Amazing Grace- Understanding in the Light of Catholicism Part 1 of 3

Can Amazing Grace be understood in an orthodox, Catholic way? My answer is yes.This is a pretty hot topic. I've seen people almost get into blows over the issue of whether Amazing Grace can be understood as a Catholic hymn.


In the left corner, weighing in at 238 lbs,. is the conservative Catholic. This boxer points to the problems that (possibly) exist with the hymn, and at the same time stresses that an emotional attachment should not play a factor in the use of a hymn during Mass. Instead, orthodox teaching and lay merit (in-so-far as it has a register that most people can sing in, as opposed to a high pitched hymn). One proponent of this view would be Michael Voris of RealCatholicTV. He has a video about it here.

In the other corner, weighing in at 238 lbs., is the emotionally attached Catholic (probably a Protestant convert to Catholicism). This Catholic has fond memories of Amazing Grace (probably the first song he or she learned, not to mention that it was played at their wedding and at every funeral). This boxer upholds the musical and lyrical beauty of the hymn, and fights against the biasness that seems to exist against anything Protestant.

And then there's me. I don't have any attachment to Amazing Grace. It's a pretty song, I think. At the same time, however, I don't cower at all things/practices Protestant. Along with that, I am an orthodox, conservative Catholic. So now I'm throwing my hat into the ring:

All three of those are, of course, generalities and light-hearted jabs. Nevertheless, it raises interesting points and helps bring to light the issues facing a discussion on Amazing Grace.

There seems to exist three issues that keep people from accepting Amazing Grace as a Catholic hymn. 1) It's written by a Protestant; 2) The use of the word 'wretch' implies total depravity, a belief not consistent with Catholic theology; and 3) a sola fide (faith alone) theology appears in such contexts as 'how precious did that Grace appear the hour I first believed'.

1) It's written by a Protestant.

I don't mean this flippantly, but... so what? Must everything Catholic originate in the Catholic tradition? Must everything Catholic be created or started by a Catholic? The practices and traditions (lower case -t) of the early Church came from Jewish practices! Still today, many traditions are Jewish in nature (use of candles, the Old Testament, incense, etc.).

What makes these things acceptable is that they have been 'baptized Catholic'. What I mean by this is that non-Catholic practices/traditions/objects/items have been taken and 'baptized', or given a Catholic meaning. Case-in-point: incense originated in many other traditions (Judaism, Zoroastrianism, to name a few). Yet we have taken incense, given it a Catholic meaning, and continued the practice. There's a few Christmas traditions (again, emphasis on lower case -t) that have pagan origins. These have been 'Christianized' or, as I like to say, 'baptized Catholic'.

I posit, then, that hymns are no exception. If a hymn is written by a Protestant, but it's theology is consisten with the Catholic Church, then the fact that it is Protestan in origin should not itself keep it from being used in the Catholic Church. Now, if a Protestant wrote a hymn with a lyric such as 'Communion is only a symbol of your death' or 'we continue in your love by faith alone' then we would certainly not want to use that. Those lines, flat-out, are not consistent with the Catholic Church.

Let's see an example of a line that is intended to say one thing, but can be 'baptized Catholic' and made to say something else: 'we look to you and no other.' The writer intends for this line to mean that it is only to Christ that a Christian should look to and pray to, and not to any saint. Well, one could still reconcile this line with Catholic theology by seeing that we do look to Christ as G-d, as our saviour, and to no other. But that this doesn't mean that the saints do not exist, simply that we only look to G-d as our Source and Saviour. Basically... you take a line/lyric and interpret it differently than the author intended it.

What is the difference between doing that and taking a practice or tradition, and interpreting it in a different light? An atheist might give money to someone that really needed it. The atheist did not intend to be an agent of G-d, but we can certainly interpret the fact that indeed he or she was being an agent of G-d.

Maybe I haven't made myself clear, or maybe I'm just wrong. What do you think?