Catholic Sensibility

For the origin of Jewish Pentecost, consult the Torah here. The festival fifty days after Passover was a dedication of the first fruits of the agricultural activity of the ancient Israelites. (No wonder the claim the discples had drunk too much new wine.) The descent of the Holy Spirit may well be a first fruit of God’s grace in the era of evangelization and universal salvation.

I found Deuteronomy 16:12-15 interesting:

Remember that you too were once slaves in Egypt, and carry out these statutes carefully. You shall celebrate the feast of Booths for seven days, when you have gathered in the produce from your threshing floor and wine press. You shall make merry at your feast, together with your son and daughter, your male and female slave, and also the Levite, the alien, the orphan and the widow who belong to your community. For seven days you shall celebrate this pilgrim feast in honor of the Lord, your God, in the place which he chooses; since the Lord, your God, has blessed you in all your crops and in all your undertakings, you shall do nought but make merry.

A reminder, again, of the origins in slavery and destitution. Then a party for everyone.

A reminder from St Cyril of Jerusalem about our confirmation:

Be sure not to regard the chrism merely as ointment. Just as the bread of the eucharist after the invocation of the Holy Spirit is no longer just bread, but the body of Christ, so the holy chrism after the invocation is no longer ordinary ointment but Christ’s grace, which through the presence of the Holy Spirit instills his divinity into us.

May the Holy Spirit strengthen us all on this pilgrim way.

When Republicans utter this term as an epithet against Judge Sotomayor, maybe they really mean “activism against our own preferences.” Consider the percentage of votes to strike down congressional legislation by 1991-2005 SCOTUS justices: Justice Thomas 65, Justice Kennedy 64, Justice Scalia 56, Justice Rehnquist 47, Justice O’Connor 47, Justice Souter 42, Justice Stevens 39, Justice Ginsburg 39, Justice Breyer 28.

A reader asked how I would deal with the following situation of a new music director expanding the liturgical music repertoire:

“As I am sure you can read between the lines, I have become very frustrated with the situation (in my parish).  My biggest concern is the overall health and well being of the congregation and the cantors.  It seems I am approached by other cantors on a regular basis with them expressing stress and that they are overwhelmed with the new music.  I find myself assuring them that they can do it, that they will recognize it, generally trying to build up their confidence. 

I am also afraid that … the constant changing of music tends to “disenfranchise” the congregation.  I would appreciate your insight.

Here were some specific questions:

1. how much new music to throw at the cantors and ultimately the congregation and how fast.

If a parish is teaching more than one new piece a month, my assessment would be: too much. There should be a reason for every repertoire novelty, something a little deeper than “This is the best chant!” or “This is the latest David Haas!” New music should have a purpose. That said, six times a year would be good for a good singing congregation. Less if the overall repertoire were satisfactory. Maybe more with a new hymnal or a hymnal supplement.

Whenever I use new music, I make sure to balance it out with other selections well-loved and well-sung. I could manufacture a whole post on managing a congregational repertoire … another day.

2. how much time is reasonable to give cantors to be ready to lead congregations in new music?

It depends on the expectations and abilities. Do your parish cantors possess an optimal musicianship? In other words, can they read and interpret music and internalize it quickly? Or are they expected to show up, announce the songs, sing into the mic, and just wave their arm when it’s time for the people to sing?

In a parish with multiple weekend liturgies, the “weakest” Mass will drive the implementation of new music. If one cantor or a set of cantors there takes longer to learn music, needs recordings, must be coached, etc., then three weeks’ notice would seem ample time. Another question is this: does the parish see teaching new music as a cantor’s responsibility, or is it better left to the music director?

3. the cantors have been asked to introduce the new mass parts at this week before Mass but not sing them during mass until the following week.  Is this a reasonable teaching concept?

First, I don’t know why a parish would be implementing a new Mass setting now, unless it were in Latin. Not only will texts change, but new music will need to be acquired, and there’s the possibility a composer will decline to refurbish an old setting. Learning a new Mass setting now is imprudent, in my opinion, unless there was a really, really important reason to do so.

But if I were to implement a new Mass setting, the white post-Pentecost feasts aren’t a bad time. I would phase in the Eucharistic acclamations first, on Trinity Sunday. Week two, I would teach the music for the Fraction Rite (Lamb of God). Week three and beyond for the Gloria. Then the Lord Have Mercy on week five or later.

Teach one week and sing them the next? I think it’s better to jump in all at once. Some music directors play new music instrumentally the week before teaching to get the melody in the heads of the congregation. I haven’t done that often.

Anybody else have advice for my friend?

After the optional presentation of a gospel book, a bible, or a cross, the rite moves to its conclusion.

65. Then the sponsors and the whole congregation join in the following or a similar formulary of intercession for the catechumens.

I won’t reproduce the seven intercessions here. Just know that the rite gives the option for parishes to compose their own. If the Rite of Acceptance is celebrated at Mass, the general intercessions which are to come later may be omitted. If they are, two petitions, one for the Church, and one for the whole world, are added to the prayers for the catechumens.

Instead of a “concluding prayer” for the intercessions, two options are given in the rite, one of which is to be used. Here’s option A:

(God of our forebears and) God of all creation,
we ask you to look favorably on your servants N. and N.;
make them fervent in spirit,
joyful in hope,
and always ready to serve your name.

Lead them, Lord, to the baptism of new birth,
so that, living a fruitful life in the company of your faithful,
they may receive the eternal reward that you promise.

We ask this in the name of Jesus the Lord.

These prayers are often illustrative of the key aims of the catechesis and formation for the sacraments. This prayer, as one example, emphasizes three qualities to cultivate in newcomers: fervor, hope, and a readiness to serve. It also emphasizes the post-baptismal life, a life that we hope and pray will bear fruit in service and in a loving example for others. Thus the faith continues to be handed on to others.

Option B speaks of a petition that, “in time they may assume the full likeness of Christ.” The imitation of Christ is a time-honored aspiration. If that has been touched upon in the initial inquiry meetings, option B might be a better choice for the rite. Let me suggest that the choice of these prayers shouldn’t be so much about the priest’s or liturgist’s preference, but what qualities are in need among the catechumens. It should also go without saying that composed prayers should be crafted not only for the composer’s aesthetic sensibility, but also for true and actual need. The input of the catechumenate ministry should be considered, if one wants to celebrate these liturgies most fully.

Next post: Dismissal, but meanwhile, any comments?

Crunchy con Rod Dreher and his Texas confreres don’t get to many hockey games, do they?

Richardson (Texas) school district officials issued an apology this week, after receiving complaints that a choir sang the Mexican national anthem at a school concert.

Before the start of last week’s spring concert at Greenwood Hills Elementary, the school choir sang “Texas Our Texas,” the Mexican national anthem and “The Star-Spangled Banner.” The choir then performed its spring program.

The most outrageous thing about this was the apology. So sorry that bleeding heart, weak constitutioned parents were mad. I’m sure their stomachs turned when we were forced to play so many national anthems in Salt Lake City, Atlanta, Los Angeles, Lake Placid, Squaw Valley, St Louis.

Hear the instrumental version here.

Did you know that there are assigned Lectionary readings for the Rite of Acceptance? They are not used too often, but liturgical tradition would seem to indicate they could be used when the Rite of Acceptance takes place on a weekday, or on Sundays outside of the major seasons, or on a non-solemnity. Let’s look at the rubrics for it:

61. After the catechumens have reached their places, the celebrant speaks to them briefly, helping them to understand the dignity of God’s word, which is proclaimed and heard in the church.

The Lectionary for Mass or the Bible is carried in procession and placed with honor on the lectern, where it may be incensed.

The celebration of the liturgy of the word follows.

How would you interpret these rubrics? The given order is explicit: first the catechumens are seated, then the priest gives a brief instruction, then Lectionary or Bible (but not the Book of Gospels) is brought into place. Incense optional.

My sense is that given the option to use a Bible, the important aspect of this opening ritual for the Liturgy of the Word is that catechumens are to be impressed upon that the Word in its totality is to be reverenced. Certainly, they are experiencing the spiritual aspect of divine revelation through God’s grace in their lives. My interpretation is that the procession with the Lectionary or Bible is not optional. In my parish, we always process the Gospel Book and enthrone it on the altar at the start of Mass. I would see this ritual as taking place at the beginning of the Liturgy of the Word, not the beginning of Mass. And if the Rite of Acceptance didn’t include the Liturgy of the Eucharist, I would opt for one procession, the Lectionary.

62. The readings may be chosen from any of the readings in the Lectionary for Mass that are suited to the new catechumens or the following may be used.

First Reading Genesis 12:1-4a

Responsorial Psalm Psalm 33:4-5, 12-13, 18-19, 20 and 22

Verse before the Gospel John 1:41, 17b

Gospel John 1:35-42

63. A homily follows that explains the readings.

It’s perhaps unusual a rite as important as the Rite of Acceptance would not have three readings. Note that the rite gives the option to search through the entire Lectionary for something “suited” to the new catechumens. The possibilities from the Gospels are numerous: the call of the apostles, the beatitudes, Jesus’ reply to “Blessed are the breasts and womb,” the greatest commandment, perhaps.

Psalm 33 is one of the underappreciated psalms in the Lectionary. Outside of the nine ordinary time common psalms, it is perhaps the most frequently used, and it pops up a few times in the Sunday Lectionary, and even at the occasional wedding.

Another optional ritual:

64. A book containing the gospels may be given to the catechumens by the celebrant; a cross may also be given, unless this has already been done as one of the additional rites (see RCIA 74). The celebrant may use words suited to the gift presented, for example, “Receive the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God,” and the catechumens may respond in an appropriate way.

Does it make sense to wait for the conclusion of the celebration of the Word to give a Bible? Given the verbiage coming up in the intercessions, prayer, and dismissal, my suggestion would be to have the catechumens come forward (or remain in their seats) and present the Bibles silently and with reverence.

Other thoughts or comments?

As promised in the last post, I’ll give you some tips on wedding musicians today: what you can expect, how you should conduct yourself, what to ask. Stuff like that.

As always, this advice is lensed through my experiences as a church musician generally happy with playing weddings. My stake is playing weddings as a religious musician more concerned about the ritual of a wedding and the spiritual message communicated, and much less as a performer aiming for a splashy sound. That’s not to say I don’t care about how I play, or that I don’t strive for personal excellence in music. It’s number two to God, that’s all.

As an engaged couple, you may find your church requires you to use their music director. This is not a totally bad thing. The music director, after all, has the keys, knows the instruments, and can give you good advice on singers, instrumentalists, and repertoire. You might be expected to pay a “bench fee” if you use somebody else, guaranteeing the church person the business she or he was promised in her or his contract.

Assuming you have some options for wedding musicians (and I include singers, accompanists, and other instruments), here’s what’s appropriate and what’s not:

You can shop around. It is considered good manners (and financially prudent) to ask up front what a musician charges. You will be entering into an oral agreement when you get to the point of “We would like to have you play at our wedding.” It is considered bad form to book the first available musician, then keep hunting for a better price, cutting loose the first musician to save a few bucks.

You can and should ask the musician what style of music they prefer. You can meet with a person face-to-face–interview them, in effect, before making a final decision.

Almost all wedding musicians are free agents. They may or may not be associated with the church. Rarely are they paid by the church to do a wedding. You will be their employer, so while you should take the lead and live up to your responsibilities, as good consultants/employees/contractors, they will give you good advice. It will be to your advantage to consider their input.

The organist or pianist is usually the “director” of your wedding music. You can expect to have a meeting with this person to select music. How will that go? Maybe you know nothing about music and come to the meeting with no suggestions. I ask couples these questions: Do you see this wedding as an expression of your faith life and your style? If so, what qualities are most important? Dignity, informality, high-class, reflective, fun, jazzy, serious, traditional, off-the-beaten-path, big and bold and brassy, or intimate and thoughtful. An experienced musician will know pieces of music that fit these qualities. 

You can also bring no input at all to the consultation. The musician will simply bring out a big book of wedding music (it might be in his or her head) and start playing the most popular music and work on from there.

You don’t need to know anything about church music to give a piece a thumbs up or down. You may not need to hear it all the way through. Just say, “No thanks, we’d like to hear something else, please.” It helps if you can add a comment like “something faster” or “something more reflective” or something along those lines. Most musicians are patient enough to keep the music flowing.

You might want to know a musician can get great versatility on a pipe organ, so you might like the song, but not the sound. You could impress the organist and ask for a registration that will make it sound totally different.

How long should this consultation last? What should be decided by the end of it? Wait for the next post. This is enough for today.

This isn’t intended to be a smart-aleck question, but a serious one. How often should the Church celebrate holy years? I noticed that Spain observes fourteen “Years of James” per century: every time the feast of St James falls on a Sunday. Another starts seven weeks from Sunday.

On the other hand, given the near-total silence on the Year of Paul, maybe we need all the special years we can get.

All of the rituals of the past eight sections (RCIA 50-57) are presumed to take place outside the church proper (or inside the entrance or “elsewhere”) as RCIA 48 directs. Many parish adapt this somewhat, holding part of the liturgy outside the nave, the signing of the senses in the nave, and break for a procession somewhere in between. What is the best practice? What does your parish do for infants?

RCIA 58 & 59 provide for options “at the discretion of the diocesan bishop,” the giving of a new name (RCIA 73) and/or “additional rites signifying the reception into the community, for example the presentation of a cross (RCIA 74) or some other symbolic act.” We’ll take a closer look at these options when we get to the RCIA 70′s. I’ve seen the presentation of a cross incorporated into the signing of the senses. It’s pragmatic. It links Christ, the community, and the ritual action.

RCIA 60 is titled “Invitation to the Celebration of the Word of God.” First, a brief rubric:

60. The celebrant next invites the catechumens and their sponsors to enter the church (or the place where the liturgy of the word will be celebrated). He uses the following or similar words, accompanying them with some gesture of invitation.

N, and N, come into the church, to share with us at the table of God’s word.

During the entry an appropriate song is sung or the following antiphon with Psalm 34:2,3,6,9,10,11,16.

Come, my children, and listen to me;
I will teach you the fear of the Lord.

Commentary:

Outdoor liturgy can be awkward, and not every church property is built to handle outdoor rituals. I can understand why decisions are made to keep most or all of the rite of acceptance indoors. I don’t feel inclined to criticize this too harshly. However, were I planning with a pastor and catechumenate director, I would try to surface the option frequently and keep it in mind as an ideal to be explored.

Note that by the end of the signing of the senses, the candidates have now become catechumens. They are referenced as “candidates” at the end of the signing of the senses, and as “catechumens” from this moment until the Rite of Election.

I can’t let a musical instruction escape without a few thoughts. Note that the “appropriate song” is the first choice, and the setting of Psalm 34 the second. You may notice that Psalm 34 is often used in the Lectionary in connection with the Eucharist. It is also one of nine common psalms for ordinary time. Here are the verses suggested:

I will bless the Lord at all times; praise shall be always in my mouth.
My soul will glory in the Lord that the poor may hear and be glad.
Look to God that you may be radiant with joy and your faces may not blush for shame.
Learn to savor how good the Lord is; happy are those who take refuge in him.
Fear the Lord, you holy ones; nothing is lacking to those who fear him.
The powerful grow poor and hungry, but those who seek the Lord lack no good thing.
The Lord has eyes for the just and ears for their cry.

What would the text of that “appropriate song” look like? These verses provide a clue, as do the texts of the rite itself. I would look for a focus on the agency of God, of grace, of the notion of praise of God.

I can’t escape the observation that like David Haas’ signing acclamation, these texts are preachy texts. By this I mean that God is referred to not in the first person (“voice of God”) or in the second person (a direct address of God as we read in most any prayer text) but in the third person. In the Scriptures, this is a wisdom figure communicating with a disciple just how to approach God. In a way, Psalm 34 and the suggested verses involve the assembly singing to the newcomers, “This is what I do, you should follow my example.”

Any other comments here?

CNS put this one at the bottom of today’s list. Just when you might have thought the sacred universe revolved around someplace in the US…

I looked up Archbishop Paulin Pomodimo on the Catholic Hierarchy site. Ordained a bishop at age 41. At the helm of the metropolitan see of Bangui for less than six years. Did all of his priests’ ladyfriends and children just appear since 2003? Or perhaps there’s something else at work in this African church. His predecessor, Joachim N’Dayen, was elevated at age 33 (in 1968) and held office for as many years, excluding time spent as co-adjutor archbishop.

Or perhaps something else is at work in Rome. This item from the secular outlet Africa News presents another side to this. It quoted a letter from Cardinal Ivan Dias, Prefect for Peoples Evangelization Congregation, to CAR priests:

(M)any bad things have been done to the body of Christ through poor and scandalous comportments.

It is pointless to deny what every body knows. There is no need judging the motives and circumstances of the evil that has been committed. Members of the national clergy, diocesans and religious, you are, in one way or the other, accomplice of the current situation, but each of you shall assume his own culpability proportionally to his own responsibility.

Yikes. Pretty strong words for a letter to clergy published in Le Confident, a Bangui daily. More from Africa News:

Another local daily called L’Hirondelle of 23 May reported that it is in connection with the affair that Rome refused to give to the Central African Church, during the last papal visit in Cameroon, the Instrumentum Laboris – a basic document for the next African synod that each country is supposed to have. L’Hirondelle continued that since then a vast readjustment process has been launched by Vatican.

It is in reaction to the foregoing that indigenous clergymen coming from nine Central African dioceses held the sacerdotal solidarity meeting at Bangui Cathedral on 24 May. They opposed the removal of Monsignor Pomodimo and accused the apostolic nuncio of being discriminatory, partial and selective in the assessment of the situation, since white priests and bishops are also guilty of the same practices.

White priests and bishops indeed. Archbishop Pomodimo doesn’t appear to be in line to take over a major Roman basilica as archpriest, does he? I also don’t see proportional culpability levelled on Irish or American or Australian or other bishops for presiding over sex scandals, do you? Women religious, perhaps.

Let’s be realistic. Roman Catholicism is a big operation. Maybe the Congregation for Evangelization decided to handle this with more firmness than the CDF. No consolation for the CAR clergy and the now-retired archbishop. Pomodimo must have been involved with a woman and children himself to have had the resignation accepted in Rome so quickly. Otherwise, this does look pretty damning for the appearance of racism. I don’t suppose anybody out there is reading this who has more on-the-ground information.

I don’t begrudge comtemplative women’s orders their boom. I doubt any mature woman religious does either. The CNS news note about a new book seems to be incomplete, or I hope it is.

The book, titled “The Foundations of Religious Life: Revisiting the Vision” and published by Ave Maria Press, is a project of the (Council of Major Superiors of Women Religious). It explores why the orders represented by the council are gaining numbers and how they are living out the vision of consecrated life described by the Second Vatican Council. The book, released May 16, consists of essays written by six religious sisters representing five orders. The topics they address are: religious consecration, the spousal bond, the threefold response to vows, communion in community, and mission.

These topics are important, and relevant, too. That “spousal bond” continues to be a curiosity, at least for me. I know the history, the “culture” behind it; my upbringing as a Catholic wasn’t that impoverished. However, in the sacrament of marriage, there is a mutuality and complementarity between spouses. While it’s true that every relationship with God is in some way mutual, and the Church as a whole is sometimes described as a wife, the metaphor fails when looked at too closely. My suggestion would be to find some non-marital expression of the consecrated life. I’m not so ready to lend a sacramental image near and dear to me. And then we get to the sexual and procreative overtones. I guess I’ll have to read the book. The list of essays don’t address what I see as the main thing leading young women to religious life: the charisms of contemplation, stability, and the monastic tradition–as opposed to the mendicant tradition and its daughter movements.

Lay women know they can live a holy and religious life as a married or single woman in the world. They can work for the Church, and to all outward appearances, have all the advantages of community life (with family, friends, colleagues, and as associates of religious orders) without commiting to celibacy, poverty, chastity, or obedience.

I’m doubtful about the “countercultural” aspect, except that every generation of Catholic religious have striven for some degree of counterculturalism. In part, they separate in some way from the world, but lay women, again, can do this by homeschooling their children, by adopting voluntary poverty, by advocating for peace and justice, and by doing all sorts of things that don’t buy into the materialism, consumerism, and general tilted outlook of the secular culture.

As for what’s within the Church, I doubt the big orders, Franciscans, Benedictines, and Dominicans are going away anytime soon. So, no, I don’t buy into the habit thing. It’s got to be more than that.

(This is Neil) The Covenant website has a very good short article by the Anglican priest Dan Martins promisingly entitled “Notes Toward a Comprehensive Theory of Church Music.” He makes three points of likely interest to readers of our blog:

First, Fr Martins points us to Augustine’s Confessions (X.33), where the saint acknowledges that singing at church can move listeners “with the things sung” and that “by the delight of the ears, the weaker minds may rise to the feeling of devotion.” But Augustine still worries about the “contentment of the flesh,” being moved by the “singing itself,” and acknowledges that “when it befalls me to be more moved with the voice than the words sung, I confess to have sinned penally, and then had rather not hear music.”

Augustine points us to what Fr Martins calls a “tension … between liturgy qua liturgy and music qua music.” Music might begin as self-consciously “liturgical” music, but then it develops a “life of its own,” and, soon enough, the members of the assembly, lacking proper technique, have become mere spectators before trained performers, the texts of the liturgy have become secondary to the music, and the liturgical space is itself dominated by an orchestra.

There have been continuous attempts to reform music so that it remains “liturgical.” While the stories about the origins of Palestrina’s Missa Papae Marcelli in Tridentine controversies over the intricacies of polyphonic music are probably just stories, the Reformers did wish to restore simplicity – John Merbecke’s settings of the Prayer Book texts for Holy Communion follow the principle of one syllable for each note, and William Byrd’s settings for the Prayer Book are homophonic. We are also reminded that Pope Pius X, in his 1903 motu proprio, Tra le Sollecitudine, sought to restore church music from, in part, “the fatal influence exercised on sacred art by profane and theatrical art,” or, in Fr Martins’ words, “the mammoth choral and orchestral Masses and Requiems of composers like Verdi and Berlioz.”

Perhaps, then, any present “tension … between liturgy qua liturgy and music qua music” might seem inevitable. But Fr Martins suggests that we must always follow a “Prime Directive”: “Let the liturgy be the Liturgy.” Music, he claims, is a “wonderful servant but a horrible master.”

This means that, second, we must realize that the liturgy already “has a discernible shape, rhythm, and flow.” Music must serve these ends, not replace them.  “Unfortunately, the most important question in planning liturgical music is the one that too often never gets asked: ‘What music will best serve the needs of this particular celebration on this particular day with this particular congregation at this particular point in the service?’” Our intention should be to plan what the late Fr Aidan Kavanaugh very deliberately called “liturgical music”: “By this I mean music which is so congruent with the liturgical act, and so available to actual congregations of worshipers as to their being able to hear it all as well as able to sing most of it, that the music flows into the very fabric of the act as a whole with seeming effortlessness.” (See my post here.)

And, third, Fr Martins tells us, as we consider his question, to remember a rather unfortunate fact

…I’m talking about the fact that we invariably ask people to sing in church (except at those anomalous Low Masses), but church is increasingly the only place where that request is made. I think it is arguable that there is presently no vibrant (or even living) American folk music (in the sense of a genre and repertoire in which most people can readily participate) tradition. We are culturally bereft. Think about it: In movies from fifty and sixty years ago—I’m not talking about musicals, but straight dramas and comedies—it was not implausible for there to be a scene of spontaneous singing (often with someone playing the piano, also a dying skill). Aside from stylistic conventions, such a scene would be literally incredible in a film set in today’s culture.

It’s not that music isn’t important to people—quite the contrary; witness the explosion of iPod sales in the last decade, and the growing dependence on having “my music” available 24/7. But “my music” is something I passively receive, and not something I’m likely to get together with friends and attempt to spontaneously replicate. And if I’m at all inclined to do so, it’s probably with the assistance of karaoke equipment. We may even be at the point where recorded music has become the norm and live performance the aberration—not only in bars but at weddings and funerals. (The culprits are probably legion; my candidate is the steady erosion of music education in the public schools.)

Singing together, then, used to manifest the unity of the Body Christ – that the church really was, in Cyprian’s phrase, “a people brought into one by the unity of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (my emphasis). But now we associate music with “passivity and artificiality.” Music for many of us is not a form of active participation with others. It is something that we receive, by ourselves, at the press of a button, whenever we desire.

What is to be done about this sad state of affairs? Fr Martins tentatively suggests that the church might need to “cultivate (once again?) a musical idiom that is distinctly ecclesiastical.”   

What do you think?

Sorry for the delay in continuing this series. We left off with the signing of the forehead of the candidates with the cross. Unlike at infant baptism, other senses may be signed. First the rubrics:

56. The signing is carried out by the catechists or the sponsors. (If required by special circumstances, this may be done by assisting priests or deacons.) The signing of each sense may be followed by an acclamation in praise of Christ, for example,”Glory and praise to you, Lord Jesus Christ.”

Here are the texts for signing:

Receive the sign of the cross on your ears,
that you may hear the voice of the Lord.

Receive the sign of the cross on your eyes,
that you may see the glory of God.

Receive the sign of the cross on your lips,
that you may respond to the Word of God.

Receive the sign of the cross over your heart,
that Christ may dwell there by faith.

Receive the sign of the cross on your shoulders,
that you may bear the gentle yoke of Christ.

Receive the sign of the cross on your hands,
that Christ will be known in the work that you do.

Receive the sign of the cross on your feet,
that you may walk in the way of Christ.

Without touching them, the celebrant alone makes the sign of the cross ocer all the candidates at once (or, if they are few, over each individually), saying:

I sign you with the sign of eternal life
in the name of the Father, and of the Son,
and of the Holy Spirit.

And the catechumens respond, “Amen.” After this, the concluding prayer follows.

 

Let us pray.

Almighty God,
by the cross and resurrection of your Son
you have given life to your people.

Your servants have received the sign of the cross:
make them living proof of its saving power
and help them to persevere in the footsteps of Christ.
We ask this through Christ our Lord.

Amen.

The signing of the senses is, as an observer or a participant from the pew or music ministry, a ritual highlight of the Rite of Acceptance. In “unpacking,” or reflecting on the experience with catechumens afterward, this is often the one which strikes them strongly. I don’t know how much of an historical innovation this was, but I’m not aware of any significant objection to the optional ritual.

I think I mentioned before my own questioning the use of David Haas’s commonly used acclamation, “Christ will be your strength; learn to know and follow him.” While it does pick up the ritual  language of the priest’s text, given the focus on Christ in the prayers and texts of the ritual, it now seems to me to be a little out of place.

What have been your experiences with this ritual?

Soon to be heard in a church–maybe your very own:

Pray brothers and sisters that … phshphsh … twenty-four, we need an ambulance at four-one-nine Benedict Way, elderly white female not responding to stimulus.

This has been coming down the pike for some years now, but if you haven’t heard, be forewarned. All you liturgists using wireless frequencies from 698 to 806 MHz, it’s getting close to time to pack your bags and your ear and hand mics, and clear on out. Tyler Charles at Christianity Today has the story.

I’m sure that reform2 folks with acoustically perfect choirs performing in acoustically perfect churches aren’t too worried. I’m mostly solid-state, too. But if the priest is using a clip-on wireless or an ear-thingy, after June 12th, watch out. Especially if you live in a large metro area. Kent Margraves of the Sennheiser Electronic Corporation tells it:

Even if (churches’ wireless systems) are licensed, it doesn’t matter. They will still have to vacate (the frequency) when the time comes. An official ban has not yet been ruled, but when it is, it will include them.

Should you choose to ignore Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, and everybody else with a slice of the 700 block …

(Your) wireless systems will not suddenly fail or shut down. They will, however, be at an increased risk of interference. As the new users of the 700 MHz band come online, wireless channels in that range may experience interference from cell phone and data services, emergency first responders, or other new services.

My biggest concern for churches on this topic is reliable performance. If a church is operating between 698-806 MHz, it is not unlikely that they will experience some sort of new interference in the coming weeks, months, or years.

Your church may have had good recent advice and your tech consultants may have placed you in the 500, 900, or another neighborhood. The article talks briefly about other options, including the choice some churches have made to donate 700MHz systems overseas where American telecoms don’t operate.

But if you’ve gone wireless for the mobility and convenience, you can be pretty sure that sometime between two weeks from Friday and the implementation of Roman Missal III the 700′s are going to see some rough sailing.

The heat over the Irish child abuse report continues. Dublin Archbishop Diarmuid Martin editoralizes today in the Irish Times. Archbishop Martin phrases this in a rather alarming way: survival. This newest shocking episode is going to set everybody back.

I know that many Catholics are concerned about homosexual individuals and couples adopting children. Their cred on the issue has eroded away, even as some apologists are quick to characterize male on male abuse as homosexual. Overall, the issue is so charged, I don’t have a hope that this adoption issue will ever get a calm and reasoned discussion. The status quo will remain: people wealthy and/or well-connected will adopt children, and most of those children will grow up reasonably healthy reared by reasonably loving parents. Or better. If you want to find worse, go to the report, and be confirmed in the knowledge that institutional child care by the Church is now suspect.

This sets the bishops back. Given the hair-trigger on Archbishop Nichols, there’s no agreement within their own ranks about how to address this. A bishop’s seemingly innocuous (by some accounts) statement is pounced upon by another bishop for being insufficiently penitent. Just imagine what the lay people are thinking.

This sets ecumenism back. A Lutheran minister, Donald Heinz, suggests “institutional Catholicism … is nearly unredeemable.” More:

The moral compass of modern Catholicism has only one true north — institutional self-preservation. Everything else is relative. It will not do to argue that “most” priests did not in fact abuse children. The fact is that the entire hierarchy (which constitutes the definition of “church”) has been and remains complicit and therefore utterly compromised.

“Reform in head and members” was the call of the 16th-century Reformation movements, and contemporary responses are long overdue.

The notion isn’t that other clergy and religious outside of Rome haven’t abused–they have. Or that non-Catholic institutions didn’t and don’t protect themselves–because they do. To claim a stellar and foremost witness that roots itself in Peter, the apostles, and the tradition of the martyrs, but then be undercut by repeated institutional complicity (at worst) or incompetence (at best), this is potentially ruinous. What if Lutherans, Anglicans, the Orthodox, and others just get up from the table and tell the Roman Catholics to grow up? Would there be anything to say in reply?

Speaking of incompetence, can anyone begin to take seriously Roman “investigations” of any sort? Lay people may or may not be concerned about the particulars of who’s hired to give talks to women religious. But most of them would be concerned about moral responsibility among religious and clergy. When the CDF comes knocking at the doors of women’s communities, would there be anything to add if the women said, “Go away boys, and if you’re looking for investigation fodder, why not check out your clergy in Africa, since you’ve already missed the boat in Ireland, the US, and elsewhere?”

Let’s consider how this sets back the cause of evangelization. Forget, for the moment, about Catholics sickened and embarrassed to be associated with institutional preservationism. Moving to Christianity, to Catholicism, is, as we believe, entering into a closer communion with Christ. Suddenly, the lived witness of the faith has become an obstacle to thousands, if not more.

Let me be clear about what I’m saying and what I’m not. The immorality of some in the hierarchy does not invalidate the moral teachings of the Church. A police officer may murder a civilian. Her or his colleagues may have doubts, and the institution might over-protect the killer. But this does not invalidate the laws good citizens and good peace officers strive to uphold. But we know what it does do: wrongdoing, cover-up, and obfuscation erodes overall confidence in the system.

Certain aspects of governance are not founded by Christ, not bound by faith or morals, and even variable within the bounds of small-t tradition. These aspects of governance deserve the most piercing scrutiny. And we, the Church, including bishops and pope, should be prepared to discard whatever trappings that have compromised the moral standing of the Church. One bishop has pledged martyrdom to help steer human beings from a heinously immoral act. No bishop need die to ensure accountability. But dying, in a way, is very easy. Something less than dying, something of a dying to self, may be required for the Church to get back on track.

Archbishop Martin asks, “What happened that you drifted so far away from your own charism?”

I believe that you owe it to your good members to try to answer that question thoroughly, honestly and in a transparent way. Your credibility and the credibility and survival of your charism depend on the honesty with which you go about that soul searching. This may be a painful task, but it is unavoidable if it is to be possible for your charism to survive.

Whether they see it or not, I think the bishops must realize that their charism is also endangered. The episcopal charism, top to bottom, has been compromised. In a way, the bishops struggle with a greater poverty than we lay people. I have a wife, a boss, parents (when they were alive), and countless other people telling me what I should do. Bishops don’t seem to listen to one another, and they sure don’t seem inclined to listen to anyone outside their order.