PARISH BULLETIN: LITURGICAL REFLECTIONS
SING TO THE LORD: The U.S. Bishops & Liturgical Music

by Edward Foley

As the Labor Day weekend looms, the end of summer vacations and the onset of fall are signaled in many ways. Beaches are closing and school bells ringing; August heat gives way to cooler September evenings; and liturgical musicians are reassembling after their hiatus to reinvigorate our worship with gifts of music and song. As cantors, instrumentalists, and choir members retune themselves for the glory of God and our sanctification, they, with the rest of us, might derive some benefit from digesting the newest liturgical document from the U.S. bishops: “Sing to the Lord: Music in Divine Worship” (STTL).

Approved by the bishops in November 2007, STTL is available on-line at and slated to be published in mid-2008. This is an unusual and very welcome document, both in how it was written and also in how it respects the three previous bishops' documents on music in worship. In order to grasp something of its uniqueness and richness, I offer some background to STTL and its predecessors and a few comments on the process that led to its promulgation.

The Forgotten Breakthrough

Many are well acquainted with the influential 1972 bishops' document “Music in Catholic Worship” (MCW). The most celebrated part of that document addresses the "threefold judgment" that needs to be made when selecting worship music. First is the musical judgment, which asks, "Is the music technically, aesthetically, and expressively good?” Second is the liturgical judgment that considers how the music respects the structures, texts, and various ministerial roles in worship. Finally, the pastoral judgment asks, "Does music in the celebration enable these people to express their faith, in this place, in this age, in this culture.”

What many do not know is that this pivotal contribution was at the heart of an earlier 1968 document from the bishops. In 1965 the Bishops' Commission on the Liturgical Apostolate established a subcommittee on music, chaired by Archabbot Rembert Weakland, OSB. As Archbishop Weakland recently noted during an interview, Cardinal Dearden, who chaired that commission, and many U.S. bishops were committed to moving swiftly on the issue of vernacular worship and concerned to expand the use of the vernacular beyond the modest range envisioned by the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy.

In this spirit, even before the new Order of Mass was promulgated in 1969, the bishops published “The Place of Music in Eucharistic Celebrations” (PMEC). Key phrases and ideas that many of us learned from MCW were first a part of that document. For example, in this groundbreaking statement the bishops stressed the importance of articulating a theology of celebration before turning to any distinctive musical concerns. Thus it was here that we first read the powerful: "Good celebrations foster and nourish faith; poor celebrations weaken and destroy faith.”

It is also here that we not only for the first time discover that inventive articulation of the threefold "musical, liturgical and pastoral" judgments but also a special pastoral emphasis in liturgical renewal, e.g., "... it is clear that all sacramental celebrations are in themselves pastoral.... The pastoral purpose always governs the use and function of every element of the celebration.” From this perspective, STTL stands in a 40-year tradition of U.S. bishops' documents emphasizing the pastoral in and through the musical. While that may seem like a relatively brief period in the history of Christian worship, it is virtually the entire life span of vernacular worship in the United States.

Continuity, Elaboration, and Developments

Successive music statements from the bishops demonstrate continuity with, elaboration upon and developments of central insights of PMEC. MCW draws heavily upon its language as well as its pastoral spirit. Originally drafted under the auspices of the Federation of Diocesan Liturgical Commissions (FDLC), MCW was adopted virtually unchanged by the bishops from this influential diocese--based organization. Almost twice as long as its predecessor, MCW incorporates whole sections from PMEC. More than simply repeating PMEC however, MCW also breaks new ground. This was partly due to the momentous changes that had taken place in the eucharistic liturgy since 1968. Rome published the new Order of Mass and the first General Instruction of the Roman Missal in 1969. These introduced such innovations as the responsorial psalm, prayer of the faithful, and eucharistic acclamations.

In view of such changes, MCW not only provided new ways of musically understanding these various elements, but also how to prioritize liturgical singing, e.g., by noting that distinctions between ordinary and proper parts of the Mass were not helpful in understanding the musical worship in the new Order of Mass. Throughout MCW there is an emphasis on flexibility, creativity, and attention to the distinctiveness of each local assembly. In its openness to various styles of liturgical music, MCW wisely notes that "style and value are two distinct judgments."

Expanding the Musical-Liturgical Vision

Evidence of the enduring value of MCW is its employment in other English-speaking contexts outside the United States. Colleagues report, for example, that MCW had wide currency in Australia and, to a lesser extent, in England. Domestically, the value of the document was reasserted in the early 1980s, ironically through an admission of some of its shortcomings. With vernacular publications of the rite of Christian initiation of adults, liturgy of the hours and order of Christian funerals, it became clear that PMEC and MCW were so focused on the Eucharist that they largely overlooked music in the other sacraments. Thus it was decided in the early 1980s to supplement MCW with “Liturgical Music Today” (LMT).

Reports of the day suggest that rewriting MCW would have been a gamble, with the possibility that key provisions or its flexible tone could have been altered. In order to safeguard its integrity, it was decided instead to publish a supplemental document. LMT acknowledges the central importance of MCW, explicitly noting that LMT should be read as its "companion."

LMT's main contribution is its extensive treatment of music in the sacraments. It also devotes numerous paragraphs to the liturgy of the hours, particularly to various ways of singing psalms. LMT also addresses more fully issues of liturgy and culture and offers a preliminary response to the challenges of new technology, e.g., recorded music in worship.

A Summary Statement

The liturgical climate shifted in the 1990s, with a series of well-documented reversals: In 1994 the Vatican withdrew its 1992 permission to employ the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible for liturgical use. Permission to use the Psalter from the Revised New American Bible for liturgical use, approved by the U.S. bishops in 1991, was denied, resulting in the rejection of the lectionary that the U.S. bishops had submitted to Rome, reliant upon these translations. In 1996 Rome required the president of the bishops' conference to withdraw the 1995 imprimatur from the Psalms translated by the International Commission on English in the Liturgy.

Shifting perspectives had their impact on a new U.S. document on art and architecture, “Built of Living Stones” (BLS). In 1978 the bishops had published “Environment and Art in Catholic Worship” (EACW). While BLS notes that EACW was influential, it does not suggest that influence was positive and actually remarks that many people have "disagreed about the document.” BLS clearly "replaces" EACW and some believe that it goes in a very different direction. Noted liturgical consultant Marchita Mauck thinks, for example, that BLS is "preoccupied ... with the separation of the sanctuary from the assembly, and an excessive concern about the location of the tabernacle."

In this context there was widespread anxiety that any document replacing MCW would result in similar reversals, undercutting many of its pivotal insights. Happily those anxieties were not realized. Two factors seemed to enable this happy outcome. One was that, under the leadership of Buffalo Auxiliary Bishop Edward Grosz, the music subcommittee of the bishops actually held a public hearing in October 2006 at which over fifty representatives from across the musical-liturgical landscape provided input. After that public consultation, the subcommittee continued to consult discreetely but widely on a proposed draft of the new statement. A second factor appears to have been the deep respect that the subcommittee and many consultors had for both MCW and LMT. As a result, STTL appears to be anything but a reversal and truly emerges as an organic development from its predecessors.

STTL is comparatively long: three times the length of MCW and larger than the three previous documents combined. At the heart of the document are large sections from both MCW and LMT. STTL cites multiple sections from MCW in its discussion of various ministerial and musical ministries, e.g., preserving that splendid 1972 insight, "No other single factor affects the Liturgy as much as the attitude, style, and bearing of the priest celebrant.” Also, STTL draws heavily upon MCW's formulation about the musical, liturgical, and pastoral judgments. More surprising to me was the widespread reliance on LMT, e.g., in introducing the cantor, the discussion of instrumental and recorded music, the importance and formation of liturgical musicians, and especially the section on psalm singing.

STTL is not simply repetitive of old ideas, however, and like its predecessors offers real developments, fresh insights, and splendid new formulations. Like MCW it opens with a theological reflection, this time on "why we sing.” Its opening nine paragraphs echo some previous insights, but also weave together singing and the paschal mystery with a strong social justice overtone that echoes the opening lines of Gaudium et spes. Its introduction to liturgical participation is inventively rooted in Trinitarian and communion theologies. STTL fills important lacunae in its predecessors, e.g., addressing the pivotal leadership role of local bishops and offices of worship: most welcome in a time when many worship offices are closing, and the once vibrant FDLC is a shadow of its former self. New is the very smart reflection on instrumental improvisation, as well as attention to the role of liturgical music in Catholic schools. STTL also offers some important correctives, e.g., its explicit awareness that while there are distinctive musical, liturgical, and pastoral judgments, these result in "one evaluation" that needs to be done collaboratively. It also happily inverts the order of the elements of these judgments, beginning with the liturgical, not the musical.

STTL is not without its flaws, and sometimes the seams show in a document drafted by committee. In the spirit of the age there are more corrective instructions than in previous documents, e.g., that the Sign of Peace "must not be protracted by the singing of a song.” There is also the occasional gaffe (e.g., omitting the "offering" when listing the elements in the Eucharistic Prayer, no. 177), and historical error (e.g., confusing "antiphonal" with "alternating" style, which Robert Taft disproved decades ago). This is nitpicking, however, in a document that is comprehensive, thoughtful, respectful, and contains one of the best reflections on Gregorian chant in the liturgy that I have read.

As the fall liturgical music season renews itself, take a little time to savor this fine work. You might even drop a note to the Bishops' Committee on the Liturgy or your favorite Ordinary to applaud their process and product, encouraging them toward such collaboration and thoughtfulness in the future.

The Rev. Edward Foley, OFM Cap., is on the faculty of the Catholic Theological Union in Chicago.