Stanek weekend vid: Priest surprises bride and groom with angelic song
by Hans Johnson
Not a season of American Idol goes by without several contestants performing Leonard Cohen’s Hallelujah. Father Ray Kelly offered his own customized version at the conclusion of a wedding ceremony in his parish in Oldcastle, County Meath, Ireland, to the surprise and delight of everyone – including bride and groom Leah and Chris O’Kane.
[youtube]http://youtu.be/XYKwqj5QViQ[/youtube]
Email dailyvid@jillstanek.com with your video suggestions.
[HT: TheBlaze]
Apr.12, 2014 1:12 pm |
Video of the day |
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
For those readers who are not Catholic, please understand that when Father drew attention to himself in that manner, he abdicated his role as “alter Christi”. It really does not matter one bit who was “delighted”. Mass and weddings are times of worship, not revelry. This might have been appropriate at the reception but not before the Blessed Sacrament.
Mass was given for man, not the other way around. It was indeed delightful!
I’m not Catholic, but I would say from the first link that this was after the Sacrament.
“I put on my track for Leonard Cohen [at the altar] and that’s where it took off. The wedding ceremony was over, we were about to have the final prayer and do the civil part of the ceremony.
“We were about to have the final prayer…” Thus, Mass was NOT over and you can’t help but consider this a liturgical abuse.
Awesome… Liturgical abuse or not, the Church and the Mass are always places for the celebration of love and beauty. God became man in order to teach us how to love, not to put it down when it is displayed. Sometimes creativity is ok.
Hallelujah is an incredibly depressing and cynical song… I don’t think I would want it at my wedding anyway, “liturgical abuse” or not. It’s like when people do that “I will always love you” song at their wedding, don’t they realize it’s about breaking up???
Jack I thought that too. I always want to cry when I hear that song….
“Maybe there’s a God above, and all I’ve ever learned from love is how to shoot at someone who outdrew you. And it’s not a cry you can hear at night, it’s not somebody who’s seen the light, it’s a cold and it’s a broken hallelujah.”
Yeah I wouldn’t want that song at my wedding, that’s not even the most depressing verse!
Jack, did you watch this video? He changed the words to be about that couple. It is a real feat: sung with a great voice, full of love and humor.
God knows how broken we are, how often we fall short and choose the wrong way, how prone to despair.
But I will sing his praises, and lift my voice in the assembly..
Oh okay good to know
Nah I can’t get it to play on my stupid phone, I’m glad he changed the words lol.
He makes me so very grateful for my own reverent and good priest, and so very sad for the poverty of a priest less reverent. Thank you God for my holy priest.
I was born a few years after the Second Vatican Council instituted major changes in the Catholic Church. One of them was the rejuvenation of the liturgy. This was at the end of the mass , after the sacrament, and the Father decided to put a little zing into the final minutes.
The times of the Latin mass ended in 1962. We are not a bunch od dead Catholics. The Second Vatican Council gave the Church a pulse.
This is the day the Lord has made; let us rejoice and be glad in it. Psalm 118:24
Congrats to the newlyweds and thanks to the Father who rejoiced in their day…
Hallelujah!, Thomas and 9ek!
This priest has sort of done what the Church has always done – take something that is depressing and turned into something beautiful and positive. Jesus took the Cross and transformed it into a symbol of Faith, Hope and Charity. This Priest reinterpreted the depressing song Hallelujah and restored the true happy meaning of the word Hallelujah to it. It was Leonard Cohen who misunderstood/misused the word Hallelujah. Mr. Cohen could learn a thing or two from this Priest!
If you don’t see all the virtues in the Cross you don’t really see Christ and his Church.
The tongue lashing this Priest has received from some posters reminds me what Jesus went through in the second sorrowful mystery!
Oh my gosh! Father Kelly has such a wonderful voice and the song was beautiful! What a thoughtful gift to the newlyweds!
So if he took the song “Like a Virgin” and sang different words to it…you’d be totally okay with that?
Just because you change the words to a song doesn’t mean you change the connotation to it.
Sydney I think if he took a song like “Like a Virgin” and changed the words it’d be more like a parody? If parodies are wrong then the point stands but I don’t think it’s inherently wrong to change words to a melody you like and use it in another context.
I would pay to see a priest do a parody of like a virgin…at the reception :-)
@Thomas R: The Latin Mass has been revived across the country thanks to Pope Benedict, thankfully. I’ve been going to it exclusively for the last several years.
I’ve seen enough “liturgical abuse” to last three lifetimes, but I don’t consider this priest to be guilty of such.
Deluded…a time and a place for everything. I don’t think parodies are wrong. But in church? It’s wrong imo. You’re still standing in the sanctuary of God’s house. I think it is disrespectful. Just my opinion but I feel rather strongly about it.
Well, I’m just going to drop in to say that this guy has an awesome voice.
I had to look up the other version of this song. Never heard it before.
I’d love to hear a different version of Madonna’s Like a Virgin too; Maybe Father Kelly will do a re-write. My kids never heard the original and imo aren’t missing anything.
MoreFun… http://chicksontheright.com/posts/item/25382-this-is-my-body-a-parody
Some unawsomeness: VIA Janet Twaddle Carpenter on facebook, Please read:
A letter from Archbishop Samuel Aquila re: Colorado SB 175, being debated on this week in the senate.To all people of goodwill in Colorado:I am writing to you today with a very important request. Weekends are busy for all of us, but I am asking you, as a believer in the sanctity of human life, to pray for 10 minutes and take one of the actions that I will mention at the conclusion of this letter.If you haven’t yet heard, there is a very troubling bill being debated in the Colorado State Senate next week. Senate Bill 175, touted as the “Reproductive Health Freedom Act,” passed on a party line vote in committee this past Thursday. I am grateful to every person who showed up to oppose the radical bill.This over-reaching piece of legislation would essentially shut down any attempt to pass life-affirming legislation in Colorado ever again. More than that, it enshrines the “Right to abortion” into Colorado law. It’s being praised by anti-lie organizations such as NARAL and ThinkProgress as ”the first of its kind” in the country and “ambitious.” It enshrines the culture of death into law and ignores science.This bill would prevent lawmakers from enacting laws such as ultrasound requirements, which we all know-particularly from the work of the Knights of Columbus Ultrasound Initiative here in Colorado-have done so much to give mothers vital information about their pregnancy, and thus save countless children from imminent death.It prevents common-sense regulations like waiting periods, restrictions on abortion pills (particularly for minors), and parental notification policies.Advocates of this bill seek the absolute “right to abortion” for girls as young as 10 or 11 without a parent’s knowledge, guidance or advice. Parents are seen as unfit in the moral guidance of their children.Pope Francis affirmed on April 11, support for parents to decide their children’s moral and religious education, while re rejected “any kind of educational experimentation with children.”He further stated, “The horrors of the manipulation of education that we experienced in the great genocidal dictatorships of the 20th century have not disappeared; they have retained a current relevance under various guises and proposals and, with the pretense of modernity, push children and young people to walk on the dictatorial path of ‘only one form of thought.”This bill would protect the “only one form of thought” that Pope Francis warns against and undermine the freedom of one’s conscience to promote the dignity of human life and the unborn child.Finally, this bill would eliminate abortion clinic health code regulations, which pro-abortion advocates label as “burdensome.” Remember Kermit Gosnell in Philadelphia, and the horrific images and stories of women dying on the abortionist’s table? That is what an unregulated abortion clinic looks like! This bill is not good for the women and girls of Colorado!I am prayerfully asking eery person of good will to spend 10 minutes this weekend in prayer. Plead to Our Lord for His intercession on behalf of life in Colorado. Also, pray for our politicians on both sides of this issue, particularly for those who work tirelessly and often without recognition to promote life-affirming legislation in our State Capitol. Pray for the conversion of the heart and mind of those who support such irrational, unscientific, and a denial of conscience legislation.But don’t stop there. As a conclusion of your prayer, ask Our Lord what action he wants from you. Your are called to be a leaven for good and for life in society……(he goes on to say everyone must contact his/her senator to show them you support life and insist they do also.)…….Be people of hope! Many of you have ost faith in politics, but remember that attitude is not of God and is of the evil one. The devil confuses people and discourages them. Pope Francis in his April 11 daily homily reminded us, “The devil is here…even in the 21st century! And we mustn’t be naive, right? We must learn from the gospel how to fight against Satan.”……I leave you with some thoughts on the importance of Christian witness in our times. Remember that Vatican II called every Catholic to serve as leaven in society and “work for the sanctification of the world from within.”……May God bless each one of you abundantly!Most Reverend Samuel J. Aquila
Mass is about the worship of God. No priest is allowed to embellish on it. It’s liturgical abuse. There was absolutely no need for departure from the rubrics of Mass. Any decent priest knows that to do so is to show profound disrespect for His Church and yes, the Lord Himself. Look at the rest of the comments about “the singing talent” and so on. God is supposed to be glorified, not human talent. The priest disobeyed His Church and thus God. Period.
Tyler says: “The tongue lashing this Priest has received from some posters reminds me what Jesus went through in the second sorrowful mystery!”
Or, Aaron after coordinating the formation of the golden calf.
Well, the Pharisees are alive and kicking.
Bad ole Jesus, healing on the Sabbath, that must have been sabbatical abuse. And those pesky followers, picking heads of grain while they were hungry, the nerve! Just like those guys with King David, eating the bread that only priests are allowed to consume. They have no respect, I tell ya, no respect.
Mike, I appreciate your acknowledgment that this was not a case of liturgical abuse.
I understand the reasons Pope Benedict would want to revive the Latin Mass even if only as an axtraordinary form of the Tridentine Mass. I’m a member of still a very traditional Roman Catholic ethnic group, old school you may say. We also recognize what transpired to have Vatican II reconsider how the mass is presented to the people.
The rite of marriage was elevated to a feast in the most recent edition of the Roman Missal. I think it is proper to treat it as such.
Well, some of these comments just go to show there is nothing void of controversy. I cried watching this video and hearing the angelic voice of that priest echoing throughout the walls of that gorgeous church. I was touched that he went to the trouble to write his own words to the melody. Thanks, Hans. A great video to put a bow on my time in Ireland over the past few days. :)
I had chills and tears running down my face. What a precious surprise.
And yes. We really can argue about anything here.
Father Kelly did a wonderful job using his God-given human talent to worship God!
If we are supposed to be like a shining city on a hill, to not hide our light under a bushel basket, shouldn’t that go double for our shepherds?
For those who aren’t Catholic, I’m not surprised at the lack of appreciation for the laws governing the conduct of Holy Mass. But these laws are set in place by Jesus Christ Himself through His Church. To violate those laws for an admittedly novel performance is not “shining the light on the hill” by any stretch of the imagination. I understand some were moved to tears and chills and whatever, but that does not demonstrate that what Father did was just the most “wunnerfullest” thing ever. Thomas, it was liturgical abuse; it happened during Mass before the final blessing and dismissal were given. 9ek, your analogy of Jesus healing on the Sabbath is irrelevant to this case. Jesus, being God, exercised His Divine prerogative to answer real human need – not just indulge whims and fancies. Father answered no pressing need here; therefore what he did cannot be justified.
I disagree with your assessment Janet and I know that the Catholic Church is on the Priest’s side on this as well.
The preference is for as Church that is vibrant and has vital signs. That was the outcome of Vatican II. Dark ages no more.
Its disheartening you desire a Church that is distant, treats the faithful as mere statues, and wants its priests to be walking zombies….
The dissidence that you are seeing in the video is NOT a “vital sign”. I desire a Church that obeys Jesus Christ and does not exalt fleeting emotions and whimsical fancies above His Truth and Law. Your straw-man attempts in your last sentence do defy logic, by the way.
Given the size and extent of changes throughout the history of the catholic church and the challenges currently facing it, surely there are more important things to worry about than one little song at a wedding.
Jesus healed no-one on the Sabbath whose life was in danger: a withered hand could have waited one more day. You know what’s irrelevant? Work without love. I’d rather see the joy inspired by the song than all the sour faces wagging their fingers to scold him. I’m truly disappointed in the tenacious desire to malign a priest who showed love to his flock.
Oy. I suppose this isn’t the first time I’ve ever gone against the general “stream” of things… nor is it the first time when I’ve commented “where angels feared to tread” (which, I think, might translate into: “Heavens, I wish I’d followed my first instinct, and kept my mouth shut!”), but:
Had this “song presentation” been done at the rehearsal dinner, or at the reception, or at any time other than during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, I would have applauded as loudly as anyone. I do not fault the priest for wanting to offer a sentimental gift to the couple (though I raised an eyebrow at the choice of song), at all. I also do not fault the couple, or the congregation, for wanting to respond enthusiastically toward such a gift.
I most vehemently (and with a good deal of distress) object to the priest’s choice to offer this “gift” DURING HOLY MASS!
Do think about this reasonably: what advantage was it, in choosing to sing this dong DURING MASS, aside from gaining Father a “captive audience” which he wouldn’t have (to the same extent) at the reception? What, exactly, would have been LOST if the song had been sung at the reception? The Mass is designed for the worship of Christ, Himself… aside from all (forgive me) sentimental and fallacious nonsense such as, “Well, Christ is in everyone, and the priest was serving Christ in the couple! [etc.]” (there’s a reason “Love of God” is the GREATEST commandment, and “Love of Neighbour” is the SECOND; yes, the second should never be neglected, but it’s never to be done at the EXPENSE of the first–we really do explicitly honour God little enough, as it is). What would it have lost him, the couple, or everyone, if the priest had waited a very few hours for his “musical gift”? It would have been perfectly fitting at the reception (and it would have honoured God even better there, since it wouldn’t have eclipsed the Mass).
To get the stark, tactical part out of the way, first: the priest committed a significant liturgical abuse, here… and that is not, despite all sentimental “gushings” to the contrary (I refer mostly to the comments I’ve read on FB and YouTube, re: this same video), a small thing. The Documents of Vatican II (to which many appeal, when championing this sort of thing, vs. the alleged “stodgy Church before Vatican II”) EXPRESSLY FORBID this:
“Therefore no other person, not even a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority.” (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 22; Documents of Vatican II)
It makes NO DIFFERENCE, WHATSOEVER, if every last person in the congregation (perhaps it’d best be called an “audience”, given the situation) loves it, gushes over it, and/or is reduced to a sobbing puddle of joy because of it. If Christ’s Church says “no”, then we are to obey… and if it’s so wonderful, then it’ll be just as wonderful a few hours later (at the reception). The liturgy belongs to Christ, not to us, and it is not our plaything with which to play, even for the most effusively euphoric and pleasant and good-intentioned of reasons.
1) Even on a non-Christian level, people should be able to understand: I have no right, for example, to “hijack” your wedding reception with a “moving, wonderful, touching” announcement about my recent decision to give up all I have and go serve the poor in India. Just so: if the time of worship is dedicated to God (and honestly: is it SO difficult to pay attention explicitly and clearly to God, even for one hour? ”Could you not watch with me for even an hour?” -Matthew 26:40), then everything else really can wait, a bit.
2) I’d gently remind those who are casually tossing about the “Pharisee” idea and label to reconsider; it’s the easiest thing in the world to throw the word, especially when someone else is trying to defend or safeguard rules or principles with which you might not have had much sympathy in the first place. It’s also a rather silly and obvious variant of the “ad hominem” fallacy, and it undermines one’s credibility.
3) The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is meant (as both Catholic and non-Catholic commenters have rightly pointed out) to have God as the center, not man… and, despite the eye-rolling of what I could call “liturgical iconoclasts” (i.e. “what’s the use of this/that rule, if it gets in the way of people enjoying themselves and having a thrilling moment?”), it IS VERY POSSIBLE to eclipse God (partially or completely, just as in astronomy) by the actions or inactions of man. The priest in this video, despite every good intention, did just that: he “put on a show”–and he should not have done that during Holy Mass. Worse, he did it in a way which was so sentimentally appealing that *oceans* of people have shut off their brains and “gushed” with their hearts about this “beautiful moment, how touching, so glad he did it”, etc., while neglecting the fact that it was done in the wrong place, and at the wrong time altogether.
Does that make any sense at all, to anyone? I don’t want to hurt feelings, denigrate views, or anything of the sort… but this is an important issue, and I’d rather it not be clouded by high-riding emotionalism (which, on its own, is sometimes all too eager to denigrate those who disagree with it).
Just to add a bit of colour (and better writing) to my point, here’s a charming bit from Chesterton which illustrates part of what I was trying to say:
—– quote from “The Thing”, in the section “The Drift from Domesticity” —–
In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.”
This paradox rests on the most elementary common sense. The gate or fence did not grow there. It was not set up by somnambulists who built it in their sleep. It is highly improbable that it was put there by escaped lunatics who were for some reason loose in the street. Some person had some reason for thinking it would be a good thing for somebody. And until we know what the reason was, we really cannot judge whether the reason was reasonable. It is extremely probable that we have overlooked some whole aspect of the question, if something set up by human beings like ourselves seems to be entirely meaningless and mysterious. There are reformers who get over this difficulty by assuming that all their fathers were fools; but if that be so, we can only say that folly appears to be a hereditary disease. But the truth is that nobody has any business to destroy a social institution until he has really seen it as an historical institution. If he knows how it arose, and what purposes it was supposed to serve, he may really be able to say that they were bad purposes, or that they have since become bad purposes, or that they are purposes which are no longer served. But if he simply stares at the thing as a senseless monstrosity that has somehow sprung up in his path, it is he and not the traditionalist who is suffering from an illusion. We might even say that he is seeing things in a nightmare.
—– end quote —–
I most vehemently (and with a good deal of distress) object to the priest’s choice to offer this “gift” DURING HOLY MASS!
I respect your interpretation Paladin. Do you know the difference btw a Spanish Holy Mass and a Polish Holy Mass? During Lent and on Holy Thursday, Good Friday and Holy Saturday all the way to the Mass of The Ressurection, the Polish Holy Mass is not sung, its spoken, no organs or singing at all; The Spanish Holy Mass is all guitar and Mariachi during Lent season and the Priest participates. Do these traditional differences make the Holy Mass less holy? If the Priest during the homily tells a parable in a humorous manner of presentation to illustrate a point, does that make the Holy Mass less holy??? If the responsorial psalm is sung by a choire who sways to the music, does that make the Holy Mass less holy? Have you ever participated in a Polka Holy Mass with a Polka band substituting the choire and singing responsorial psalms to the tune of Polka music? What if the Priest also sings to that tune. Does that make the Holy Mass less Holy?
The examples I presented have one unifying theme. They glorify God!!!
I honestly would have a different reaction if this was done during a funeral Mass. That would have been liturgical abuse and worthy of condemnation….
“Your straw-man attempts in your last sentence do defy logic, by the way.”
Of course they do Janet!!! My intent in phrasing the above as such was to make a point. Thanks for catching it.
“I desire a Church that obeys Jesus Christ and does not exalt fleeting emotions and whimsical fancies above His Truth and Law.”
You do understand that His Truth and Law were not compromised during this Holy Mass in any way, shape or form. All parts of this rite of marriage were respected and glorified Him.
What is the meaning of Hallelujah???
“Had this “song presentation” been done at the rehearsal dinner, or at the reception, or at any time other than during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, I would have applauded as loudly as anyone.”
Exactly, as I’m sure would just about anyone who didn’t like it in the Mass. What a silly criticism, ie, that anyone who thought this would have been more appropriate at the reception must be dour, joyless, and of course, everyone’s go-to insult for faithful religious people with whom one disagrees, a “Pharisee.” Great analysis of this whole situation by Paladin at 9:41.
This certainly was not the worst case of liturgical abuse I’ve ever seen, and I realize that non-Catholic worship doesn’t involve the Eucharist, so I guess I can see why alot of people don’t get what the big deal is. But what has astonished me in all this is that anyone who’s not a faithful Catholic would be angry and indignant that alot of faithful Catholics didn’t like it. I wouldn’t dare to tell faithful members of x religious/philosophical belief system what they MUST accept in their rituals, especially if the priest/presider had done something that was on shaky ground. This is kind of the rotten fruit, I guess, of 40 years of Catholic priests, nuns, teachers, etc, teaching us a really kind of dumbed down and watered down faith, as well as the chronic campaign in the popular culture about how bad “organized religion,” is, what “hypocrites” so many religious people are, etc. There’s nothing dark and dour about the Catholic Mass. It’s the most beautiful and important thing in the world, which is exactly why people seek to protect its integrity.
I think that even if the priest had gone down off the altar (so that his back wasn’t to the tabernacle), it would have been a bit easier to watch.
When I saw that Jill had posted this on fb, I thought, “Et tu, Jill??” You’re still awesome, though : )
“But what has astonished me in all this is that anyone who’s not a faithful Catholic would be angry and indignant that alot of faithful Catholics didn’t like it.”
Joanne: Please tell what in your opinion constitutes a faithful Catholic?
I go to Mass on Sundays and on all Church Holy Days (plus many traditional Polish Church Holy Days), participate at my Church as a lector weekly and also read the Passion and Death of Jesus Christ every Palm Sunday and Good Friday, go to confession (the old-fashioned way in a confessional) every month, was a member of the Parish Council for many years, uphold the Ten Commandments, get involved in CCD at my Church, just to name a few. Oh and am Pro-Life!!!
Just curious: does all that make for a faithful Catholic or am I just putting on a good show?
“There’s nothing dark and dour about the Catholic Mass. It’s the most beautiful and important thing in the world, which is exactly why people seek to protect its integrity. “
Do you agree with Vatican II Joanne?
Sorry for the delay; computer troubles hampered me, a bit…
Thomas R. wrote, in reply to my comment:
[Paladin]
I most vehemently (and with a good deal of distress) object to the priest’s choice to offer this “gift” DURING HOLY MASS!
[Thomas R.]
I respect your interpretation Paladin.
Hm. Thank you for the good will, but: given what you write from this point onward, I do wonder if you UNDERSTAND my view, at this point…
Do you know the difference btw a Spanish Holy Mass and a Polish Holy Mass?
At the risk of sounding startling (or pedantic): there is no such thing as either; the Holy Mass is the Holy Mass; one may say that the Holy Mass was celebrated in Polish or in Spanish (or what-have-you), and one may say that the particular music chosen for that Mass was in Polish or Spanish (or what-have-you), and one might even say that the music for a particular Holy Mass was chosen (rightly or wrongly) from a particular sub-set of an ethnic tradition… but one cannot properly speak of a “Spanish Holy Mass” as distinct from a “Polish, German, Japanese, etc.” Holy Mass. No matter the country, ethnicity of the congregation, etc., there are, in fact, strict rules which govern its celebration… and personal taste (whether of individuals or of a collective/consensus of local people) is not at all a sufficient reason to violate them.
(There are *some* legitimate variations between the sets of liturgical norms issued by conferences of bishops in different countries, yes… but that is not at all the same as “the cultural tastes of a particular audience”, and it is most certainly not a local liturgist’s or priest’s or bishop’s decision to introduce illicit/disallowed elements for the sake of appealing to local sentiment; each local conference of bishops has a Vatican-APPROVED set of elements which they may use.)
During Lent and on Holy Thursday, Good Friday and Holy Saturday all the way to the Mass of The Ressurection, the Polish Holy Mass is not sung, its spoken, no organs or singing at all
Er… first of all, unless they received special permission to skip the chanting of the Exsultet, the Gloria, the Alleluia, etc., during the Easter Vigil (perhaps you included that in “Mass of the Resurrection?” The latter isn’t a technical term, so I’m not quite sure to what you’re referring…), then that was most certainly a liturgical abuse.
Secondly: we have a priest from Poland in our parish at this very moment, and he does nothing of the sort… which (above and beyond what I’d learned from other cultures anyway) suggests that you witnessed a sort of “local custom”.
Finally: “not singing” is not usually a liturgical abuse (except in the case of high feasts which require it–as would be the case at the Easter Vigil)… and in some cases, that’s exactly what the rubrics suggest (e.g. Good Friday liturgy).
Question: are you certain that these examples are Masses which are being done in conformity with the rules of the respective countries? Or are they merely disparate examples of “father is doing what he feels like doing with the Mass”, which would be a crystal-clear violation of his duties (and his vow of obedience), as per Sacrosanctum Concilium, etc.?
Side-note: it is not an abuse for a ferial/daily Mass (i.e. a non-feast or non-solemnity) to be a “silent” Mass (i.e. without music); certainly, there’s no obligation to use a choir or instruments. The only obligation is that the antiphons and psalm be presented (preferably chanted, but recitation is allowed). On Sundays and other high feasts, it would be a liturgical abuse to choose to abstrain from music during that liturgy, no matter WHAT country is the host of that Mass.
The Spanish Holy Mass is all guitar and Mariachi during Lent season and the Priest participates.
Even from a cultural point of view, you cannot speak of this as “the Spanish Holy Mass”, as if it described the liturgical norm of any given Spanish-speaking country; some Spanish-speaking parishes have taken up the practise of using Mariachi-style music (whose use is dubious, at best), while other Spanish-speaking parishes would be horrified to see/hear anything of the sort. (Americans, sadly, have a tendency to identify an entire country or ethnicity with this-or-that specific genre of music/art/etc., especially if it’s a “popular” style, and if it’s one of their only exposures to that culture. I’ve heard Spanish Renaissance motets which were achingly beautiful, sung by Spanish choirs/scolas which would recoil in horror as much at the idea of Mariachi during Mass as we might recoil at the idea of a “heavy metal” Mass.)
Do these traditional differences make the Holy Mass less holy?
That’s a bit like asking, “Did the mockery, the spitting and the abuse which Jesus suffered at the hands of men make Him any less holy?” No, it didn’t… but it would be a fallacy of equivocation to suggest that the abuse was somehow “holy”, thereby. The Holy Mass would be no less holy, even if a priest were to preach heresy (e.g. “Jesus isn’t really God, abortion really isn’t evil, and premarital sex is up to the individual’s conscience!”) during the homily; that would merely be a blot of saliva flung in the Face of the always-Holy Lord Jesus as He (through the unworthy priest) stands, bloody and blasphemed and/or received unworthily.
If the Priest during the homily tells a parable in a humorous manner of presentation to illustrate a point, does that make the Holy Mass less holy???
See above. And it isn’t clear from your example whether the “humour” was God-honouring and/or appropriate for the setting, or not. I’m also seeing a unifying theme in your examples… but one which differs from your stated one. More on that, below.
If the responsorial psalm is sung by a choire who sways to the music, does that make the Holy Mass less holy?
You seem to be tailoring your comments around one central idea: that I (or others who point out the Church’s very real requirements for liturgy… whether Americans, etc., wish to ignore them or not) am objecting solely on the basis that “the style is not to my personal taste”… which is simply not true. There are, in fact, objective standards for liturgical abuse (despite the fact that most Catholic moderns are, perhaps with every good intention, ignorant of that very fact, to say nothing of the documents in which they may be found).
Have you ever participated in a Polka Holy Mass with a Polka band substituting the choire and singing responsorial psalms to the tune of Polka music?
I attended one, once (I didn’t know it was of that type until it was too late). They are banned in our diocese, by order of the bishop (despite the fact that some priests disobediently continue the practise).
What if the Priest also sings to that tune. Does that make the Holy Mass less Holy
If he does so in our diocese, he is being doubly disobedient. But again: I hope I’ve made it abundantly clear that “holiness” of the Mass is an issue utterly separate from any of its trappings (whether legitimate or illegitimate). Again: you’re aking the wrong question, repeatedly; you might more properly ask the question, “Does that make the abose any more grave?”–to which the answer (in many of your examples) would be “yes”.
The examples I presented have one unifying theme. They glorify God!!!
Thomas… I appreciate your sincerity, but: on this particular point, I’m afraid you’re quite wide of the mark. You’re using a sentiment-based, utterly-subjective, equivocative standard of “glorifying God” in which the “intent” determines 100% of the issue (i.e. if I intend to glorify God, then it glorifies God… no questions asked, no qualifiers). Let me put it to you bluntly, since you’re a Catholic who (I presume) wishes to be obedient to what the Catholic Church directs, in these areas: if a group (or priest, or bishop, or what-have you) disobeys the Church in order to attempt to “glorify God”, then they will fail to do so (despite their emotions and assumptions to the contrary). All one would need to do is push that point a bit further, in a few different areas, and you might find it easier to see the problem:
“Look… the Eucharist used bread and wine in the time of Jesus because that was the food of the common people! Nowadays, wouldn’t it be much more relevant and enriching to use pizza and beer? It’s still Holy Mass, right? And we could even use gluten-free crust, for those who can’t receive the normal host! I mean, what’s with the stuffy Vatican requirement that there *must* be gluten in the host, and that there can’t be anything *except* wheat in the host? Y’know? Picky, picky, Pharisee, Pharisee! (My beloved old grandmother once baked some raisin bread for use as the Eucharist, and that mean old priest made her cry… CRY, I tell you!… when he refused to use it, and he sent her away feeling unwanted and unloved and useless!) I dare you to tell me that Jesus doesn’t want His Body and Blood made accessible and relevant to the people of our age, regardless of their feelings or their gluten insensitivities! Isn’t it far more important to LOVE people than it is to follow mindless, dusty old rules which Vatican II cancelled, anyway? Why put restrictions on glorifying God?”
Do you see what I mean? Why accept Church legislation in these areas (re: valid matter for the Eucharist), but scorn and despise it in others (re: liturgical norms)? The only reason to do so is in order to follow one’s own personal tastes… which simply won’t do.
I honestly would have a different reaction if this was done during a funeral Mass. That would have been liturgical abuse and worthy of condemnation….
Why? By your standards, why would that have been any more or less of an abuse… especially if the mourners were weeping for joy at the “favourite song of the departed” being sing over the casket? Don’t you see that you’re using personal opinion and taste, here, and not using what the Church of Christ actually *requires*?
Thomas R. wrote, in reply to Janet:
You do understand that His Truth and Law were not compromised during this Holy Mass in any way, shape or form.
(*sigh*) Thomas, are you quite serious? Please forgive me for being blunt, here, but: this statement of yours is so vague as to be almost meaningless. ”His Truth and Law” could mean anything from “God’s identity as Truth-In-Itself and Supreme Law-giver” (in which case it’d be about as silly as saying “What’s the trouble? This didn’t compromise Jesus’ identity as God in any way!”–as if that were anyone’s serious worry!) to the other extreme of “it made absolutely no negative difference in the way the liturgy was or should be done” (in which case you’d be simply stating your raw opinion, with no proof of it whatever).
All parts of this rite of marriage were respected and glorified Him.
(I’m thinking there’s a typo in there, somewhere–the syntax is a bit jumbled. Did you mean to say “were respectful”?)
You do realise that you’re giving your raw opinion here, don’t you?
What is the meaning of Hallelujah???
It’s a Hebrew/Aramaic word which means, literally, “Praise Jah”, or “Praise the Lord”; it’s also forbidden in liturgical celebrations during the season of Lent, by the way (not that this was an issue in the video, so far as I know).
I’m not quite certain of the point you’re trying to make, here; are you suggesting that “Alleluia = praising God, and praising God is always good and proper and appropriate; therefore the use of this song is always good and proper and appropriate”… which would be a text-book example of the “fallacy of the undistributed middle” (a.k.a. “fallacy of four terms”, in this case). Consider the example, “sexual intercourse with my wife is a true renewal of my marriage vows [cf. the Theology of the Body]; and renewal of wedding vows is an appropriate thing to do in Church; therefore, having sexual intercourse with my wife is an appropriate thing to do in Church”, and you may get an illustration of the error.
…and you wrote, in reply to Janet:
Do you agree with Vatican II Joanne?
I’d very much like to know what you mean by that. By “Vatican II”, to which document are you referring, specifically? There were many of them, after all.
Whoops… I did, of course, mean to write “…and you wrote, in reply to Joanne:”, in my last message…
“Er… first of all, unless they received special permission to skip the chanting of the Exsultet, the Gloria, the Alleluia, etc., during the Easter Vigil (perhaps you included that in “Mass of the Resurrection?” The latter isn’t a technical term, so I’m not quite sure to what you’re referring…), then that was most certainly a liturgical abuse.”
It is not omitted or skipped (did not say that) , it is not sung or the organs are not being used Paladin. That’s all. The liturgical integrity remains.Speak with that Polish Priest about some of the variations in liturgy I speak of…
“You do understand that His Truth and Law were not compromised during this Holy Mass in any way, shape or form.”
I was responding to Janet’s use of the His Truth and Law reference as that is how she put it herself.
And lastly Paladin, I never referred to celebrating the Holy Mass in different languages, rather how the Holy Mass is celebrated given the cultural traditions.
You know, I just have a a very serious thought I want to share:
There is a crises in the Roman Catholic Church. It entails the shortage of those answering the call to priesthood. If we, as a Church, discredit our own shepherds and drag them through the mud for enriching the liturgy and nothing more, I am afraid our Church will not attract any willing to enter the priesthood. In the US, this shortage is most pronounced. Why (Paladin/Joanne)??? That’s the reason the US Catholic Church has to reach outside its borders for priests. Will there be enough of them???
I seriously think that priests are just like cops – they never win :(
Look at the individual parishes in any diocese how the parishioners treat their priests. This is not the right context to criticize a priest.
Don’t be surprised if w/in the next decade or so, the priest shortage crises will put the US Catholic Church at even a larger disadvantage. And what’s worst, Catholics themselves will have contributed to that…..
For these reasons I support good priests. Father Ray Kelly has my courtesy and respect for his servitude to the Church and our God.
Thomas R. wrote, in reply to my comment:
It is not omitted or skipped (did not say that) , it is not sung or the organs are not being used Paladin. That’s all.
I think you missed part of my comment; I’d mentioned getting special permission not to CHANT (i.e. sing without accompaniment, in Gregorian style) the parts in question.
The liturgical integrity remains.
Again: you’re using such a vague and (forgive me) misapplied term, here, that I’m not even quite sure of your meaning, above and beyond the plain fact that “Thomas R. doesn’t mind it in the least”… which I didn’t doubt, anyway. Perhaps you might read the quote from Sacrasanctum Concilium 22, again? Liturgical innovations are forbidden in general, regardless of whether you or I approve or disapprove of the innovation’s alleged “lack of disruption of the liturgy’s integrity”. It’s not up to us, friend.
Speak with that Polish Priest about some of the variations in liturgy I speak of…
I think you must also have missed the bit (in that very same sentence, oddly enough) in which I already told you that he does nothing of the sort. One of his favourite sayings is (while holding up whatever book is handy, for a prop), “Do things by the book!” I don’t think you’d find a sympathetic ally in him for your particular point, here.
“You do understand that His Truth and Law were not compromised during this Holy Mass in any way, shape or form.”
I was responding to Janet’s use of the His Truth and Law reference as that is how she put it herself.
I wasn’t confused about her usage; I was quite confused about YOURS, and I’d like some clarification… namely: how do you come to your conclusion, apart from mere personal taste or opinion?
And lastly Paladin, I never referred to celebrating the Holy Mass in different languages, rather how the Holy Mass is celebrated given the cultural traditions.
You’ll also note that I addressed BOTH ideas (language and culture/tradition), repeatedly; I did so in my very first substantial paragraph, in fact (the same one in which I mentioned the language). In other words: yes, I understand (and I said so, already). Now… could you please shed some light on the reasoning for your position (i.e. that it’s all right for local priests, congregations, cultures, etc., to introduce innovations into the Sacred Liturgy which have not received formal approval from the Vatican–such as priestly “solos” of modified secular tunes during the Mass)? That was, in fact, my main point…
You are obviously well versed Paladin. I always took you as such. I am going to end by directing you to my April 15, 2014 at 5:35 pm comment.
I just don’t think think this is liturgical abuse. The Catholic Church has bigger issues to work out friend in Christ.
(*sigh*) Thomas… I appreciate your zeal and sincerity, but I honestly don’t know what to do with you, here; you’ve abandoned all logic, and you’ve appealed to (please forgive me–no offense intended) the most crass form of sentimental appeal to the gallery… and, probably against your every good intention, you manage to paint those who point out true liturgical abuses as “disrespectful and discourteous, insensitive to the priest shortage, etc.” [I can only wonder at your suggestion that the priest shortage and decrying abuses are related in any substantial way]… which was really not worthy of you. In your excitement, you manage to insinuate that I (and others who’ve commented along the same lines) am motivated by a zeal for attacking priests, or making their lives miserable, or what-have-you… rather than a true love for the Sacred Liturgy which Christ Himself gave to us, and about which there are REAL RULES to be followed (and not for shallow, nasty purposes, either). I do wonder if you’d listen to those who decry distortions in the Bible, and turn on them with accusations of “driving good translators out of the ministry”, etc.! Is nothing sacred, that you would possibly consent to stand up and say, “With all due respect, Father, you should not do that”? Is all lawful, so long as the people in attendance are pleased?
Case in point: “It isn’t liturgical abuse; we have bigger matters to handle.” That makes no logical sense, and it’d be a disaster to implement; one might as well turn a blind eye to petty theft (after all, how much will a $20 item be missed?), since it’s not nearly as important as preventing murder.
Side note: just as a detail about me… I appreciate the good-will behind compliments, but I really don’t crave them, at all; rather, I crave that all people hear the truth and accept it, regardless of whether anyone smiles at me through the process, or not.
This was a most suprising thread! Actually Thomas, I hear that seminaries in Russia are full of candidates for the priesthood. Plus, many new priests born in Africa are serving in parishes around the US (my parish is home to one such priest). We are the new mission field. I find it sad and encouraging at the same time.
I would love to comment on the Polish mass but my “Jiaji” warned me that if I reveal too much on the interwebs it will come back to bite me on the “dupa!”
Reality: Given the size and extent of changes throughout the history of the catholic church and the challenges currently facing it, surely there are more important things to worry about than one little song at a wedding.
This.
Paladin, I meant to acknowledge your knowledge, that is all.
Since we are sharing details: in my youth I belonged to a movement called the Oasis. It was popularized by Pope John Paul II, a hit with the youth in the Polish community and had quite a following in the English-speaking community here as well. When I was about 18 I seriously considered joining the Carmelite Brothers Order in Indiana (I am sure you know of them well). But I took a different path. Had I taken that path, would I have been criticized at some point (doomed if I do and doomed if I don’t?) Most likely. Being a priest is not easy. Priests sacrifice more in a day than most of us in week.
I am always reminded that although we are Christ’s Church, the Church would not exist without us. Surely any Archdiocese can go by the book but if they do, the human element disappears and so does the Church with it. Hope this makes sense..
9ek:
You discuss seminaries in Russia and priests from Africa. This is what I wrote:
“In the US, this shortage is most
pronounced. Why (Paladin/Joanne)??? That’s the reason the US Catholic Church has to reach outside its borders for priests. Will there be enough of them??”
In the US, 9ek, unfortunately there is a huge shortage of those willing to enter the priesthood and seminaries are half empty. We are, as I stated, sustained by priests from elsewhere but those priests are often recalled by their country of origin Bishops. This is a dilemma worth consideration.
Paladin, I read the rest of your comment. I am not insinuating anything about you or others, nor am I attempting to paint you negatively. Did I state that anyone here is disrespectful or not courteous? As a side note, Joanna was very straightforward in summing those that do not consider this as liturgical abuse, as unfaithful Catholics, when I did no such thing in the manner you suggested. I am just proposing some things for consideration here, that’s all. And I was not even thinking abuse in regard to the shortage.
To answer your question though , no I would not tell the Father “you should not do that.” But I will seek further guidance from my priest before Mass on Holy Thursday and will get back to you.
Always on point Doug. Carry on :)
For what it’s worth, I treated this matter in my own blog. http://restore-dc-catholicism.blogspot.com/2014/04/when-emotions-trump-intellect-and-will.html
There’s too much here to comment on at this hour, but I wanted to clarify that I didn’t state that anyone who doesn’t believe this was liturgical abuse is an unfaithful Catholic. I believe that those who object are faithful, knowledgable, serious-thinking Catholics whom I admire and with whom my sympathies rest in this debate; I have made no sweeping characterization of those who found nothing wrong with Fr Kelly’s performance, however, as “unfaithful.”
Thomas R. wrote:
Paladin, I read the rest of your comment.
:) Well… that explains a bit, anyway. It might be wise to read entire comments before replying, friend; sometimes, a very needed bit (or very many needed bits) of context and information is (are) missed, otherwise.
I am not insinuating anything about you or others, nor am I attempting to paint you negatively. Did I state that anyone here is disrespectful or not courteous?
My dear fellow: almost every comment of yours on this thread (especially your most passionate one on 2014-04-15, 5:35pm) has suggested that criticism of Fr. Kelly’s action is wrong-headed, mean-spirited, legalistic, insensitive, and (as you put it) “discrediting our shepherds” and “dragging them through the mud”, even to the extent that you fear it will exacerbate the priest shortage! Did you not notice this in your comments, as you typed them (or re-read them, afterward)? Granted, you leave a tremendous amount to implication and insinuation, and (forgive me) very rarely did you state things with logical clarity–which forces your discussion opponents (which seems to include me, at the moment, for this topic) to guess at your meaning, and that is extremely frustrating.
If you’d like a more exact quote, however, look at the end of your 2014-04-15, 5:35pm comment:
For these reasons I support good priests. Father Ray Kelly has my courtesy and respect for his servitude to the Church and our God.
This, immediately after decrying the alleged “bad treatment of priests” (who are mistreated by their parishioners, and who “never win”) by those who “insist on going by the book” (which apparently doesn’t include you, but apparently includes Joanne, Janet and myself), leaves the very plain implication that you are contrasting yourself with the “book-followers who hurt priests”. Fr. Kelly “has your courtesy and respect”–as opposed to those who had the temerity to criticise him. What, friend, are the opposites of “courtesy and respect”, aside from “discourtesy and disrespect”? If you suggest that courtesy and respect implies abstaining from criticism of Fr. Kelly’s choice, and if others do not abstain thusly, then who would NOT think that you were implying a lack of courtesy and respect from those others? If A -> B, then “not B” -> “not A”; yes?
Now, if this isn’t at all what you meant, and you think that it is not at all objectionable, discourteous or disrespectful for Joanne, Janet and/or me to criticise Fr. Kelly’s action in this instance (and liturgical abuse in general), then perhaps you might say so here, plainly and clearly, bereft of vagaries? But do not be surprised if opponents, after hearing you decry the bad effects which certain actions (such as those of your opponents) will have on priests (individually and as a whole), and after hearing you contrast yourself against such actions (“I, however, will support good priests! I, however, will offer Fr. Kelly my courtesy and respect for his efforts and sacrifices!”), and after you show great indignation that people on this very thread would have the audacity to do any of the above, please don’t be surprised if your opponents assume that you’re implying something rather different about THEM. Does that clarify?
(Side note: did you find that sort of analysis frustrating and/or tiresome? Well… so did I! If you have something to suggest, please do so CLEARLY [albeit charitably], and do not let fear of reprisals sway you; I won’t revile or eat you, I promise! Clarity will relieve me of the tedium of typing such pedantic-sounding analyses, and clarity will relieve you (and others) of the tedium of reading it!
As a side note, Joanna was very straightforward in summing those that do not consider this as liturgical abuse, as unfaithful Catholics,
Her comment at April 15, 2014 (at 10:31 pm) makes it clear that this is not the case… and even her original comment (which, I suspect, had a misplaced word or two) clearly indicated that she was trying to DEFEND those who DID “try to defend the book”, rather than trying to attack those who didn’t.
when I did no such thing in the manner you suggested.
See above; I’m afraid you did, dear chap. I do not attribute malice to you, for that; but I do point out that you said what you said.
I am just proposing some things for consideration here, that’s all.
(*sigh*)
There’s no real way for you to have known this, but: few things exasperate me more than the ever-more-popular phenomenon of replacing clear statements with vague insinuations, followed by a fluffy sort of disclaimer such as “Hey, just sayin’…!” You’re welcome to say what you wish, of course; and you’re also free to be as vague as you wish; but you are not free to insist that no one walk away with any implications from what you’ve said!
And I was not even thinking abuse in regard to the shortage.
(?!?) Then who commandeered your keyboard and made comments to that effect in your name? Read the comment:
In the US, this shortage is most pronounced. Why (Paladin/Joanne)??? That’s the reason the US Catholic Church has to reach outside its borders for priests. Will there be enough of them??? I seriously think that priests are just like cops – they never win :( Look at the individual parishes in any diocese how the parishioners treat their priests. This is not the right context to criticize a priest. Don’t be surprised if w/in the next decade or so, the priest shortage crises will put the US Catholic Church at even a larger disadvantage. And what’s worst, Catholics themselves will have contributed to that…
If you seriously suggest that this does not, in any way, imply a connection between “treating priests badly” (which seems to imply criticising Fr. Kelly’s choice to perform a sentimental solo song in the context of the Sacred Liturgy, in clear violation of his responsibilities), then I really don’t know what to tell you.
(Note: just in case you misunderstood: I was not at all referring to “sexual abuse” when I used the word “abuse”; I trued to be very clear in referring to “liturgical abuse”, or possibly your portrayal of “parishioners abusing priests” with their allegedly narrow, book-bound criticisms.)
To answer your question though , no I would not tell the Father “you should not do that.” But I will seek further guidance from my priest before Mass on Holy Thursday and will get back to you.
Well… that’s your prerogative, I suppose. (And please do not walk away with the muddle-headed idea that Joanne, Janet or I [or others of like mind] ENJOY criticising priests… or anyone else, for that latter!) But there’s a very clear difference between preferring not to do such a thing yourself, vs. implying that it’s categorically wrong for anyone to do it, ever (much less to affix rash labels on, and decry with passionate words, those who do).
But to summarise: you still seem to be of the intractable opinion that there is an irreconcilable difference between “obeying the rules” and “being kind, charitable, respectful, etc.”; and I can’t stress enough that this idea is nonsense… and dangerous nonsense, at that! It logically requires a belief that the “rules” are not instituted by God Himself, for one thing… and it actually betrays a quiet, fundamental lack of faith in God’s sovereignty (i.e. “To do the right thing, we must sometimes break the rules!”), As a Catholic writer, Thomas Wilson, once wrote: “The commands of God are all designed to make us more happy than we can possibly be without them.” Scripture is replete with references to that effect (cf. Psalm 19. etc.).
In short:
1) Pointing out a fault is not intrinsically evil, nor is it intrinsically inappropriate; in fact, it’s MANDATED as a spiritual work of mercy (“admonish the sinner”: cf. Galatians 6:1, 2 Timothy 4:2, etc.), and those who neglect it (out of misplaced mercy, or cowardice, or sympathy with the deed, or what-have-you) will be judged for it (cf. James 4:17).
2) If my words above have not convinced you that you were casting “critics of Fr. Kelly’s action” in a negative light (sometimes with spectacularly hyperbolic examples), then I’ll have to leave it to the reader to judge between us.
3) I have no personal animus toward you, in the least, Thomas. I do think that you are mistaken on this point, and I do think that (perhaps unintentionally, in your excitement and zeal) you stepped out of line in your response to me (and to others of like mind).
My comment still does not make a reference to abuse as the reason for priest shortage Paladin. I made a general acknowledgement that that is the issue. I don’t undersatnd how you are reading it the way you are. There are a plethora of reasons young men do not want to enter the priesthood.
Parishioners don’t respect their priests. Would that be satisfactory a statement?
Read the rest of your comment Paladin:
I write the way I do, it may not be exact to your liking but to imply that I have somehow degraded you or others of like mind is not correct. I simply wrote what my view on this is. Writing that Fr has my courtesy and respect is not the same as writing that you or others do not respect him. I don’t dance around with my words. Had I thought that, that is what I would write.
For that you chastised me on these pages as if I were a child and exclaimed that I stepped out of line for a perceived transgression. I challenge you to find any derogatory statements I made about anyone on this thread.
I don’t ever chastise anyone for what they write but attempt to respond to their comments with my reasoning. You have in essence told me to cease and desist Paladin, simply because I speak my mind.
I am going to move on from this. You win. Have a blessed and happy Easter..
Paladin,
I trued to be very clear
You try to be true even in your typos! ;)
One can never tell what post will elicit a flurry of comments. :)
Thomas, I’m honestly not trying to offend or anger you; you made certain comments about others (and about me), and I’m trying my best to understand what you meant by them. Can you please assist me, here?
At the risk of dragging you where you don’t wish to go, let me ask you some very specific questions about specific comments of yours; perhaps that might get less tangled in the weeds, as it were.
1) You wrote (on 2014-04-13, 12:02am): “The times of the Latin mass ended in 1962. We are not a bunch od dead Catholics. The Second Vatican Council gave the Church a pulse.”
Could you please explain what you meant by this? When taken absolutely literally, the statements seem “false and bizarre, true and bizarre, and simply bizarre”, respectively:
a) the Latin Mass–if you mean the Extraordinary Form, a.k.a. the Tridentine Mass–has NEVER been abrogated, and it’s experiencing a revival as we speak; but even the Novus Ordo is “the Latin Mass” when said in Latin, as is the case in many places today; why would you say that its times “ended in 1962”?
b) Why would you ever say that we are “not a bunch of dead Catholics”? Whatever do you mean by saying such a thing? I’ll let you speak for yourself, and not try to guess.
c) What on earth do you mean when you say that “the Second Vatican Council gave the Church a pulse” (whatever that means)? Ordinarily, my assumption would be that you were implying that the Church did NOT have a pulse before Vatican II (whatever that means). So as not to offend you by wrong guesses, could you please explain why you DID say this? And can you please say so directly and clearly?
I simply wrote what my view on this is.
Yes, I’m well aware of the fact that you’re writing your opinions; disclaimer is noted. I’m simply trying to understand what they MEAN. Is that a fair thing to want to know?
Writing that Fr has my courtesy and respect is not the same as writing that you or others do not respect him. I don’t dance around with my words. Had I thought that, that is what I would write.
Friend, I don’t doubt your sincerity… but I’m afraid I do doubt the logical connection between several of your statements. You’re apparently exasperated and offended by my commentary… which was never my intent; but you don’t seem to be grasping the impact of your own words. More on that, below.
For that you chastised me on these pages as if I were a child and exclaimed that I stepped out of line for a perceived transgression.
I did not treat you as a child; it’s quite possible for an adult to step out of line with another person; I’ve done so, myself, many times (to my shame). See below.
I challenge you to find any derogatory statements I made about anyone on this thread.
I couldn’t answer that yet without offending you further, I think… so let me go back to your most impassioned comment, and ask about that:
There is a crises in the Roman Catholic Church. It entails the shortage of those answering the call to priesthood. If we, as a Church, discredit our own shepherds and drag them through the mud for enriching the liturgy and nothing more, I am afraid our Church will not attract any willing to enter the priesthood. In the US, this shortage is most pronounced. Why (Paladin/Joanne)???
Question: why did you direct this question especially to Joanne and to me? And why did you intensify it with so many question marks? No sane person could fault us for thinking that you were being emotional and urgent in your question, thereby; so… why did you do so? Why ask us this question at all?
That’s the reason the US Catholic Church has to reach outside its borders for priests. Will there be enough of them???
Please explain why you’re asking this. Is it a rhetorical question, or did you want an answer? And if you wanted an answer, why did you want an answer from US (who disagreed with you about the thread’s topic)?
I don’t ever chastise anyone for what they write but attempt to respond to their comments with my reasoning.
Really? You wrote, to Janet:
Its disheartening you desire a Church that is distant, treats the faithful as mere statues, and wants its priests to be walking zombies… (Thomas R., April 14, 2014 at 7:31 pm)
So… you accuse Janet of wanting a distant Church (did she ever say that, whatever that means? It really doesn’t sound positive, at any rate, or else you would not be disheartened by it…), of wanting a Church that treats the faithful as mere statues (did she ever say that? If so, where?), and wanting a Church which “wants its priests to be walking zombies” (I really do challenge you to find a quote to that effect, in her writings).
So… this isn’t a chastisement? What is it, then? A “lament”? It certainly isn’t complementary… and I daresay that accusing someone of wanting a distant, dehumanising [wanting parishioners to be statues and priests to be undead monsters] “Church” really is derogatory, friend.
You also wrote (to Janet):
The preference is for as Church that is vibrant and has vital signs. That was the outcome of Vatican II. Dark ages no more.
You wished to use reason and logic; very well. Now, please explain to me: if the “outcome of Vatican II” was “dark ages no more”, then how can any sane person keep from thinking that you viewed the pre-Vatican II era as the “dark ages”? And how could any sane person avoid thinking that you viewed the pre-Vatican II era as “not vibrant” and “without vital signs”? I’m genuinely curious, here. Do your words mean what they say, or do they not?
You have in essence told me to cease and desist Paladin, simply because I speak my mind.
That is not true, and I explicitly denied that idea in my last comment (cf. “You’re welcome to say what you wish, of course; and you’re also free to be as vague as you wish; but you are not free to insist that no one walk away with any implications from what you’ve said!”). I did not ask you to stop commenting, in the least; I merely asked you not to cast your opponents in a negative light when making your comments… and to explain some of your comments which were a bit more on the confusing side (and more easily misconstrued, perhaps).
I am going to move on from this. You win. Have a blessed and happy Easter.
I never entered this as a competition, Thomas, nor do I care at all about whether “I win” (“winning” at the cost of truth is more loathsome to me than is death itself). I can’t force you to continue, of course; and you’re free to do as you like. I merely offer these questions to show that: (a) you have misunderstood my comments almost altogether, and (b) you really could clear up some confusion about your own comments, and I ask you to do so.
Here’s somethings you have totally misrepresented me on Paladin:
I wrote: “Joanne was very straightforward in summing those that do not consider this as liturgical abuse, as unfaithful Catholics.”
to which you responded: “Her comment at April 15, 2014 (at 10:31 pm) makes it clear that this is not the case… and even her original comment (which, I suspect, had a misplaced word or two) clearly indicated that she was trying to DEFEND those who DID “try to defend the book”, rather than trying to attack those who didn’t.”
This is actually what Joanne wrote:
“But what has astonished me in all this is that anyone who’s not a faithful Catholic would be angry and indignant that alot of faithful Catholics didn’t like it.”
She calls anyone who disagrees with this being a case of liturgical abuse, an unfaithful Catholic. Did you Sir miss that? This is very plain here…. Although I came to this country at the age of 14 and English is my second language, there is absolutely nothing wrong with my comprehension. That sentence of her’s speaks for itself. But I understand, in your overexcitement and zeal to defend those who call this a liturgical abuse, you wanted that statement obscured?
You also wrote:
“My dear fellow: almost every comment of yours on this thread (especially your most passionate one on 2014-04-15, 5:35pm) has suggested that criticism of Fr. Kelly’s action is wrong-headed, mean-spirited, legalistic, insensitive, and (as you put it) “discrediting our shepherds” and “dragging them through the mud”, even to the extent that you fear it will exacerbate the priest shortage! ”
Let me process this statement of mine. So you actually think that I am derogatory toward you and other likeminded because I speak my mind as to what I think criticing the Fr does? Are you Sir totally serious. You’ve read all those words into ther statement that you list above but which I did not actually state. Again, you may think that you are only calling me out for speaking my mind but not being critical of you. Although you claim that at the moment you cannot answer that yet w/o risk of offending me, you know that you will not find any. The only way you can speak of my commnentary is that you PERCEIVED them as derogatory and nothing more..
You take exception with my views and attempt to throw me under the bus (assasinate my character) based on accusations about derogatory comments you cannot and will not find. I on the other hand copy-n-pasted Joanne’s comment as well as your’s that seem to suggest something misidrected at me.
I am not one to take the time to dissect everything but in this case I must Sir defend my integrity, which you are clearly only attacking based on our disagreement about the liturgical abuse issue.
As if the top-down treatment from you were not enough, you also patronized me with your references to “not holding any animus toward me.” For what you may ask yourself. For disagreeing with you? Come on Sir Paladin – perceived transgressions lead to not holding any animus toward me? And you claim in your comment above that you do not treat me as a child.
I ask you again, find any comments of mine in which I degrade you or others likeminded or in which I am derogatory to you or likeminded. It would be helpful if you do not throw in your own interpretations of what I said and refrain from putting words into my comments that are not there. Just direct me to any comment in which I insulted any one for voicing their liturgical abuse views…
This was indeed the longest response I’ve written. My fingers need some serious rest.
Wow.
All right, Thomas; apparently, there’s nothing to be gained by further discussion between us. Just as a parting note, in Joanne’s defense (which she already explained, though that didn’t seem to change your mind at all): if you’re going to be so adamant in your anger toward Joanne because of that particular comment, despite her clear disclaimer at April 15, 2014 at 10:31 pm (unless you’re accusing her of lying?), then would it not be right for you to apologise for (or at least own up to) your own accusations of Joanne being one who “desires a Church that is distant, treats the faithful as mere statues, and wants its priests to be walking zombies”? (You wanted an example of a derogatory statement made by you? There you are.) You plainly said that she wants all of these things, and it “disheartens” you.
I’m willing to let the conversation drop with you, Thomas (I do think there’s more than enough data for any third party to judge between us, on the tactical points, anyway), but I’ll say this much: if I were to have said anything analogous to your comment toward Joanne, what would have been your reaction? For example:
“Thomas, its disheartening that you desire a Church that is disobedient to Christ, that treats the faithful as idiots who are better fed with liturgical pablum than with their true Patrimony, and that wants its priests to be blissed-out zombies and cheap entertainers.”
Pleased? Or not pleased? Do you feel denigrated, or edified, or neither?
Respond or not, as you will; enough has been said, either way.
Thomas, you are still incorrectly interpreting what I said. “A lot” does not equal “all.”
Whoops… I did mean “Janet” rather than “Joanne”, in my past post (re: the “disheartening” quote).
You write Paladin: ” ..accusations of Joanne being one who “desires a Church that is distant, treats the faithful as mere statues, and wants its priests to be walking zombies”? (You wanted an example of a derogatory statement made by you? There you are.) You plainly said that she wants all of these things, and it “disheartens” you.”
This was a comment made to Janet and not Joanne but let’s have the entire context:
Janet responded:
“Your straw-man attempts in your last sentence do defy logic, by the way.”
to which I responded:
“Of course they do Janet!!! My intent in phrasing the above as such was to make a point. Thanks for catching it. ”
Note that Janet did not take offense to this statement as it was not a personal attack on her, but responded that this comparison was illogical, to which I responded that: of course it is, that I wrote this comment to illustrate a point and than thanked her for catching it. Nowhere did I insult her but noted how this appears from my perspective. You do this all the time in you comments. Yes? If I were somewhat picky I could have hung un to her tellng me that it was a straw-man attempt, but I do not process such things as personal attacks. Would you?????
Sir Paladin, you seem not to present any evidence in which I insulted anyone. I am getting used to copy-n-pasting for clarity but away. I can refute any of your assertions with ease now.
Your question:
“Thomas, its disheartening that you desire a Church that is disobedient to Christ, that treats the faithful as idiots who are better fed with liturgical pablum than with their true Patrimony, and that wants its priests to be blissed-out zombies and cheap entertainers.”
My response:
I understand Sir Paladin that my views may appear as disheartening to you, however those are my views which I am only sharing to point out that the Church is a Church left by Jesus Christ for his people, that we make up the Church and that we are just expressing our adoration of Christ in our unigue ways. I have already proposed on these pages that the Church has to be vibrant and celebratory instead of (and this is just my opinion) as it used to be prior to Vatican II (not about the people whatsoever). If I am not one hundred percent in footstep with the “books” I apologize. To my defense I truly believe that the Catholic Church will not hold this priest to the gillotine for this act nor will he be reprimanded by his Bishop. I am also comforted by the fact that many do not condemn this priest. That says a lot. This priest, in my view, was not a cheap entertainer but praised the day with a song that ultimately glorified God (Allelujah). I respectfully diverge with you on this issue. Let’s just agree to disagree…
EDIT: Notice that I do not concentrate on so many things you write in your question simply because you are attempting to make a point and do not insult me at all. I do not understand how you would consider that question derogatory toward me???
I want to also point out that Janet already rsponded to me by counter-proposing that I am making straw-man attempts. So truly your question is moot.
Thomas, I think it’s best if we leave the topic matter alone; the emotion-level is a bit too intense to have a tactical discussion, I think… and I see no reasonable hope of that changing, soon.
Quick side-question, Thomas: why do you repeatedly call me “Sir Paladin”, especially in the context of an angry reply to me?
Angry reply, My Dear Lord – you took this as an angry reply. Do you take exception that I pointed out that you did not get the name correctly? Or that I copy-n-pasted my entire exchange with Janet? Now you are confusing me here especially with this claim that my response was angry, which is not factual. Did I lash out at you, how about my tone or content? Did you take exception that I asked if you are serious? Or that since Janet responded to me your supposition is moot? Or perhaps that you do this in your comments all the time (which is true)? See now I am not angry but a little tiffed that the above two responses you attempt to portray as angry. What parts of my reply were angry?
You twist my words (which I presented the actual exchanges to counter), attempt to portray the last two comments as angry (although the words, the tone and content do not demonstrate that) and treat me with contempt for my arguments (speaking top-down to me). Now you have an issue with me calling you Sir Paladin. I apologize if that offended you Sir.
The emotion level was not intense as I simply responded in a step-like fashion to your assertions but nowhere did I interject any words that exemplified anger.
Yes I think we best leave that alone.
(*sigh*) Thomas I didn’t say I was offended by your use of “Sir Paladin”, nor did I say I had “an issue” with it; I was curious… that’s all.
If this is you being “not angry”, then I’d hate to see you angry, friend. Enough said, then.
Thomas, you are still incorrectly interpreting what I said. “A lot” does not equal “all.”
Joanne you were referring to those on this thread. Either way that difference is not relevant as you plainly called unfaithful those that disagree. That is the issue…
Paladin, I assumed you may have been offended. This must be it – we both assume and interject our own interpretations of what each one of us is attempting to convey.
Many times you were greeted on this blog as Sir Paladin. So that one reference (I think it was only one) I took from that.
Thomas, I think it was you who mentioned you were going to ask your priest about his thoughts on this — I didn’t go back and read through to make certain it was you though. If you, or anyone here, does talk with their priest, I am interested in learning more about their thoughts on this topic.
My parish priest supports a polka Mass once a year so I’m pretty confident on what he might say. He is also the priest who responded in the perfect way when I had been gone from the Church for years. Had he come down any harder or softer on me when I confessed after many years of major sinning, I don’t believe I would be back to Mass weekly to say nothing of teaching Theology of the Body.
I did pop into your blog, Janet, and saw the following quote from you on this topic:
For those who tried to trot out the “legalist” schtick, I pointed out that Jesus Christ, through His Magisterium, had His Hand on the creation of the rubrics. But nope! None of that mattered one iota? Wanna know what the supreme consideration was when opining about this performance? And several said this, so I’ll put it in quotes! Wait for it!! Here it is!
“It was so bee-yoo-tee-fulll, it just moved me to tears! Sigh! Sob!”
Got that? It’s all about emotions!
Seems like you are a tad emotional yourself on this topic. Lots of sarcasm (which is oftentimes a cover for anger, in my opinion). Seems awfully condescending towards other Catholics and Christians who disagree with you. Again, this is just my opinion and something I noticed.
If I made a statement like, “Oh I love the bride’s dress and I wonder who did her hair?!!” would it be profound disrespect for His Church and the Lord Himself? Would the dressmaker and the hairstylist be guilty because in your words, “God is supposed to be glorified, not human talent.”
I’m trying to keep an open mind on this subject but I’m not yet convinced that this is an example of liturgical abuse.
Can we get Pope Francis over here? :)
Thomas R: Parishioners don’t respect their priests.
Thomas, to what extent do you think that is the case?
Viewing it “in general,” that really seems sad, to me, without arguing about our beliefs or any beliefs. Obviously, a given priest will be more or less respected by his parishioners, and a given parishioner will be more or less likely to respect a priest, per se, but when somebody really is “called to the priesthood,” then for him not to be respected…. – like we used to say in the late 1960s, “bummer.”
Hi, Praxedes,
Pardon me for popping in on your comment to Janet and/or Thomas…
I’ll also ask everyone’s pardon for a long post (even by my standards)…!
For the past two days, in what spare time I have, I’ve been thinking about little else other than this topic–and especially why it’s so difficult to explain (and for people to hear). You’ve already seen Thomas and me go at it, hammer and tongs, for a bit (and we’ve both agreed to a detente, of sorts–for whatever reason, it simply wasn’t working, and I feel badly about that).
My question (to myself) is, if I fight to put it into words (which is difficult), is something like this: ”Why are humans so reluctant to admit when they’re wrong–myself included?” Let me give an example from my own life, which might illustrate this:
Note: for this example, I’ll be speaking exclusively as a Catholic, and assuming that Catholic doctrine and discipline is to be followed, barring a conflict with a provably higher moral imperative (even despite the sins and mistakes of the members of that Church); faithful Catholics should have no trouble agreeing with that principle in the abstract, at least.
(Caution: if you’re anything–ANYTHING–like me, you may feel an unexpected wave of indignation rise up–gradually, or otherwise–when I describe this… akin to the feeling one gets when one is feeling backed into a corner; I certainly did, when it was first introduced to me!)
Do you obey the speed limit?
By that, I mean: when in a 55 mph (88 kph) zone, do you obey it strictly (i.e. drive at 55 mph, or less; where the only time you exceed the limit is by accident, at which point you immediately slow down and correct it), or do you allow yourself to drive “5 over” (or more), on occasion? Do you do the same in other zones, including 25 mph, and so on?
For a good deal of my driving life, I did not obey such limits strictly… and I would have laughed (with the laughter tinged with an annoyance which I couldn’t readily explain to myself) at anyone who seriously suggested that I was committing an actual “wrongdoing”–much less use the actual word “sin”! (I mean, seriously… how scrupulous/obsessive-compulsive/hysterical/rule-bound/picky can you GET… right?) Well… my wife (who doesn’t drive), when we were newly-engaged, was silent for a long time about the matter; but eventually, she gently (and even meekly) suggested that it would be better for me to observe the posted speed limit (and mind you, I was not driving recklessly, by any common estimation–it was where I would drive 60-65 mph in a 55 mph zone, and slow down whenever I saw a police car.)
Can you guess at my reaction? If you guessed “reacted negatively”, you’re quite right! My normal mild-mannered, easy-going temperament gave way to an especially agitated sort of defensiveness which was completely out of proportion to the topic (and far in excess of her meek proposal). No, I didn’t yell or scream, but I made it utterly clear that: (a) everyone, including the typical police officer, *knows* that people drive up to 5 mph over the limit (after all, how accurate are those speedometers, anyway?), and they accommodate that; (b) I didn’t appreciate the suggestion that I wasn’t driving safely, that I wasn’t law-abiding, that I wasn’t as good a person as someone who DID always observe the limit; (c) I couldn’t fathom why it was so very, very important to her, ANYWAY… and on, and on, and on. My wife suffered a good deal, during that “conversation” (read: “monologue”), and she didn’t bring it up again.
Do you remember the reference from Hamlet… “The lady doth protest too much, methinks”? Well… substitute “man” for “lady”, and I think you’d have a good description of me, at the moment.
I wish I could say that I came to my senses immediately, or even within a few days. Not so. It took three YEARS for me to come around, on this point… and this included every single car trip (there were hundreds) in which Kathy rode with me, and suffered in silence (though the pain was on her face, even despite her efforts to hide it for my sake). May God reward her for what she suffered, and for her gentle and long-suffering patience!
Let me pause for a moment and ask: how many, at this point, think that my wife had “issues”, she was “overreacting”, she had some mild (or not so mild) variant of OCD, scrupulosity, phobia, or some other emotional/psychological pathology?
Now, let me lay out the case with raw logic, bereft of all emotional gradient (as best I can manage):
1) Is a speed limit (per se) an unjust law, in the eyes of the Catholic Church (Who is more reliable than personal opinion, I’ve found–to say the least!)? By that, I mean: does the law violate any objective moral principle? I can find no authentic and honest answer other than “no”.
2) Does the local municipality and/or county and/or state and/or country have the right to enact such a law? In other words: do they have the rightful authority, in the eyes of the Catholic Church, to regulate and order society in *this particular way*? I can find no authentic and honest answer other than “yes”.
3) Given the above, is a speed-limit, duly enacted by rightful authority, a “just law”? Again, logic and honestly and candour demand that I say “yes”.
4) If I freely choose to violate a just law, is that a sin for me? Beyond all my personal reactions (and they are legion!), I’m forced to say “yes”. See the Catechism 1897ff, James 4:17, Romans 13:1-2, and elsewhere. There’s no escape for me, I’m afraid. My wife was right, and I was wrong, and there wasn’t a bloody thing I could do to change it; all my indignation and temper-tantrums (even if only within my skull!) and wounded pride made no difference, in the end.
You see, I’m a mathematician/logician, and I’m also a teacher of high-school students; I have a good deal of experience with almost every lame excuse in the book (and how to analyse them for fallacies), every illogical appeal, every tearful insistence that [x] isn’t fair, and more (and that’s just from the parents!). So… why was it so easy for me to use those very same lame excuses, provided that they came out of MY mouth? Why was it so very hard for me to see that my own excuses were ones which I wouldn’t have accepted for an INSTANT, from anyone else (and rightly so)?
Case in point (and tell me if this sounds at all familiar to anyone!): my first reaction to this (above) line of thought was: “Well… but… but… it’s such a SMALL thing! If it’s a sin at ALL, it’s such a SMALL sin! What’s the big deal? I don’t commit abortions, I’m pro-life, I’m anti-contraception, I go to daily Mass (for crying out loud!), I go to Confession once a week (well… that’s because I *need* to go once a week–no one would want to see my state of being if I didn’t!), I’ve taught RCIA, CCD, aduld education, etc., etc., etc.! Doesn’t all that count for something? Besides: nobody’s perfect, so why should anyone be so judgmental and unreasonable as to expect me to be?”
A priest from college once gave me the perfect metaphor for that sort of reasoning… and all he did was take the Church’s teaching, and “put flesh on it”.
—–
He said, “Think of it this way: mortal sin is deadly; it kills the life of Christ within you… and venial sin wounds the life of Christ within you, but it doesn’t kill that life. Does that make sense, so far?”
“That’s straight from the Catechism, right,” I said.
Father looked at me with a quizzical, caring smile, and said, “A mortal sin is spiritually equivalent to walking up to Jesus, hanging on the cross, and stabbing a knife through His Heart; He dies, in you. Right?”
I was stunned by the image, but I nodded.
“All right. Now, venial sin doesn’t kill the life of Christ in you; it wounds it. The question is whether that’s such a big deal, right? Whether we should ‘try to avoid them in theory, to be on the safe side’, but that only obsessive people really worry too much about them?”
I nodded again, still a bit dazed.
“Venial sin is a deliberate wounding of Jesus, Who suffered and died for you. Tell me: if you walked up to Jesus, hanging from the cross and bleeding and looking at you with pleading eyes, and you slapped him a stinging blow to the face, would that be a ‘big deal’?”
I couldn’t even speak.
“Would it be a ‘big deal’ if you spat in His Face and told Him you couldn’t care less about Him? It didn’t kill Him, after all.”
No words.
“That’s what you and I do, every time we commit any venial sin. Yes, it’s a big deal. It always is.”
Still no words.
The priest nodded. ”We humans really have a very hard time enduring the thought that we usually commit several, or dozens, or even hundreds of venial sins per day… and Jesus, suffering for us, takes everything we inflict on Him–especially the heartbreak–but loves us, no matter what… and forgives us, no matter what, if only we tell our pride to ‘get thee behind me’, look Jesus in the eyes, and say, ‘I’m sorry… please forgive me, and take this person who wounds you daily as Your child!’ We usually can’t endure that, for long.”
I was having a really hard time holding things together.
“We usually compensate by minimising the importance of our sins–even our mortal sins, but especially our venial sins–and we play all sorts of mind-games with ourselves: we say, ‘it didn’t really hurt Him! I couldn’t imagine anyone enduring real wounds like that and still loving and forgiving me, so the wounds must not be real… or not ‘real bad’, if you’ll forgive the pun and the bad English! In other words: instead of maximising Christ’s Mercy, we minimise our sins. But that just isn’t true, and He knows it… and so do we, deep down, buried deep beneath our unwillingness to admit it”
—–
You’d think that, after experiencing a life-changer “mini-sermon” such as that, I would have been quick to realise that my wife was in the right, quick to put away my pride, and quick to amend my life… yes? I wish that were the case. The college story (above) happened SEVEN YEARS before the incident with my wife… which also required an additional THREE YEARS to bring me to my senses. The “mini-sermon” touched me deeply… but I was also quite capable of “sub-dividing and compartmentalising” my mind so that my “do what I want” part and my “you shouldn’t do this” part really never spoke to one another very often. (The latter would surface during Confession–when I went–and the former would surface most of the rest of the time.) No… I’m in no position to shake a finger at anyone; and I hope you can now believe that.
In the case of liturgical abuse, it can sometimes be even harder: those who want to introduce “innovations” are almost universally motivated by high motives; I’ve never met an “experimental liturgist” whose intent was to damage or distort the liturgy! This, combined with the absolute disaster of catechesis in the Western World (I can speak especially for the USA, since I live here) for the last 40 years or so, leaves people in a position where “every man did what was right in his own eyes” (Judges 21:25–and this was after one of the more grotesque sections of the Bible, in Judges 19-21; read it all, if you haven’t eaten recently!).
Do I blame or condemn these people for arrogating the liturgy to themselves? No… especially since I used to be just like that. Do I blame or condemn Fr. Kelly for inserting a solo where it provably shouldn’t have been inserted? No; he’s good hearted and clueless, not malicious; he needs advice and gentle correction, not punishment or condemnation. I seriously doubt (especially given his age, and given the likely state of his seminary when he attended it) that he knew any better; I’m almost certain of the fact that he sincerely thought he was doing something that was not only allowed, but praiseworthy and pleasing in the eyes of the Church. It’s likely that his bishop may have told him that very thing, in fact (since the bishop is likely to be of that same age). You see: the agitation which you might detect from me (and–I think–from others of like mind to me, on this point) is not “let’s condemn Fr. Kelly and everyone who does this! They need to suffer for this affrontery!” Instead, it’s a frustration with the fact that others are defending not just Fr. Kelly, but THE ERROR ITSELF (and flatly denying that it’s an error). It’s as mind-numbing as trying gently and kindly to point out an error in someone else’s bank-book, only to have a third person draw a sword and insist that he will fight to the death in defense of leaving the (incorrect) sum as it is! If I (or others of like mind) came across as harsh because of the resulting perplexity and frustration, please forgive us; attacking you (or Fr. Kelly, or those who applauded his choice) was never the point.
No… my purpose is not to condemn, but to point out what people may not know. I’m trying to be to others what my wife was to me: a light shining in the darkness, even when the darkness snaps and bites back (as I did). I’m trying to show that there actually IS an answer to this issue, and it’s not simply a matter of opinion, consensus, emotion/sentiment, or individual discretion. Honestly… I didn’t invent this (nor did anyone else who’s been thrying to point this out)! The Church didn’t pass on the laws and rules She inherited, in order to make people miserable and because She is “out of touch with the needs (which is most often “wants”, really) of the people”! (How many times have we Catholics heard that same response, when we try to defend the Church’s teaching on contraception?) How mahy times have we heard the angry and defensive reply, “I don’t agree with you, and I don’t think you have any authority over me, and I don’t think you know what you’re talking about, so I’ll just do what I’m doing, thank you!”…? I know, from personal experience, that it’s hard to hear that from others… but immeasurably harder to admit that I’ve said those very things, myself!
Does this make any sense, at least?
The problem Doug, from my perspective is that Priests are people and if they are “called to the priesthood” and truly live it, then why be so hard on them. The Catholic Church recognizes that. When I stated that parishioners don’t respect their priests, what I think happends there is that priests are not treated as people but held to sometimes such impossible standards we are setting them up to fail.
I took my discussion in the direction I did because some issues are not worth “crucifying” a priest for. The truly good priests journey are ostrasized by the faithful and that is a shame.
Paladin:
I speak as a Roman Catholic whose faith is rooted in a very traditional, old-school Catholicism. As one who from very young age is heavily involved in the Church (see my comment to Joanne where I discuss some of the things I do) and also as one (I mentioned this as well) who had one foot in a Carmelite Monastery (the discalced). I think that this life path I almost took should inform you as to where I am coming from.
I am not an outsider to the issues that impact the Church Paladin. I am familiar with them well enough to lead me to state my position the way I have.
I have stated so much above that I will not repeat myself again. Just know that I have the Church and its servants at heart always. We need to pick our battles wisely and this is not one to be had. God bless always….
Thomas… (*sigh*)
For some reason, you’re still trying to burnish your “Catholic credentials” with me… which makes me think that you’ve missed most of my main points, entirely; I’m not at all interested in seeing who has the more impressive Catholic curriculum vitae (which is irrelevant to the point).
When you use words (to Doug) such as “crucifying and ostrasising priests” (in the context of pointing out a priest’s simple and well-meaning error), you’ve gone so far into hyperbole that I honestly don’t know what to say to you (it sounds hysterical, frankly… and it’s so far removed from what I’ve written, what I’ve ever done, and what I’ve ever intended, that I wonder if you’re carrying on a conversation with someone else!), I don’t know to what extent you mean what you say literally, and I don’t know what I could possibly say to change your mind–not on the idea of “Fr. Kelly was right to do what he did” (believe me, I get your opinion, there)… but rather, on the idea of “those who criticised Fr. Kelly’s choice are examples of people crucifying good priests for petty reasons. (Please forgive me if I’ve mischaracterised you, Thomas; I have only your words to use, not your secret thoughts; if you mean something else, I’ll have no way of knowing unless you tell me!)
I tried. Honestly, I did. If you’re bound and determined to think me (or those who are of like mind to mine, on this particular point) a shallow, pedantic cad who treats priests badly, and for reasons which you judge to be petty, then there seems to be nothing I can possibly do to change your opinion. So be it. But I did try.
Another great post, Paladin. Thank you. I’m not 100 % sure where the Church does actually come down on this (and I’m willing to defer to whatever the Church teaches, of course), but again, what has astonished me is the animosity that people have had for anyone who dared to criticize it. When this issue came up on a facebook page I was on (but stopped following because the blogger – a non-Catholic – was angry and indignant that anyone would be so meeeeaaaan as to say that a priest singing a song during a Mass was inappropriate), I too commented that I thought the song would have been more appropriate at the reception. Someone responded by posting that the issue is “not about your rules, Joanne.” I agreed with her – this issue isn’t about *my* rules. At all. Or my opinion or preference, unless the Church leaves it open to opinion and preference.
I’m not sure why sensibilities change. I received my Baptism, First Communion, and Confirmation in a parish that had a folk group, holds hands during the Our Father, and removed the kneelers many years ago. I was a Eucharistic Minister in college and a lector in my 20s. I gave the lay eulogy or whatever it’s called at the end of my grandfather’s funeral Mass. I’m sure for most of my life I wouldn’t have seen anything amiss in what Fr Kelly did. Now I see countless things differently, I think because of a faithful, reverent EF/OF priest who opened my eyes to what I now would say is “the way things should be done.” I didn’t know what I didn’t know and I realize now what a lite version of our faith I was taught.
This Fr Kelly issue, and I’m sure Fr Kelly himself is a lovely person, but the issue had prompted me to think about going to the Latin Mass again, which I did for a few years, but stopped doing for a variety of reasons. There’s not a Latin Mass that’s really convenient for me, which in itself is kind of a crime considering that I live in an area that is at least historically very highly populated with Catholics and there are many Catholic parishes near me. It might be worth my while, however, to make the effort again.
You know Paladin, I’ve tried but your *sighs* thus far tell me of this ongoing superiority here. I shared some of the things with you because they are relevant to where I am coming from, not to impress as you took it. I’ve been informed by Joanne that esentially not taking this as liturgical abuse makes one an unfaithful Catholic and you have shared some of your experiences with your wife. I responded to Joanne and you what makes me a Catholic and you reprimand me for an attempt to impress???? You are truly looking down at me Paladin….
If you are telling me that sharing where I come from is somehow flashing “credentials” how come you shared that particular experience? See once again you put me down for my perspective and my words but I have not reprimanded you for what you shared about your wife. I will not do to you as you do to me.
YOU HAVE BEEN “BURNISHING” YOUR CATHOLIC CREDENTIALS WITH THIS THREAD SINCE YOUR FIRST COMMENT.
Can you see how this comes off: Paladin *sighs* and reprimands when I have done no such thing in my April 17, 2014 at 2:18 pm response to you. You may not see it but you carry yourself as superior as does Joanne.
I never said you or others likeminded treat priests badly. Again you are stating what I never conveyed. Why? Not really matter at this point anyway.
Joanne shared her personal experiences as a Catholic. Must be superior to mine yes Paladin?
I will share my experiences as a non-Catholic and state I have no clue about 90% of what y’all are talking about or why it’s a big deal. But I’m oddly fascinated.
:) Heart and soul with you on all that, Joanne!
That’s precisely the thing: it’s not about my personal tastes, or yours, or those of anyone else; it’s about the Church’s right to govern HER OWN liturgy, and to set the limits on what can and cannot, should and should not, be done.
Let me be the first to say it: if Ireland had gone to the Vatican to ask for a special indult which allowed personal “reflections/insertions” (including songs) near the end of Mass, and if the Vatican had (for whatever reason) APPROVED that request, then no one would hear a single word of complaint from me, and NEVER would anyone have heard anything from me about “liturgical abuse”. If a rightful authority grants a rightful exception, then there is no abuse! But if a local person (no matter how saintly, in other respects) takes it upon himself to decide something which is not his to decide, that is an abuse… no matter what anyone’s personal feelings might be. It’s a matter of simple fact… as straight-forward and objective as the multiplication table!
Case in point (as you mentioned): not one single person has described a single reason why this song (complete with its lovely intent and meaning) couldn’t have been performed at the reception, instead of the wedding Mass itself. What, exactly, was so critical about singing the song RIGHT THEN, at that instant, which would have been lost if done at the reception? Performing it at the reception would have been a win/win: no liturgical abuse (or even the possibility of such abuse) to worry anyone, and the “gift” of the song would have been just as cherished! Why insist on a time and location which is not in the least bit necessary to accomplish your goal, and whose only additional effect is to break rules which never needed to be broken in the first place? It’s beyond my comprehension…
I can only imagine what the reaction would be, if a child were to say to her mother: “Mother, I love you and I cherish you deeply; but your requirement that I go to sleep at 8 PM is simply a man-made rule, and my desire to chat with my friend on the phone at 9 PM [who loves my calls, by the way!] is far more important to me; you do understand if I disregard this man-made rule for the sake of that great good, don’t you?”
“Why do you say ‘Lord, Lord,’, but not do what I tell you?” (Luke 6:46)
“If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.” (John 14:15)
“He who says ‘I know him’ but disobeys his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him;” (1 John 2:4)
“By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and obey his commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome.” (1 John 5:2-3)
Is this so difficult a concept to swallow?
“I will share my experiences as a non-Catholic and state I have no clue about 90% of what y’all are talking about or why it’s a big deal. But I’m oddly fascinated. ”
Jack – sharing experiences matters on this thread if is done by Paladin and Joanne ONLY. Everything else would be an attempt to impress or “burnishing” credentials. Sorry to burst your bubble….
April 17, 2014 at 3:59 pm
Thomas R: “Joanne shared her personal experiences as a Catholic. Must be superior to mine yes Paladin?”
April 17, 2014 at 4:03 pm
Paladin: ” Heart and soul with you on all that, Joanne!…..”
That response answered my original question as it applies to Joanne’s April 17, 2014 at 3:16 pm sharing of her Catholic experiences as superior.
Let’s just move on…….
Caution: if you’re anything–ANYTHING–like me, you may feel an unexpected wave of indignation rise up–gradually, or otherwise–when I describe this… akin to the feeling one gets when one is feeling backed into a corner;
Nope. Zero wave of indignation about anything you’ve said on this thread. I guess we are a bit different.
No; he’s good hearted and clueless, not malicious; he needs advice and gentle correction, not punishment or condemnation.
Sounds like you are just the Catholic for the job. Try not sighing so much if you take it on though.
“The lady doth protest too much, methinks”
Methinks he doth too. ;)
Does this make sense to you?
Have I mentioned how beautiful the bride’s dress is? And I wonder who did her hair?
That… was vile, Praxedes.
You know, I considered you a friend. And now, you write… this? Sarcasm-laden contempt-dripping scorn?
Let me know if you’d ever like to be friends again, Prax. For now, I’ll take that as a fond farewell. That really hurt.
My comments were sincerely not meant to be vile, Paladin.
My comments were meant to wake you up to the truth of how I feel you have come across in this thread. You have, in my view, patronizingly sighed your way through this thread but are shocked and offended when someone calls you out on it. You notice the sarcasm in my comments but don’t call out others who have done the same to others here.
Just like most of us, I believe you are “good hearted but at times clueless, not malicious; at times you need advice and gentle correction, not punishment or condemnation.”
I am still uncertain whether this is a liturgical abuse or not so I’m asking that you please pray for me in Jesus’ name that I come to the truth on this matter.
I consider you a friend Paladin. I never brought up ending our friendship; if you want to end it, that choice is yours to make. I have learned so much from you.
Oh and Jack, if you are still reading, I’ve always considered you a friend in spite of our bickering back and forth on many occasions and calling it quits a few times! I have learned so much from you, as well.
Hey don’t bring me in, I didn’t do anything this time. ;)
I don’t hold grudges. :D Even when I bicker with people lol.
I don’t hold grudges.
I didn’t think you did. I needed your confirmation though.
Can I borrow “oddly fascinating?” I think it would be a hit with some young people: ”I’m oddly fascinated by your seven-word book report!” ”I’m oddly fascinated by your 14.75 minute trip to the restroom!” ”I’m oddly fascinated by what you just said about your classmate’s mother!”
I forgot to apologize. I am truly sorry for hurting your feelings, Paladin. That really was not my intent. In hindsight, I wish I had taken a different route to express my feelings.
Lol yes you may borrow it. It’s like my favorite phrase. Along with “mildly entertaining”, I like that phrase too.
“I wish I had taken a different route to express my feelings.”
I tend to either be too flippant and sarcastic, or overaggressive in defending my viewpoint (especially if it’s an issue personal to me or if someone hurt my feelings or pride). I think it’s good to recognize that even if you’re in the right, it can put you in the wrong to express yourself in a way that doesn’t come across correctly. And of course sometimes things don’t come across right in text, so I think we all have to be careful. What we think is being playful can really hurt someone’s feelings, like I hurt Thomas’s feelings by making a Spock joke that I thought was silly and playful but he didn’t appreciate it at all. Sorry again Thomas.
Good points, Jack. Thanks.
Well, this thread is interesting to read! Hello, Paladin! Long time, no see!
Yesterday at our Holy Thursday Mass, we were reminded that Holy Thursday is a day during which all Catholic Priests remind themselves of their calling and ask for prayer to remain true to the Church and Her people.
Good priests are to be cherished and held in admiration. Good priests are to be supported in their ministry to the people who comprise the Catholic Church. My family and I prayed yesterday that the faithful recognize the bad from the good in priests.
Each Priest that has devoted himself to the calling, represents Jesus Christ (they are His Apostles). I respectfully ask all Catholics on this Good Friday to pray for them - that they are sustained in their (often lonely) journeys in their priestly lives. Thank you….
Paladin, regarding you April 17, 2014 at 6:54 pm response to Praxedes – I am reminded that in all your comments you have exibited the same toward me and yet did not respond to a single post of mine in which I pointed that out.
Please take the time to reflect on the content and verbiage of your commentary to me. I still cannot recover how you single-handedly discredited my personal life experiences as mere attempt to “impress” and “burnish credentials.”
To have one’s life story shut down – Now THAT REALLY HURT!
“What we think is being playful can really hurt someone’s feelings, like I hurt Thomas’s feelings by making a Spock joke that I thought was silly and playful but he didn’t appreciate it at all. Sorry again Thomas. ”
That has already been forgotten Jack so no worries. I always appreciate how we recover. I think (please forgive my bluntness) that once someone shares their own experiences and genuinely opens up on an internet platform of all places! (that was my case in the situation you speak of) there is no need to discredit that. We all have very unigue experiences and sometimes we truly do not realize anything about the other person’s totality.
I for one, when someone will share a totally personal experience or their live story on this blog, will not discredit it by any comments (and believe have not to date) that would be indicative that these personal experiences are meaningless or somehow inconsequential to who we are. We can respond.to the presented personal experience with our take on it, but not straight out discredit it as “attempt”s of some sort.
Its all good Jack. Thanks for being here….
I respectfully ask all Catholics on this Good Friday to pray for them
Thanks for the gentle reminder, Thomas. I find myself often praying for family and friends (including y’all here) and a wave of sadness has just washed over me about how seldom I pray for our Church leaders, including my own compassionate parish priest . . . . .
Thomas I really don’t think Paladin was trying to discredit your experiences as a Catholic. I think his point was more that you were both faithful Catholics, that there was no need to “prove” that to each other because you are both coming from a position of being Catholic and loving God. That’s what I got out of his comments at least.
Paladin’s a good guy, I really don’t think he was trying to be degrading or superior towards you at all, it’s not how he rolls.
It is apparent, at least to me, that what our intentions are, and how we come across can be two very different things.
I think we should all be a bit more careful about how we roll.
I think most people do fine at expressing themselves correctly, I think I’m the only one who consistently screws up and makes everyone mad at me. I feel bad that people got their feelings hurt on this thread though, I feel like people misunderstood what the others were saying.