About this blogger:
Andrew Motyka is the Archdiocesan Director of Liturgical Music and Cathedral Music for the Archdiocese of Indianapolis.
Connect on Facebook:
Connect on Twitter:
“I should not like to be too harsh on this commission’s labors. It numbered a certain number of genuine scholars and more than one experienced and judicious pastor. Under different circumstances, they might have accomplished excellent work. Unfortunately, on the one hand, a deadly error in judgment placed the official leadership of this committee in the hands of a man who—though generous and brave—was not very knowledgeable: Cardinal Larcaro. He was utterly incapable of resisting the maneuvers of the mealy-mouthed scoundrel that the Neapolitan Vincentian, Annibale, a man as bereft of culture as he was of basic honesty, soon revealed himself to be.”
— Fr. Bouyer, a liturgical expert appointed by Pope Paul VI

Archbishop Sample's Letter On Sacred Music (3 of 8)
published 18 June 2014 by Andrew R. Motyka

RCHBISHOP SAMPLE’S pastoral letter on sacred music has several wonderful passages to consider. While there are many discussions that should, and will, flow forth from this letter, I particularly appreciate the good Archbishop’s description of the qualities of sacred music.

      * *  Archbishop Sample • 2013 Letter (PDF)

When discussing liturgical art in general, and liturgical music in particular, it is easy to fall into thinking that the quality and appropriateness of literature is subjective. Archbishop Sample elucidates the qualities of sacred music in a way that puts the discussion in objective terms. Agreeing on criteria like this is essential if any discussion is to be had about what the Church wants from us in musical worship.

The three criteria shared by the Archbishop are the sanctity, beauty, and universality of music. By sanctity in music, he means the way in which music is executed in the liturgy, in a manner conducive to worship as well as its connection to the ritual itself. Not only should the choice of music be connected to the liturgy, but its performance also needs appropriate reverence. We need to avoid “profanity not only in itself, but in the manner in which it is presented by those who execute it.” Certainly a conversation can take place as to what constitutes “profanity” in music (profane, in this case, being defined as the opposite of sacred), but surely we can agree that turns of music that call to mind secular celebrations and not sacred prayer.

The second criterion, beauty, is the most subjective, but we still have some guidance here. We are called to music that is “true art,” so that it is clear that it has its place in the divine liturgy. The third element for consideration is the universality of sacred music. This is where the most interesting idea comes in, in my opinion. It relates back to the first criterion, the holiness of music, and that holiness transcends culture. Notice that this enculturation refers only to music that is already culturally relevant to worship, not simply all cultural practices to be worked into the liturgy. When cultural practices are connected to worship, they can be Christianized, when appropriate, and brought to the liturgy, provided they also fulfill the first two criteria.

THERE IS MUCH TO BE CONSIDERED in Archbishop Sample’s letter on pastoral music, and it is encouraging that such a musical and liturgical thinker is now so connected to the nation’s most overwhelmingly influential liturgical publishing house. This letter should provide for much consideration and conversation, and hopefully assist all of us in our mission of the worship of God and the edification of the faithful.

This is part of an 8-part series on Archbishop Sample’s historic letter:




FOURTH REFLECTION • Peter Kwasniewski


SIXTH REFLECTION • Veronica Brandt