"My" Mass... Surprisingly Little Relationship to the Coloring Book I Was Given When I Was Five

The author of the newly published book from OSV, “Bored Again Catholic: How the Mass Could Save Your Life,” [Timothy P. O’Malley] wants to reignite an appreciation in Catholics who may have short attention spans at Mass or find the rituals repetitive and dull.

The director of Notre Dame’s Center for Liturgy says,

“For years, my students have told me that they’re bored at Mass.” ...
Many of them come from parishes with active youth ministry programs, where the kids felt fed and uplifted. But in college, they feel less enthusiastic and worry their faith lives are receding.
“What people understood by ‘active practice of Faith,’ especially young adults,” he said, “was that faith was supposed to be exciting all the time; you were supposed to be perpetually entertained.” 

And that hasn't worked?
I am shocked, I tell you, SHOCKED.
Why, why... it's almost as if although each of us was told the world revolves around him, OTHER people think it revolves around them, and when we all get out into the real world -- well, someone forgot to tell the rest of the world.

Here's my take on it, (I'm developing this idea for Sunday school):

The Mass is the Source and Summit of the Faith.

It is the ritual in which/place where/means by which, we can most intimately join ourselves to another human being. (Ha. You thought was sex, didn't you?)
Mirabile dictu, that other human being is also God. (This union occurs to a great extent even if we don't receive Communion, but never mind that for now.)
A mind-blowingly miraculous event occurs, for everyone, but even if you were the ONLY one - JUST FOR YOU.
Yes, it, no, not "it", "HE", He is nourishing, but don't compare Him to food for the body, this Food for the soul is easier to understand as analogous to food for the mind.
In short, think of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass as a book.
Think of it, of Him, as a book.
THE Book.
It is as a volume filled with "all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge."
ALL.
So we have this Book.
Oh.... and it's hard to understand. Because it's.. well, it's pretty big.  Because It is wherein are contained ALL THE TREASURES OF WISDOM AND KNOWLEDGE.
All of them.
So, we better translate it into our mother tongues, we'll "get" more if it that way.
But we don't. Because we can't. Because He contains ALL THE TREASURES OF WISDOM AND KNOWLEDGE.
Which is... you know. beyond us?
But we think we should somehow understand it.
And then there are children.
And we CAN'T EVEN READ.
So instead of, I dunno, teaching us to read, you gave us books in which you had scribbled all over those "incomprehensible" words with crayons, pictures and colors you thought we'd find to our taste,and you pasted on stickers, and you gave us more markers and crayons and spray paint and ribbons and firecrackers and kites and kiddie pageants...
And then you wondered why people didn't ever recognize, much less appreciate the Book. when they encountered it in the real world
Where they weren't the center of the universe
In any language.
They couldn't understand it.
And they didn't "want" it.
So yeah, VCII liturgists and RelEd directors, and priests, and music directors, and Catholic school teachers, and USCCB-types, and random bishops (I know some  of them fought this drift.)...
You got a lot of 'splaining to do.
And you best not do it by handing out crayons...

"Purposefully Making Christ Anonymous"

A compelling faux dialogue between an older parish priest and a younger.
A bit of polemic, some improbable as conversation, but it covers some very important matters about liturgy, the "new evangelization", misguided empowerment of the laity, and above all, catechesis - that is, the handing on as if an echo The Truth.

If the standards are set low, it sends the message that what is taking place is not of great importance.  Therefore it makes sense that about 70 % of Catholics do not believe in the true-presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Even our social-justice events rarely speak the name of Jesus and give him the glory in such activity.  We have pushed God aside as a politically incorrect name to avoid mentioning.  We are purposefully making Christ anonymous, and someone who loves Him wouldn’t do that…ever.

Crabby Appleton Letter Writer Would Probably Object to High-Fiving, Too....

 What a puritanical old meanie, huh?

There are a few ushers in our parish who shake hands with people in line to receive Communion. Often there is some laughter and small talk that accompany that greeting.
This has now evolved into a situation where some of these same parishioners, while walking up the aisle, tap friends on the shoulder who are kneeling and praying and greet them, too.
I have thought about speaking to our pastor in private about this...What do you think? Am I just being a grouch?

I guess his guy'd object to confetti guns for the Paschal Vigil, as well.

(Just to let you know, yes, I've experienced the high fives, no, never saw confetti canons at Mass.)

"Not a 'Casual Catholic'” ? Sorry, Father, That's EXACTLY What She Was

A very sad story in USCatholic about a sibling who left the Church for warm fuzzies.
There is no specific acknowledgement that that is what she left for, there is talk of "spiritual needs" being unmet, finding "warm greetings", "uplifting music",  easy to read lyrics...

So yeah, warm fuzzies.

The evidence that she was not a "casual Catholic" is that before her apostasy, she "was involved in youth ministry, retreat leadership, and liturgy planning."

How could anyone who either didn't know about, or simply didn't believe in the Real Presence be allowed to be "involved in youth ministry, retreat leadership, and liturgy planning"?

Because I can state categorically, no one who did know and did believe would abandon Him, Present in the Sacrament, Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, for warm greetings and an available pastor.

"As I drove home, I realized how adult-centered this church was. This is in stark contrast to the typical Catholic parish, where a lion’s share of its time and treasure are committed to the education of children"

So, instead of "child-centered," we should be more "adult-centered"?
No. In fact, NOOOOOOOOOOOO.
Here's an idea -
HOW ABOUT WE MAKE OUR CHURCHES THEOCENTRIC?
The writer, who is a priest, (THAT is sad,) blames the flight of those like his sister on the lack of adult involvement and formation available in Catholic parishes? poppycock - the primary source of formation and involvement is the Liturgy.
And if we present the Liturgy, as too many of us have for decades, as a place where readings from the Bible; fellowship with our co-worshippers; and catering to our fluid tastes in music, art and everything else, are just as important as or, sometimes it seems, even more important than the sacramental Presence of our Eucharistic Lord, well no wonder we have several generations of malformed, and therefore necessarily "casual" Catholics.
When our faith is dependant on activities and experiences and things that we can get elsewhere, when it is tied to incidentals, why stay?
Why go to Mass?

Make such a big deal of the box and the wrapping, ignore the contents, is it any wonder that the Greatest Gift is held cheap, ignored, TOSSED ASIDE as in this case?

Until the Blessed Sacrament regains its centrality in Catholic life, this is a sucker's game - the rock arena or the opera house will always have better music; the neighborhood pub is always going to offer better conversation and more fun, and the chance to be with people you really like; the library is going to be more informative; your psychoanalyst or you Mom will have more reassuring, easier to put in practice advice; and your favorite chair with a good reading lamp will make lectio divina more rewarding.

I have a suggestion for you non-casual Catholics - you "like" where you go to Mass now?

Go somewhere else once in a while.
That other parish with the wretched music. The pastor who puts you to sleep. The people you don't like. The ugly stained glass windows. The uncomfortable pews. The lousy parking lot.

Go to THAT Mass.

It'll remind you what, or rather Who you are really there for.

So Much For "Both/And"

A number of Catholics....
Wait, I realize I should define terms - by "Catholics" I mean people who actually believe and profess and practice what the Mystical Body of Christ, the Church instituted by Jesus Christ teaches.

Anyway, a number of Catholics are het up over a kind of silly facebook post.
And he copyrighted this! Honest.
The poor guy being attacked, despite seeming to have made a living by, er... writing words?... just doesn't have much of a way with them.
He's not necessarily wrong in what he wants to say, merely in how he says it, e.g., "the assembly should be the focus of the Liturgy," (from a laughable, long ago article that was actually trying to make a reasonable point.)
Well, what can you expect from someone who has no interest in clarity, but in "celebrating ambiguity."

No, SERIOUSLY, you can't make this stuff up.
My answer? he might as well have typed,

Ministry is not making sense.
     It is making poetry.
Ministry is not getting things done,
      It is getting attention

Reading For Comprehension

An opinion piece in Homiletic and Pastoral Review has occasioned quite a bit of comment in my online ovals, (they are far too off-kilter to call "circles.")
It is called "Questions Regarding the Use of Latin in Celebrating the Mass" and it boils down pretty much to Do you think it should be? and then an answer of No.
The Pharmacist/Philosopher starts off with an example of a verse of a Latin hymn and asks the reader to "pray the text...without performing an internet search or using an online translation."

I'm not typical because I took Latin in middle and high school.
Well, I suppose I should say rather than "took," that I was "given" Latin.
And I gave precious little back.
Oh, I did well enough to get highest marks on the College Board "achievement test", but that tells you all you need to know about the follies of reading too much into test scores.
I've forgotten most of it, but I had no problem with his example, the one word I didn't recognize I could deduce, from the English "irrigation."

Other in my online ovals might think I already knew that verse, but I am a little ashamed to say that while I recognized it as the sequence for Pentecost, I honestly did not know the Latin, I have only ever sung or spoken it in English, (and often done neither as the celebrant didn't have time for all that stuff, optional or otherwise,) but that is neither here nor there.

He goes on to fret about possible lack of understanding of the Eucharistic Prayer/Canon, on the part of the priest, and therefore, a defect in his intention, which would invalidate the Sacrament.
Seriously?
If a celebrant doesn't know, and remember, and understand the EP in his native language well enough to be quite sure of his intentions when reading from a missal in Tagalog, in French, hell, in Klingon, were it licitly translated, HE IS NOT COMPETENT TO SAY MASS PERIOD.

It is odd, is it not? that anti-Latin forces, (among which I count this Pharmacist/Philosopher,) continue to harp on a priest's possible incompetence, lack of comprehension and mispronunciation of Latin, and no one ever seems to campaign against non-Latino priests stumbling through Spanish-language Mass to be pastoral; or worry that the English language Mass celebrated in the United States by your local Ghanaian or Pakistani priest may not be valid.

My, I do go on...
And I haven't even arrived at my actual points.

There are two of them.

One of them is the mistaken message given by too much emphasis on comprehension -- that the miracle of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the confection of the Eucharist, the infusion of Grace by the actions of God the Holy Spirit is somehow open to human understanding.

IT IS NOT.

It is SUPERNATURAL.

It is beyond our comprehension.

And the other is amusement that the type of Catholic, (I do not include the Pharmacist/Philosopher in this, I have no idea of where he stands on this,) who is most likely to say that the people can't PRAY unless the WORDS are simple enough and familiar enough, is also the type of Catholic most likely to love and repeat ad nausum the probably misattributed to St Francis of Assisi, "PREACH the Gospel at all times, if  necessary, use WORDS."

It seems to me that the Person to Whom prayers are directed is more sure to understand them perfectly even if we don't use words than is the person to whom preaching the Gospel is directed, no?

Maybe that's just me.

(Oh, and whilst I think of it, "Some of the differences between the two Masses are the direction the priest faces while celebrating the Mass, the music, the prayers, and the languages used during the celebrations"? Umm.... no. Of  those four exactly ONE is actually a "differences between the two Masses.")

Doe God Hate Sin? Should We?

Honestly, I had no idea this was even a question, but I keep stumbling across people saying, more or less, that we are not to hate sin.

The cliche of "loving the sinner but hating the sin," is described as a mischaracterization, bastardization, an embarrassment, a sin and a total abomination.
It is damned as "flying in the face of everything Jesus said."
And most thrillingly, its usefulness is called into question -- because really, isn't process, utility, pragmatism the really meat and potatoes of our faith? -- as we are told that “the distinction between sin and sinner no longer works.”
(In all honesty, that link is to a quote of a translation of an overheard.... well, you get the idea.)

God hates, or so we're told, and I don't mean by vile wretches like the preacher from Westboro Baptist.

We're actually told in the Bible, that there are sins God hates.
Shouldn't we as well?

In all honesty, the anti-LTSHTS crowd seem fixated on certain sins. That claim that those who are pro-LTSHTS types are fixated on those same sins.

Maybe it's just me, but I have a sneaking suspicion the real source of division is that the antis don't really think those sins are sins.
(I was going to say "deep down," but their incredulity is pretty much bubbling up right there on the surface.)
Yeah, the conversations on "sin" always seem to end up dancing around what some call "pelvic issues."

There's a good reason for this, and it's not that the pros are obsessed with them, is that they're the only sins, if sins they be, that have people campaigning in favor of them!
Nobody presents for communion wearing a sash proclaiming his fealty to the Embezzlers' Agenda.
No one is seeking equal rights for Cannibals.

Fr Hunwicke had a good idea, that if you are trying to get down to brass tacks, to really see what your actual principles are, as opposed to warm-fuzzies, regarding sin, (you know, gradualism, use of the Internal Forum to resolve questions about whether you are in a state of grace, and here, whether you need to stop hating the sin if you really love that sinner,) substitute for whatever you pet sin is, "paedophilia."

We love the paedophiliac, must we therefore love the paedophilia?

I'm guessing not.

So in that case, what the anti-LTSHTS should admit, is that they are saying that they don't have to hate the sin because it's not a sin.

Come to think of it,what about people like the, (now defunct,) preacher from Westboro Baptist?

I think his campaign, his activities, his words, all were utterly, unquestionably sinful.
I try not to hate such cruel people, I try to hope he did not condemn himself to eternal separation from the Father in a hell of his own design and choice.

So, if I succeed, if I don't hate him...

Am I also not supposed to hate his sins?

Yeah, I didn't think so.

Should I be angry to read Blessed Teresa of Calcutta maligned? not to say, "lied about"?

I have a problem with... I have been having a problem with anger.
And I have come, or at least think I have come to an acceptance of the fact that the source is, not as a priest suggested to me a sorrow to which I did not wish to subject myself again, (which would have allowed me to be play the victim,) but a pride-produced expectation that things would go my way because things SHOULD go my way, because, well, ME.

I had forgotten something, a few years ago a very good and very wise woman  at a CMAA "do" warned me about becoming like another very good but not quite as wise woman.
They had very similar PsOV, held to very similar principles, both theological/spiritual and liturgical/musical; and embraced similar currents of Catholic thought - currents I was watching from the bank, into which I was cautiously dipping the occasional toe.
Don't become like her, don't be angry all the time.
Because she was right, you see, but she was damaging herself and her causes with the anger. (Her anger did come from having been wounded, genuinely, and perhaps a resolution to attack rather than be vulnerable? I don't know. But I digress.)
I think I have actually gained on handle on my situation.
I try to remember opponents are not enemies, everyone has his reasons of which I know not, and stop gettin' all judgey.
This is easiest, actually - strangely - in affairs about which I am most passionate: no matter how stupid or wrong-headed their ideas or actions, I cannot think that any other human being in the Church is stupid and wrong-headed out of malice.
No one, despite Shakespeare's Iago and Shaefer's Salieri, no sane person deliberately sets themselves against Almighty God, no one is knowingly a tool of the evil one.

Is he?

A Useful Idiot, perhaps, but not knowingly and believingly in league with the devil.

On the Great Time Suck That Is Those Interwebs. (hereinafter the GTSITI,) I came across a screed about good priests who have borne the displeasure of TPTB, and dissenting or at least politically savvy chancery hounds, (and yes, thinking, there but for the grace of God go I, I thank Thee that I am not like other orthodox Catholics, angry and....)

Shockingly, I recognized a name, someone with whom I have broken bread many a time.
But that is neither here no there.
Looking into that, I came across another thing and another, and then this, and then that.... as I said, you know the GTSTITI.
Finally, (stumbling across quite a bit of anger from one side and superciliousness from the other along the way,) I ended up at a eulogy for a departed religious sister.
The writer told a story the religious sister had told him about something Dorothy Day told her, (or perhaps the sister had supposedly overheard,) that she, (DD,) had said to and regarding Blessed Teresa of Calcutta, and it seemed... spurious? uncharacteristic? And we all know about "quotes on the internet" and "who never said what."

And another story. The mid-70s rolled around, and organizers asked José to emcee the Eucharistic Conference in Philadelphia. In this particular sessions were some five thousand women. Two speakers were on hand: Dorothy Day and Mother Teresa, both close friends of José.
First, José introduced Mother Teresa -- on that day in a foul mood. She rose to the podium, all fire and brimstone, and excoriated the women in the audience. You nuns -- why aren’t wearing your habits? You mothers -- how is it you’re here and not home with your children? The women withered and blanched. Mother Teresa had left them hurt and angry, and she returned to her seat to the deafening sound of silence. Not a pair of hands offered applause. Mother Teresa seemed taken aback.
With tension now on the air, José introduced Dorothy Day. She sidled up to Mother Teresa and leaned in close and issued something in the nature of a rebuke: “Mother, you know I love you more than anyone. But don’t you ever say anything like that again. You have alienated and hurt all these good women. They need our encouragement!” As far as anyone knows, Mother Teresa never did. 

That didn't sound right.
And if wrong, it does seem malicious.
Well, it seems Mother Teresa gave two talks at this 1976 Congress. The Tablet, not exactly in the vanguard of the hosts of Catholic orthodoxy tells us,

Big names studded the programmes : Archbishop Helder Camara, Cardinal Suenens, Dorothy Day and the rest. The press and the public swarmed, around Mother Teresa of Calcutta. "They idolise her without imitating her," a Canadian Protestant muttered in my ear.

Having read the snipe at Blessed Teresa in the National Catholic Reporter, I couldn't help but think of the spin put on Ratzinger's election by those who opposed him, reports of the sad, shocked, weepy crowd in St Peter's Square. You remember them, how upset and sullen everyone was -

 

Right.
So here is a site with quite a bit about the Eucharistic Congress, (not "conference",) in question.
As I said, two talks from Blessed Teresa, one sound recording here, and the full text of the address she gave on the day when she shared the stage with Dorothy Day.

Go ahead, read it. It's GORGEOUS.

I don't think I am going out a limb at all to say that someone lied, both regarding the content of what she said, and the probable reaction to it.
Lied.
LIED.
I don't know who. (I doubt it was the also-soon-to-be-sainted Day. I'll leave it at that.)
Well, as the Gospel today reminds us, the children of this world are more prudent in dealing with their own generation than the children of light.

Joel Grey Deeply Dissappointed at Synod?

It seems so.

“The bishops writers at NCR are currently trapped in the old trendy theology they learned in the seminary or at America magazine. They are afraid of new ideas the concept of eternal Truth and disappointing the secular world and are not consulting with theological experts the people with whom I'd agree who could show them other options what I want. As a result, it is unlikely that new pastoral  approaches any heresy or sanctioning of practices inimical to Revealed Truth will be coming forth from this synod. 
“Some progressives aging hippies still hope that Pope Francis can somehow magically pull victory from the jaws of defeat sing a new church into being. I don’t think so."

Eff-Crap

EffCap is the pronunciation of an acronym for what is, essentially, the way every Christian is called upon to react to Liturgy, his duty, when it comes down to it.

F. C. A. P. He must, yes, MUST, try to engage in -F-ull, -C-onscious, and -A-ctive -P-articipation.

None of this needs to be perceptible to anyone but God, it must be said. He does not owe the song leader decibels, nor the celebrant visible attention as indicated by gaze locked upon him.

The "action" is most importantly, interior.

But do not neglect the way one may aid ones fellow in the pew by strong singing when called for, how one can teach children and neophytes in the vicinity by modeling postures and gestures!

Sadly, I have lately had recourse to a newer term and acronym - "EffCrap." The "r" is for "raucous."

Full Conscious Raucous Active Participation? NEVER called for!

But alas, it is ubiquitous.

I always enjoy Colin Mawby's "Vivace" newsletter. If you don't subscribe to the newsletter? so do it already!

Anyway, the latest issue recounts this horror-

In some churches it has become fashionable to applaud the musicians at the conclusion of a service. ... I write as a liturgical musician, but I question whether this is right.
The main purpose of liturgy is the worship of God. ...
One of the problems of the liturgical reforms is that many services have become man-centred rather than God-centred and applause underlines this approach.
Does a congregation ever applaud God or the Word of God? I have never experienced this although I recall a church where after the Consecration the priest called out: “Three cheers for God: hip, hip!”

Can you even?
I can't....

Obeying the Words of the Book

Did you wonder, as I did, about the content of II Kings 22 - why is it matter for the keynote address at a music conference?
Wonder no more.

“Go, consult the Lord for me, for the people, and for all Judah, about the words of this book that has been found, for the rage of the Lord has been set furiously ablaze against us, because our ancestors did not obey the words of this book, nor do what is written for us.”

High Dudgeon... High Dadgum?.... High Dogdom!

I have warned a few people recently when they seemed to have forgotten that the fact that they "read it somewhere on the internet" says nothing one way or t'other about its veracity.
(At one time, I thought its having been read on Those Interwebs made it somewhat less likely to be true, but it's about 50/50, I now believe.)
That said, the Onion, Eye of the Tiber, Kimmel, Letterman, they all have to work harder now, don't they, when real life has become so absurd that it defies parody?
I came across a Trad in mediumish dudgeon regarding some stupidity perpetrated upon the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and clicked on a link to another purported sacrilege.
The pictures were so sheerly stupid, I assumed it was staged, maybe an EotT story mistaken for real news, (or at least what tries to be, there's plenty good Faux News to be found.)

And I don't know, the guy could suffer from PTSP, perhaps he needs a companion animal to keep him on a steady keel? or a service dog to keep him from tripping, walking into traffic...
But no, I did a little surfing - the story accompanying the headline "The altar dogs of Texas" is essentially true, a little mistake on the name of the loon responsible aside.

I won't correct it, nor will I link to more accurate info, nor will I name his bishop, (in the hopes that after the publicity the doofus received, his bishop has already quietly corrected him.)

By the way, how's THIS for liturgical music? (Make ya appreciate GIA, huh?)

You know I like my chicken fried
Cold beer on a Friday night
A pair of jeans that fit just right
And the radio up

Well I was raised up beneath the shade of a Georgia pine
And that's home you know
With sweet tea, pecan pie and homemade wine
Where the peaches grow
And my house it's not much to talk about
But it's filled with love that's grown in southern ground
And a little bit of chicken fried

Cold beer on a Friday night
A pair of jeans that fit just right
And the radio up
Well I've seen the sunrise
See the love in my woman's eyes
Feel the touch of a precious child
And know a mother's love

And its funny how it's the little things in life that mean the most
Not where you live, what you drive or the price tag on your clothes
There's no dollar sign on a piece of mind; this I've come to know
So if you agree have a drink with me
Raise your glasses for a toast
To a little bit of chicken fried

Cold beer on a Friday night
A pair of jeans that fit just right
And the radio up
Well I've seen the sunrise
See the love in my woman's eyes
Feel the touch of a precious child
And know a mother's love

I thank god for my life
And for the stars and stripes
May freedom forever fly, let it ring.
Salute the ones who died
And the ones that gave their lives so we don't have to sacrifice
All the things we love
Like our chicken fried

Cold beer on a Friday night
A pair of jeans that fit just right
And the radio up
Well I've seen the sunrise
See the love in my woman's eyes
Feel the touch of a precious child
And know a mother's love

You know I like my chicken fried
Cold beer on a Friday night
A pair of jeans that fit just right
And the radio up
Well I've seen the sunrise
See the love in my woman's eyes
Feel the touch of a precious child
And know a mother's love

"No One is Forced to Be a Christian"

A new (to me,) blog by a Father Bede Rowe, (who has a charming Father Brownish avi,) highlights this bit of commonsense from the Pope Emeritus, spoken back when he was plain ol' Joe Ratz.

When, for example, in the name of non-discrimination, people try to force the Catholic Church to change her position on homosexuality or the ordination of women, then that means that she is no longer allowed to live out her own identity and that, instead, an abstract negative religion is being made into a tyrannical standard that everyone must follow... 

The danger is that reason - so-called Western reason - claims that it has now really recognized what is right and thus makes a claim to totality that is inimical to freedom...

No one is forced to be a Christian. But no one should be forced to live according to the "new religion" as though it alone were definitive and obligatory for all mankind.

Common sense... what a lovely concept.

Altar Boys and Girls

USCatholic has an editorial by an all grown-up altargirl, accompanied by a survey.

It made me think about the subject a little more deeply than I usually do, (my thoughts on servers usually run to,  Maybe bubblegum pink mules were not the best footwear choice for an acolyte, or Couldn't that kid wait and pick his nose later? or Would it kill the servers to learn the basic responses? and to at least stand for the EP if they're not going to kneel?)

I ticked off a lot of "others" because the survey, like most surveys, is leading, and makes certain presumptions of the If you think X then you probably don't think Y variety.

So, agree? disagree? other?
I present some of my answers, (yeah,  I tapped that keyboard like they was payin' me by the word,) as a woman who went through here childhood and adolescence pretty sure I was going to be a Catholic priest when I grew up.

I suspect "allowing girl altar servers has hurt the number of vocations to the priesthood", but I don't know.
I do think women are innately more inclined to serve, (and I mean that generally, not just at the altar,) and males are all too willing to let females take up the slack in many areas.
Look at the make-up of other ministries in your parish.

I think males have a much harder time than do females of understanding the concept of the Servant/Leader which is so central to Jesus' mission, and I suspect service at the altar is one of the few ways boys learn the concept.

It is possible that [the author of the piece] doesn't understand the concept either, from the way she mocks the idea of girls serving in other capacities, "helping with the flowers, the linens, and the sacristy," and maybe "the washing and ironing too ," which she apparently feels are demeaning.

It is fortunate that Peter's mother-in-law, Martha, and the various Marys of the New Testament had a better grasp of what service means than the writers at USCatholic.

The reader is asked whether this is a statement with which they can agree:
"Parishes should just be happy that any kids want to become altar servers, regardless of their sex."

Idiotic.
Of course they should be happy.

They should be happy if a four year old wants to celebrate Mass, too, but that doesn't mean that they should let him.

Or if they agree with this one: Having girls as altar servers discourages boys from getting involved in the ministry. -

I don't know, I only suspect that it does.
Nobody is going to compile statistics, lest they contradict ones already held opinion.

(Kind of the way they fail to keep track of abortions and their aftermath in this country.)

And statistics that rely on self-reported reasons are not very useful in these matters.
Look at simple Mass attendance - who is going to answer, "because I'm too lazy to get up on Sunday," when asked why they don't attend?
A PC answer, such as a distaste for hypocrisy, or disagreement with "what the Church says," (without much effort made to find out what the Church actually teaches,) is face-saving,  it seems more thoughtful and responsible than "I like to get loaded Saturday nights".

Look at how many young Catholic men in this country say that mandatory celibacy is the main factor in keeping them from the priesthood, survey after survey - if this were true, the marriage rate would be rising, or at least holding steady, wouldn't it?

Because celibacy is the last thing we ask of married Catholics, so if the thought of never having sex were the actual reason for any downturn in ordinations, you'd be jumping at the chance to marry, right?

But who's going to say,  I just don't want to make a commitment, I want to keep my options open rather than taking on any encumbrance.

Why, that would make you sound shallow!

I think "opportunit[ies] to be involved in parish ministry" is one of the worst reasons for having servers of either sex.
There is a far too common attitude toward Liturgy among the laity, adult and children, that unless one is an EM, or a lay reader, or a choir member, or an usher, one has "nothing to do," at Mass, ignoring the fact that those in the pews who listen to the Word and receive Christ and worship the Triune God have "chosen the better part," and that those who serve are, when it gets down to it, sacrificing their freedom to do just, and choose the better part that by service.

The biggest danger of eliminating female altar servers is:

Huffy people deliberately absenting themselves from the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass because of elimination of female servers is not their personal preference, not "how they would have done it."

I know too many people who claim to be Catholic but don't go to Mass because of music/boredom/bad preaching/being ticked off with the priest.

Well listen up -
If there's something that you dislike more than you love receiving Communion so that you allow whatever that distaste is to keep you from partaking of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, then YOU DON'T REALLY BELIEVE IN THE REAL PRESENCE OF JESUS CHRIST IN THE EUCHARIST.

And if you don't believe in the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist, then YOU ARE NOT REALLY CATHOLIC.

If boys in your parish shied away from altar serving because they didn’t want to serve with girls, the parish’s response should be:
If, IF, anyone actually said that, I'd try to find what they meant.
I suspect any boys who did say that would have a variety of meanings - "I don't like girls" or "I have contempt for 'women's work'" seems to be [the USCatholic author's] assumption, since she also wrote, "Are those really the type of priests we want leading a parish? The best pastor is not likely the one who has had females cleared out of his path and been taught that if he doesn’t want to deal with women in his vocation and work, he doesn’t have to."

There is also shyness, and as boys get older, nervousness around members of the opposite sex.
It's a delicate age, and there is no question in my mind that possessors of XY chromosomes are the "weaker sex."

And finally, it seems to me that a "calling" of any sort is more easily discerned, and more keenly felt if one grasps the necessity of ones stepping up to the plate, rather than being given the impression that "oh, anyone can do it, there's no reason for me to put myself out, they don't need me."
I think that over the last 30 years, (and perhaps before that, I don't know,) there was a concerted effort on the part of a lot of people to give that impression to those priests whom we were already fortunate enough to have.

Restricting service at the altar to boys might just be necessary damage control after 40 years in the desert.

"What is the fundamental problem today with the Church’s liturgy?"

Catholic News Agency has a piece by Mons. M. Francis Mannion giving his answer to the question, and it is "clericalism."

Okay, yeah, that can be a problem.

Essentially, there are today two kinds of liturgical clericalism: the “old-fashioned” (a carry-over from pre-Vatican II) and the “new fashioned” (since Vatican II). 

And I like that he identifies it as coming  from different points along the spectrum of... of what? right and left? conservative and liberal? traditional and progressive?

[In the ] old-fashioned kind... the sign of the peace is dropped out; the chalice is withheld from the people....
The second kind of liturgical clericalism ...serves – like the older kind – to focus unduly on the priestly role and to disenfranchise the people, who have a right to the liturgy of the church in its integrity.
The tendency among priests of this school toward excessive personalization, unpredictable intervention, and textual and ritual experimentation has the effect of compromising the objectivity of the liturgy and turning worship into an exercise of personal priestly expression. 

It seems to me very be wrong to imply some parity between a celebrant's exercising valid options, (what he describes in the "old-fashioned",) and his making it up as he goes along, (the "new fashioned.")

little consideration seems to be given to the fact that the people do not understand Latin.

Sorry, but I am not sure I believe him this is an actual problem anywhere, the "not considering." The problem is THAT the people don't understand Latin -- having considered that fact, that priest is finally doing something to remedy it.

 This trend goes with a resurgence of an exaggerated theology of priesthood.

I wish he had gone into this more, not sure what he means.
What is this exaggerated theology of the priestly ministry?
It seems to me the scarcity of those willing to give their lives in the presbyteral ministry indicates rather that the ministry has not been held in high enough esteem by too many people, a diminished and weakened theology of the priesthood, if you will.

But where he and I really part ways is, frankly, in the very word "clericalism."
Because clerics aren't the problem, at least, not clerics qua clerics.
Authoritarianism has very little to do with priestly orders.

And yes, he has, I am certain, a broader perspective on this than I, and surely a different experience of it, though one that I might say is skewed by his own clericalism, and even more by his clerical state.

Because I think most lay people in the Catholic Church in America today would tell him that the find themselves more bullied and bossed by other lay people, (who bully priests less often, or at least less openly.)

That whole class of demi-clerics, out there.
They are far more likely, IME, to play fast and loose with the rubrics, to add fabricated rites, and to brook no dissension from the peons.

And is it a treason to my sex for me to admit that most of them are women?
There's a reason that the little despots running around in sacristies, and pontificating in RelEd offices, and facilitating yet another program are, regardless of their sex, referred to as Church Ladies.

"Outward Signs", Beauty Pointing Us Toward Goodness and Truth

Wonderful site, lately I'm discovering all sorts of marvels that have been around, but I missed though my careless searching skills.
Look at this, a perfect Memorial Day, or Remembrance Day  object for meditation and really, devotion.

Oh, hell, perfect today as the entire world is contemplating war, and the possible justice of it.

It's not a style I think I have encountered in Church, (nor would I this painting, it is located in a museum, I believe,)  but it would not be out of place in a chapel, I think.

Where was it, Cardiff? where the cathedral, (C of E,) had great variety in its decoration, ornament and embellishment, much of which co-existed in a way likely to excite top prayer, and some of it just.... well, Jesus on a Spaceship was jarring, beyond ugly.

But I have been doing a bit of soul-searching about beauty and pleasure in regard to the art of the Faith.

I want my positions to be principled, not preference-based.

Someone wants us to help the kids "make their own Mass," and I interrupted to disagree a little too precipitously... okay, a lot too precipitously.
Maybe rudely.

Of course the entire notion of  "creating" the Liturgy, rather than receiving it is problematic, and I don't think the person doing the suggesting knew enough about the subject to be aware of that.
The message that even talking in such terms send is dangerous.

 But I'm also cognisant that the Mass should be "attractive" and different people are attracted by different expressions of beauty.

Here's the thing -- say you're a searcher, a lurker, a fallen-away, a youthful rebel, whatever....
Say you are not a regular, committed believer.
And say something is designed with bringing you in to Mass in mind.

The art, whether visual or musical or oratorical, that lures you in to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass must then convince you, not to like it, not to say to yourself, wow, I'd come to hear/see this again.

It must help convince you that you can do without it, that even in the complete absence of what you "like", even in the presence of something that you hate, that actively repels you -- that even then, the Mass itself is something you can not do without, that you will not let your preferences deprive you of it, that you would come no matter what.

If it doesn't point you towards this truth, that the Mass is so important, so life-giving, so necessary --  that even with having to tolerate the My Little Pony Mass, or the world's ugliest felt banners, or the priest who thinks he's auditioning to replace Seth McFarland on Comedy Central's roasts, or a choir singing dismally flat Gregorian chant, or a neighboring pew sitter with B.O., or the loudest drummer in seventeen states assaulting -- even then, you must have it, you must go, you cannot do without the Mass, the Mass itself. -- if it doesn't form you such that you would forgo your preferred music or style rather than forgo the Mass, that you would brave things you despise and hurt your head and make your teeth itch in order to have the Mass, then it is bad and inappropriate, no matter how much you "like"  it.

And not just the Mass, but the part of it, the essence of it that you can get there and only there, you must be brought to understand and believe fervently that you would put up with anything in order to have that aspect of it.

And that is why, since fellowship, music, preaching, even -sorry, but I have come to believe this - even the scripture readings, since all of that is something you can get or do somewhere else - if any of those don't point you toward Christ in the Blessed Sacrament, they are useless, worse than useless, they are a distraction.

And for too long, Catholics have been acting as if we were Tiffany's trying to lure in custom with "Free Coffee and Donuts!"
We have a precious jewel, and we've been shrieking like barkers, and passing out popcorn.

Christ in the Eucharist is that precious jewel, the Pearl of Great Price for which we should be willing to do and dare anything.
And we cannot have Him so completely, so intimately any other way.

Liturgical Ministers Training?

Honest, it may seem like it, but I am not picking on Praytell and its writers.
I wasn't reading them for a while, it seemed so boilerplate WeAreNoArticlesPleaseChurch, and their lionization of certain persons and unfair silencing of others was a bore.

But I am very grateful to them for the links to various occurrences at the NPM convention, and have been dropping in there a bit more often.

Anyway, this reference isn't even a criticism, it's more of a lament -- someone asked what kind of training people did for "liturgical ministers."

My parish?

Clearly -- NONE.

The lay readers, (who strangely, are full of advice,) are about 50% incompetent in one way or the other, (projection, diction, preparation, cursory knowledge of the order of Mass, careless and casual posture and liturgical gesture.)

The Extraordinary Ministers are a mixed bag. One once asked me to grab a paper towel and swab out the ciborium to "make sure there were no crumbs left."

They do have, as is usual, among the lost little children serving  as servers, two older gentlemen who approach and accomplish their office, I would almost say, perfectly.

Every parish I have ever known has one or two such.

I have never understood, why are they not asked to train the children? Why is it left to a harried priest or an ignorant DRE?

Upending Custom... That Had Upended Custom and LAW

I know too many Catholic who suffered as members of the "Church of Rochester" not to be gladdened by this.

In an extensive interview, Bishop Salvatore Matano said he has been confronting the issue [of illicit preaching] on a case-by-case basis since his installation in January and is now drafting guidelines to clarify that homilies are reserved for ordained priests and deacons, as prescribed by canon law. 

"It is not a policy shift as regards to the universal law of the church," Matano said. "I am trying to help the faithful understand what is the universal law of the church and how important it is that in the celebration of Mass, we do what the church asks of us." 

The reversal is perhaps the starkest example yet of the contrasting stewardship of Matano with his predecessor, Bishop Matthew Clark, under whom the diocese earned a reputation as...

... as what exactly?
The secular newspaper says, "liberal," but you may have your own description.
I know I do...

Matano is diplomatic, to say the least, attributing to years of flouting Church law to a "misinterpretation."

Rogue Headline Writers?

An odd little piece in an Ohio Catholic publication about NPM and changing tastes, and a renewed interest in singing the actual texts of the Mass -- wherein, although the phrase does not appear in the article as written, nor does the word "clock," nor even "turn," for that matter,  someone has chosen to give one section the header, "Turning back the clock?"

These fossilized attitudes are what we have to work against.

Talk about "accretions that have crept into the liturgy," and need to be removed....

But we've always done it this way! Forever!!! For, like, at least 35 years, you guys!!!!!!

What Is Happening With NPM

Note the lack of punctuation....... should there be a question mark?

There had been a long dormant thread on the CMAA boards about the possibility of a booth at the NPM.

I should say up front I have never belonged to the organization.
I don't know when it began to exist in any meaningful way, but it was not on my radar when I was first a liturgical associate  -- you see, I was a Cradle Church musician the way some are themselves Cradle Catholics.
I have since become intentional, (as a Church Musician, Catholicism I latched on to deliberately very early.)

I have never attended any national events, but have been to plenty of regional and local ones, as well as to events held by publishers who are, for all intents and purposes, wings of NPM, and I have profited from this attendance, and learned a great deal.

The first time I attended an overnight musicians' gathering, the type most likely to yield fellowship with real heart-to-heart talks, (like sleep-away camp ;oP) I made two good friends, one of whom, after NPM was mentioned in passing during some session was adamantly anti- them and felt compelled to take me aside privately and explain why - reasons with which I heartily concurred; and the other of whom was a regional mucky-muck of some sort in the NPM and felt compelled to take me aside and tell me, while actually affirming the complaints made by the other friend, why I ought to join, for reasons with which I heartily concurred.

The point being, IME all Right Thinking Catholic Musicians acknowledge the faults of problems with NPM and the wrong-headed nonsense they have both perpetrated and promulgated liturgical missteps they have made and the occasional contempt expressed toward those to whom they owe respect and obedience as well as heresies expounded unhelpful ideas impefectly stated  in their keynote addresses and break-out sessions -- but they differ on whether the good outweighs the bad.

And the contributors to the thread linked above, which revived about the time of the NPM national hoo-har are no exception to this, they are divided on the topic.

But is it same old same old?
(Many thanks to Praytell for making much of it available to those of us not in attendance)

What do we see?

Chant!
Propers!
Rubrics!
Primary Sources!
Quality!
Sacrifice!
A priest affirming actual Church teaching, in the face of... well, let me just quote:

Fr. John Foley, SJ.... talked about what sacrifice means. A woman piped up, saying that she thought we'd moved beyond all that, and that for years we've said "celebrate Eucharist," since all of that "sacrifice" stuff is pre-Vatican II. Fr. Foley softly replied, "No, I'm sorry. The Church has never changed its teaching. The mass is the unbloody sacrifice of calvary." Then he talked about why Christ's resurrection is necessary for salvation, in order to put him outside the realms of time, so that the sacrifice is "once and for all," yet happens each time we have mass. The same woman spoke up again: "What do you think about these new Eucharistic communities? They might or might not have a priest, but they just gather and HAVE Eucharist." Fr. Foley replied "Well, they certainly aren't licit, and without a priest, all you have there is a host, not the body of Jesus." She said "Well, it is becoming a big movement!" To which Fr. Foley replied "So is protestantism."

No question, things are changing for the better., this was all very welcome news to me, and very interesting, but then I came across some other news.

Now, it's no use, I've tried and tried, some times no matter how many times you hit the back arrow, or press control/shift/t, you cannot retrace your steps on the internet, you can't figure out why or how you ended up on a page, what link or thought you were following, (that's happened several times recetnly to me with shocking results, but I'll get back to that.)

Anyway, perhaps while looking to find out who the new president of NPM was, as mentioned on the CMAA forum thread, I found myself on a blog by a song-writer for whose output I can't say have much time, or respect.
And I think I've mentioned, I've been a bit disconnected over the past nearly two years, and I've missed a lot of what was going on.
So this is old news, but what he had to say, as well as his no-bones-about-it public take on it was actually kind of shocking to me:

[A newspsper article] tells the details of [NPM's previous president] firing from his post as a parish music director in the Diocese of Arlington (Va.), an event that preceded his departure from NPM, as a result of his having married [his same-sex partner.]. While one must be careful about jumping to conclusions in events that involve complex realities, relationships, and theological issues, I am certain that it is safe to say that there is a relationship, if not a causal one, between his marriage to his partner and his departure from the helm of NPM, an organization with a higher percentage of gay members, I'd go out on a limb to say, sans evidence, than, for instance, the AMA or ABA, if perhaps not of Catholic clergy. I may be wrong, but I think everybody in the organization knows that...

the gradual empowerment of the LGBT movement, especially since the 1969 Stonewall Riots, has been on a collision course with many mainstream religious denominations because of long-held beliefs about sexuality. [Despite the] experience of homosexual people as part of a diverse "norm" rather than as derogatively abnormal, the church, at least its Roman Catholic administrative body, continues to use arcane and unintelligible Thomistic language ("inherently disordered," for instance) to distance itself from gay persons and legitimize its sacramental proscription of persons who "act on their disordered impulses"...

I have a friend who....applied for a scholarship from a national association in his field, which he won. Though certainly in need of the money offered by the organization, he refused the scholarship money offered, in solidarity with the (perceived, at least) injustice to [the past NPM president] who was the subject of the article mentioned above. Others have left church jobs in anger over the incident, shaken the dust from their feet, and canceled their membership in the organization.

So what I'm wondering is, is this instance NPM's very public, (and probably heart-wrenching, to many members,) stance that open flouting of unchanging and unequivocal Church teaching,  

Is NPM's new, or at least newly trumpeted, orthodoxy, in any way connected with a new  lean in to orthopraxy ?

p.s. I cannot begin to fathom how a nominal Catholic, a person who has taken upon himself positions of liturgical, and consequently spiritual and catechetical leadership, could use Christ's command to His friend Lazarus as a rhetorical point writing about closeted gay men. I can see very clearly how he could have written "Jerusalem, My Density."