• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Corpus Christi Watershed

Pope Saint Paul VI (3 April 1969): “Although the text of the Roman Gradual—at least that which concerns the singing—has not been changed, the Entrance antiphons and Communions antiphons have been revised for Masses without singing.”

  • Donate
  • Our Team
    • Our Editorial Policy
    • Who We Are
    • How To Contact Us
    • Sainte Marie Bulletin Articles
    • Jeff’s Mom Joins Fundraiser
  • Pew Resources
    • Brébeuf Catholic Hymnal
    • Jogues Illuminated Missal
    • KYRIALE • Saint Antoine Daniel
    • Campion Missal, 3rd Edition
    • Repository • “Spanish Music”
    • Ordinary Form Feasts (Sainte-Marie)
  • MUSICAL WEBSITES
    • René Goupil Gregorian Chant
    • Noël Chabanel Psalms
    • Nova Organi Harmonia (2,279 pages)
    • Roman Missal, 3rd Edition
    • Catechism of Gregorian Rhythm
    • Father Enemond Massé Manuscripts
    • Lalemant Polyphonic
  • Miscellaneous
    • Site Map
    • Secrets of the Conscientious Choirmaster
    • “Wedding March” for lazy organists
    • Emporium Kevin Allen
    • Saint Jean de Lalande Library
    • Sacred Music Symposium 2023
    • The Eight Gregorian Modes
    • Gradual by Pothier’s Protégé
    • Seven (7) Considerations
Views from the Choir Loft

Carpeting Is the Enemy of Congregational Singing

Richard J. Clark · July 17, 2015

ERHAPS WITH A TOUCH of hyperbole I make this declaration: Nothing good can come of a carpeted church with regards to the Sacred Liturgy. Now, coming back down to earth, I maintain that the removal of carpeting is the most effective way to improve many aspects of the liturgy. Externally, what benefits most is congregational singing. Internally, a greater sense of reverence and prayer may permeate one’s heart.

I have touched upon the subject a few times including the use of natural sound to improve one’s music program. If one is considering a renovation, large or small, the removal of as much carpeting as possible will bring a world of benefits. Here are a few important things to consider about carpeting (and seat cushions!)


CARPETING ABSORBS SOUND.

Carpeting absorbs sound. Lots of it. A choir must work harder to project sound into the nave. Members of the congregation can’t hear each other nearly as well, perhaps just those in their immediate vicinity. Not professional singers, individuals in the congregation must work harder. Some give up.

With heavy carpeting comes a heavy reliance on microphones. As such, the Sacred Liturgy loses the transcendent feel of natural harmonics. When used improperly, microphones distort the blend of a choir. It is also not uncommon to hear a single cantor on a microphone unnecessarily overpower the congregation. This actually discourages congregational singing by creating a divide between cantor and congregation.

Consider these words from US Bishop’s document Sing to the Lord: Music in Divine Worship (SttL):

103. Sound-absorbing building materials include carpet, porous ceiling tiles, soft wood, untreated soft stone, cast concrete or cinder block, and padded seating. Avoiding excessive use of such materials makes it easier to achieve the ideal of many voices united in song.


GIVE THE PEOPLE BACK THEIR VOICE.

Wood, marble, or tile, on the other hand, reflect sound. Churches with no carpeting are so much easier to sing in. One does not have to constantly sing loudly to fill the nave. A smaller choir can be more supportive of a congregation. One can utilize a broader range of dynamics. Those with weaker voices can contribute. Those with strong voices will flourish.

Microphones may be rendered unnecessary or utilized selectively. Relying only on the natural sound tears down the wall between musician and congregation. It gives the voice back to the people! And this is what chant and hymnody have done so well for hundreds upon hundreds of years.

Again, from Sing to the Lord: Music in Divine Worship (SttL):

104. The acoustics of a church or chapel should be resonant so that there is no need for excessive amplification of musical sound in order to fill the space and support the assembly’s song. When the acoustics of the building naturally support sound, acoustic instruments and choirs generally need no amplification. An acoustically dead space precipitates a high cost of sound reinforcement, even for the organ.


SINGING FOSTERS UNITY!

Congregational singing is an expression of unity with God and with each other. But sound that is absorbed is sound that is not shared. However, singing that reverberates throughout the church is mutually supportive. This in turn creates a stronger relationship with God and each other. Sing out and share your sound! Regardless of ability, God cherishes our voices equally.


WHAT IS THE EXPERIENCE OF THE CONGREGATION?

Some argue that carpeting or seat cushions make little difference in the acoustic when the church is full. This may be arguably true in an objective sense. But often such claims fail to consider the localized experience of a member of the congregation that is surrounded by carpeting or even seat cushions. They are not receiving any benefit from nearby reflective surfaces. The faithful in the pews continue to work harder and are likely to sing less in the long run.

102. If each member of the assembly senses his or her voice joined to the entire community in a swell of collective sound, the acoustics are well suited to the purpose of a gathered community engaged in sung prayer. If, on the other hand, each person hears primarily only his or her own voice, the acoustics of the space are fundamentally deficient. (Ibid.)


WHY IS THE CHOIR AREA NOT CARPETED, BUT THE REST OF THE CHURCH IS?

Even fully carpeted churches commonly do not carpet the area in which the choir sings. This helps choir members hear each other, and therefore produce a more unified and supportive sound. (However, it has minimal benefit for projecting sound into the rest of the carpeted church.)

That choir areas are routinely void of carpeting makes the case for why carpeting should be removed or minimized in the entire church. Why should the congregation not enjoy the same benefits of better hearing our neighbor? Why is the choir more special? It is not. We are united in the Eucharist and in the love of Christ.

31. When the choir is not exercising its particular role, it joins the congregation in song. The choir’s role in this case is not to lead congregational singing, but to sing with the congregation, which sings on its own or under the leadership of the organ or other instruments. (Ibid.)


WHAT ABOUT THE COST?

Like electronic organs that need replacing every twenty to twenty-five years, carpet replacement runs into a great deal more money. I watched carpeting in a church get dirty and frayed in less than ten years. I watched incense burn holes that needed replacing and repair. This was expensive. Then the manufacturer discontinued that particular color. Then what?

Removal of carpeting and replacement with a hard, reflective, and more beautiful surface will likely be a watershed moment. There’s no going back. Congregational singing will greatly improve. The architecture becomes more beautiful. The cost of maintenance of a durable (and reflective) surface can be minimal. No one will reminisce about the “good old days” when there was carpeting.

Let choirs and congregations sing, and therefore pray as one. Allow the architecture to help, not hinder. Seize this opportunity.

Soli Deo Gloria

Opinions by blog authors do not necessarily represent the views of Corpus Christi Watershed.

Filed Under: Articles Last Updated: January 1, 2020

Subscribe

It greatly helps us if you subscribe to our mailing list!

* indicates required

About Richard J. Clark

Richard J. Clark is the Director of Music of the Archdiocese of Boston and the Cathedral of the Holy Cross.—(Read full biography).

Primary Sidebar

Corpus Christi Watershed

President’s Corner

    PDF Comparison Chart • “Serious Problems with the Lectionary Translation”
    EARS BEFORE truly revolutionary changes were introduced by the post-conciliar reformers, Evelyn Waugh wrote (on 16 August 1964) to John Cardinal Heenan: “I think that a vociferous minority has imposed itself on the hierarchy and made them believe that a popular demand existed where there was in fact not even a preference.” We ask the kind reader— indeed, we beg you—to realize that those of us born in the 1940s and 1950s had no cognizance of Roman activities during the 1960s and 1970s. We were concerned with making sure we had the day’s bus fare, graduating from high school, taking care of our siblings, learning a trade, getting a job, courting a spouse. We questioned neither the nuns nor the Church.1 Do not believe for one instant any of us were following the liturgical machinations of Cardinal Lercaro or Father Bugnini in real time. Setting The Stage • To never question or resist Church authorities is praiseworthy. On the other hand, when a scandalous situation persists for decades, it must be brought into focus. Our series will do precisely that as we discuss the Lectionary Scandal from a variety of angles. We don’t do this to attack the Catholic Church. Our goal is bringing to light what’s been going on, so it can be fixed once and for all. Our subject is extremely knotty and difficult to navigate. Its complexity helps explain why the situation has persisted for such a long time.2 But if we immediately get “into the weeds” we’ll lose our audience. Therefore, it seems better to jump right in. So today, we’ll explore the legality of selling these texts. A Word On Copyright • Suppose Susie modifies a paragraph by Edgar Allan Poe. That doesn’t mean ipso facto she can assert copyright on it. If Susie takes a picture of a Corvette and uses Photoshop to color the tires blue, that doesn’t mean she henceforth “owns” all Corvettes in America. But when it comes to Responsorial Psalm translations, certain parties have been asserting copyright over them, selling them for a profit, and bullying publishers vis-à-vis hymnals and missals. Increasingly, Catholics are asking whether these translations are truly under copyright—because they are identical (or substantially identical) to other translations.3 Example After Example • Our series will provide copious examples supporting our claims. Sometimes we’ll rely on the readership for assistance, because—as we’ve stressed—our subject’s history couldn’t be more convoluted. There are countless manuscripts (in Greek, Hebrew, and Latin) we don’t have access to, so it would be foolish for us to claim that our observations are somehow the ‘final word’ on anything. Nevertheless, we demand accountability. Catholics in the pews are the ones who paid for all this. We demand to know who specifically made these decisions (which impact every English-speaking Catholic) and why specifically certain decisions were made. The Responsorial Psalms used in America are—broadly speaking—stolen from the hard work of others. In particular, they borrowed heavily from Father Cuthbert Lattey’s 1939 PSALTER TRANSLATION:
    *  PDF Download • COMPARISON CHART —We thank the CCW staff for technical assistance with this graph.
    Analysis • Although certain parties have been selling (!!!) that translation for decades, the chart demonstrates it’s not a candidate for copyright since it “borrows” or “steals” or “rearranges” so much material from other translations, especially the 1939 translation by Father Cuthbert Lattey. What this means in layman’s terms is that individuals have been selling a translation under false pretenses, a translation they don’t own (although they claim to). To make RESTITUTION, all that money will have to be returned. A few years ago, the head of ICEL gave a public speech in which he said they give some of “their” profits to the poor. While almsgiving is a good thing, it cannot justify theft. Our Constant Theme • Our series will be held together by one thread, which will be repeated constantly: “Who was responsible?” Since 1970, the conduct of those who made a profit by selling these sacred texts has been repugnant. Favoritism was shown toward certain entities—and we will document that with written proof. It is absolutely essential going forward that the faithful be told who is making these decisions. Moreover, vague justifications can no longer be accepted. If we’re told they are “making the translations better,” we must demand to know what specifically they’re doing and what specific criteria they’re following. Stay Tuned • If you’re wondering whether we’ll address the forthcoming (allegedly) Lectionary and the so-called ABBEY PSALMS AND CANTICLES, have no fear. We’ll have much to say about both. Please stay tuned. We believe this will end up being the longest series of articles ever submitted to Corpus Christi Watershed. To be continued. ROBERT O’NEILL Former associate of Monsignor Francis “Frank” P. Schmitt at Boys Town in Nebraska JAMES ARNOLD Formerly associated w/ King’s College, Cambridge A convert to the Catholic Church, and distant relative of J. H. Arnold MARIA B. Currently serves as a musician in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Charlotte. Those aware of the situation in her diocese won’t be surprised she chose to withhold her last name.
    1 Even if we’d been able to obtain Roman journals such as NOTITIAE, none of them contained English translations. But such an idea would never have occurred to a high school student or a college student growing up in the 1960s. 2 A number of shell corporations claim to own the various biblical translations mandated for Roman Catholics. They’ve made millions of dollars selling (!) these indulgenced texts. If time permits, we hope to enumerate these various shell corporations and explain: which texts they claim to own; how much they bring in each year; who runs them; and so forth. It would also be good to explore the morality of selling these indulgenced texts for a profit. Furthermore, for the last fifty years these organizations have employed several tactics to manipulate and bully others. If time permits, we will expose those tactics (including written examples). Some of us—who have been working on this problem for three decades—have amassed written documentation we’ll be sharing that demonstrates behavior at best “shady” and at worst criminal. 3 Again, we are not yet examining the morality of selling (!) indulgenced texts to Catholics mandated to use those same translations.
    —Guest Author
    “Music List” • 17th in Ordinary Time (Year C)
    Some have expressed interest in perusing the ORDER OF MUSIC I prepared for the 17th Sunday in Ordinary Time (27 July 2025). If such a thing interests you, feel free to download it as a PDF file. As always, the Responsorial Psalm, Gospel Acclamation, and Mass Propers for this Sunday are conveniently stored at the the feasts website.
    —Jeff Ostrowski
    Communion • “Ask & You Shall Receive”
    All of the chants for 27 July 2025 have been added to the feasts website, as usual under a convenient “drop down” menu. The COMMUNION ANTIPHON (both text and melody) are exceedingly beautiful and ancient.
    —Jeff Ostrowski

Quick Thoughts

    Pope Pius XII Hymnal?
    Have you ever heard of the Pope Pius XII Hymnal? It’s a real book, published in the United States in 1959. Here’s a sample page so you can verify with your own eyes it existed.
    —Corpus Christi Watershed
    “Hybrid” Chant Notation?
    Over the years, many have tried to ‘simplify’ plainsong notation. The O’Fallon Propers attempted to simplify the notation—but ended up making matters worse. Dr. Karl Weinmann tried to do the same in the time of Pope Saint Pius X by replacing each porrectus. You can examine a specimen from his edition and see whether you agree he complicated matters. In particular, look at what he did with éxsules fílii Hévae.
    —Corpus Christi Watershed
    Antiphons Don’t Match?
    A reader wants to know why the Entrance and Communion antiphons in certain publications deviate from what’s prescribed by the GRADUALE ROMANUM published after Vatican II. Click here to read our answer. The short answer is: the Adalbert Propers were never intended to be sung. They were intended for private Masses only (or Masses without music). The “Graduale Parvum,” published by the John Henry Newman Institute of Liturgical Music in 2023, mostly uses the Adalbert Propers—but sometimes uses the GRADUALE text: e.g. Solemnity of Saints Peter and Paul (29 June).
    —Corpus Christi Watershed

Random Quote

The Sacrifice is celebrated with many solemn rites, none of which should be deemed useless or superfluous. On the contrary, all of them tend to display the majesty of this august sacrifice, and to excite the faithful, when beholding these saving mysteries, to contemplate the divine things which lie concealed in the Eucharistic Sacrifice.

— Catechism of the Council of Trent (1566)

Recent Posts

  • PDF Comparison Chart • “Serious Problems with the Lectionary Translation”
  • “Music List” • 17th in Ordinary Time (Year C)
  • Flor Peeters In A Weird Mood?
  • Communion • “Ask & You Shall Receive”
  • Jeff’s Mother Joins Our Fundraiser

Subscribe

Subscribe

* indicates required

Copyright © 2025 Corpus Christi Watershed · Isaac Jogues on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Corpus Christi Watershed is a 501(c)3 public charity dedicated to exploring and embodying as our calling the relationship of religion, culture, and the arts. This non-profit organization employs the creative media in service of theology, the Church, and Christian culture for the enrichment and enjoyment of the public.

The election of Pope Leo XIV has been exciting, and we’re filled with hope for our apostolate’s future!

But we’re under pressure to transfer our website to a “subscription model.”

We don’t want to do that. We believe our website should remain free to all.

Our president has written the following letter:

President’s Message (dated 30 May 2025)

Are you able to support us?

clock.png

Time's up