Catholic Liturgy

Many Roman Catholics, both liberal and conservative, like to talk about a “debate” going on in terms of the liturgy. From what I see, there is no “debate”: there is a bunch of angry people talking at each other and not to each other–a common religious occurrence. There are undoubtedly good people on both sides of the bogus debate who do have the best of intentions in mind but I am of the belief that the overwhelming majority of each side are mainly ideologues with control issues who can only see things in the dualistic fashion of either/or rather than both/and. On top of that, many people who are “liturgists” are either set in their ways, lack historical knowledge, know little on language, and know virtually nothing about, to use a term they despise, “theater” (they like to use the terms “drama” and “dramatic” but never theater). How about a few points on what each side wants? Sound reasonable?

Liberals:

Let’s talk about the liberal wing. They want dancing, ‘pastoral language’, hugging and kissing, modern music, and modern architecture. What are the issues with this? I really don’t see any. When you look into it, you’ll see the problems: problems can always be fixed.

The first thing you’ll realize is they don’t know how to dance. They turn liturgical dance into a sideshow that really has nothing to do with worship or flow of the liturgy. On top of that, many liberals complain about the passivity of the congregation and think dance is a form of “active participation” but by adding soloists who dance as a sideshow, the passivity of the assembly is reinforced[1]. In some cultures, the form of dance used works as an integral part of the liturgy however, many westerners, specifically North Americans and Europeans, have not clue in how to use it.

“Pastoral language” is something nobody can be against, right? How many people don’t even know what it is? Is it when the celebrant says “Good morning everyone and welcome!” after the entrance hymn even though there was a welcome before the entrance procession began? Is it telling a joke during the homily? Is it using gender inclusive language? Is it using Latin where possible? The intention is all well and good as pastoral is not a bad word. What is the role of the celebrant/liturgical minister? The role of that person is to serve the assembly which stands in worship. Much frivolous talk on the part of the priest (the 25 minute homily[2], the joke, the story about a movie he watched, a visit to his mother, etc) makes the liturgy center around the celebrant rather than the Creator. With the desire for pastoral language, you end up with a line that is easily crossed between serving the community and clericalism. You have some people, such as Bishops Donald Trautman of Erie, PA, former head of the US Bishops committee on the liturgy who insist on ‘pastoral language’ over sacred language however, he comes across as a former head of a committee that just can’t let go of his authority.[3]

As for hugging and kissing well, nobody should have an issue with it as it goes way back in Christian tradition. In the modern world of course, we don’t want to touch the stranger next to us as, they may be a lighter color than us or we fear the germs (so much for the healing power of Christ and the protection of the Holy Spirit!). Think, Swine Flu[4]

There’s no accounting for taste. When we get into the modern music and modern architecture debate, well, this has the potential for all hell to break loose. Pretty much everyone likes Gothic, Renaissance, and baroque architecture and everyone likes Renaissance and baroque but many forget, at one time, those three were “modern architecture”. There are some things that appeal to people’s aesthetic tastes that often do not mix (sort of like Margaret Thatcher and a bikini). Finding a balance here is the hard part. Let’s be honest, some modern churches look great others are an outright horror show. In the 1970s, when Quaaludes and disco were popular, some of the things people did with churches were out right scary.


I’ve seen an old combination of a Romanesque/Palaeologan Byzantine basilica that had its interior ripped out, and altar moved to the side. It looked ridiculous. Some of the modern churches are lacking to say the least. Many don’t have a feeling of sacred space: a modern church in the middle of a parking lot with an entrance that looks more like a bank than a church just does not have it.



I suppose there are some ingredients any church needs. Iconography is definitely one of them. At the very least, it gives one something to look at when the priest is giving a 25 minute sermon. Perhaps you can mediate on the scene portrayed on a groovy stained glass window and regard it as a form of ‘active participation’ (the priest won’t get the message if he sees you reading the bulletin so you might as well play nice and look around). I think a church also needs a narthex (fancy term for vestibule). It functions as a transition between the public and the sacred realms. Christ Church on Park Avenue in Manhattan is a perfect example. You can walk in from the hustle and bustle of a Manhattan street and the narthex is a perfect place for the change. When you then go into the nave, you get a nice, quiet place—such a nice locale to escape the hectic city (and the fact the church is Methodist in Manhattan means it’s empty all the time).


As for the music, well, here we have an issue. Every Christmas, everyone likes “Adeste Fidelis” and “Hark the Herald!” but the problem there is, the rest of the year. At Christmas and Easter, churches may hire professionals that are trained and do a wonderful job playing the “classics”. The rest of the year, what do many churches have? A 1960s left over that loves folk music on the guitar. Problem there is the person knows fifteen songs. How many times does one need to hear “On Eagles Wings” or “Make Me an Instrument of Your Peace”? I don’t need to hear “Stairway to Heaven” anymore and than the more popular “contemporary Christian” tunes. That title, “contemporary Christian”, alone is indicative of SHIT music.

I would think another aspect that churches do need for them to function properly would be permanence. Can a trailer really function as a “sacred site”? A few final thoughts I suppose a church needs areis size, a nave, apse, aforementioned narthex, and a sanctuary. The last must be distinguished from the rest of the church as the Holy of Holies was in the Temple in Jerusalem. Liberals hate that last one as most believe there should be no distinction of space (“God is everywhere”) and deep down, they’re closeted anti-Semites anyway.

Conservatives:
Conservatives, want chanting (Gregorian of course, though within the Roman tradition, there are others such as Baroque polyphony), Latin, lots of rubrics, and anything that smells of “Tradition”. All of that sounds good to me as well. That said, there are right ways and wrong ways of doing it. Sometimes, many conservative groups stage their liturgies in such a way where it looks “forced”. The Tridentine Mass on EWTN looks more staged than the Latin rite baptism in “The Godfather”. There’s a problem.

People like chant and always did. How many times have I gone along with the crowds and chanted “Let’s Go Mets!” at old Shea Stadium? “U-S-A! U-S-A!” at the Olympics or World Cup is always popular and of course, my personal favorite sports chant: “Potvin Sucks!” (and I am not even a NY Rangers fan). Liberals may not like it and hate to admit it but people like Gregorian chant. Perhaps they detest it so much because they know it drives conservatives batty and conservatives love it because liberals hate it. That sounds like a nice, unhealthy relationships that helps feed the 12 step programs that meet in the chuch basements. Look, chant has been around along time and Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs and Jews all have a form of chant. Chant is a universal religious practice in this world. It works, conservatives are right on this issue, and liberals don’t have a leg to stand on. You can pull an atheist in off the street and ask them “Which do you prefer?” and allow them to hear Gregorian chant or “One Bread One Body” sung out of key by some person playing a guitar and guess what the atheist will prefer?

The paradox of Latin: Public schools are instituting Latin, though having a tough time finding teachers, while most Catholic schools shun it. That gets back to what I said about liberals and Gregorian chant. From a utilitarian point of view, if Latin can give a student points on their SAT and get them in to top tier schools, then the Catholic schools should be teaching it, at the very least, the help their students be more competitive. Why not? In the religious sense, throwing in a few prayers, responses, or even songs in Latin works and for many, especially young people, it might even add a sense of “mystery”. Here with music you have an issue: sure, Mozart, Bach, Beethoven and the other greats wrote wonderful church music BUT……..the words are in latin. So what happens? They want to throw the baby out wit the bath water.

There are times and places for pomp, ceremony, and formality. You wouldn’t wear a polo shirt to your son’s funeral or flip flops & a tank top shirt to the White House. Many liberal criticisms of the conservative’s desire for pomp and formality are more generational than anything else. One, liberals like to “be comfortable” but I am sure someone like Tom Ford might just say “you may be more comfortable naked but, that doesn’t mean you look good” and two, they just wanted to be different back in the 60s and 70s so they wore powder blue tuxedos with ruffled shirts at their weddings. Way to go guys: you looked SHARP!


What is Tradition? It is something people ‘pass on’ from generation to generation. Who would have an issue with that? A good friend of mine took his son to his first Mets game and was damned proud of it! God bless him for it! Of course, as a Mets fan myself, I think that might just classify as a form of abuse. The ladies in Louisville, KY like showing off their hats on Oaks and Derby Day and if you want to get rid of that tradition, you’re going to enter a world of hurt. There is nothing wrong with passing on a tradition. Problem here is that you can not force it. Liberals want to reject tradition, and conservatives want to reinstate and stagnate it. Let’s be honest, the truth lies in between. There’s an ebb and flow that goes on, almost like Adam Smith’s “invisible hand.” The Mass may be said in the vernacular, the priest babbles, the music sucks, and the church looks like a branch office of Wachovia in Northern Virginia but so many traditions remain. People will still decorate their trees at Christmas, wear black at funerals, and watch fireworks on the Fourth of July (I go the Belmont Park). There’s always hope! Just ask any horse player.

Conclusion:
It all comes down to mindset. Here in America, we are “Westerners” and we think in a set way, overall. A good friend of mine was in Rome with his wife in 2005. He was fortunate enough to be inside St. Peter’s as a tourist when a liturgy began. His opinion means something as he is a secular Jew but he thought the way everything came together was brilliant: the art, the architecture, the music, the procession, even the office of Pope, all just combined to make something amazing, he thought. I was lucky enough to chaperone a trip to Italy in Spring 2009 and I took several students to the Easter Vigil at the Duomo in Florence. They were impressed. A group of kids from a Queens, NY catholic high school accustomed to the usual American silliness at mass loved how the architecture, the art work, the music (yes, the used the organ), the languages (Italian and Latin), even the bell (at the consecration at 1:05 AM Giotto’s Bell Tower rang) all came together. In effect, they put on a good show. Why people are against doing a “good show” these days is beyond me. There’s an element of “sacred theater” that liturgists, whether liberal or conservative, need to employ and constantly work on otherwise, they’ll close just like any other show.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Kavanagh, Aidan. Elements of Rite: A Handbook of Liturgical Style. Liturgical Press, 1990. p. 33

[2] National Catholic Reporter, March 10, 2010. “Homilies Should be Under Eight Minutes Long”

[3] Ibid, October 26, 2009. “Liturgy Needs Not Sacred Language But “Pastoral Language”

[4] The New York Times, October 17, 2009. “Flu Fears Curb Life’s Rituals”