Everybody seems so surprised that Missouri’s Amendment 2 had such a tough time squeaking through. One of the amendments backers praised the grass roots efforts of the opponents. That seemed gracious. My fellow KC bloggers are bitterly disappointed. And substantially less gracious.
I know my parishioners were growing weary of liturgical time taken up by stem cells. As a liturgist, I have to wonder if it damaged liturgy. I’m pretty sure we did. As an opponent of amendment 2, I have to wonder if opening up the pulpits to cloning for the past five or six weeks was such a good idea. I think Catholics got the message. Then they got hammered with it.
In the summer I was asked to add weekly intentions for the defeat of amendment 2. I demurred for two reasons: first that the general intercessions are not intended to be sermons, and two, I opposed the amendment and wanted it to fail.
I suspect that many folks see the Sunday Mass as a captive audience. We liturgists (and pastors, too, no doubt) get frequent requests for all sorts of good and/or goofy things from people who think we have all this air time–60 minutes–and can they have a slice, too, please? I’ve heard from some parishioners who think we have to be ready for the next election cycle with a parish policy on this. I’m not discouraging them from putting it into place.
I don’t think “Clones at Church” gained any significant support the past two or three weeks. Given that it’s unlikely the issue treaded water, I’m inclined to think repeated presentations at liturgy may well have been harmful to the cause. Ultimately, it reveals a lack of trust. No trust in the formative power of liturgy over didactics. No trust in the Catholic voters to make an informed choice. No trust in the notion of doing less so God can do more.
Once I think this over a bit and hear from some parishioners on this–starting tonight–I hope to blog more on the topic.