Tuesday, 27 February 2007
I am immodestly pleased with my "liturgical cocktail piano stylings," and happy that a few more sets of vocal chords appeared last night.
However, I know for a fact that some were so put off by the first night that they would not come back.
This is troubling.
And yet, I cannot say I blame them.
I'm not sure it was wise assignment of personnel.
I would be the first to admit that a sad and sinful racism and clannishness pervades our society. But throwing something stylistically at odds with what people are used to, and aesthetically inimicable to them presented by a person of another race seems less likely to be winning than to act as gasoline on a fire.
IMO the reaction was not racist -- the people in question would have muttered the same things about "revival meetings" if it had been Burt Lancaster in his Elmer Gantry persona asking for an "amen."
Charismatics who think those who do not share their extroversion and volume-level are somehow less imbued with the Spirit than themselves do a great disservice to the Church insisting on trying to foist their predilections on all.
Surely there is room for many, many, many devotions, of many, many, many styles -- and in those areas where unity is required, less affect should be the rule.
This strikes me the way trying to enforce Life-teen style music on Mass goers does, as complaining that everyone doesn't want to join the Rosary Society, and sing Nevin songs would, (this does not happen in my experience,); as suggesting that those who don't attend the Tridentine Mass are somehow lesser Catholics does.
Hence, the wisdom of a Universal Language, the perfect usefulness of Gregorian chant, the necessity of rubrics for liturgy and not for personal prayer.
This is not well written, and not well thought out, I need to tease these ideas out a bit more, but I think I have the gist of my thoughts on the matter down.
Correction and (respectful) admonition invited.
It seems to me, (and I could be wrong, but I believe I am honest in this assessment,) that my on-going arguments with certain PTB never revolve around my trying to make others bend to my will, but my trying to prevent others from making me bend to theirs.
I don't want to enforce my personal aesthetic taste, or require participation in expressions of my personal piety (It is immaterial to me whether anyone sings "hymns" I select, but it does bother me if the psalm response or the Ordinary is not sung.)
But I do not wish to be told what to do, either in my "ministerial" capacity or as a PIP by someone with neither knowledge nor authority.
I bow to legitimate authority, (even when I disagree,) and am eager to subordinate myself to, indeed, to serve the learned and the skilled, )and thereby, I hope, learn, and grow in skill.)
But why would some people think their wishes or opinions be of any more or less interest to me than those of any other members of the congregation who don't know what Church documents say, don't know what rubrics require, don't know anything of any aspect of music?
Why would they expect their personal likes and dislikes to be honored?
And I admit to resenting the lack of acknowledgment that I do indeed program that which I do not "like," that there are favorites of mine that I would never think of imposing on a congregation -- the assumption of some people is that I am as arbitrary and self-serving as they themselves are.
(If only they would make an effort to educate themselves in matters on which they wish to impose their wills.)
I love that about the choir -- they are willing to both discuss and to listen to what I have to say on why we don't sing certain old favorites in the situations where they were accustomed to sing them, and why there are others that some may not "like" but which are the most appropriate choices open to us at this time and in this group for the occasion.
I think we're making some real progress, not musically so much as liturgically.
Getting away from the Liturgical Music as Aural Zoloft model...
And speaking of "getting away"... HOW did I wonder so far off track in this ?
Monday, 26 February 2007
An old blog, of an older thought of Benedict's.
It caught my eye, because there was a goofy prayer of the faithful this weekend, I don't remember exactly how it was phrased, something about the rights of laborers. (DISCLAIMER: yes, I am a liberal, a card-carrying union member, etc., etc., etc.... but how can the rights of laborers, per se, outweigh the rights of employers, per se? We are all God's children, no?)
Anyway, I remembered how last spring on some blog everyone was talking about the loopy General Intercessions we had heard the day before, and realized that our pastors were NOT making these up themselves. Shortly after that, we'd all heard the same borderline-ungrammatical plea. And for a while we'd noticed loooooooooong statements, as opposed to actual petitions -- it made me think God ought to have a little cosmic counsellor-at-law raising a sarcastic Jack McCoy on Law & Order-type objection --"Is there a question in there, yer honor?" "Is there a request in there, Almighty?" (Since then, I've indeed come across books, services and I think CD roms that provide Prayers of the Faithful for the entire Liturgical Cycle, so that heaven forbid, we don't all just simply pray "For...." what the GIRM or Missal indicates we are to pray for. This is not all bad. It probably forestalls many a LitCom from fabricating nonsense, and many a deacon from putting in a plug for his favorite sports franchise.)
Wandered a bit there, but back to my original point -- such a petition as the one this past weekend is reflective of guilt for a sin virtually no one in the congregation was in a petition to commit.We're blue collar.We are, for the most part, Labor, not Capital, not even Management.Our actions, in support of preventing a denial of the Rights of Workers? Basically, they can only be political.And that's what we do nowadays -- our concerns, our causes are all corporate, they must be, they must never be personal.Because otherwise, we'd have to admit that we sin as individuals. That our sins are personal, that MY GUILT IS MINE. Governments, corporations, political parties, cultures, peoples -- theirs are the only sins we are allowed to acknowledge and they are the only sinners we're allowed to accuse. And a nation can't fit in a confessional.It's so much more comfortable to admit to other peoples' sins.
Herr Ratzinger too has noticed that.
One of the songs, as printed in the congregational aid (taken from "Word and Song,") proved to use a drastically different rhythm from the accompaniment copy I had, (from Celebrating the Eucharist,) and from which I made choir copies.
And because it was not the original choice (one of the contributors to the planning process found "Lift High the Cross" unacceptable,) I hadn't vetted the words -- so there we were belting out "Alleluias!" during Lent.
And choir participation from my group was not good.
And from the other parishes? NON-EXISTENT.
Not one voice.
And we had not a single tenor (our strongest section! Ha!)
So, parts were not really possible (and I had really worked on the NEW BRITAIN harmonies, writing them, and setting them, and teaching them,) not even a large enough group to divide up on the Taize chant.
And it turned out there WAS an offering taken up during the evening, not just at the exit, so music WAS needed, so there WAS an opportunity for a choral piece.... (the knowledge of which might have persuaded more choristers to make the effort? But I digress...)
Any way, I felt like a fool.
Well, I deserved it, for all the commitment I gave it (Yes, I put my time and effort into it, but not my heart.)
So, my sin was its own penance?
No, my penance was the entrance song, or rather songs, for the service, and the earlier Mass. ;-)
Oh, and to top it all, the piano is grossly out of tune.
It wasn't bad when we first moved it out for the Respect Life prayer service, in fact, it was fine.
Perhaps we should not have left it in the nave. The small room probably protected it from the very worst of the temperature fluctuations.
Saturday, 24 February 2007
In much the same state as Himself, we could just dog it like so many do, but.... well, is pride always a sin? our pride won't let us do a half-assed job.
Actually, I don't really care, and I don't feel any of it would reflect badly on me if it didn't get done because it's NOT MY RESPONSIBILITY.
Ah, but who would look bad? So that's why I can't.
Ash Wednesday went very well indeed.
First one in forever when I haven't gotten ashes... it just didn't work out, the refrain wasn't long enough for me to scamper down the stairs from the loft after finishing one verse, and before needing to begin another.
The Introits are going extremely well. (And today? well, its replacement was MY Lenten penance.)
All that copying, and cutting and pasting, and collating and arranging and sorting and stapling... and there, in the conference room looming over me as I inserted that piece of borderline-her -(... well, no, it is not that, but so grossly misleading that it is lousy catechesis and dangerous (and I mean that literally,) from a liturgical stand=point,) that textual drek into the choir packets: an enormous and ancient volume, The Unchangeable Church.
It must be talking about the OLD one....
Wednesday, 21 February 2007
(I was, of course, trying to be funny/snarky with the Heroes reference.)
But the "World" can mean many things, some good, some bad, some immaterial (in the sense of "irrelevant," because the irrelevant aspect of the world is , of course, very definitely made of matter.)
"World" might refer to all of us, all of humanity (I think that is the sense of the pop catch-phrase,) to Terra/Gaia/3rd planet from the sun, mostly harmless; or to the big, bad, tempting, secular playground.In any case, when the world is spoken of, it might be in a sense that does not merit saving.
But the "Church", upper-case "C," well, that's a different kettle of fish.The word too has its ambiguities, but however we define it, which ever of the Dullesian models we are expressing -- the Church not only should be saved, but is standing in great need of salvation.
And as the Liturgy goes, so goes the Mystical Body of Christ.
Despite the expressed optimism of many a Fr Pangloss, Sr. Rose Glasses or Catechist Happy Talk, the Liturgy, on the ground, is in a bad way.And its infirmities find their reflection in those of the hierarchy, of the Pilgrim People, of the maternal the purveyor of Sacraments... of the fractured Mystical Body anyway you want to look at it.
Shawn Tribe on TNLM says, "Liturgy and catechesis are closely tied together. Sometimes people are tempted to think it does not matter, and yet it does, because it is there that many experience the Faith and see the faith of the Church expressed, and are brought to an interior movement of prayer and worship."
I agree with him completely, but strangely, I think the expression of this truth, that the Liturgy is catechetical, is responsible for some of the greatest problems we encounter in current liturgical praxis.The tunnel vision that sees only this (secondary) purpose of the event whose primary goals should be the Worship of God and the Sanctification of the Faithful has led to all manner of abuses and (comically, were it not tragic,) a degradation of practice that has the exact opposite of its intended effect!
First off, good for the Vatican, good for Bruskewitz.
But what kind of yellow journalism is that which doesn't bother that state the fact (which would refute the CTA spokespersons fiction that they are all about reform and accountability,) that the group is ANTI-LIFE. Pro-abortion. Pro- choice. Pro "reproductive rights." In favor of something that is and always has been diametrically opposed to Church teaching.
I had a Fat Monday and Tuesday.
Vale to carne (in the from of cheeseburgers,) and to Fashion Television (my most low-rent guilty pleasure,) to any kind of gaming (which admittedly boils down to not much more than various computer solitaires when I am on hold or having a less than engaging phone conversation,) and any kind of confrontation on line (even that which I feel qualifies as an Admonishment in the True Spirit of Active Love.)
And I am going to try to make at least a half hour of my daily reading SPIRITUAL reading (and matters liturgical don't count!)
Sunday, 18 February 2007
Now, he is speaking to the resistance (from a tiny minority of his parishioners, I believe,) one priest has found to his re-introduction of a small amount of Latin in his Lenten Masses
But I think it is an apt description of the state of those Catholic political operatives who found no fault with John Edward's employ of a foul-mouthed anti-Catholic blogger who admit that had the target of their vitriol been another religion or an ethnic group, they would have been clamoring for the removal of the women in question.
Or a couple of frequent posters on another liturgical blog, all Catholic, whose prime directive in determining the propriety of any text, ritual, or theology is that it be utterly incapable of being taken exception to by those who do not share Catholic beliefs.
Nothing must be explicitly Catholic to make some Catholics happy. No adoration, no expression of belief in the Real Presence, no theology of sacrifice, no use of the title "priest" or "Father", no devotions (especially Marian,) no acknowledgment of sin and the need for repentance, no talk of purgatory.... in short, nothing that a Presbyterian, or better yet, a Unitarian would not be perfectly comfortable confessing.
All overt manifestations of specifically Catholic doctrine and culture is eschewed.
It is very, very sad.
Some are literally ashamed of their nominal Catholicism.
They may use the sex abuse cover-up scandals as their excuse for this self-loathing, but it is actually because they do not really believe that the fullness of Truth resides in the Catholic faith, and that any other belief system, to the degree in which it diverges from Catholicism is IN ERROR.
These poor, near-apostates suffer from Katholischesselbsthaas.
"I am convinced that a psalm in perfect Gregorian helps the believing experience more than reading certain pastoral letters. "
Saturday, 17 February 2007
practically demanded their programming.
And of course, I collected the Ippolitoff-Ivanoff after singing it last week, and it also is a psalm from this Sunday's Mass, so out it goes again.
Between that, the Routley and the Taize pieces ("All ya need is love!") and the trying to work in two favorites since this is our last chance to sing Alleluias for quite some time... well, my choir is good to put up with me. (Hence the bribe of beverage and pastry -- I OWE them donuts!)
The Routley "Of Love Divine" took a bit of time, but seems to have caught on now (and don't tell the copyright police -- I re-arranged the verses so that each line had the same"incipit" as in the other verses,) though not, of course, with the solidity of the Manz "E'en So." (That has become a chestnut that they misremember as having known for as long as all the Slovak goodies.)
The text and the form are so useful. I am hoping that I'll have the same success with the new Langlais. (The dissonances in that were not as pleasing to them on first try, but they are what I love about the verses.)
The Proulx arrangement of the Elizabethan (yes?) 84th psalm has taken longer to learn than I expected, but should pay off -- because no, much as I love it, we cannot make similar use of the Brahms.
And I was very glad that M. brought up his previously voiced complaint about new texts for old tunes.
It gave me a chance to state a few principles (I'll take homophones whose differentiation defeat me for $300, Alex.)
While I agree with him about stupid modernization (Joyful, joyful, we adore YOU,) and Male Pronounophobia, (what did someone call that? The Tonto Psalter? the same butchery is done to old hymns and carols,) an entirely new text for an old favorite tune is a different matter entirely.
So his complaint gave me a chance to express yet again that the text is paramount, that we need to try to match the text with the Propers, or at least with the theme of the scriptures of the day, and standard meters for new texts coupled with a tune the congregation already know and loves is the surest way to do this (especially since the Boss has a horror of new music that the people might not sing on the first try, and an equal horror of weekly, disposable, depleting-the-earth's-forests "worship aids." (I share the latter, abhor the former -- it, in effect, puts a liturgy committee, or a music director, or a pastor from twenty or more years ago in charge of programming decisions TODAY. "We can't do that! We've ALWAYS done this! We've never done it that way before! We don't KNOW that! And no one ever seem to hear the irony when I tell them that they didn't know what they know until they knew it...)
Well, well see how it goes this afternoon -- gad, I dread leaving the house in this weather, my very fingernails ache with the cold...
I am right glad, I should add, that a long ago decision was made that the Lenten ordinary must be the same as the Advent ordinary, "to highlight the connection between the two seasons." So since we did a Gregorian Agnus, and I continued it throughout the Christmas season, we will have ended the "chant is for penitential seasons" mind-set, AND used it for a large part of the year (since everyone know, the liturgical year lasts from September to June -- right? Catholics don't have to go to Mass when school is out, right?)
Friday, 16 February 2007
Ours did not do very well by their measure.
More interesting than the study itself, to me, anyway, were a few of the reactions they also published.
In response to the Crisis study:
something Pope Benedict XVI said recently. Speaking late last year to Swiss bishops making their ad limina visits, he called it “a fundamental task of pastoral care to teach people how to pray.” Many of our contemporaries, the pope maintained, “seek meditation elsewhere because they think that they will not be able to find a spiritual dimension in Christianity. We must show them once again not only that this spiritual dimension exists but that it is the source of all things.” More than anything else, perhaps, neglecting the fundamental spiritual dimension of the Faith may explain the problematical situation of some American dioceses today. - Russell Shaw
I would boil this down to, We are too busy, and we are too noisy. Martha's banging pots and pans in the kitchen, instead of listening to Jesus. And the Pharisee is "praying" about what a swell guy he is, he can't even hear the One Who is speaking to him.
Equally as crucial for re-evangelization is care for the liturgy. How many have left the Church in disgust over [liturgical abuses]? Liturgy is the language of the Church. When that language becomes unintelligible, when it has no clear message, when it is a personal platform for this or that priest’s “vision of the church that is being born,” it is no longer Christ’s message, but a banal, passing trend.--Mary Jo Anderson
A pet peeve of mine. We are never going to have success telling balky parishioners, "Well, this is the way we do things HERE," (a WFW quote from a Lit. Comm. member,) when what they need to hear is "this is the way the Church asks us to do it."
The challenge for the new generation of bishops is what to do with diocesan middle management. There are dedicated, talented Catholics who work in CCD, RCIA, and Pre-Cana programs; but there are also legions of functionaries who somehow got on the payroll and want to turn the Church into yet another Protestant denomination. In many places, a person who wishes to become Catholic will discover that the local RCIA program does not teach Catholic doctrine; rather, it subjects the unfortunate catechumen to endless hours of non-directional group psychotherapy. You learn about the feelings of everyone in the room, but not much about the Real Presence. - George Sim Johnston
This reminds me that Himself talks about dodging a bullet all the time. When he went through RCIA here it was notably free of this kind of thing (with a few glaring exceptions that embarrassed him.) From what I hear over and over again, other parishes that offer RCIA "teach" virtually nothing, and instead offer endless opportunities for unproductive or even counter-productive "Faith Sharing."
And also, of that wonderful word I read somewhere for the new problem that has replace the curse of clericalism -- Demi-Clericalism. All that middle management (of whom I am one, and trying very hard not to be.)
Step out of your uber-involved, hyper-informed Catholic bubble for a moment, and look at things from the perspective of the typical shoddily-catechized young adult who steps into a typical parish on a typical Sunday.
Given their background, which usually consists of the message, "Be nice and admire Jesus" and given what they typically encounter in that Mass which is more of the same plus perhaps a more urgent, "It's really important to be a part of Church and for faith to be important in your life...we can't get more specific, but trust us...it's really important..."...
She mentions hearing the unending prayers of older Catholics - that their children/grandchildren would return to the practice of their faith. Sad...
But my experience is a little different, and a little sadder - most of the older, ultra faithful Catholics that I know have children who have fallen, or are in the process of falling away and basically say, Oh well, as long as you're a good person.
How can they value the treasure they are fortunate enough to possess so little that they don't burn for their loved ones to share in it?
"Well, he doesn't always get to Mass, but you know that fellowship at Rev, V's church is very affirming."
"No, she went to Mass at the Methodist church this weekend."
One poster mentions this dissonance: This disconnect between what the Church has to offer (Jesus Christ the Savior) & what it communicates (Jesus Christ the Nice Guy)
A writer somewhere on the internet put it thusly (and I've never forgotten it, though I may paraphrase and add my own spin,): Are we gathered for a nice memorial dinner in honor of that nice Jewish teacher who, sadly, died so young? Or are we there to be mystically present at the ritual murder of the Son of God, of God Himself, whose torturous death was a ransom for an often ungrateful humanity? He goes on, that when we think about the model of Church that is the "laity" we:
need to stop thinking "The Paid People in the Chanchery" or "Extraordinary Ministers/DREs/Other Middle-Management-on-the-Church-Payroll" types and start thinking: Me
Yes, yes, yes, yes, a thousand times yes.
Okay, up front, no, I DON'T remember "how it used to be." But I cannot help think that when, other than the priest, (and a few altar boys, and a choir or solo voice YOU COULDN'T SEE,) the ONLY role was played by all of us, the PIPs -- that role seemed a whole hell of a lot more important.
That layer of middle-management was referred to on another blog as "the Demi-Clerics." And they are killing lay participation. If these demi-clerics truly wanted the faithful to "own" (to use a favorite buzz-word,) the rites, they would get the hell out of their line of sight, and stop making the rites seem like their own personal invention, and therefor their own personal property.
(It is not unlike the mistake of having a mic'ed song leader (including the priest-celebrant, at times,) -- why would anyone belt out a hymn, why would anyone feel responsibility to produces sound when someone else, with someTHING else is taking care of it and making my contribution not only unnecessary and superfluous, but insignificant, maybe imperceptible.)
I have heard people (and not my choir, not people involved in the Liturgy Committee,) mutter, "Oh, Mass was so long, we had one of [X]s] things in the middle of it."
They are not stupid, they understand intuitively that half of that stuff is made up.
And we will never convince the PIP to fully embrace the Liturgy and the rites as the Church asks us to do them when most of our effort goes in to foisting our personal whims on them.
It's why I ask the choir "do you like this?" when we try a new anthem, or I pull out an old war-horse, but NEVER put the question to them on the psalms, or a (far too rare) Gregorian Proper, or the little peculiarities of once-a-year Liturgies (e.g., the Reproaches on Good Friday. the correct canticle for L of H, the real Litany of the Saints.)
Their, and MY, for that matter, "liking" them is immaterial. (Although I am quite certain that with sufficient exposure, these things will be not just "liked," but "loved.")
Another poster: what's missing is . . . the need for a Redeemer - which is only felt once one has grasped that one is a sinner... There's plenty of abstract, beating-around-the-bush talk about sin, but it's usually somebody else's sin, rarely our own. It's those bad guys over there that need a Redeemer - we're ok here.
Furthermore, sin is hardly ever spoken of us individual -- it is corporate (often literally, of Corporations, but of countries, communities, Churches, societies, as well.)
Surely if it's not my, personal fault, I don't personally need to do anything about it? And the same mindset may be extended to worship -- I don't personally need to be sanctified, or to worship the almighty.... "I got people."
Saturday, 10 February 2007
It has been decreed or at least approved by the bishop, apparently, that the mission theme song
will be Sing A New Church, (no thanks, I'll stick with the one Jesus founded...)
One wonders sometimes if anyone thinks about, I mean really THINKS about the words
in the "hymns" they put out there and insist on us peons using.
I could just say find another fanny to put on the bench, I suppose, but I wouldn't do that
I don't much care for the fact that a part-timer for my parish, all the cluster work somehow
fall to me as well.
No one else even showed up for the meeting with the diocesan guy.
And our youngest cantor has been a bit of a disappointment. He's good enough but so far
On the other hand, Fr likes the idea of singing the Introits again for Advent.
So, more work for me (it's a heck of lot more work to point and format the psalm verse than to
just say "Our opening song will be number 401 in your hymnal, Our Father We Have Wandered,
again, that is number ....") but the results, worth it.
Wednesday, 7 February 2007
Unlike most people, and certainly unlike Himself, I don't mind confrontation per se, and I have no predeliction for the supposed female game of "If I have to TELL there's no point." I am perfectly glad to explain what the "Something" is when he asks if if something is wrong. I am more than glad, I am eager.
But I don't like him having to leave for the day at the point of the explanation, as I know he will brood for hours.
And I don't know what I should do instead.
Should I say nothing?
I don't want to play the martyr; I'm too good at it, I mean that literally, it's an act -- and it's not fair.
But I can't just put it completely out of my head. That is admittedly a failure on my part, but I can't just do it.
Buthe's so sensitive. Everything hurts him, everything is taken as personal criticism.
Hell, asking him to smack the bottom of the parmesan shaker rather than pump his arm up and down, so that the cheese doesn't end up all over the kitchen floor! It's as if I've impugned his manhood or insulted his intelligence.
Hmmmm.... maybe this is all about MY being too sensitive.
Yes, I thought I was playing the song because he needed to learn it, make a decision on it, hear it, whatever .... and I thought more or less at his request. But if he wanted to turn away and start working on something else...
Well, why shouldn't he?
It's an ongoing irk ("zat a noun?)
He wants to share his enthusiasms with me, and he does and I pay attention.
Or he has something on TV that he is well aware does not interest me, and I can sit in respectful silence, doing something else.
Is it too much to ask that he not roll his eyes when I point something out to him, or read out a passage in a book that has seized my imagination?
Or not make sarcastic remarks about my (admittedly low-rent) interests like fashion?
He would be waaaaaaaay hurt if I reciprocated.
Well, life goes on.
Oddly, I intend to pop in on the parish "learn about anullment" night, just to offer moral support, because I cannot say enough good about the diocesam process.
Because we DO love each other.
Monday, 5 February 2007
The odd thing is, like one of his posters, but for the opposite reason, it will make little immediate difference to my worship life.
But the freeing of the Old Rite will work wonders for the reforming of the New Rite. It needs, frankly, saving. I'll enumerate some of the ways, later.
Save the Liturgy, Save the World.
Sunday, 4 February 2007
QED, he knows it is ... wrong.
This was not a week with one of the made-up rites.
It did have someone acting as if he were the president of the local chamber of commerce and, as if it were his own house, welcoming people to.... well, GOD'S house.
Two teeth itchingly bad songs, Gay Caballeros, and the Brady Bunch. But I admit, the singing on the latter was stellar.
So if that's all you care about... to quote my favorite prez (what's the snarkasm emoticon?) MISSION ACCOMPLISHED (of course, we could probably do the same with a Gloria set to "Take Me Out To the Ballgame.")
Himself's show was enjoyable, but he is not in this situation.
Yes, I like him better depressed and UNemployed.
So it goes.
And yet, all is beautiful ( 6 below, but beautiful. Which give me an excuse to leave the Xmas decor up past Presentation, it's too COOOOOOOOOLD to go up to the attic and get the boxes, etc...)
Choir was excellent today (and Creme Brulee, excellenter still.)
(Save the Liturgy, Save the World.)
Saturday, 3 February 2007
Of course, Himself and I do have quite a number of them.
And between confession and communion, and throat blessing (I guess that would be "sacramentally goodness,") that popped into my brain as I walked home from church. (Does that mean the day was "gracerrific?)
GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD, but it's cold.
I am in real pain fom it, my hands are splitting.
I am almost dreading tomorrow's Masses, because I am afraid You-Know-Who is going to shout some inappropriate sports-themed thing at the dismissal. It really makes me sick, literally, sick to my stomach, but I don't know what to do about it. I like him a great deal, and I think he is fond of me, but we don't have the kind of relationship where I could tell him how inappropriate that is, without doing more harm than good.
Is it breaking the bonds of confesion for the pentitent to tell what the confessor said, if it was particularly osteo-crani-ite?
My use of obscene language, or laziness, is somehow connected to the Super Bowl??!?@?#???
Yet hope springs eternal.
I am resolved to be honest yet obscure.
I do not wish to cause pain, but I shall be keeping a record of activites here, descriptions of which shall not always redound to the credit of colleagues, family, friends...
(Or to my own, one supposes!)
So, Fr B, there will be no shying away from criticism of some of your more inexplicable moves and opinions, but I promise, I shall make charity a goal (not "niceness," but true Caritas, ACTIVE LOVE.)
And that is what will make this time different.
Save the liturgy, save the world!