'Choir' and congregation

[Crumhorn]

Over the last three months our long-established music group has found itself in dispute with the Parish Pastoral Council.

How and why this dispute arose is difficult to grasp, but may not be unconnected with the fact that our PP -- who is a wonderful example of good pastoral care in most respects -- seems to have little or no understanding or appreciation of liturgical music.

We've been presented with what appears to be an ultimatum, indicating that:

* we sing 'too loud' -- and should therefore stand out of sight behind the organ (which is in the right-hand transept of a T-shaped church)

* we sing music that is 'too experimental' (but is virtually all in 'Laudate', and has mostly been part of our repertoire for years)

* we should replace psalms with 'suitable hymns' -- which we are expected to choose!

* we should 'simplify' -- in some unspecified way -- the Easter liturgy, particularly at the vigil mass (with the implication, again, that the psalms in this service should be replaced with hymns).

We have asked the people involved if they would please be more specific -- which pieces are 'too loud', which are 'too experimental', and what problems do they have with psalms? We have yet to receive an answer to any of these questions.

How would other members of this group respond to these demands?

Note:

Our aim (which we obviously do not always achieve) is to lead the congregation with good, strong, unembarrassed singing (loud or quiet, as the music requires), to add harmony when available and appropriate (e.g. not on the first verse of a new piece!), to add instrumental descants or accompaniments where appropriate (though only, at the moment, on my various wind instruments) and -- on high days and holy days -- to deliver inspirational music appropriate to the occasion.

At all times we plan the music carefully with the help of the SSG Liturgy Planner and a similar publication prepared by our own Diocesan Music Adviser. We try very hard not to be primadonnas and to choose music in which the congregation can take a full part. We introduce new music carefully, step by step, giving the congregation time to hear a tune before they are expected to sing it, and practicing (briefly) before they first attempt it themselves.

So please, what are we doing wrong -- suddenly?

[gwyn]

That's upsetting.

Just a few quick jottings.

Is there a strong representative of the music group on the Parish Pastoral Council?

It sounds as though the PPC doesn't quite know what it's talking about. It's the easiest thing in the world to have a tamper with the liturgical music, everyone and his mother is an expert. As liturgical musicians we are sitting targets really.

I'd be inclined to smile sweetly and carry on in the usual manner, it may just go away when they find something necessary to whinge about. If it doesn't, then refer them to the GIRM and other docs, asking (in writing or course) for references and quotes supporting their reasoning.

The important thing of course is to ensure that they do not lose face, handle it as President Kennedy handled the Cuban Missile Crisis - he gave the Russians no alternative but also gave them a way to back down without losing face or credibility. Invite a representative of the PPC to a choir rehearsal.

Is there possibly a hidden agenda? Do they want you all out? If the answer is yes, then go where your ministry will be appreciated.

[contrabordun]

Sorry to hear this - much sympathy!. "Why" you're suddenly in the doghouse is hard to tell from what you've said.

I must say I disagree with Gwyn: even if there is some hidden agenda you shouldn't have to find another church: it's as much "yours" as it is "theirs", and the service you've given that community as a long-established group deserves better. Nobody has the right to just exsinuate (is that a word?) any part of a community: Christians and adults should be able to deal with such disagreements openly...

Tactics....
First of all, find out who is leading this, and why. Your response depends heavily on those factors.
Is there a hidden agenda, or is it dislike of the musical fare on offer coupled with misunderstandings, miscommunication and ignorance?
Is the PP leading it or is he going along with another person or people? How is the weight of opinion on the PPC? A few strongly "anti-you" with the rest going along or more general antipathy? Who are your allies, who are the neutrals, and who have you to deal with?

If the situation has got to this stage, it sounds as though there isn't a strong enough link between the PPC and the music group - after all, music is one of the more visible parish pastoral activities, so the music director (and maybe one or two others) should be ex officio member(s) of the PPC, to ensure that the wishes of the PPC are understood by the musicians, and the practical needs and competences of the musicians understood by the PPC.

Being optimistic, if you think this is mainly a matter of ignorance on their part about the practical matters that you have to consider in planning music, I'd recommend bridge-building and communication. Ensure the music group has representation on the PPC. Suggest that a subcommittee of the PPC becomes responsible for the music planning, comprising the people who do it at present plus about the same number of currently uninvolved members of the PPC. You can insist in such a forum that comments and contributions are based on GIRM etc, not on personal musical taste. This increases the number of people who see the sincerity of, and non-random basis for, what you do, and who also realise the complexity of planning ("oh you mean you don't just turn up on the Sunday and sing whatever is on the sheet? it takes time to teach items to the musicians, first, so we can't just implement a completely new repertoire in one go, even if we wanted to?"). Also means that people wishing to make suggestions for 'improvements' have a formal way to do so - and have to be specific about what they want, and gives you some 'neutral' cover for when you need to say 'this is impractical / undesirable / not going to happen because of xyz'

If there are no current members of the PPC willing to put their leisure hours where there opinions are and join in the planning process, then you have a problem - people willing to complain but not to contribute have (IMHO) no right to anything but they don't always see it that way. But you can then at least appeal to the PP from the moral high ground, and if they're that unwilling to actually do anything, well, the word rhymes with "anchors", but at least you can rest assured they aren't going to raise a rival music group any time soon. In which case, take Gwyn's advice: smile sweetly and carry on!

[Crumhorn]

Thanks to Gwyn and Contraburdun for your sympathetic replies.

Alas, 'things are not simple'. We find it very difficult to work out exactly what is going on, and who is really behind it. I have to say -- very reluctantly -- that I suspect the PP is hiding behind the PPC rather than actually talking to us. It's a pity, because -- as I have indicated -- I greatly respect him as a pastoral minister.

I also suspect that comments from members of the congregation have been misunderstood and misinterpreted. I say this because I have spoken to one or two of these people myself, and they are clearly as puzzled as I am.

There was a similar, but less extreme row over the music for Midnight Mass about two years ago. On that occasion I myself was a PPC member, and smoothed it over in a way that was satisfactory to nobody (even me) but did at least show, I thought, that we were willing to respond to comment. My problem then, as now, was that no one was actually willing to come to us and tell us face to face what they were unhappy about, or why. We repeatedly emphasise that the Wednesday evening planning session is open to all, even if they don't sing, and that we welcome visitors. It may not surprise you to hear that no one has responded.

On the face of it, it seems that the PPC have decided to impose what they regard as a diktat to bring a group of rebels into line. Their first action was to summon our organist -- on his own -- to a PPC meeting and harangue him for about half an hour. This was done by the chairperson of the PPC, in the presence of the PP, with no one else contributing very much -- in fact virtual silence from other PPC members. One PPC member was incensed by this behaviour, and said so. Alas, she has just had a major operation for cancer, and is out of the picture for now.

Needless to say, our organist was very angry and very upset, and so were the rest of us, on his behalf and on our own. Once the dust had settled, we did indeed invite them to attend our meetings -- which they have not done -- and we then suggested an informal get-together where the issues could be thrashed out amicably. The chair has refused even to consider this. We are left unable to understand what they really want, or why, and unable to make them understand the reasons for what we are doing -- without writing them down at very great length. Difficult when I have my own business to run and the music group is by no means my only contribution to parish life.

We are trying to take on board some of the things that have been mentioned by the PPC, but since most of them don't actually attend the sung mass they are not in a position to see what we are doing week by week. Part of our hurt is that we don't know who has actually started this or why.

I'm reluctant to give up completely as it seems to negate everything the group has worked to achieve over the 13 years since I came to the parish -- and, of course, the tradition of music in our parish which goes back long before my time there.

Yours in great sadness,

[excathedra]

A sorry situation, and one that is all too common!

Just one point for now:

We've been presented with what appears to be an ultimatum, indicating that ... we should 'simplify' -- in some unspecified way -- the Easter liturgy, particularly at the vigil mass (with the implication, again, that the psalms in this service should be replaced with hymns).

Neither your PP nor your PPC have the authority to 'simplify' the liturgy. As Sacrosanctum Concilium says,

22. Regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See and, as laws may determine, on the bishop. In virtue of power conceded by the law, the regulation of the liturgy within certain defined limits belongs also to various kinds of competent territorial bodies of bishops legitimately established. Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority.

Of course, citing official documents will avail you nought if communications have broken down, but it is as well to remember that these regulations exist and that is not just a difference of opinion.

Wasn't there a Roman document a few years ago that forbad monkeying with the rites of Holy Week?

Alan

[pacabella]

As a member of the same somewhat beleagued music group mentioned by Crumhorn I think that the PP and the PPC aren't so much trying to alter the liturgy as to cut it down to the bare minimum and to reduce the musical content greatly.

It is, as the current phrase has it, doing my head in ... we can put up and shut up but I don't think we ought to. At the moment we have on Sunday mornings an early music-free mass and a later sung mass (English). It isn't always possible to judge how much participation we get from the whole congregation because the good singers tend to sit near to the 'choir' but the response to the psalm is usually good.

I have been trying to find the hidden agenda behind this sudden flare up. The critics don't seem even to attend the 'offending' services. Perhaps they are working towards a single, silent mass.

Tips on how to make the liturgy congregation-friendly welcome.

Pacabella

[contrabordun]

Hmm, well The Documents are pretty unambiguous about the place of music in the liturgy. I certainly don't think you should put up and shut up. If Pacabella's diagnosis is correct, you are right and the PP/PPC are simply wrong. Not that that's going to help.

How visible is the Deanery system in your neck of the woods? Assuming that your PP isn't the local Dean... could you ask the latter to help broker a way forward? ("communications difficult, people feeling sore, neutral outsider with no baggage, etc")

At the very least, if the PP is hiding behind the PPC (pathetic behaviour from a leader) you smoke him out. Dragging other clergy in might embarass him, but he will have to go on record and state what it is he actually wants, which, from what you've said, he hasn't yet done.

If that is a practical option (loads of reasons why wouldn't be), then before you approach the Dean, make sure you've recently had an offer to sit down and meet the PPC/PP turned down.

[contrabordun]

A sorry situation, and one that is all too common!

This is something the SSG should be pressuring the Liturgy Office and the Hierarchy to prevent.

EVERY Catholic musician I know has had something like this at some time. How can we ask people to get involved if after 10 years (max), somebody else is - guaranteed - going to come along, oblivious to the time, energy and effort put in, and sack them.

We need an agreed set of 'Rules of Engagement' and some commitment from the bishops that situations such as the one faced by Crummhorn and pacabella will be dealt with openly in, dare I say it, an adult and (if it's not too much more to ask) Christian fashion. Otherwise the church will eventually exhaust the supply of idiots like us prepared to take the job on.

[Crumhorn]

Thanks to contrabordun for that ringing cry of support.

One problem -- our PP IS the Dean

However, I can say without fear of contradiction that we have indeed offered to sit down and talk with the PPC and they have categorically refused to do so. It was this refusal that finally got me to start posting on this forum -- sorry about that, as I'm finding other threads very interesting, and wish I'd found it sooner.

What do we do? First of all, appeal to reason with the PP, I think -- and if that fails, probably shoot him (sorry, bad prompting from Pacabella there...) I mean, of course, that we will need to take the matter outside the parish and the Deanery: either to another respected member of the clergy, or in the last resort to the Bishop. So far I've tried being reasonable, being outraged (with good reason), being sad, and being reasonable again. Maybe they just haven't caught up yet. But we are quite certain that we've written as many letters as we want to, and that the only possible way of resolving the issue is by behaving like adults and having a quiet, reasonable and even (perhaps) Christian discussion, face to face. Otherwise the whole thing degenerates into farce. (As I now see that contrabordun has also said -- thanks, couldn't agree more...)

Even the members of the music group who were not quite certain about confronting the PPC have been outraged by their refusal to talk to us. On the positive side, we have been told today that the volume of singing in the body of the church has markedly increased since we started giving them a (very) short introduction to the music on about two Sundays in three. We don't want to overplay this, or we'll get the usual cries of 'why do those people keep putting themselves forward', but by getting different choir members to do it in different weeks we can hopefully keep that to a minimum.

We'll let you know what happens -- but in this week of all weeks, 'blessed are the peacemakers', and we're still open to ideas and suggestions (even from the PPC...)

[contrabordun]

if that fails, probably shoot him

with Pacabella's cannon, I suppose.

[excathedra]

This is something the SSG should be pressuring the Liturgy Office and the Hierarchy to prevent.

I don't suppose for one moment that either the Liturgy Office or the Bishops could hope to "prevent" this sort of thing (or much else, come to that). The problem - and, therefore, the solution - is much too complex. Liturgical formation of our priests and of the laity would be top of my list of problems and solutions, and it is in that area that the SSG operates.

Given the SSG's good relations with the Liturgy Office and with the Bishops' Conference, we can do rather better than "pressuring" them. I will initiate a discussion with the Liturgy Office on this subject. Hopefully, this might lead to something helpful in Music & Liturgy and/or on this forum.

Alan

[contrabordun]

Better formation is certainly needed but in my experience the problems are more fundamental than that: poor personnel management, personality clashes, failure of communication, lack of basic consideration for other human beings, inadequate management of expectations leading to unrealistic expectations and so on. And I suspect that much of it is thoughtlessness rather than ill-intentioned, and that perhaps some norms of behaviour might be helpful.

With the greatest of respect, I'm not sure that contributions, however helpful, either to M&L or to this forum reach quite the audience I have in mind.

[Merseysider]

I consider myself very fortunate that our priest and congregation appreciate what we are doing – if not, they tell me in the parish club straight after Mass, which is fine. But there appear to be many parishes where this is not the case and Crumhorn's experience is far from rare. I've heard of parishes where choirs and organ have been banned, others where musical ensembles have been ejected etc etc. And, at the same time, I've heard from parish priests desperate to find a musician of any kind just to help out a bit. I wonder just how many musicians have been lost through the PP's poor inter-personal skills or lack of liturgical formation. (I should add that I also know of several musicians who've caused these situations by their own lack of tact and diplomacy – it cuts both ways.)

[Crumhorn]

Merseysider makes a very valid point. There are probably times when we musicians make a rod for our own backs! But there is a real problem when there is no 'lead from the top' and the musicians have to soldier on with the feeling that they are tolerated rather than appreciated.

In any congregation there will always be those who feel -- rightly or wrongly -- that musicians (and cantors in particular) are only doing what they do in order to gratify themselves and their vanity. I, for one, can't put my hand on my heart and say that is NEVER true -- but I do try to fight it, and at the organisational level we tackle it by ensuring that all our cantors take it strictly in turns to perform. There are no 'stars' and no 'second rankers' when all are equally committed.

We also routinely invite members of the congregation to comment on the music (by coming and talking to us after Mass) and/or to come to the regular weekly music meeting -- even if they can't sing! Alas, the invitation is very rarely accepted -- except, ironically, by Eastern European visitors with temporary jobs, who have livened up our ensemble on more than one occasion.

Positive note -- we've had a request from one of the younger members of our congregation for a particular hymn on Laetare Sunday. We've said 'yes' -- on the strict understanding that she brings as many of her friends as possible to help us sing it...

[excathedra]

With the greatest of respect, I'm not sure that contributions, however helpful, either to M&L or to this forum reach quite the audience I have in mind.

Of course they don't! I meant helpful to people like Crumhorn.