NEWSITALY The opening of a musallā at the Magna Græcia University of Catanzaro and the controversies over the “Islamization” of society: an assault on identity? (Ignazio Barbetta)
Quaderno monografico n. 2STEFANO TESTA BAPPENHEIM Do I work too? No, you don’t! Religious discrimination in the workplace in Austrian law
In October 2024, in the Diocese of Jefferson City, Missouri (USA), a controversy arose over sacred music following the promulgation of a decree by Archbishop W. Shawn McKnight prohibiting the use of twelve religious hymns deemed problematic from a doctrinal and moral standpoint1. The decision sparked widespread debate within the diocese, prompting the bishop, in the face of numerous reactions, to promptly revoke the decree as a precautionary measure and to open a synodal consultation process. The discussion gave impetus to a broader process of community discernment, an expression of the ―synodality‖ promoted by Pope Francis2 and aimed at reconsidering the criteria for selecting liturgical songs3.
The measure at the center of the debate, in addition to prohibiting the use of certain religious hymns, included further reasons related to the personal conduct of some authors. The text listed a selection of commonly used but “doctrinally problematic” songs that would be “absolutely prohibited” in the Archdiocese starting November 1 of last year. According to the Catholic Missourian, the initiative followed an “in-depth process of study and review” lasting about a year by the Diocesan Liturgical Commission and consultation with the Diocesan Presbyteral Council. To clarify, the Archbishop specified that the main purpose of the decree was to promote “full, conscious, and active participation in the liturgy” through a common musical repertoire.
In support of the decree, Adam Bartlett, an expert in liturgical music and founder of the sacred music resource Source and Summit, told CNA that he considered it a “very welcome contribution” to the ongoing debate on liturgical music in the U.S. Catholic Church, stating that “for parishes in the Diocese of Jefferson City, it should not be seen only as a restriction, but also as an invitation to rediscover what music in the Mass should truly be4”.
It should be noted that the measure did not merely list prohibited hymns and composers, but also established four Masses approved for use in the diocese with which each parish was to “familiarize” itself, recognizing a place of honor for Gregorian chant in the liturgy of the Mass.
From a legal point of view, the Jefferson City case raises important issues that deserve special attention.
In the background is the fact that the decree in question appears to be inspired by the guidelines issued in 2020by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) “Catholic Hymnody at the Service of the Church: An Aid for Evaluating Hymn Lyrics” (2020)5. This document identifies three main areas of doctrinal focus for liturgical texts: the correct expression of faith in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist and in the sacrificial character of the celebration; a vision of the Church in accordance with its nature as the mystical body of Christ and not merely a sociological reality; and an anthropological conception consistent with Christian revelation and the dignity of the human person. These criteria are based on the conciliar constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium, which prescribes that liturgical texts must conform to Catholic doctrine and serve the majesty of divine worship6.
At the same time, it must be considered that the diocesan bishop has the right and duty to ensure compliance with liturgical prescriptions, avoiding abuses in divine worship7. It follows that Archbishop McKnight's intervention on liturgical music fell within his ordinary normative competence, although it had to be exercised in accordance with the principles of prudence and ecclesial communion.
As mentioned, a few days after the initial ban, the archbishop revoked the decision following protests mainly from lay people. He stated that, in the future, there would be “more in-depth consultations with stakeholders within the diocese” before further bans and that a “synodal” process would take place (cf. Catholic News Agency)8. Subsequently, in November 2024, the archdiocese issued guidelines9 to help parishes choose the most appropriate music for worship.
With regard to this synodal process aimed at promoting shared reflection on liturgical music, it is worth noting how it fits into the framework provided by the canons of the Codex Iuris Canonici on diocesan synods and pastoral councils, which are configured as consultative instruments for the People of God10.
The synodal process allows for a real dialogue between bishops, priests, musicians, and the faithful, and represents a practical application of the principle of participation and ecclesial co-responsibility advocated by Pope Francis, who initiated a synodal process—in the wake of the reception of the Second Vatican Council - which unfolded over the three-year period 2021-2024 and highlighted the richness of the charisms inspired by the Spirit11 and, at the same time, the urgency of consolidating structures and dynamics of communion, in dialogue between local Churches under the ministry of unity of the Bishop of Rome12. Francis, linking, according to Argentine theology, “the idea of the Church with that of the people, understood as evangelizers situated in time and space13”, he further highlighted the importance of synodality—understood as a style and institutional form of ecclesial life14—which values the sensus fidei of the baptized15, opening up to a broader co-responsibility in the processes of discernment and pastoral decisions. In this way, a virtuous circle is created between the sensus fidei of all the faithful and the authority of those who exercise the pastoral ministry16.
In this broader perspective, the regulation of sacred music is not limited to mere observance of the rules, but also involves the active participation of the faithful and respect for cultural plurality17. Liturgical music thus takes on an educational and identity-forming function, helping to strengthen the sense of community and ecclesial cohesion18.
In conclusion, in light of the above, the case of the Diocese of Jefferson City shows how the regulation of sacred music requires a delicate balance between doctrinal orthodoxy, episcopal authority, and the participation of the faithful. The synodal consultation, initiated after the decree was revoked, also attests that instruments of discernment and dialogue can be integrated into ecclesial practice without altering its hierarchical structure. In this sense, the episode confirms that liturgical music remains a space for communion and participation, in which community norms and sensibilities are intertwined in diocesan life19.
Désirèe Pappalardo
1 Catholic News Agency, ―Jefferson City Diocese bans 12 hymns, then withdraws list after controversy, October 2024.
2 FRANCIS, Address to the Roman Curia, December 21, 2019, in AAS 112 (2020), 3–10.
3 https://www.ilsussidiario.net/news/inni-sacri-negli-usa-il-dibattito-su-divieti-alcuni-sono-problematici-dal-punto-divista-teologico/2894667/
4 https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2024/10/31/diocese-bans-all-are-welcome-other-hymns-from-catholicmasses/
5 https://www.usccb.org/resources/Catholic%20Hymnody%20at%20the%20Service%20of%20the%20Church_0.pdf
6 Second Vatican Council, Sacrosanctum Concilium, December 4, 1963, nos. 112 and 121.
7 Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Decree implementing the provisions of can. 838 CIC/1983, 2017; For an analysis of the bishop's liturgical custodial function, see EUGENIO CORECCO, LIBERO GEROSA, La Chiesa e il suo diritto (The Church and its law), Milan, Jaca Book, 1995; GIANFRANCO GHIRLANDA, Il diritto nella Chiesa mistero di comunione (The Law in the Church: Mystery of Communion), Rome, Pontifical Gregorian University, various editions.
8 https://catholicvote.org/missouri-archbishop-weighs-in-on-debate-of-banning-problematic-hymns-from-mass/
9 https://diojeffcity.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Promoting-Active-Participation-in-the-Liturgy-ThroughSacred-Music-1.pdf
10 Code of Canon Law, 1983, book II, cann. 208–223; 460–468.
11 Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium, no. 7, November 21, 1964.
12 Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium, no. 13, November 21, 1964; cf. HERVÈ LEGRAND, Synodality and Catholicity, in Concilium, 2019; Final Document of the Second Session of the XVI Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops (October 2-27, 2024) ―For a Synodal Church: Communion, Participation, Mission, October 26, 2024 (https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/it/bollettino/pubblico/2024/10/26/0832/01659.html)
13 CARLO FANTAPPIÈ, Ancient and New Synodality: A Comparison, in State, Churches, and Confessional Pluralism, Online Journal, no. 1/2025, pp. 1–34.
14 International Theological Commission, Synodality in the Life and Mission of the Church, March 2, 2018, no. 70, in Enchiridion Vaticanum, vol. 35, LEV, Rome, no. 70.
15 Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium, no. 12, November 21, 1964; cf. AVERY DULLES, The Church and the Sensus Fidelium, in Theological Studies, (44) 1983, pp. 447-470.
16 For further discussion of this topic, see ORAZIO CONDORELLI, Principio elettivo, consenso, rappresentanza. Itinerari canonistici su elezioni episcopali, provvisioni papali e dottrine sulla potestà sacra, Il Cigno, Rome, 2003; EUGENIO CORECCO, Ontologia della sinodalità, in Ius et Communio, Scritti di diritto canonico, edited by GRAZIANO BORGONOVO, ARTURO CATTANEO, vol. II, Piemme, Casale Monferrato, 1997, pp. 82-108. See also DANIELA MILANI, ―Synodality as a criterion of government, in Roman Curia and Government of the Church. Between reformism and tradition, edited by MARIA d’ ARIENZO, MARIO G. FERRANTE, ANTONIO INGOGLIA, in Law and Religions, Monographic Notebook 5, Pellegrini, 2024, pp. 69-91.
17 See also EUGENIO CORECCO, entry on Synodality, in New Dictionary of Theology, edited by G. BARBAGLI AND S. DIANICH, Edizioni Paoline, Alba 1977, pp. 1466-1495; PAOLO CAVANA, ―La sinodalità nell'attività normativa della Chiesa‖ (Synodality in the Church's normative activity), in ―Dialoghi – la rivista, 4/2022, p. 78.
18 For an analysis of the relationship between liturgical music and religious identity, see MARIA D’ARIENZO, ―Lutheran choir, Calvinist psalter, Anglican anthem. Religious identities and liturgical music in the Protestant sphere,‖ in State, Churches, and Confessional Pluralism, no. 18, 2022.
19 For further information, see CRISTIANA CIANITTO, ―Il canto e il diritto: unità e pluralità nel popolo di Dio. Introduzione al tema‖(Singing and the law: unity and plurality in the people of God. Introduction to the topic), in Stato, Chiese e pluralismo confessionale, no. 14/2022, pp. 1-3.
