I’m not too surprised that my post linking diogenes surfaced the most comments so far this morning. Pretty soon it will surpass the fading traffic for meteor showers and be number one today.
What’s interesting is this telling temperature reading on the St Blog’s commentariat, when asked to “spot the liturgical abuses,” comments that included:
“There is ONE liturgical abuse in that photo: Clark’s ordination” — (this from a self-identified priest) … “Clark is just one pathetic looser (sic) … I am a Priest, but don’t dare post my name” … “one would hope that this ‘mass’ turned out to be invalid” … ” … hope this bishop has a disablity and or is incoherent …” …
Another anonymous commenter suggests, “ Yes, this all goes much deeper than mere liturgical abuse.”
Though I don’t think my “depth” assessment was the writer’s intent, it certainly does go deeper.
It bespeaks the continuing emergence of a pseudo-magisterium of tattletales or of anonymity, or sometimes of both. It includes priests such as this guy and this other guy who should realize that while they might be young, “orthodox,” and rarin’ to go*, their ordination bestows not just a certain quality of leadership, but also one of prudence and gravity. In other words, maybe the sheriff can’t join the lynch mob like he used to. Though heaven knows I share the itch to call people “nut jobs” (though probably not the same souls as attract the Catholic Right) I consider that my thoughts don’t have to match with one-hundred percent congruence my written or spoken words. Making judgments is part of the thinking human condition, but that doesn’t mean we’re obliged to act on our passions at every given opportunity.
I find it sadly amusing that lay people can so easily “spot” the liturgical abuses they want to avoid, even at the hands of a bishop. Yet they occasionally, at the urging of a yoartg* priest, they miss the more important abuse they perpetrate. Sometimes even at the encouragement of someone in leadership who should know better.
Somehow, I liked the days better when they taught Catholics and their clergy true charity. No wonder it’s such a theme of avoidance in St Blog’s these days.
25 April 2007 at 9:33 am
I guess I missed the footnote about what “yoartg” means.
Catholics, even American Catholics have the right to the Holy Mass as handed down by the Holy Father and the living Magesterium of the Catholic Church. When shepherds such as Bishop Clark, fail to deliver, or by their example or unspoken approval allow liturgical abuses to continue, we, the faithful, have the right to complain. One of the main reasons is that it is scandalous to the faithful and the greater Christian community giving fuel to our detractors and making our faith look silly.
You can identify liturgical abuses in a charitable manner. There is no need for name calling, but the faithful are not required to put up with everything their parish priest or bishop dishes out if it is contrary to the specific and clear mandates of the GIRM, or other official Vatican or USCCB documents.
25 April 2007 at 9:40 am
Trust in the shepherd sent for the time and parish is as much a holy act of will as it is faith. Our local worship director mentioned once that Rome encourages tattling of liturgical abuses but there is also high local criticism of clergy vs. clergy where a line seems to be drawn between those under and over 50 that lacks a charitable openness both ways!
Maybe we’re led toward the option of receiving communion kneeling for a time…that could be seen as prophetic of the last day when every knee will bend before the Real Presence…or maybe our parish is led to join hands and encircle the altar during the Eucharistic Prayer, uniting more closely with Christ and one another…both have been done in recent years and neither has led us away from God. I shouldn’t have to question or research every liturgical move and make a report to Rome…that’s between a priest and his bishop!
25 April 2007 at 10:28 am
…*yoartg…*Young, Orthodox and Rarin’ to Go
25 April 2007 at 4:27 pm
What’s wrong with obeying the Church? Why draw ideological lines in the sand? Christ wants true charity from us, as you said, but he also demands obedience. Don’t make a mistake in your own anger and divorce the two! It is He who said, “He who listens to you, listens to me.”
25 April 2007 at 7:49 pm
A few things:
Americans often frame matters in terms of rights. The Vatican would recognize such things to a degree, but perhaps not in the New World sense of deprivation of experience. I never read anything from actual participants in this dorm Mass as pictured, so it escapes me (as it might escape an American court) just how the rights of the complainers were abused.
Let’s also remember that college campuses are often considered mission territory. Should a bishop or pastor be permitted leeway to celebrate the Sacraments, including Mass, in such a way that greater goals are achieved? Would we be so quick to criticize a Mass celebrated for soldiers in an Iraqi sand field, or clergy (including the yoartg guys) on a vacation camping trip or even a motel room?
What’s wrong with obedience to the Church? Nothing, really. But it’s not a selective obedience for things that make us confortable: an important facet for people on any side of an ideological divide to remember.
25 April 2007 at 10:27 pm
The question is whether or not it was necessary for the bishop to celebrate the presumed Mass with such a lack of decorum. I would guess (one could easily check Google Maps) there’s a Catholic church somewhere near, if not the Cathedral. What about vestments? Orientation of the Mass? That’s about all we can see from the pictures, but those aspects are severely lacking from what is possible (unless the chairs are mounted to the floor) in the space provided. Somehow I doubt the 17th century missionaries to Japan would celebrate Mass seated on the ground or wearing a kimono.
The reference to military chaplancies only weakens the point. It’s my understanding that chaplains have “portable altars” to carry with them to say Mass on, and that their vestments, while often lighter than at a parish Mass, are none the less mostly complete.
And before you launch into how the bishop had to “meet the students on their level”, I’ll remind you that I am the age of those students. At 21, I can appreciate a Mass. At 21, or even 18, the youth of America are not so dimwitted that a bishop putting on an alb (an ALB, for pete’s sake!) is going to make us confused. Tony is right, that those students deserve a well-done, thoughtful Mass just as much as the congregation at my church and yours do. If I were to have to play for, say, a jail ministry Mass and all I had was a $50 Casio keyboard, I wouldn’t hit the “polka beat” button, lay back, and fumble through “Here I am, Lord”. I’d do my best, even given my limitations. What this is about is the bishop NOT doing that, and thereby setting a poor example in his diocese. I really don’t see how that Mass (I have heard that it IS a Mass) is at all defensible. I’m not asking for a Pontiffical High Mass in Latin with Gregorian chant (ok, I am…), I’m just asking that people in my generation be treated with enough respect to put some effort into Mass with us. The bishop doesn’t even care enough about us in our 20s to move his chair across the room.
26 April 2007 at 8:28 am
Gavin,
The point of this post was more about lack of charity than the particulars of the liturgy. If someone had e-mailed me the photo and asked my liturgical opinion, I would’ve given one closer to yours than to Bishop Clark’s. But nobody did. And since the lack of charity was far more striking to me, that’s what I chose to comment upon.
My post is really more about the culture of tattling the internet has spawned, which I believe is worsened by Catholics, and perhaps priests in particular, setting poor examples. The fact that St Bloggers and their commentariats pile so happily on strikes me as a serious shortcoming: the notion that when you’re right or when you think you’re right you have free license to offer insult and wrap yourself in the cloak of John 2:13ff.
So … are you asking for my liturgical opinion now?
26 April 2007 at 9:35 am
just how the rights of the complainers were abused.
Many times it’s not the rights of the complainers which are being abused, it’s the rights of the participants, who many times don’t know their rights are being abused.
And I wasn’t commenting specifically on the “dorm mass”, because I have been involved in holy masses outside of a church / chapel setting which were very prayerful, dignified and proper.
Part of the problem is that when you have a shepherd who on a consistent basis allows his “lambs legs to get broken” you begin to wonder is anyone is watching.
Part of the uncharity, I believe, comes from Bp. Clark’s long history of abuses. So that when he does something that is fairly benign, people look for the specific wrongs.
Also, the internet and sites like YouTube have allowed people to share their outrage over the most egregious abuses. When you see things like a homosexual priest dunking the butt of a naked baby in the holy water font three times in the name of the Father [dunk] and of the Son [dunk] and of the Holy Spirit [dunk], are you required to be charitable? If you can’t be charitable, are you required to be silent?!?!?!
People’s souls are at stake.
26 April 2007 at 10:29 am
Todd, I think we’re in agreement then. Even the comments that spread about you fall nowhere in the shadow areas of “correcting the sinner” or “righteous anger”. A lot (and I mean 90%) of the comments about the bishop resulting from this picture are the exact opposite of charitable. On the other hand, I think Rich, as he lives in the diocese and does some “whistleblowing” on his blog, had a right to be upset about it, and as I recall handled it with charity and sincere concern. So I don’t think it’s right to label all concern over the Mass as hateful troublemaking, although much of it is. The truly sad thing is that this is unsurprising coming from the Catholic blogosphere. They have a reason, legitimate or not, to bash their favorite people (Pelosi, Kerry, Kenedy, NCR, and even BISHOPS) and the blogosphere erupts into a firestorm of hate. And when someone (you) tries to shed a bit of “sensibility” on it, you become a target as well. It really is sickening and it never seems to change.
26 April 2007 at 1:31 pm
In addition to the lack of charity, I would also point out the prevalence of rash judgment. One cannot look at a photograph and know all the circumstances associated with the situation. Yet some see the photo and assume the worst intentions. From the photo, you can see a lack of vestments and a coffee table. Bit that’s all you can see; the intent is not visible.
Example: in two past pilgrimages to the Holy Land, we desired to celebrate Eucharist in the Upper Room. For those who haven’t been there, it’s an empty space without altar or seating. So we brought a folding table, set it up quickly, donned albs and stoles and began. When it came time to sit, we sat on the floor. We had no hosts available, so we used matzoh, which is entirely valid as it is made only from water and wheat (we checked).
Now if someone were to see photos of that celebration, they might complain that we used matzoh, or that we had no chasubles or dalmatics, or that we sat on the floor during the readings. “Certainly there are many chuches in Jerusalem you could have used,” they might say. But no church would have provided the same experience of celebrating the Eucharist in that place.
So we must be careful to ascribe intentions merely from a photo or a media report. A picture does not always tell 1000 words; sometimes it is just a picture.