As an unrepentant admirer of great talents like King Paluta, I couldn’t skip but watch a video of an ordained minister of the Catholic Church singing one of his sense-packed products in the homily of a Eucharistic celebration.
The only challenge was that, the probable good intentions of the minister to capitalize on the good content of the song was employed in a wrong forum; in a sacred liturgy, not a devotional or even a ‘sacramental’ celebration.
For our love for the Sarkodies, the Gyakies, the Kizz Daniels, the Kofi Kinaatas, the Spyros, the Diamond Platnumzs, etc., we watched and made it slide. After all, the sacredness, religiousness, socialness, and even secularness of a song is not necessarily about the author but content.
However, upon the frequent chancing on similar videos, one is left to wonder if that’s the new norm and may rightly suspect some of our homilists to be theatrically inspired for various reasons.
Regarding the proper character of the sacred liturgy in our ecclesiastical jurisdictions, such traits indicate that ‘there are already signs of danger to come. Subjective experience and passion are still held in check by the order of the musical universe, reflecting as it does the order of the divine creation itself.
But there is already the threat of invasion by the virtuoso mentality, the vanity of technique, which is no longer the servant of the whole but wants to push itself to the fore.
During the nineteenth century, the century of self-emancipating subjectivity, this led in many places to the obscuring of the sacred by the operatic. The dangers that had forced the Council of Trent to intervene were back again… (J. Ratzinger, “Music and Liturgy.” In The Spirit of the Liturgy, Ignatius Press, San Francisco 2000, 146-7).
We may realize that there is a reason why even in the abundance of contemporary materials which may be more precious, accessible, and pleasing to the sight, the Church decides on ‘antiquated’ vessels and vestments that once a time were extravagantly precious in royal courts, but presently not.
The primary reason is that the sacer (sacred) character of the liturgy which is to be appreciated by the convocated people of God, is facilitated by the things that are set apart from their ordinary engagements. Else, what difference will it make if the liturgical assembly see their domestic cups, bowls, and breakfast bread been used on the altar in a ‘supposed’ sacred manner?
Yes! Aside the religious or spiritual dimensions, there is also the right psychological undertones to such effects. As humans, we are a communion of both spirit and flesh!
So, it may not be a question of whether the music is gospel, social, religious, or not, but a question of whether it is ‘sacred.’ That’s, whether it conforms to the solemn character of the liturgy. To wit, though highly related and often used interchangeably, that which is religious is a non-exclusive source to the sacred (which necessarily elevates the soul transcendentally).
That’s why almost everything that is associated with the liturgy is qualified with the term sacred; sacred space, sacred vestments, sacred time, sacred vessels, sacred architecture, sacred music, etc. And in that artistic enterprise of the liturgy, the provocative aura of music cannot be downplayed. Here, for the perennial dangers of subjectivism, it must be stated that ‘sacredness, is more than individual piety; it is an objective reality.’ Objectively, we realize that though religiously inclined, the aura characterizing some of the songs in question is often entertaining than sacred, and how such is often forced in the liturgy even when the message therein parallels the homily is incomprehensibly strange.
It is for this reason that although the Church approves of all forms of true art having the needed qualities, and admits them into divine worship, insists also that ‘sacred music is to be considered the more holy in proportion as it is more closely connected with the liturgical action, whether it adds delight to prayer, fosters unity of minds, or confers greater solemnity upon the sacred rites’ [ Sacrosanctum Concilium (SC) 112].
In his homily (12.12.13) at Santa Marta, Pope Francis clearly defined the purpose of music at Mass as “first of all a matter of participating intensely in the mystery of God, in the ‘theophany’ that takes place in every Eucharistic celebration, in which the Lord makes himself present among his people, who are called truly to participate in the salvation realized by the crucified and risen Christ.”
This suggests then that ‘the introduction into the celebration of anything that is merely secular, or which is hardly compatible with divine worship, under the guise of solemnity should be carefully avoided’ ( Musica Sacra 43), especially when done for the praise of it.
However, when such ‘irregular’ adaptations are deemed important, ‘religious singing by the people is to be intelligently fostered so that in devotions and sacred exercises, as also during liturgical services, the voices of the faithful may ring out according to the norms and requirements of the rubrics’ (SC 118).
Nota bene: ‘Wherever applause (substantially distinct from claps that serves as musical accompaniments) breaks out in the liturgy because of some human achievement, it is a sure sign that the essence of liturgy has totally disappeared and been replaced by a kind of religious entertainment.
Such attractiveness fades quickly — it cannot compete in the market of leisure pursuits, incorporating as it increasingly does various forms of religious titillation… Liturgy can only attract people when it looks, not at itself, but at God, when it allows him to enter and act.
Then something truly unique happens, beyond competition, and people have a sense that more has taken place than a recreational activity.’ (J. Ratzinger. “Music and Liturgy.” In The Spirit of the Liturgy (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2000, 198-9).
To be continued…
Thank you for reading our article. You can keep up-to-date by following our WhatsApp Channel. Just click here