How and who to approach about liturgical...trouble.

aquinasadmirer

Hi,

I'm just a PIP, and y'all are slogging away in the trenches. I just read through a thread about receiving criticism, so I thought I'd ask about how to broach the subject of liturgical abuse.

There are two specific instances, and I'm looking for a way to approach people the best possible way.

Item 1. My second grade daughter tells me that when they have mass at the parochial school, that the teacher forces her to hold hands for the "Our Father." She doesn't want to. It's not how our family prays the Our Father at Mass on the weekend. We simply fold our hands. How can I approach the right person? What do I present, and how do I say only what's necessary.

Item 2. My wife is the accompanist at church, and she has the schedule a few months out. She and I observed for most almost all the masses, that the Responsorial Psalm is not the Psalm, but a hymn, or "tune" instead (i.e. "I Will Praise Your Name" -Haas, "All the Ends of the Earth" -Haas, "The Lord is My Light and My Salvation" -Haas). I know the GIRM says this is a no-no. I remember hearing it from someone, and looked it up. Who is the right person to talk to? What should be said? (.. and what should be avoided) and how to say it.

These conversations have some overlap I know (how to set the tone of the conversation) so I thought I'd ask the questions together.

Thank you.

-Mark

Adam Wood

Those Haas pieces may be the actual texts of the Responsorial Psalm that day. I'd check first, so that you know if your issue is:
1.wrong text
2. illicit translation
3. inappropriate style.

(Those are listed in order of increasing difficulty in using as a justification for change).

If I were your wife, I'd bring it up with the choir director (or whoever picks the music). Suggestion 1 would be Chabanel Psalms. Suggestion 2 would be Respond and Acclaim. Suggestion 3 would be at least making sure that the David Haas piece you are doing after the First Reading is the correct Psalm text.
If the choir director is hostile to the idea of at least doing the correct text, talk to the Pastor.
Of course, if I were your wife, we'd have other problems to deal with before Responsorial psalm choices.

The hand-holding thing is trickier, as it involves not just liturgical annoyance (not really abuse) but also parent-teacher relations, child psychology, and deeply ingrained habit. Cardinal Arinze pointed out that thee is nothing wrong with holding hands during the Our Father, but that there's nothing right about it either. Some people are under the impression that it's what you're supposed to do. Disabusing your daughter's teachers of the notion would be a good step n the right direction. Also, forwarding along some information about influenza might help as well. My bet is that 99% of the kids in there don't want to be holding hands either, so you'd probably be doing everyone a service by at least mentioning it to the principal and the chaplain. (Or, if your Catholic school is typical, you'll have to convince the butch plain-clothes nun who plans the liturgy and sings "Here I Am, Lord" a Capella at every Mass).

Liam

Those responsorial psalms are very close to the given texts for permitted seasonal psalms (there was a very widespread but unfortunate practice of changing a few words here and there to avoid creating a tangle of copyright issues). While they would not be my choice, I would not recommend declaring them to be an outright abuse and making a fuss over them unless and until they involve much more clear paraphrasing or actual hymn texts in their own right. Also, we should remember that the scope of permitted translations for the responsorial psalm when sung is wider than if spoken (there's an oft-overlooked provision in the GIRM on that point, which has been much-discussed here in the past), so the sung text doesn't have to match the Lectionary/spoken text word for word (though it should match translations that have been approved in the past for liturgical use).

Jeffrey Tucker

That hand holding issue is the ban of everyone's existence. The US Bishops have been trying to stop it for decades - trying without actually do anything about it. Most people just figure that it is stupid but that there are bigger fish to fry. I find it annoying myself. I've heard it claimed that this is a popular tradition but I wonder how popular it really is. most people just don't want to hurt anyone's feelings to they just reach out and touch. I had hope that the Bird Flu (or is it Swine Flu?) scare would stop this. Alas!

If I were in your position, I would probably do nothing and chalk it up to life as a Catholic in our times. Goofiness just goes with the territory. On the other hand, if there is an opening to offer your opinion, go for it.

Bobby Bolin

I clearly remember our diocese putting out a memo to all parishes that during the Our Father the hands should either be held as the priest's hands are or folded and that holding hands was strongly discouraged. So at that one mass everyone listened and by next week it was back to holding hands.

aquinasadmirer

Thanks for the suggestions/empathy :)

@Adam and Liam,

How different does the text have to be to make it a deviation?

@Adam,

I'll share this with my wife. Good suggestions.

The only music book the school uses is "Spirit and Song," but Sister double-knit retired last year.

@Liam,

Where can I read the section in the GIRM that talks about this? Which paraphrases translations are approved?

This is good advice.
Anything in writing someplace that talks about the hand-holding?

Thanks!

Liam

Mark

It's best not to approach this situation in a lawyerly way. I speak as a lawyer (actually, a business lawyer, the kind whose mission is to keep clients out of disputes) with almost 25 years of experience: people resorting to quoting and parsing authorities to decide matters of this sort are asking for more, not less, grief. It's one thing to have bantering on a conceptual level on blogs. But it's quite another when interacting with real people involving real situations on the ground. Coming armed like a lawyer into such a situation is something I would discourage in the strongest way possible.

francis

Mark:

Here is a slimy Chevy Chase solution. Tell your daughter to do this just as the priest is saying "Let us show to each other a sign of peace":

raise both of her hands to her face, cover her mouth, fake a loud sneeze and then look at her hands and whisper, "oooo gross".

"Fixed the Newel Post!"

If you want to spread the good news, have her ask her teacher for a kleenex so she can wipe the germs off her hands.

aquinasadmirer

Thanks Liam,

That's very helpful.

Could I trouble you with another request? I was wondering if you could write a hypothetical conversation that doesn't give in to lawyerly ways. All the scenarios that are in my head are way too "barrister-esque". :)

-Mark

Liam

Mark.

No, a hypothetical is not good here. You have to construct a real conversation taking into account the real people involved. No conversation will be equally appropriate across different realities. This is what so many people who are stuck on ideas and concepts often lose sight of: ideas and concepts are all well and good, but living is all about relationships and living, breathing, bleeding people. Generic hypothetical talking points do no good (and, often, I would say from experience, they do more harm than good.)

When PIPs and liturgical ministers (clerical and lay) are tempted to fall into barrister-esque modes, they should take that as a cue from the Holy Spirit to tread no further down that path and to instead find something more fruitful and life-giving to be and do.

Steve Collins

Bobby Bolin: More misguidance from the higher-ups! The only mention there is in the GIRM about had positions during the Lord's Prayers is that the Deacon may NOT hold his hands the way the Celebrant does. Why ANYONE sitting the pews should thing themselves better than the Deacon that they SHOULD hold hands is simply as illogical as you can get!

There is the "orans" position of praying. But it's not the same as the Priest, in persona Christi, who is actually collecting all our prayers presenting them to God, even if we are saying the words of the prayer along with him. Orans would be a nice thing to do during PRIVATE prayer - but never at Mass. It is a Celebrant's hand position, period.

aquinasadmirer

Maybe I didn't tee up my question properly. I'm not looking for content in a hypothetical. I'm looking for tone. What is the tone to begin with?

Also, How would I know if my approach is lawyerly? Is there a question or two that I could ask myself before and during the conversation to steer myself clear of this fruitless road?

I am on the pastoral advisory council, and have asked to be on either the Liturgy or Evangelization committee. These responsibilities my indeed come my way.

There is a related thread currently on the board regarding receiving criticism/suggestions. How can I offer concrete suggestions in a manner and tone that are respectful?

When PIPs and liturgical ministers (clerical and lay) are tempted to fall into barrister-esque modes, they should take that as a cue from the Holy Spirit to tread no further down that path and to instead find something more fruitful and life-giving to be and do.

Clearly there is a way other than citing liturgical legislation. That's all I know at the moment. If that's all I know, should I just bite my tongue and wait until there is a change in personnel? I'm guessing no; there are other ways. I'm looking for guidance as to what those are, and how to respectfully execute them.

Liam

As a general matter: choose solidarity over an agonistic approach, understanding that the biggest obstacle to one's own goals is typically one's very own self.

For example:

1. Be genuinely curious. (The corollary to this is: Do not ask rhetorical questions). Curious questions usually start with the word "What" rather than "How" or "Why".
2. Listen to the answer. Both what is said, and not is said. Understand that inadvertent equivocation (that is, the use of words that might have different layers of meaning for different people) is the most common issue in miscommunication; therefore, be vigilant but likewise patient in identifying the opportunity for miscommunication.
3. Don't accuse prematurely, and resist the urge to accuse unless no other route is plausible.
4. Don't bait.
5. Resist baiting.
6. Before you propose remedies, understand how they might ultimately be worse in some ways than the disease you seek to cure. (In other words, always know your Achilles' heel(s).)
7. Often, in these situations, we come into them assuming They are the Problem, and We are the Solution; understand first how We can likewise be just as much of a Problem. Align yourself in solidarity with those you disagree with. If you do that, you are less likely to become ideologically ruddered and plow over people and leave ruin in your wake (which, btw, is a great way to get in your own way, as it were).

aquinasadmirer

Yay!

Thanks Liam. I'm glad I re-asked the question. Those are all great suggestions that I can easily act on.

I'm guessing agonistic is antagonistic, rather than agnostic :)

When I look at #1. I don't see how "What" is a more "agreeable" question than "How" or "Why." I don't dispute it. Could you show me a comparison of "What's" vs "Why's" and "How's" so I can "feel" the difference in approach? (Sorry for the plethora of quotes.)

Again, Thanks.

This is along the lines of what I was looking for at the start.

-Mark

aquinasadmirer

Steve,

What paragraph is that orans posture thing in the GIRM? I've only read a little something in Jimmy Akin's book "Mass Confusion"

Thanks,

Mark

Adam Wood

The only music book the school uses is "Spirit and Song,"

Your daughter's school liturgies have bigger problems than how they hold their hands during the Lord's Prayer.

Liam

Well, if your "What" is really a rhetorical question or accusation, then indeed there is not much difference. Hence #2.

What are your goals in programming this piece? vs. What's the basis for your programming this piece?

See the difference? Now you can see how subtle the shift is. One misstep, and you've screwed the pooch. You can't fake genuine curiousity. Which is why I placed such an emphasis on self-management in my list of queries. You've got to deal with yourself first before you can begin to deal with others, as it were.

And "agonistic" was not a typo. It was a deliberate usage. It refers to the spirit of athletic contests in ancient Greece - a kind of athletic struggle mentality. (Remember Milton's "Samson Agonistes"?)

Monks in the Eastern tradition cultivate an agonistic spirituality of struggling with Satan and clearing their inner souls to permit greater theosis. That's the proper use of an agonistic attitude. But applying it to dealing with others is even trickier, and not for those who are not deeply aware of their own spiritual and cognitive blindspots.

aquinasadmirer

Hi Liam,

Thanks for the This vs That. That helps. Especially "What's the goal..?" vs "What's your basis..?" You've put your finger on it. In my head, I'm trying to understand.

"What's the/your goal..." to me seems like what are you/we working toward in the liturgy?
vs.
"What's your basis..." feels like it's going to put people on the defensive

Am I getting it?

"agonistic" Thanks for the new word. My education deprived me of Milton. That'll be a good metal "check-in" word for me.

-Mark

Liam

Yes.

Also realize that, the more one spends time in Catholic liturgical blog comboxes, the more vulnerable one is to transferring an agonistic style, which can be fun and informative in that context, to real interpersonal encounters where it will more likely serve to put you in the way of yourself. Especially if you are prone to being a T rather than an F (in Myers Briggs speak - someone who values ideas before people).

In these interpersonal encounters, wit and humor should be deployed to underscore common humanity and shared goals - solidarity - not to score points and win a debate. The moment the encounters become more about being right and winning, you've already lost, though one would not typically realize it in the moment.

Chris Allen

Mark,

What paragraph is that orans posture thing in the GIRM? I've only read a little something in Jimmy Akin's book "Mass Confusion"

I don't recall anything, myself, in the GIRM, but Sacrosanctum Concilium 22 #3 might be what you're looking for:

Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the Liturgy on his own authority.

chonak

The USCCB liturgy committee has written that "No position is prescribed in the present Sacramentary for an assembly gesture during the Lord’s Prayer."

So the Church does not specify any gesture. Of course, the school should not impose anything the Church does not require.

ZENIT's liturgy expert has a commentary on the issue also.

Chrism

Nobody should be forced to touch somebody else if they don't want to.

Welcome to the MusicaSacra Forum!

Categories