed to SOUND like.

Personally, as a cradle Catholic, I had no idea what Palestrina or Sacred Polyphony sounded like until I heard it in a college-level Music History Course. I didn't hear Chant -- sung live -- until my mid-20's. I didn't see a Mass done with an actual MASS composition until also in my mid-20's. What a sad, bitterly sad commentary on what our Churches have become!

John Paul the Second, despite his love of popular forms of faith expression, did not want our Churches to sound like rock concerts. He did not want the top-40 music from Christian radio played during Communion, nor did he approve of bad choirs and poorly-written "songs" echoing pathetically from the Choir loft.

Nor did the previous Popes. Nor does our current Pope. Such expressions, while fine outside of Church, are simply not worthy of the sacrifice of the Mass, nor can they stand on equal footing with the music already present in the deposit of the faith.

This is why Pope Benedict has banned such music from the Vatican. Yup: banned.

It may be a bitter pill for many to swallow, but so is most truth. Read it and weep, from JP2's own hand:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/letters/2003/documents/hf_jp-ii_let_20031203_musica-sacra_en.html

Now don't get me wrong: popular Christian songs and forms of devotion and "praise" played a great part in my own reversion story. Yet, technically speaking, they cannot fully express Sacredness using melodic formulas and musical forms reserved for hip-shaking rock concerts or dance halls. It simply doesn't work, any more than placing Chant music inside of a rave is anything but cheap appropriation -- or pure vulgarity.

In my own life, I remain a great fan of rock and heavy metal music. This being said, I recognize that it cannot be held in the same light of spiritual quality as the music written in the accepted spiritual forms. This is not an opinion of mine, nor is it some misguided dogma: it's a doctrine, and one which I must humbly accept (whether I like it or not.)

Read, for instance, to what JP2 writes in this excerpt from the above linked document:

"The more closely a composition for church approaches in its movement, inspiration and savour the Gregorian melodic form, the more sacred and liturgical it becomes; and the more out of harmony it is with that supreme model, the less worthy it is of the temple"[33]. It is not, of course, a question of imitating Gregorian chant but rather of ensuring that new compositions are imbued with the same spirit that inspired and little by little came to shape it. Only an artist who is profoundly steeped in the sensus Ecclesiae can attempt to perceive and express in melody the truth of the Mystery that is celebrated in the Liturgy[34].

To give another example: anyone who has given up television for a while comes to know a simple truth: television is generally loud, vulgar, patronizing, numbing, and quite often very bad for the soul. Not only that, but it is a waste of time.

Anyone who has taken a silent retreat has been forced to confront the multiplicity of noise in his/her head. In such cases, one comes face-to-face with a startling fact of life: much like food, in art, we become what we consume.

Nor would Andy Warhol's work belong next to an Altar any more than a modern billboard.

As a Catholic, you may despair at such news, you may feel the urge to rebel. Yet remember that you do so at the expense of many great living artists -- as well as the Church's own wishes.

Or, as I'll tell people often enough: "If you'd rather hear top-40 expressions over Palestrina in your Mass, it's not an issue of differing opinion. It's a personal problem which needs to be corrected, no different than the many other things we struggle with in our faith walk."

Encourage your Priests to become educated on the right kinds of art and music -- pressure them to improve the quality of sights and sounds at your Church. If you can sing, then do it! If you're in a position to donate, then nothing bring about change more than a financially-endowed bullish reformer. The change is trickling in, and you can make it a much-needed torrent.

Lastly, if you happen to live anywhere near Chicago, do yourself the favor of hearing and seeing Mass at St. John Cantius, on the Near-north side, this Christmas Eve. The choral concert begins at 11, while the Mass-proper begins at Midnight. It is, quite simply, the way a Mass is meant to be. (http://www.cantius.org)

As a Buddhist professor once told me: "If you make your Churches beautiful, then people will come of their own accord."

The 1960's popular experimentation has failed, and devastatingly so. We turn again to the Magisterium, seeking guidance in forms both ancient and new...

I'm providing three links to help you start the journey. The first is a blog detailing the Sacred Music revival in the Church -- the right-hand-side has several fascinating Papal writings on the subject. The second is the Church Music Association of America. The third is the group I work with, the wonderful Foundation for Sacred Arts.

http://authenticupdate.blogspot.com/2008/02/tim-mcdonnel-speaks-to-priests-and.html

http://www.musicasacra.com/

http://thesacredarts.org/