HERE IS MUCH I don’t understand about the world. For instance, many Catholics who—as far as I can tell—genuinely take their faith seriously often praise television shows and movies containing immorality: scenes with pornography; scenes which glorify taking the Lord’s Name in vain; scenes which promote immoral behavior (witchcraft, crystals, ouija boards, etc.); and scenes which seek to “normalize” crude, obscene, and smutty language—although they might technically avoid graphic acts against the 6th Commandment. I don’t claim to be an expert on what constitutes sinful behavior, and the internet seems particularly unsuitable for such discussions. Nevertheless, such things leave me scratching my head.
Crossing The Threshold • In a moment, I will bring up several reprehensible statements from a book by Father Joseph Gelineau (Chant Et Musique Dans Le Culte Chrétien) published in 1962. When it comes to the question of sin: Are we allowed to say in public absolutely anything we want about sacred traditions? Or can harmful, irresponsible, and foolish statements cross the threshold into the realm of sin? Today I will not accuse Father Gelineau of sin, because I (myself) don’t want to potentially commit sin. Nevertheless, certain statements by Father Gelineau are so foolhardy they seem to go beyond mere doltishness. The amount of time Gelineau spent composing “religious” music for non-Catholics also strikes me as highly questionable—especially when we consider the special vows Jesuits take!
Freedom Of Speech • Archbishop Sheen said famously: “Freedom is a word much abused.” Perhaps 99% of people in America believe that FREEDOM is a good thing. But Sheen reminds us that one can only be free from something for something else. Perhaps I can make it clear by analogy. Would you like to live in a society where men are “free” to abuse children? Would you like to live in a society where men are “free” to discriminate on the basis of skin color? If we’re honest, we must admit: freedom is a word much abused. Some would ask: “Isn’t Father Joseph Gelineau free to make any statements he wants? If he wants to attack the ancient traditions of the Catholic Church, who are we to complain?” But privately considering certain matters within the confines of one’s own heart is one thing. Making public statements seems a different matter entirely.
Scholarship’s Cardinal Sin • Throughout his book, Father Joseph Gelineau frequently commits what I consider the cardinal sin of scholarship: viz. making bizarre assertions without providing evidence. For instance,1 on pages 78-79, pages 96-97, and page 178 Father Gelineau keeps claiming that tons of chants were originally in simple “responsorial psalm” form. But he’s unable to cite a single example of this. If his claims are true (viz. that hundreds and hundreds of chants were originally responsorial psalms with simple refrains), he has an obligation to show us examples! What did these things look like? Where can they be found? At a minimum, Father Gelineau had an obligation to cite specific pages from specific manuscripts that give examples. But he was unable to cite a single example—because he’s not telling the truth!
Suppose I wrote an article saying that the entire repertoire of Gregorian Chant used “Jeffronian Psalmody” as its musical form. Would you not demand evidence? But Father Gelineau was unable to cite a single example of this (supposedly) widespread music—and his conduct is reprehensible.
Other Foolish Statements • A deep hatred for the THESAURUS MUSICAE SACRAE comes across in Father Gelineau’s book. For instance, on page 120 he condemns the use of graduals at Mass, in spite of the fact that they’re some of the most ancient sung prayers we have. They were preserved for century after century … yet Father Gelineau says they’re basically garbage and “raise a serious problem” (his words). Furthermore, on page 162—in ridiculously arrogant manner—Father Gelineau condemns the beautiful and ancient tradition of singing the Ite, Missa Est. The reasons he gives for its suppression are self-contradictory. Moreover, his “arguments” for its suppression demonstrate his shameful ignorance of the history of the Roman Rite.
Throughout his book, Father Gelineau comes across as an ignorant child. For instance, several times he condemns any setting of the KYRIE which don’t sound sad or mournful in spite of the immemorial traditions of the Catholic Church. Following his logic, whenever Christians sing a psalm they would first be required to divide each verse into “happy” and “sad” tones—but that has never been the tradition of the Church. Following his logic, GOOD FRIDAY would have to be renamed “Sad Friday.” I repeat: his views are so painfully superficial that he comes across as an ignorant child.
Indeed, in his arrogance, Father Gelineau has the audacity to condemn (!) every setting of the SANCTUS except for SANCTUS XVIII. It’s a pity that Christians who lived for 1,600 years didn’t have Father Gelineau’s amazing brain to correct them!
Conclusion • The whole attitude of Father Joseph Gelineau seems antithetical to the authentic spirit of the Company of Jesus, especially his lifelong efforts to compose music for non-Catholics. Once upon a time, the Jesuits were the “special operatives” of the Catholic faith. I see virtually no comparison between Father Gelineau and authentic Jesuits such as Father Antoine Daniel, Father François Bressani, and Father Isaac Jogues.
1 Page numbers in this article refer to the English Translation: “Voices and Instruments in Christian Worship: Principles, Laws, Applications” (1964).
