It was dorky, true. But without knowing any of the back-story, we don't know why this priest chose to sing it, and other than the video, we can't say how the couple felt about it. If they are particularly close to the priest, there might be a reason it happened. Maybe the bride or groom requested the original version for the ceremony, whether jokingly or not. Gotta watch those friendships with priests, I tell ya...

He does it at ALL weddings? How did they not know then? I've had to explain my point of view on this to SO many faithful CAtholics... and most don't agree. I'm a party pooper!

Obviously, THAT carries a bunch pf problems with it.

But still...

It is ponderous in that way, Liam, but honestly textual matters are at such a rock-bottom low these days that hardly ruffles my feathers.

Maybe with a different tune it could be in Worship IV, the wedding supplement? j/k (which translated means "just kidding").

My take, which will likely surprise and offend, is on Adam's thread on the Cafe in the comments. I'm quite thoroughly Irish on my mother's side, if that helps.

Fair use applies, this is clearly a parody.

And parodies of religious services are doubly covered, I imagine.

this is clearly a parody.

I think this was closer to a cover than a parody

I think you misunderstood the antecedent of "this"

I found this tasteless and offensive. Sacrilegious. I am thoroughly scandalized by it - and all just because it happened in the Liturgy. That being said, this is my primary thought every time this comes up:

It shows how out-of-touch we all are. Nearly everyone who saw this who is not in a leadership position of a Roman church (and half of those who are, as Pray Tell notes) found it delightful and moving. The couple were clearly moved. There was another video a while ago of a couple dancing into a church, with the same effect: everyone but the Roman musicians was delighted. (Seriously, I remember this being posted in an Episcopalian musicians' facebook group, and I was the only one to take offense - if we've lost the Episcopalians, there's no hope!) We clearly do not operate on the same emotional and psychological plane on this kind of thing as "normal" people do. Our disgusted response is to others the same as if I expressed disgust at Adam misusing "there's" instead of "theirs" in his post - which actually did offend me quite a bit.

You all may tell me to get over myself and my petulant grammar-naziness and applaud Adam for his fine rhetoric. That's how other people feel when they hear us bash the video.

I do NOT mean to say that we should be ok with this video - I AM NOT. What I do mean to say is that we should realize that we are out of touch, and ask ourselves, how do we do our jobs while interacting with people who take delight in this kind of thing? That requires individual reflection. When I go into an interaction with someone, I try to keep in mind what THEIR values are, and how I can explain my responsibilities to them in a way that will resonate with them. If someone mentioned how much they loved the video and that they wanted to have that song at their wedding, I'd probably say "I'm sure that song is very meaningful to you. I have a duty to respect the decorum of this church's liturgies; maybe I can make suggestions of music which matches the general affect of that song?" Boom. You're relating to them on their level. Note how different that is than "That is INAPPROPRIATE for the HOLY UNBLOODY SACRIFICE of the MASS!!!11ONE! You should be ASHAMED and I will teach you about proper HOLY OBEDIENCE!!!1~!"

By way of comparison, I must confess to being a rather extreme introvert. I find being around people, and more so interacting with them, very taxing, stressful, and provoking of anxiety. Most people who know me casually assume I'm an extrovert, however. I behave as an extrovert in casual and professional situations, because I know that curling up into a ball and glaring at people would not advance my professional agenda.

As a grammar-nazi, I suppress my need to correct everyone's butchering of the English language. As an introvert, I force myself into normalized human interaction. And as devout servants of the Liturgy, we should be aware of what drives the passions of those we interact with, and respond sensitively.

I found this tasteless and offensive. Sacrilegious. I am thoroughly scandalized by it - and all just because it happened in the Liturgy

I have to be the only one who hasn't seen this video! I would probably agree with you.

By way of comparison, I must confess to being a rather extreme introvert. I find being around people, and more so interacting with them, very taxing, stressful, and provoking of anxiety.

Yep, know that feeling well! Dealing with people can be a real pain.

You all may tell me to get over myself and my petulant grammar-naziness and applaud Adam for his fine rhetoric.

I haven't met Adam but am sure that if I do, I will either love him or want to hurt him. LOL.

I have a duty to respect the decorum of this church's liturgies; maybe I can make suggestions of music which matches the general affect of that song?

All musicians have that duty, whether or not they measure up to it. Some don't, unfortunately.

Well said, Matthew. If he wants to sing, he should sing what is assigned to him and serve he liturgy, not make it about himself and sing the song he likes.

Adam misusing "there's" instead of "theirs"

fixed. Good catch.

I watched the beginning and the end because I couldn't take much more. OUCH!

Adam, because you know what beautiful, good and true liturgy is, you can spot the counterfeit right off, even if it takes a while to verbalize explicitly what is not beautiful, not good and not true, liturgically speaking of course.

I read once that those who are trained to spot counterfeit money first have to extensively study the real thing. Only then are they ready to identify false currency.

Spot on, Adam!

I haven't met Adam but am sure that if I do, I will either love him or want to hurt him.

I keep being told that Catholicism is a both/and kind of religion.

------------------

in re: there/their/they're

I REALLY KNOW WHICH ONE TO USE!

But when I get into a typing fit, I completely lose my mind.

And I used to proofread obsessively, but I have found that delays my publishing of stuff by days and days.

Because I often use non-standard grammar on purpose (like starting sentences with conjuctions, and daring to boldly split infinitives whenever I feel like it, and altering the typical structure of serialized lists for reasons having to do with both rhythm and humor - as well as over-stuffing parenthetical clauses in order to ironically fore-shade the use of made-up words), I think some people assume I have some kind of typological disorder.

Which I do.

People harp about rubrics and love, like the two are opposed. They don't have to be.

I haven't met Adam but am sure that if I do, I will either love him or want to hurt him.

I keep being told that Catholicism is a both/and kind of religion.

Exactly. And exactly. Both/and.
Charles, I haven't met the young man either, but I offer to hold him while you wield the stick. Then we'll all go out for Pimm's cups or whatever.
Jolly....
(Save the Liturgy, save the World)

Yeah, like chant.

To put this in context, it's an abuse of the following rubric:

90. To the Concluding Rites belong the following:

a) brief announcements, should they be necessary;

Or "Love Hurts"

I am convinced he wasn't beaten nearly enough when he was younger.

Accurate.

Some priests like to perform, I guess. There was a religious order pastor at a local parish for several years. He liked to sing everything with great drama. We called him, "Broadway Joe." a couple of other priests called him that too. Fr. Broadway told me once that although he wasn't Catholic, Marty Haugen had a great understanding of Catholic liturgy. I knew he was an idiot after that.

Can't help it... I see visions of Shrek in my head when I hear this song... (lots of animated movies in my past when my boys were younger).