Marty Haugen Responds to the Curt Jester
Jeff Miller posts an e-mail sent to him by Marty Haugen, whose music most of us are familiar with if we have attended any Mass in the US since the 1980s. It seems that Marty’s knickers are in a twist over some things Jeff posted earlier. In a nutshell, Jeff makes the statement that Marty’s music is not appropriate for use in the Mass. Marty’s response: “It is hard to engage with people who dislike you so much.” He also seems to believe that those who do not think his music appropriate for the Catholic liturgy also believe that his prayers are not as effective as his.
These strange comments arise from a conversation that centers around the criticisms that have been flying about the use of acclamations from Haugen’s “Mass of Creation” at a Papal Mass. It is interesting to me that Haugen professes to love and respect the Catholic liturgy (he is not himself Catholic…he was Lutheran (LCA) and now is at a UCC community I understand) but he seems not to be able to understand the criticisms against him.
He does not defend the quality of his music but simply says that liturgical music is not as important as how we live. Now, this is true but what does it have to do with the criticisms? The question is whether the music is appropriate to the dignity of the Mass. It is not. The Eucharist is the source and summit of Christian life because it alone makes possible living a Christ-like life. To adorn such an ineffable gift with less than the best we can offer is taking God’s greatest gift to man and treating it as a novelty of minor significance. This is not to mention the negative effects that such music has in undermining one’s experience of the transcendence made present in the Mass.
Haugen says that he has no problems with the Church’s teaching on the Eucharist (though he does not say what it is he understands about it); rather his beef with the Church is her failure to “to commission, ordain and welcome all humans as Jesus did–male and female, married and unmarried, saints and sinners. I believe that the Church, God’s people and all of creation have suffered from this omission.”
It is hard for me to believe that he could understand, much less accept, the Catholic Church’s teaching on the Sacrifice of the Mass and the Real Presence but not be in a position to understand its necessary link to the priesthood and its masculine nature. Apparently the respect for the liturgy is accidental as his respect for the Catholic liturgy does not extend to the Church which keeps this liturgy alive. Else one might expect that instead of “judging” he might be more “open minded” and bring himself to fairly investigate and attempt understand from the Catholic perspective the necessary connection between the liturgy and the sex of the priest. Sr. Sara Butler’s latest book would be a good start.
It is hard to understand how he really views the Catholic Church. If this “omission” really has had the effect of causing suffering to the Church and all of creation, than is the Catholic Church something more than simply a human institution? He seems to suspect that it is but wants to deny it at the same time?
Marty leaves his e-mail address in his e-mail to Jeff so I suppose that if I were really interested I could send these questions on to him. However, I get the sense that from his statement that he finds it difficult to engage with those who dislike him so much in the context of his rather curious responses, that he may be suggesting that he doesn’t have much time for those who do not accept his work as authentic liturgical music.
.jpg)
Hello. Congratulations for your blog. Do you know why the young people pray the holy rosary? You can watch here fifty testimonies of young university students
(in Spanish, with english subtitles)
See it: http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=YxjjyXhO9EA
It is one of the most watched videos on Youtube in May.
Santiago (Granada, Spain)
http://opinionciudadano.blogspot.com/
Comment by Santiago — May 14, 2008 @ 9:57 am
Umnhhh…
Haugen demonstrates perfectly the “missing link” which is glaringly obvious in the liturgical sphere today.
That is, ‘what is the Mass’? It is NOT a social-engineering event, despite Haugen’s inference.
And whie personal detraction of Haugen is inappropriate, it is licit and required that one examine his music in the context of the Mass’ REAL purpose.
Pius X wrote the best definition of sacred music: to glorify God, and edify and sanctify the Faithful.
Music which does not accomplish these three objectives should not be used.
Comment by dad29 — May 14, 2008 @ 11:21 am
Now, I do not find the “contemporary” stuff entirely without merit. Haugen has done some decent work. And the arguments bandied about in the Liturgy Wars, even from the “same side,” can get confusing (e.g., “We should give the best music we can offer”; “liturgical music should be easy to sing”; “liturgical music should be elaborate Latin polyphonies sung by the choir”; “Organs and orchestras!”; “A Capella” . . .)
However, liturgical music has always had two clear purposes in Catholic tradition: to pray and to teach. Like all religious art, it is meant to teach the faith in a different medium. During the Arian Heresy, the Arians used catchy songs with Arian lyrics to attract parishioners, who thought the orthodox music was “boring.” One of the reasons for chant in the liturgy is that chant, versus singing, is meant to emphasize recital of the lyrics.
Progressive liturgists–or at least their supporters–try to argue that the content of their lyrics doesn’t matter, that people aren’t going to be swayed from orthodoxy by hearing lyrics like, “We are the body of Christ” and “Let us break bread together on our knees” and “woman or man no more.”
Yet, when you actually hear people like Haugen talk, you know that is *exactly* what they want their lyrics to do.
Comment by JC — June 8, 2008 @ 12:24 am