Tuesday, November 24, 2009

Over the River and Through the Woods





Stress, reluctant encounters, unresolved issues, and guilt-induced motivations — no, this isn't the annual therapists convention. I'm talking about the holidays.

Please don't get me wrong. Thanksgiving and Christmas are surely joyful occasions. The Keeper of Holidays couldn't do better than to schedule the one-two punch of a blessed harvest festival just one month before the celebration of the birth of Christ — as well as Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, solstice, and other winter commemorations. And the proximity of two major holidays helps solve the problem of how to fairly divide holiday time between two sets of in-laws.

But whereas the winter holidays seem ideally suited for the smaller nuclear family unit, holiday stress seems to grow exponentially as children become adults and start their own families, transforming holiday celebrations into extended family reunions.

I remember a classic Thanksgiving episode of the 1990s television sitcom, Rosanne. Rosanne's parents and her husband Dan's parents are crammed into the Connor family's already tight dining area with their three children, Rosanne's sister Jackie, and some assorted cousins. Rosanne's mom still has issues with her daughters and complains loudly about them in the presence of Dan's mom, who can't stand her in-law counterpart. Meanwhile, Dan still has unresolved issues with his dad. Old arguments get revisted. Insults fly. Feelings get hurt. Then Rosanne, who has been busy with the details of cooking, tosses the turkey platter on the table with a loud bang and says acerbically, "Happy Thanksgiving, everybody!"

I think it was Charlie Brown who said to Linus: "You can choose your friends, but you can't choose your relatives."

Unfortunately, unresolved family issues have a way of bringing out the old sibling rivalries and parental resentments. Is it any wonder that the holidays are the most stressful time of year?

It doesn't have to be this way. Instead of waiting until the holidays to see your original family unit, how about maintaining contact with them throughout the year? Is there an unresolved issue with your sister? Visit her or call her in July and have a heart-to-heart conversation. Don't get along with your dad? Spend time with him during spring break. The point is to try and diffuse things before they come to a head during the winter holidays. Will forgiveness help? Ask for it or grant it.

Do not forget the power of prayer. Ask the Holy Family for a special blessing at this time. Pray to God for patience and strength. And, for heaven's sake, stay away from alcohol during family gatherings. Alcohol has a way of loosening tongues and inhibitions that can only make a bad situation worse.

Yes, these might be naive suggestions. That's the optimist in me. I realize that some family situations might be beyond repair. If so, God be with you. Let us pray for each other.

===

This blog is a partial reprint of Ken's Thanksgiving Spirit Spot of 2007. Click here to read the whole blog on www.spiritandsong.com.



Saturday, November 21, 2009

Podcasts: Listening to Music on a Printed Book





Keep the Fire Burning: The Folk Mass Revolution is a book about music, so it already has the inherent problem of all books in the genre of music history: One cannot “hear” the music just by reading about it on the printed page. This problem is enhanced for my book because I wrote about a body of music that is, for the most part, not performed or sung anymore. Additionally, although much of the music of the Folk Mass was recorded in the 1960s, most of those recordings are no longer around, and even if they can be found they are not in a convenient listening format.

Yes, those of the Boomer generation will certainly “hear” the referenced music in their heads. The very reason I chose the title Keep the Fire Burning was because it is a line from Ray Repp’s ubiquitous song, “Here We Are.” Boomer Catholics who were involved in their parish Folk Mass automatically “hear” the song’s next line when they see the book’s title:

Keep the fire burning,
kindle it with care,
and we’ll all join in and sing . . .


But what about younger readers, or people who wouldn’t touch a Folk Mass with a ten-foot collection basket?

When I started writing Keep the Fire Burning six years ago I wrestled early with this problem. I considered the idea of making a CD but, with multiple publishers and composers involved, the permissions process alone would have been prohibitive. I also thought about inserting the printed music in the book itself but only notation-reading musicians would be able to read that.

Meanwhile, as I continued my research and writing, I set about on the challenging search for the original Folk Mass records on eBay and other Internet LP sites. Yes, this meant I had to buy a turntable if I wanted to actually hear these historical tracks.

21st century technology eventually offered a solution in the form of the podcast, which really took off around 2005. With the right software and hardware, anybody can host their own radio show on the Internet. After digitizing the tracks of my Folk Mass records, it became a simple matter of presenting this music in an appealing and accessible podcast. Luckily, copyright laws allow me to freely podcast this music since most of it was released before February 1972, which is apparently a legal line of demarcation in the recording industry. I was also able to find public domain speeches of President Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Jr., Pope John XXIII, and other historical figures, allowing me to place the music within the context of its times.

As websites became do-it-yourself affairs, that allowed me even greater freedom to post my Folk Mass podcasts on the Internet, first at www.kencanedo.com. The only thing left to do was to offer listeners the most convenient way to subscribe to my podcasts so they don’t have to wait for a file to download or be unaware of a new podcast’s release. I am happy to announce that the Keep the Fire Burning podcasts are now available for free in the following convenient formats:



I just posted the latest podcast about 1968, a pivotal year for a decade that brought about much upheaval in the world and in the Church. Future podcasts will focus on the later chapters of the book, including the music of John Fischer, Jack Miffleton, Carey Landry, and the Dameans. There will also be a sampling of Ray Repp’s final FEL album, The Time Has Not Come True, and Sebastian Temple’s rarely heard The Universe Is Singing, the composer’s fascinating treatment of the theology of Teilhard de Chardin. You won’t want to miss these.

After I complete the podcast for the final chapter, I plan to continue doing podcasts for special events, such as CJ McNaspy’s 1967 Carnegie Hall concerts of Folk Mass artists. I will also produce some podcasts that focus on particular composer albums that I didn’t have to time to do in the first round of podcasts. As they say in the business, thanks for listening, and stay tuned!



Tuesday, November 17, 2009

Twitter Updates from US Bishops Meeting: Deliberation on the Liturgy





The annual gathering of the United States Bishops is always newsworthy, attracting a sizeable segment of the Catholic and secular media. But this is the age of Twitter. Never before have the bishops’ deliberations been followed in such detail.

At this week’s Baltimore gathering, the bishops have been discussing the sanctity of marriage, medical ethics, pro-life concerns, the Campaign for Human Development, and other issues. As a Catholic composer, I have been most interested in their discussion on the liturgy. This week the bishops voted on the final piece of legislation on a decade-long dialogue between the American church and Rome on the English translation of the Roman Missal. If the bishops approve the proposed adaptation, it goes back to Rome for final promulgation.

In a nutshell, the current American translation of the Mass does not conform completely to the original Latin. This is epitomized by our use of “And also with you” as a response to the priest’s greeting of “The Lord be with you.” The proposed new translation – “And with your spirit” – conforms better to the original Latin, “Et cum spiritu tuo.”

Bishop Donald Trautman of Erie, Pennsylvania, has been leading an eleventh-hour campaign to table the bishop’s approval because of concern for the “ungrammatical” elements of the new English translation.

Here are the “tweet” reports of today’s liturgy deliberations from Twitter, as posted on @usccbmedia. Despite the 140-character limitation of each tweet, one can easily envision how the drama unfolded. I will let these tweets speak for themselves and will comment on them in a future blog.*


usccbmedia: Deliberation on liturgy begins by addressing Trautman concern about antiphons.

usccbmedia: Trautman asserts that Rome is overstepping rights of the Conference to consider this part of the translation.

usccbmedia: Trautman moves to have graybook from ICEL on antiphons before recognitio be issued.

usccbmedia: Serratelli answers Trautman's charge. Paprocki is addressing the Code of Canon Law.

usccbmedia: Paprocki has taken the meeting into Latin.

usccbmedia: Paprocki says Trautman has raised a legitimate point. George says this question should be discussed later. Trautman says no.

usccbmedia: George urges that the bishops move on to the work before them. Trautman asks to speak again.

usccbmedia: Trautman notes that his motion is still alive. "Not to complicate matters further, but ..."

usccbmedia: Serratelli is introducing Proper of Saints, noting this is bishops' last chance for input.

usccbmedia: Passage of this, as other items, requires 2/3 vote of Latin-member bishops.

usccbmedia: Serratelli notes that a decade-long process is nearing an end.

usccbmedia: Bishop Sklba stands to note good work of Serratelli and committee, but flaws of translation.

usccbmedia: Sklba suggests that welcoming of traditional Anglicans will mean our translation is unfavorably compared to Book of Common Prayer.

usccbmedia: Niederauer notes that everyone can find something to dislike here. Blaire notes that other English-speaking countries have passed this.

usccbmedia: Bishops voting on Proper of Saints.

usccbmedia: 88% percent of bishops approve (195).

usccbmedia: Serratelli presents Roman Missal Supplement.

usccbmedia: There are no amendments to this document.

usccbmedia: Silva notes that saint whose feast is celebrated in Hawaii is eligible to be on national calendar.

usccbmedia: Serratelli and George say this can be considered under US Proper discussion.

usccbmedia: Serratelli presents translation of Commons.

usccbmedia: In arguing inclusion of Hawaiian saint, Silva notes several saints on calendar who lack the "national cultus" his saint presumably lacks.

usccbmedia: Bishop Rosazza notes that English-speaking bishops seem to be held to tighter translation than, say, the French.

usccbmedia: Bishop Trautman re-raises point about Rome stepping in on the antiphons. Serratelli asks that current text be addressed.

usccbmedia: Impromptu amendment on mentioning Native Americans accepted on the spot.

usccbmedia: US Propers goes up for vote. Bishops approve.

usccbmedia: US Adaptation of Roman Missal passed. Serratelli calls this historic moment. George quips, "Not yet."

usccbmedia: Serratelli: Perfection will come when liturgy on Earth gives way to worship of God in Heaven.

usccbmedia: Serratelli speaks on importance of catechesis on translation. Says time of implementation of translation will be determined by recognitio.

usccbmedia: George thanks head of ICEL for his work on the translation.

usccbmedia: George says Trautman issue will still be addressed, as Conference may have right to translate antiphons.

usccbmedia: Says USCCB could sue Congregation in Apostolic Signatura, or USCCB could say they approve Congregation's help with translation.

usccbmedia: Bishops take evening coffee break.


usccbmedia: Trautman makes motion on antiphons.

usccbmedia: Wuerl asks if body can simply approve antiphons based on what they've seen in order to get recognitio.

usccbmedia: Abp. Myers asks if another vote follows recognitio.

usccbmedia: Vigneron asks if Trautman's motion might be remanded to committee. Wants thoughtful review of appropriate people.

usccbmedia: Chaput wants opinion of canonist if bishops can vote to delegate to the Congregation on matter of antiphons.

usccbmedia: Conlon, Bruskewitz, Mahony, Listecki, Sample, others speak up.

usccbmedia: Pilarczyk offers to submit motion that work on antiphons be remanded to Rome.

usccbmedia: Trautman says bishops shouldn't get into habit of walking away from having their rights overstepped.

usccbmedia: Bishops voting on Trautman motion.

usccbmedia: Motion fails.

usccbmedia: Pilarczyk submits motion that antiphons be remanded to Rome. Bishops voting.

usccbmedia: Motion passes overwhelmingly.

===

For more detailed coverage go to the official United States Conference of Catholic Bishops fan page on Facebook.

* As far as I know, Twitter tweets are not copyrighted. This is implied by Twitter's allowance of RT or "retweet" for the continuous sharing of posted tweets.



Monday, November 16, 2009

2012: Relax! It’s Only a Movie





The 2012 movie, this past weekend’s box-office bonanza, has fueled interest in The End of the World. Yawn. Here we go again.

Every now and then, there is some kind of prediction or omen that the world is going to end, causing confusion and panic. Indeed, if you read Twitter and Facebook status updates, the new movie has triggered a whole new wave of speculation. The producers of the movie must shoulder a big share of the blame for this, although they must be loving the free publicity. Unfortunately, a lot of young people are buying into this.

[To promote the film 2012,] the [Columbia] studio launched a viral marketing website operated by the fictional Institute for Human Continuity, where filmgoers could register for a lottery number to be part of a small population that would be rescued from the global destruction. David Morrison of NASA has received over 1000 inquiries from people who thought the website was genuine and has condemned it, saying "I've even had cases of teenagers writing to me saying they are contemplating suicide because they don't want to see the world end. I think when you lie on the Internet and scare children in order to make a buck, that is ethically wrong."


This marketing is unconscionable if it is causing people to consider suicide. Folks, it’s only a movie! There have been End of the World predictions before, with each “doomsday” date passing without incident. To wit:

December 31, 1999: Countdown to the New Millennium --
That New Year’s Eve was certainly fun, but was it the End of the World just because of an arbitrary turn of the Western calendar? Oh, well. At least the bottled water industry and the disaster kit industry made a killing.

1988: Hal Lindsey, in his best-selling book, The Late Great Planet Earth, predicted the Rapture would happen during this year. Former NASA engineer Edgar C. Whisenant pinned it down to between September 11 and Sept. 13. Nothing happened. Unbowed, Lindsey still predicted that these are the end times. Whisenant died in 2001.
(Okay, I admit this one has a lot of weird coincidences but 1988 passed and we’re still here.)

1919: Meteorologist Albert Porta predicted six planets would come together on December 19, creating a cataclysmic event that would explode the Earth.

1914: Jehovah's Witnesses said this was the doomsday year. When nothing happened, they followed by a series of later dates. In the 1990s, Jehovah's Witnesses quietly abandoned a prediction that people alive in 1914 would live to see the Second Coming of Christ.

May 19, 1910: Halley’s Comet was scheduled to brush the earth with its tail. Doomsday devotees were stirred up. The day passed with no apocalypse, but the night sky was sure pretty.

March 21, 1844: Baptist minister William Miller pinpointed this doomsday date and gathered followers to wait with him in prayer. The day came and went. Miller said, “I confess my error and acknowledge my disappointment.” The date was reset for October 21, 1844. Again, “doomsday” passed without incident. The followers went on to establish the Seventh-Day Adventist Church.


Need I go on? The Middle Ages were predicated on a popular belief in the imminent demise of the world. For centuries, the Book of Revelation has been misinterpreted as a predictor of the apocalypse. (Don’t get me started on that one.) Even the early Christians thought Christ’s second coming would be in their lifetime. Indeed, the author of the Gospel of Mark wrote his gospel to help his community deal with their persecution and the apparent delay in Christ’s coming.

As for the current 2012 craze:

The 2012 phenomenon comprises a range of beliefs and proposals positing that cataclysmic or transformative events will occur in the year 2012. The forecast is based primarily on what is said to be the end-date of the Mayan Long Count calendar, which is presented as lasting 5,125 years and as terminating on December 21 or 23, 2012. Arguments supporting these scenarios are drawn from a mixture of archaeoastronomical speculation, alternative interpretations of mythology, numerological constructions, and alleged prophecies from extraterrestrial beings.

Mainstream Mayanist scholars argue that the idea that the Long Count calendar "ends" in 2012 misrepresents Maya history. To the modern Maya, 2012 is largely irrelevant, and classic Maya sources on the subject are scarce and contradictory, suggesting that there was little if any universal agreement among them about what, if anything, the date might mean.


I’m obviously a non-believer in Doomsday. Sorry, but I’m just too busy living. I believe that on the day we are born God gives each of us a clean slate to work with, and we need not fear man-made predictions of apocalypse and doom. The only thing we know for sure is that we will die; we can’t avoid that. So until that time, why not fill up our lives with love and laughter and peace while working to make this world a better place? With God’s grace, the future is bright and filled with hope.

For I know well the plans I have in mind for you,
says the Lord,
plans for your welfare, not for woe!
Plans to give you a future filled with hope.
- Jeremiah 29:11-13








Saturday, November 14, 2009

Hear, O Lord, the Sound of My Call . . .




My book, Keep the Fire Burning: The Folk Mass Revolution, is the story of a bygone era in the American Catholic Church. The 1960s was a decade characterized by radical change in just about every field, from politics and race relations to education, science, entertainment, art, morality, and organized religion. One can only guess what would have happened to the Church during this time of upheaval if Pope John XXIII had not convened the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965). Undoubtedly, Catholicism would have survived in some form regardless, as it has for two millennia. But would it have weathered the Sixties as well as it did without the Council?

I believe the Catholic Church not only survived the Sixties but thrived. Since the Protestant Reformation, the Church had been in an apologetic “fortress” mode as a response to the confusing atmosphere of the 1500s. This was entirely understandable. The Council of Trent (1545-1563) closed ranks, so to speak, to defend the Church against the challenge of Luther, Wesley, Zwingli, and other reformers, who were attracting former Catholics in droves.

But 400 years was a long time to keep the walls of that fortress up. In the 1960s there was a new challenge to morality and, because of the nuclear threat, to humanity’s very survival. Pope John was only reading the signs of the times when he called for a Council that would open up the fortress windows. The Church must be the light of Christ for all people of every faith and nation, and the Council would be a model of hope for a world that was starved for Good News.

This is the context in which I wrote my book. The sacred liturgy was one aspect of the Church that felt threatened by the Protestant reformers. In response, the Council of Trent froze the Mass. Faithful Catholics would know without a doubt that they had entered a Catholic church because of the silent celebration of the Latin Mass, as opposed to the participative services of the Protestant congregations.

Because of Vatican II, the Mass was translated into the language of the people, who were encouraged to participate in the liturgy in a way that, ironically, Martin Luther would have approved. That meant encouraging Catholics to find their voice in song. Because it was the 1960s, that meant folk music.

To be sure, much of the liturgical innovation in the American Catholic Church came about because of the tireless work of liturgists, musicians and publishers who seized the innovative spirit of Vatican II and took it in directions the Council Fathers never envisioned. For example, the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy spoke highly of Gregorian chant as having “pride of place in liturgical services.” The pipe organ was to be “held in high esteem” because it “adds a wonderful splendor to the Church’s ceremonies” (Sacrosanctum Concilium Nos. 116 and 120). There was no mention of folk music and guitars as the norm for liturgical music. The document simply spoke of “other instruments” that may be used at Mass. American liturgical innovators took those two words and ran with it. The sound of strumming guitars captured the imagination and energy of young Catholics, and their participation in the Folk Mass got them involved in their Church.

In history, the pendulum swings from right to left and back again. With the support of Pope Benedict XVI, Catholics who treasure the traditional heritage of the Church are today enjoying a renaissance of appreciation for Gregorian chant. The songs of the Folk Mass are now long forgotten and often recalled with derision because of its simplicity. Of course, that was the very reason it caught on so quickly in the 1960s.

All this is a long way of saying that I was not prepared for the reaction that I have received at my book appearances for Keep the Fire Burning. Not surprisingly, my audience is comprised primarily of Baby Boomers – Catholics in their 50s and 60s who were children and teenagers in the post-Conciliar Church. These are people who grew up with the music of Ray Repp, Paul Quinlan, the Dameans, the Medical Mission Sisters, and Sebastian Temple, among many other Catholic folk music composers. In other words, this is music that is no longer sung or heard, since the original recordings have been lost in the dustbins of Catholic school libraries and shuttered parish convents.

I begin my events by talking about the Council and the transition from the Latin Mass to the English liturgy. But I cannot speak of the Folk Mass without also sharing its music. That means singing and, to set the scene, we begin with some secular folk music like Bob Dylan’s “Blowin’ in the Wind” or Woody Guthrie’s “This Land Is Your Land.” With guitar in hand, I notice a spark in the audience as they immediately connect with these songs. We then launch into Ray Repp’s “Here We Are,” which brings a lot of smiles and laughter. Yes, the song is very dated now, but we have to remember that Repp originally wrote the song for his 4th grade CCD class.

Interestingly, the singing of Repp’s “Hear, O Lord,” has become the emotional high point, when the tears of the audience just start flowing. With its simple four-chord structure and heartfelt lyrics, it is clear to me that “Hear, O Lord” still resonates with an age group that obviously identified with the song’s theme of loneliness and trust in God. I find the reaction to this song very touching, and I have to be composed so as not to cry myself.

These are songs that have not been sung publicly for almost forty years. They are the suppressed expression of a generation’s search for God, and that’s valid. Is it good liturgical music for today? I will let others answer that question. But in the singing of the Folk Mass songs, many Boomer Catholics are reliving a time when their youthful idealism pointed to a bright future of endless possibility. To that, I can only say, “Amen.”

  • To hear the music of the Ray Repp and other Folk Mass composers, go to the podcast page on Ken’s website.


  • Keep the Fire Burning is available on Amazon.com.


  • To book Ken Canedo as a speaker, contact him here.





Thursday, November 12, 2009

Of My Hands I Give to You . . . the Lord’s Prayer





Because of the current flu epidemic, it looks like American Catholics are beginning to let go of the unofficial custom of holding hands during the recitation of the Lord’s Prayer at Mass. In many parishes, the H1N1 scare has also limited the Sign of Peace to a slight bow or a friendly wave, and communion under full cup has been temporarily discontinued. Given the severity of the epidemic, who can blame them? In my parish school alone, over 90 students stayed home sick from the flu last week.

Back to holding hands: No one really knows how that liturgical custom became so widespread in the United States, or when it began. I have a few theories that I would prefer to save for a book I am writing. But I will say that it most likely came about in the 1970s because of the concurrent popularity of the Folk Mass and the Charismatic Renewal, both of which epitomized the growing informality of the Church and of society in general.

“But we’ve been holding hands at the Our Father for as long as I can remember,” observes a thirtysomething friend of mine. “What do you mean when you say it’s an unofficial custom?”

The General Instruction on the Roman Missal does not mandate that Catholic worshipers hold hands at the Our Father. In fact, it says very little about that prayer except the following, as found in paragraph 152:

After the Eucharistic Prayer is concluded, the priest, with hands joined, says the introduction to the Lord’s Prayer. With hands extended, he then says this prayer together with the people.


The Sacramentary itself only has these instructions:

The priest sets down the chalice and paten and with hands joined sings or says one of the following: (here follow a choice of four introductory exhortations)

He extends his hands and he continues, with the people:
Our Father, who art in heaven . . .


That’s it! Nowhere in the official instruction is there any mention of the assembly holding hands at this part of the Mass. On one side, traditionalists say the custom is an aberration of the rubrics. On the other side, less formal Catholics (I hesitate to label them as outright liberals because many of them are not) couldn’t care less about strict rubrics and find it both meaningful and comforting to join hands with friends, family and strangers while praying in the words our Savior gave us.

So what is the official word on this gesture from Rome or from the United States Bishops? Surprise! There is no official word. As many people know, the attention given to the liturgy these days is directed toward the eventual promulgation of new English texts that conform closer to the original Latin. There has apparently been no official discussion on the issue of holding hands. However, an Internet search on the topic turns up no shortage of opinions, some from authoritative sources. Here is a sampling, with a link to the sources so you can read the quotes in context. Each writer makes excellent points that need to be considered.

===

From Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical Athenaeum:

It is true that there is no prescribed posture for the hands during the Our Father and that, so far at least, neither the Holy See nor the U.S. bishops' conference has officially addressed it. The argument from silence is not very strong, however, because while there is no particular difficulty in a couple, family or a small group spontaneously holding hands during the Our Father, a problem arises when the entire assembly is expected or obliged to do so.

The process for introducing any new rite or gesture into the liturgy in a stable or even binding manner is already contemplated in liturgical law. This process entails a two-thirds majority vote in the bishops' conference and the go-ahead from the Holy See before any change may take effect. Thus, if neither the bishops' conference nor the Holy See has seen fit to prescribe any posture for the recitation of the Our Father, it hardly behooves any lesser authority to impose a novel gesture not required by liturgical law and expect the faithful to follow their decrees.



While there are no directions as to the posture of the faithful, the rubrics clearly direct the priest and any concelebrants to pray the Our Father with hands extended -- so they at least should not hold hands. One could argue that holding hands expresses the family union of the Church. But our singing or reciting the prayer in unison already expresses this element. The act of holding hands usually emphasizes group or personal unity from the human or physical point of view and is thus more typical of the spontaneity of small groups. Hence it does not always transfer well into the context of larger gatherings where some people feel uncomfortable and a bit imposed upon when doing so.



The use of this practice during the Our Father could detract and distract from the prayer's God-directed sense of adoration and petition, as explained in Nos. 2777-2865 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, in favor of a more horizontal and merely human meaning. For all of these reasons, no one should have any qualms about not participating in this gesture if disinclined to do so. They will be simply following the universal customs of the Church, and should not be accused of being a cause of disharmony.



From ZENIT: The World Seen from Rome Nov. 18, 2003

Father McNamara’s column generated a sizeable response:

Judging from the response to our reply regarding holding hands during the Our Father, it would appear that the world is divided into hand-holders and arm-folders with the occasional hand-upholder wedged in the middle.

An Australian subscriber points out: "The best argument for not holding hands is that the holding of hands anticipates and then negates the sign of peace." I must confess that I had never thought of this argument but it does have a certain internal logic.

Personally I would not go so far as to say that the gesture negates the sign of peace, but it does anticipate and duplicate it from the symbolic point of view and, as a consequence, probably detracts from its sign value.

A California reader observes that I said there is little difficulty with a family holding hands during the Our Father. He asks: Should not hand-holding also be appropriate, then, for a larger group, if we consider the parish as family? He also objects to "the idea it might make some feel uncomfortable. “Then let's not have them say the creed either. It might make them feel uncomfortable. Faith is all about being uncomfortable. Growth starts with discomfort."

As is often the case, the analogous value of words can lead to misunderstanding. Yes, the parish is, in a way, a family, but then so is the universal Church, and so is the human race. The point is that holding hands is a normal expression of affection for nuclear families or relatively small groups of people who know each other well.

It is not a usual expression for larger groups of people even though they may be united by spiritual bonds, such as membership in Christ's Mystical Body. I do not deny that it may happen but it is rarely spontaneous and is usually provoked by an organizing agent.


===

The following is from an article by Fr. William Saunders in the Arlington Catholic Herald. He is dean of the Notre Dame Graduate School of Christendom College and pastor of Queen of Apostles Parish, both in Alexandria, Virginia.

Perhaps the holding of hands was introduced with good intentions to highlight the unity of the congregation as they pray, "Our Father," not "My Father." Yet, if unity is the key, then should we not be holding hands throughout the entire Mass?

The unity that is sought really comes later and after a spiritual progression: First, we fall on our knees as the priest offers the sacrifice of the Mass: we recall not only our Lord's passion, death, and resurrection but also our need as individuals to offer ourselves to Him. Second, we pray in the words our Savior taught us, the Lord's Prayer, in which we ask, "Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us," even the person next to us in the pew. Third, we offer the Sign of Peace, a gesture found in the earliest Masses to show a genuine unity based on peace and forgiveness. Finally, we receive Holy Communion, which truly brings us into communion with our Lord and with each other. Looking at the logic of this spiritual progression to real unity, the holding of hands at the Our Father is extraneous.

Can a congregation hold hands anyway, even if it is extraneous? While no one can find fault if a husband and wife, or a family want spontaneously to hold hands during the Lord's Prayer, the priest does not have the right to introduce, mandate, or impose it.

The Church also reminds the priest, who is the guardian of the sacraments and who acts in persona Christi in offering the Mass: "The priest should realize that by imposing his own personal restoration of sacred rites he is offending the rights of the faithful and is introducing individualism and idiosyncracy into celebrations which belong to the whole Church" (Third Instruction on the Correct Implementation of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, No. 1 (1970)).

A person in the pew should not feel obliged or coerced to hold hands with someone else during the Lord's Prayer, yet congregational "peer pressure" could easily lead to such feelings. One can only imagine how intimidated a person must feel by the rest of the congregation if he does not desire to hold hands, whether because of personal preference or because of another reason such as arthritis.

Granted, the holding of hands during the Lord's Prayer seems to have become almost a tradition in some parishes throughout the country. Nevertheless, we must remember that this gesture is not prescribed, it is an innovation to the Mass, and in its goal to build unity and sensitivity, it can be alienating and insensitive to individuals.

From a 1999 edition of The Arlington Catholic Herald

===

Andrew Santella writes for Slate and has the following thoughts:

It's a dilemma: Hold hands and give up a bit of the traditional Catholic solemnity, or forsake your neighbor's hand for a rosary and take refuge in the practices of the past. It's a choice between retrenchment and assimilation.

That's pretty much the choice facing Catholics on the weightier questions about the church's future as well. Questions like whether priests can someday marry will be settled by the church's hierarchy. But so far, the call on whether or not to hold hands has been left to the people in the pews. The choices we make about holding hands and other points of worship etiquette may not be as binding as a papal bull. But they help articulate the faithful's vision of the church.

From Slate magazine Oct. 31, 2005

===

David Philippart studied liturgy at the University of Notre Dame and lives in Chicago. He writes:

In technologically advanced and wealthy cultures, the bonds of community are often strained. Whereas in some places -- or even in our own country 50 years ago or so -- you might be born, live, and die all in the same village surrounded by the same people, today we move about, live far from extended family members and close friends, and communicate electronically rather than in the flesh. We sometimes yearn to feel more connected to the people around us, especially our sisters and brothers in Christ and particularly at this moment of supreme intimacy with God and with each other that is the Eucharist.

But precisely because hand-holding denotes a specific kind of intimacy in our culture -- romantic love, or the love of parent and child, for example -- some people feel uncomfortable holding hands at Mass. It's best to respect this. Yet if it is parish custom, those who balk may need to ask themselves, "Does it really hurt me to grasp hands for a few minutes?"

Every parish has a personality, just like every family or household does. Some families or households are very physical in expressing affection: lots of touching, hugging, kissing. Others are more reserved physically: Love is expressed in words and deeds but maybe not very often in hugs and kisses. There's no right or wrong here. What's essential is that we pray the words of Jesus' with sincerity and love.

From US Catholic magazine 2007

===

W. Patrick Cunningham has written a book that discusses hand holding within the larger context of the entire liturgy.


When I raise questions about this innovation [holding hands at the Lord’s Prayer], the response is usually, "Well, why not? Anything that brings people together is good. We are preparing for Communion, so why not introduce another element of unity? We are saying 'Our Father,' so why shouldn't we symbolize our commonality by joining hands?"

It sounds innocent. But the very fact that this is a radical innovation should give us pause Nowhere in the history of the Church do we find holding hands as a liturgical sign, except in the marriage rite, where hands are joined as a sign of marital unity. If we truly understand and respect the intimacy of this sign, we will not make it promiscuous. There are already powerful sign: of Christian unity in the Mass: the Pax and Holy Communion.

Psychologically speaking, an obtrusive sign of unity that tries to enforce its own compliance is more likely to be in practice a sign of disunity.

-W. Patrick Cunningham
At the Name of Jesus, Every Knee Shall Remain Unbent?
The Language of the Body and the Mass

(New Oxford Review) Feb 1999

Click here for web excerpt

===

What is my stand on the question of holding hands at the Lord’s Prayer? I am a parish liturgist and musician so I take a pastoral approach. I personally am uncomfortable with the custom, for many of the reasons stated by the above writers. I prefer to simply place my hands in the “orantes” gesture as a gentle indication to those around me that I will not be grabbing their hands. However, my orantes is sometimes mistaken for an invitation as people next to me take my hand anyway. When that happens, I do not pull away. Above all, I do not wish to “make a scene” and distract from the sincere prayer of my parish community.

I admit that I wince whenever I hear a priest introduce the Lord’s Prayer by saying, “And now, let’s take the hand of the person next to us and pray our family prayer . . .” I also regret that two or three generations have now grown up with the custom as a matter of course and do it without question. When or if the US Bishops finally address this issue there will surely be a lot of hurt or confused feelings in the event of the gesture's suppression.

Let us pray . . .


Wednesday, November 11, 2009

Alienation: Welcome to My Nightmare





My next door neighbor recently mentioned how much he was looking forward to the new movie, Fourth Kind, and wondered if I would join him in seeing it. I politely declined.

There is a new television series called V and whenever there’s a commercial for it I quickly change the channel. I have no intention of seeing it, nor did I see the original 1980s series that it is based on.

Both the movie and the TV series feature the story of aliens on earth, and that creeps me out. You see, I have had a recurring nightmare ever since childhood of being visited by aliens from another world. Each nightmare is consistently the same and goes like this:

I am asleep in my bed when a bright pulsating light starts shining through the drapes of my bedroom window. I groggily get out of bed, open the drapes, and see several space vehicles of various neon colors silently hovering outside my house. A few of them swiftly trade places with each other except for the mothership, which slowly starts to maneuver toward me, it’s bright purple and blue lights strobing faster and faster.

There is no sound at first, but as the mothership zeroes in on me I begin to hear a low throbbing hum. It gets louder and louder as the purple-blue lights start to envelop me. The other ships start zooming around and around in confusing patterns as I feel myself drawn into the mothership, which is now emitting a piercing high-pitched white noise. I’m being pulled into the ship against my will and scream at the top of my lungs.

“No! No! No . . .”

Then I wake up in cold sweat, safely in bed. I had this dream often as a child, and its occurrence increased when I was in college, then tapered off in middle age. But every now and then it comes back with a vengeance. In fact, I dreamed it last week and woke up screaming. My cat, who usually sleeps in another room, came running into my room and jumped on top of my bed, as if to check up on me. He ended up spending the rest of the night at my feet. (Don’t laugh. This really happened.)

I have no idea what this recurring dream means. All I know is that when it occurs, it’s terrifying. I suppose the whole “aliens and spaceships” motif is a symbol for something, but I have never bothered to analyze it. Perhaps I am too scared to even think about it.

“Maybe you were abducted by aliens once,” suggested a good friend of mine. “Do you have any unexplained scars?” He was serious.

Stop right there. I do not for a moment believe in alien abduction, nor do I believe in UFOs. That’s only science-fiction entertainment. So why have these dreams haunted me all my life?

I am open to ideas and interpretations from my readers.