« O Canada | Main | Welcome to my world, Roger »
May 28, 2006
On the Kneeling Beat
The LA Times picks up the story about the kneeling wars in an Orange County parish
This has been extensively discussed on many Catholic blogs, and the LATimes story gets most of it right, although it is a little light on background and context. There is more to the kneeling "side" than simply kneeling - you can read more here at the LA Catholic Mission and by scanning what the blogs have to say via this search. They have a lengthier list of complaints. The complexity of the issue is rather daunting: some complain about the lack of liturgical unity within and through Catholic Masses, but when an ordinary wants to enforce unity in an area in which they disagree, they're all for going to another source of authority (here, "parish" tradition and/or, broader historical considerations). Advising altar servers, for example, to disobey diocesan directives on this score, doesn't give complainers much credibility:
The reprisals extend to the altar servers. In a letter dated December 14, 2005, Father Martin dismissed Damian Garcia as altar servers coordinator because "three times you did not follow these norms during Sunday Masses ... you knelt down after the Lamb of God right in front of the people." Father Tran noted, "for our first meeting, I said very clear that you would be the Altar Servers Coordinator with the condition that you should follow the liturgical norms of the diocese. And you promised that. Now, you broke it."
Garcia says that this was the last of three letters he received during Advent. "He wanted me to train altar girls -- I thought it wouldn't be a problem, but my conscience got the better of me, and I decided not to, although I didn't talk about it. He also wanted me to obey the norms of the diocese. When I told him we knelt after the Lamb of God, he said, 'we don't do that here.' I told him, 'we have a precedent here of local custom.' We did dispute that idea, and his interpretation was to conform to the diocese, and my interpretation was that we could follow the custom of the parish. So the First Sunday of Advent he wanted to institute these changes, and I knelt down, and all the altar boys knelt down -- I had been the director of altar boys for about 15 years. He sent a letter later that week, hinting that he did not want me to kneel. The following Sunday I knelt again, and some of the altar boys did too, but not all of them. Again, he warned me not to kneel. On the Third Sunday of Advent, I knelt at the Lamb of God, and later that week, I got the letter dismissing me.
Well, yeah.
On the other hand, liturgical "progressives" are all for diversity, except when it comes to a pet issue or two - like this one. And we're all pretty tired of it, and we all see through it.
Unity and conformity (not the same thing) are matters that are not as easy to tease out in Catholic tradition as we sometimes think. It is my generally less-than-expert sense that the weight of demands for unity and conformity in the Catholic liturgical tradition has been on what the priests and other liturgical ministers were supposed to do, rather than the congregation. Now, then, this is also the consequence of the congregation' s gradual, but definite loss of any "active" role in the Mass (I put "active" in quotes for the sake of trying to avoid discussions about what "active" means. Yes, I know that praying is "active participation.) In this context, I simply mean...if the congregation really didn't have to or wasn't supposed to verbalize, then their conformity was not an issue. My limited experience in Orthodox and Eastern Rite churches reveals an echo of this sensibility (although the congregations in those contexts are permitted more of an externally participatory role than in the Tridentine Rite, I believe, if they choose.) - as people are kneeling, sitting, standing or even milling around during various parts of the liturgies. At the parish Mass we attended in Rome (I'm not counting St. Peter's, because that's a special case, and isn't normative for parish life, considering its tourist-weighty congregation), after Communion, some knelt, some sat, a few stood in the back. It was all fairly relaxed and seemed understood that here, there might not be a need to demand that the congregational stance physically reflect someone's idea of what unity would mean.
This "no kneeling" story is, in the end, not about kneeling. It's about about a broader base of complaints that this group has and about the bishop and pastor's stance toward this particular group and its complaints, and whatever fears and potential problems those complaints give rise to in the clerics' hearts. It's about power, and in a sense, it's even about those "thinking," "well-informed" Catholics that we've been hankering for since the end of Vatican II. What happens when the "thinking" "well-informed" Catholics can give back as much as you can when it comes to quoting liturgical experts, past and present, and are arguing against your views? Not exactly what we expected, is it?
It is just insane, in a way. The whole "stand from the Lord's Prayer to the end of Communion" thing is lame, artificial and manipulative. It is anything but organic and just has a feel of puppetry about it. (I've been in two parishes in the past two months in two different dioceses where this directive is in force.) To tell people it's a mortal sin - the first time the phrase "mortal sin" has probably been mentioned in the Diocese of Orange since 1962, I imagine - strikes me as, well, sinful.
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
Comments
What about this?
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/060526/ids_photos_wl/r215067290.jpg
Posted by: JB Kuang at May 28, 2006 3:13:18 PM
You're right Amy - this is all about power. When you think of the heavy-handed way this issue is being addressed compared to the velvet gloves used to address crimes against children, it's actually breath-taking.
With all the problems in the church and temporal world, it's been decided we must stamp out with invective, resolute persistence, and a lack of sensitivity the terrible abuse of ... kneeling?
I'm guessing alot of these people are older and have been through a couple of generations of these insane reforms and have finally said "enough is enough, I'm kneeling to my Lord and you can like it or lump it."
Why can't they leave these old people alone? Haven't they suffered enough?
Reminds me of the old joke -- What's the difference between a liturgist and a hostage-taker?
You can negotiate with hostage-takers.
Posted by: chicagoan at May 28, 2006 3:51:23 PM
Or the old people just can't keep themselves standing for that long a period. My aunt in her last year of life was one of them. She just didn't have the energy to stand, so she knelt after Communion and then sat.
I'm much younger, but I've gone back to kneeling, because I want to pray.
When I finish my post-Communion prayer, I may stand up and sing.
Posted by: Elaine at May 28, 2006 4:21:06 PM
An aside.
In those places where one is required to stand through communion (???) what happens if one neither stands nor kneels, but simply sits? What happens if, one has the misfortune to find oneself in a Robert Hovda-inspired travesty of a church, one decides to make a trek to the "eucharistic chapel" located down the hall next door to the Coke machine to make one's thanksgiving?
On a more serious note, the kneeling war really has escalated to bizarrely absurd levels. Pox on the bishop for heavy-handed references to mortal sin and pox on the kneelers for kneeling that is motivated less by devotion and more out of defiance. Cranky despotic liberal bishop + cranky lay reactionaries = pastoral toxic waste dump masquerading as a parish. Quick, send in the clowns, don't bother, they're here.
Posted by: Patrick Rothwell at May 28, 2006 4:24:40 PM
I think the kneelers are right on this one. They are not, as far as I can tell, requiring that everyone kneel. They are merely asking for the right to kneel. What is the harm? It's not disruptive and it's a perfectly acceptable pious act after the Agnus Dei. What's next-- excommunication for those who refuse to hold hands during the Our Father?
Posted by: reluctant penitent at May 28, 2006 4:41:50 PM
I think it is important to see these apparently picayune liturgical matters as ciphers for much larger, much more important issues. The equivalent discussion among religious men and women is the Habit Cipher: to wear or not to wear, etc. These discussions are never really just about wearing a habit or when to kneel or how to consume the Host. They are discussions, fights, dramas about how we are going to be Catholic, about how we understand what it means to be Catholic in a culture that pretends to place equal value on all truth claims. That the left-liberal liturgists are just as oppressive, authoritarian, and ideologicaly unyielding as the right-conservative ideologues of 1950's Traditionalism shouldn't surprise any of us. Ideology and Ego are convenient but petulant gods.
What both the left and the right on all these issues fail to do--over and over and over again--is OBEY. Not merely listen with charity but comply with graciousness as well. The refusal to obey legit authority in the Church is an act of pride.
My question to Fr. Tran: do you, Father, obey the liturgical regulations? Have you been a good example of obedience for your parish? If you can't obey, then don't expect to be obeyed.
Fr. Philip, OP
Posted by: PNP, OP at May 28, 2006 4:42:14 PM
Where did the LA Times get this idea that kneeling after the Agnus Dei was "introduced" in the 7th century? The Agnus Dei was itself only introduced at that time. In fact, the clergy have been after the people trying to make them stand since at least the Council of Nicaea (A.D. 312), see canon 20, which can be found on the internet. In the middle ages, the clergy were still trying to get lay people to stand instead of kneel, but finally (as can be seen in art) the popes came around and sided with the people. Starting with Pope Gregory IX (1227-1241) the popes finally adopt the lay posture and have themselves pictured kneeling at prayer instead of standing in sculture and painting. (On the kneeling wars of the middle ages, see A. Thompson, _Cities of God_ (Penn State Press, 2005), pp. 237-39. Why can't modern bishops listen to the sensus fidelium, the "consensus of the faithful"? After all, Christians have been praying kneeling to pray since the time of St. Paul and the Apostles (see Acts 21:5).
Posted by: Quiet Soul at May 28, 2006 4:42:45 PM
The worst of clerical culture shows its ugly head: stiff necks, stiff knees and stiff penalties.
Pastors can have legitimate concerns about the disobedient behavior of parishioners, but they need to start modelling the behavior they would like their flock to emulate. If you're going to serve as the spiritual father of a parish, you have to give up certain infantile behaviors...
Posted by: Clayton at May 28, 2006 4:47:33 PM
If Fr. Tran really believed this was a mortal sin, then he should have the courage to refuse communion to those that kneel, because they are public sinners. Of course if he did this, they would then be able to appeal to Rome, and I am pretty sure that Rome would back up the kneelers. So Fr. Tran is happy making a statement he knows can not be true, and also knowing that because he takes no action, Rome will not step in. Finally, I think this shows the desperation of the liberals in the Church. They know that their time is limited. Everything that has been coming from Rome in the last decade and everything that will likely come from Rome in the future is against their agenda. They are desperately trying to hold on, but they are getting older and their agenda has produced no vocations. They have no future and they know it. Just shows that the “crisis” in vocations of the past thirty years was really just a weeding out.
Posted by: Christopher Sarsfield at May 28, 2006 4:52:46 PM
It is neither important to kneel or stand. So each community should come to a consensus as to what to do. Aren't there bigger problems like why most Catholic churches did not make Mexicans welcome in the US so that most became Pentecostals? In a different way the evangelization of blacks was very tepid by leaders in the church. Now we find ourselves presided over by Black and Indian Ministers as the US becomes a "mission" country.
Posted by: Bill at May 28, 2006 5:17:32 PM
Here's a letter you'll never see coming out of Bishop Brown's chancery:
He sent a letter later that week, hinting that he did not want me to hold hands. The following Sunday I held hands again, and some of the altar boys did too, but not all of them. Again, he warned me not to hold hands. On the Third Sunday of Advent, I held hands at the Lord's Prayer, and later that week, I got the letter dismissing me.
Posted by: midwestmom at May 28, 2006 5:28:34 PM
Again, where is the logic when it comes to the fundamental sacred of our Faith? Rome tells all priests/bishops that the faithful should not be persecuted in any way if they kneel while receiving the Holy Eucharist. Is this a different Eucharist when it comes to another most sacred moment within the holy mass where the same persons are then forced to a lesser standard of reverence for the same holy Eucharist? I certainly would use that instruction from Rome with Fr. Tran. Better forget the example given by the angel of Portugal as to how we are to reverence the holy Eucharist.
Looks like Mother A. has a job before her to collect all of those EWTN kneeling mats made just for those where, if you disagree with the obvious position advertised by the architecture of a "sacred space", and wish to kneel, you may. She's placing many in the occasion of mortal sin!
Posted by: chris K at May 28, 2006 6:19:30 PM
An odd thing happened at my suburban "liberal" parish a few years back:
The parish had been using movable plastic chairs since the seventies. The kids who went to LifeTeen and migrating Stubenville events started sitting up at the front of the church nearest the altar, and kneeled at the times when the congregation traditionally stood, but when every other parish knelt. A few months later, most everybody was kneeling at the daily masses, and the new church building plans suddenly included kneelers. Having adopted the regular kneeling practices even on Sundays, the mass now seems far more reverent than before. It's a subtle change, but one for the better. All because of a few pious teenagers.
Posted by: Kevin Jones at May 28, 2006 6:21:17 PM
When I was confirmed in my Portland, OR parish in 1999, we were instructed not to kneel _during the Consecration_, nor to bow to the altar when we walked by, nor to genuflect when we sat down in the pew. (I learned to kneel during the Consecration by visiting other parishes.) Last fall, we finally implemented the norms set forth by the bishops re: liturgy, including kneeling. Some long-time parishioners still resist kneeling at all (or pop up as quickly as they can at the Great Amen), and one of our associate pastors resists it as well (he doesn't enforce or encourage it).
Though I'm dismayed by the kneelers' bad attitude on this, I've got to say that I understand their frustration and my heart is with them.
Posted by: Kathleen Lundquist at May 28, 2006 7:02:13 PM
"And we're all pretty tired of it, and we all see through it."
That pretty well sums it up on the liturgy wars Amy. We have seen so much of this type of nonsense over the past four decades. It is all of a piece with attempting to ram down the throats of congregations unsingable, goofball hymns, priest's neutering the readings, wretched English translations of the Mass, turning splendid churches into ugly vacant "worship spaces", and, in general, an unending war on the traditional, the beautiful and the reverent in the Mass. God forgive all the damage to the faith of ordinary Catholics that these clerical wreckers have done on behalf of the latest fad to seize their ever-wandering attention.
Posted by: Donald R. McClarey at May 28, 2006 7:40:29 PM
Penances, like kneeling or fasting? We don't need no steenking penances! Or statues or stained glass or incense or rosaries or public acts of devotion. We're resurrection people! We're already perfect! Break out the felt banners and sing a new song!
Posted by: Little Gidding at May 28, 2006 8:02:18 PM
In those places where one is required to stand through communion (???) what happens if one neither stands nor kneels, but simply sits?
If enough people do this, one priest I know will make an announcement at the end of Mass, welcoming any visitors but then explaining that the parish stands during communion following instructions of the bishop. I've seen him do this at Sunday and weekday Masses. Even so there are still a few holdouts during weekday Mass, usually kneeling in the back.
The same priest, however, will add extra words to the "Behold the Lamb of God...", among other things. See, that's the kind of thing I find really annoying.
Posted by: Manny at May 28, 2006 8:05:48 PM
Boy, with all the 'optional' prayers for the Mass (where's the uniformity in that) why is the kneeling thing the 'problem' that throws some right over the edge?
In my (former) parish, the priest all of a sudden forbade kneeling during the Consecration and at Communion time. There were a few holdouts... we ended up in the back pews so we wouldn't draw attention or make it like it was a protest. Contrary to what some think, kneeling isn't a false or pretentious piety at all, it really is painful to stand at the most intimate moments of the Mass - and hear 'every knee shall bend' in your mind - plus I always think that (please God) when I meet Jesus, I doubt I'll be standing.
Anyhow, this priest explained that if we met a head of state or a royal king or queen, we approach them and shake hands, so we can do no less for Jesus himself (no kneeling). He's an older priest, convinced that American Catholics need to pull away from a Rome that doesn't understand us. He did not allow Latin in the parish - even in song (according to the choir director). Funny thing is, he just got transferred to be pastor or the only Indult in the Archdiocese. God works in mysterious ways sometimes!
A bit off track but why is a Catholic 'kneeler' treated worse than a Catholic who wears a rainbow sash and proudly declares him/herself a practicing homosexual? (could be any sin, it's just that gays seem to be vocal and physical about proclaiming it) --- how come no tolerance for those of us who must kneel?
Posted by: Colleen at May 28, 2006 8:43:47 PM
It is interesting to note that making the decision by the diocesan bishop is an approved USA adaptation to the Roman Missal.
The approved translation of the 2002 General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) part of n. 43 for England and Wales has:
"Nevertheless, it is up to the Conference of Bishops to adapt the gestures and postures described in the Order of Mass to the culture and reasonable traditions of the people. [Footnote 53: Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy,Sacrosanctum Concilium, no.40; Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Instruction Varietates legitimae,25 January 1994, no. 41: AAS 87 (1995), p. 304.] The Conference, however, must make sure that such adaptations correspond to the meaning and character of each part of the celebration. Where it is the practice for the people to remain after the Sanctus until the end of the Eucharistic Prayer and before Communion when the priest says Ecce Agnus Dei
(This is the Lamb of God), this practice is laudably retained."
(It can be downloaded from http://www.catholic-ew.org.uk/liturgy/Resources/GIRM/Documents/index.html . It seems to me to follow the Latin text, except it leaves out the word "kneeling" that should be after "remain" for the Latin "genuflexum").
The USA "translation"/adaptation of 2002 GIRM n. 43:
"In the dioceses of the United States of America, they should kneel beginning after the singing or recitation of the Sanctus until after the Amen of the Eucharistic Prayer, except when prevented on occasion by reasons of health, lack of space, the large number of people present, or some other good reason. Those who do not kneel ought to make a profound bow when the priest genuflects after the consecration. The faithful kneel after the Agnus Dei unless the Diocesan Bishop determines otherwise. [Footntoe 53 ...]. "
The USA bishops chose, and got approved from the Vatican, the bishop's decision. This is despite 2002 GIRM USA translation also having:
"390. It is up to the Conferences of Bishops to decide on the adaptations indicated in this General Instruction and in the Order of Mass and, once their decisions have been accorded the recognitio of the Apostolic See, to introduce them into the Missal itself. These adaptations include
• The gestures and posture of the faithful (cf. no. 43 above); ..."
Posted by: John Lilburne at May 28, 2006 8:53:35 PM
Sorry to post twice but I just read a couple of Fr. Tran's dismissal letters to parishioners of his parish (invited to leave or asked to step down from pastoral responsibilities due to kneeling during the Mass). It flashed in my mind (and I am not a Traditionalist by any means) that this case is a good case to bring back 'ad orientem' --- that way the priest would not be distracted by the posture of the people, as this priest obviously is.
Posted by: Colleen at May 28, 2006 8:54:06 PM
I prefer kneeling but I continue to stand as requested. Every day we receive both the Body and Blood of Christ.
Posted by: Elaine N. at May 28, 2006 9:28:38 PM
I'm afraid these kinds of stories make me very, very angry. Granted that the bishops have the power to stamp out every act of simple piety on the part of the faithful in their flocks, and granted that many of them here in the U.S. have far more zeal to eradicate kneeling and Latin and anything that smacks of reverence then they show toward the eradication of sin in their dioceses, the question remains, why? Do they really think God is insulted when people kneel?
Yes, we must obey the lawful authority of our bishops, no matter how hurtful it is to us. Ascension on Sunday? Fine. No Monday holydays (except Christmas, the big moneymaker)? Fine. No kneeling after the Agnus Dei? Fine, too. But if I were forced by some tragic geographical circumstance to reside in this diocese and attend this parish, I'd probably invest in some hats or chapel veils, so that at least some small gesture of respect to our Lord would remain available to me.
Posted by: Anonymous at May 28, 2006 9:50:15 PM
If there is any justice, one minute of standing after the Agnus Dei translates into a thousand years of kneeling in Purgatory.
Posted by: Zippy at May 28, 2006 9:53:10 PM
Can a priest really 'invite' someone to 'leave the diocese'? I don't know what that means, but doesn't it sound kind of like excommunication? Doesn't there have to be some kind of canonical process?
Posted by: mark j at May 28, 2006 10:17:50 PM
The totalitarian mindset is ever with us.
Posted by: Adam at May 28, 2006 11:08:48 PM
