QUAERITUR: Priest walking around the church during his sermon

From a reader:

May a priest give his sermon off the altar and peripatetically — wander into the aisle of the nave to deliver it?

I am not aware that there is any legislation which specifically forbids a bishop, priest or deacon to remain in the sanctuary to preach.  In fact, sometimes it is necessary to exit the sanctuary in order to reach the pulpit.  In the ancient basilicas the ambo was outside the sanctuary.  Before microphones and sound systems, pulpits and ambos were often situated in the nave in help people the better to hear.  I have preached in churches where I had to leave the sanctuary to get to the pulpit.

With those common sense points understood in he background, the GIRM says:

136. Sacerdos, stans ad sedem vel in ipso ambone, vel, pro opportunitate, in alio loco idoneo, profert homiliam; qua finita, spatium silentii servari potest. … The priest, standing at the chair or at the ambo, or, when appropriate, in another suitable place, gives the homily; when the homily is completed, a period of silence as the occasion allows may be observed.

Sacerdos, stans… The priest, standing.  Not Erraticus circumvaganssuas profert nugas.

That said, it is clearly not part of the Catholic experience from the earliest centuries that a preacher should walk around.

For centuries in the pre-Conciliar form of the Roman Rite the preacher is accompanied to the pulpit by the master of ceremonies who stands nearby.  The celebrant and preacher are not to be left alone. I am summoning to my imagination’s inward eye what a roving preacher and shadowing m.c. would look like.  Stupid, I’m thinking.

I am thinking the roving preacher in the Catholic Church comes from the imposition of the man’s own personal quirk on the people of God.  This may be in imitation of Protestants, who almost by the very nature of much Protestant preaching need to impose their own personality on the sermon.

In  my opinion and experience, the Catholic preacher who does this is a narcissist.  He is drawing attention to himself.  He imposes himself, overlays himself, for his own needs, on the rite, the Word of God, and the people.

Are there exceptions?  Of course.  But not many.

Perhaps we can learn something about the idea of preaching outside the sanctuary, and strutting about like a peacock, from the Church’s rubrics for the sign of peace.  This is another occasion in which priests will jack-in-the-box out of the sanctuary where they belong and, sometimes, go to absurd lengths to see and be seen, to demonstrate how caring, warm and matey they are.

 

The General Instruction of the Roman Missal states that funerals are one of the rare occasions when the priest is permitted to leave the sanctuary for the sign of peace.

Sometimes there are exceptions, such as processions with the Eucharist.  There is also the beginning and end of the funeral.  If there is a person of note present, the celebrant can leave the sanctuary to give the sign of peace. These are exceptions to the general rule that the priest belongs in the sanctuary.

The sanctuary is the place of the priest, symbolically and liturgically the head of the Body the Church gathered in the sacred space of the church.  The head of the assembly has his place.  The Body, assembled in the nave, have their particular place.  The priest moves into the sanctuary, as into the holy of holies, the even more sacred space within the sacred space, as if into the bridal chamber.  He should stay there for the whole sacred action.

In the older form of Mass, the priest would remove his maniple before preaching.  This was a symbolic gesture to show that he was, as it were, stepping out of Mass for the sake of the sermon.  He began and ended with the sign of the Cross.  Returning to the altar, he replaced the maniple.   After the Council great effort has been made to connect preaching to the liturgical action itself.   The sermon is generally preached from the place the Gospel is proclaimed.  The sermon is supposed to be part of the liturgical action, connected to the proclamation of the Word of God.

Darting about with a microphone is at striking variance with the post-Conciliar vision of the homily.

So, there are some liturgical directives that suggest something about this.  There are some theological and liturgical points that suggest something about this.  There is common sense, which clinches the deal.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000 | Tagged , ,
48 Comments

QUAERITUR: Priest follows new translation but continues to say “for all” rather than “for many”

From a reader:

My pastor uses the new translation of the Mass with the exception of the words “for many” at the consecration. He continues to use the words “for all.” I find that this bothers me. I would appreciate your opinion on this matter.

I suspect that, at this point, Father isn’t just slipping back into a habit, words that he was used  to.  He is doing this pointedly and purposely.  He is doing this from defiance.

My suggestion is you ask your local bishop if Father obtained a special permission from him to continue to use a sacramental form (words of consecration) that differs from that approved by the Church.

Keep your letter extremely brief, without any angry words or accusations.  Don’t instruct the bishop about the new translation.  Just ask the question and request a response.

Send a copy of the letter to the Apostolic Nuncio.  Make sure you indicate on the letter to your bishops that you are cc:’ing the Nuncio.

His Excellency
Most Rev. Carlo Maria Viganò
Apostolic Nuncio of United States of America
3339 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20008-3687

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, Our Catholic Identity, Priests and Priesthood, The future and our choices |
29 Comments

Media coverage of the LCWR: ignorance, bias and laziness, sloppy and incomplete

This is a little dated, but it helps to explain some prominent errors about what is going on the the Holy See’s reforming efforts concerning key women religious.

This was by Ann Carey on NRO.

Nun Too Accurate Reporting
By Ann Carey
June 4, 2012

The mainstream media has had a field day with the June 1 press release of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR) accusing the Vatican of causing “scandal” and “polarization” by identifying doctrinal problems within the LCWR that need to be corrected. What is really an internal Church matter about the proper role of an organization that has canonical standing in the Catholic Church has become a hot topic in a media that seems to delight in any controversy within the Church, especially one that involves challenges to its authority.

Headlines like “U.S. Nuns crack back at Vatican crackdown” (USA Today, June 1) and “American nuns come out swinging against Vatican” (CNN, June 1) might be funny if they weren’t so very ignorant. In fact, ignorance and bias have marked much of the media’s coverage of the doctrinal assessment of the LCWR by the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF). Or perhaps it’s laziness, for it is clear that many of the people writing about this issue know little about the Catholic Church and even less about the background for this story.

The June 1 New York Times editorial “When in Rome, Speak Up for Reality,” is a prime example of this ignorance/laziness/bias. For starters, the LCWR does not represent 80 percent of the sisters in the U.S., as the Times and many other media outlets claim. It represents only its 1,500 members, and sometimes even that is questionable, for it was only the LCWR 21-member national board that met and issued the June 1 press release well in advance of the August LCWR annual membership meeting.

Further, only members of leadership teams of religious orders belong to LCWR: The grassroots sisters in religious orders do not belong to LCWR, and have neither voice nor vote in the organization. Many of these sisters have told me they resent the LCWR claiming it represents them.

The Times editorial also claims that “many” see the Vatican action as “retaliation” for the LCWR endorsement of Obamacare, which the U.S. bishops opposed because of abortion funding and lack of conscience protection. If the editorial writers had read the CDF document, they would have seen that the decision to conduct the doctrinal assessment was made in 2008, when George W. Bush was still president and Obamacare was just a dream.

The Times and other media also persist in interpreting the Vatican action as insensitive to the good works sisters have done and continue to do. Again, if one actually read the CDF document, it would be clear that the good works of sisters are generously acknowledged and praised, and the CDF made clear that its action applies only to the 1,500-member LCWR.

However, good works do not justify doctrinal deviations, and again, the Times and most media have ignored sections in the Vatican document that discuss serious doctrinal problems such as a “rejection of faith.” And the issues cited in the document under the heading of “radical feminism” (a term called “a particularly dated canard” by the Times) include distortions of faith in Jesus and the structure of sacramental life, as well as undermining the doctrines of “the Holy Trinity, the divinity of Christ, and the inspiration of Sacred Scripture.

These are all major doctrines of the Catholic Church, not just “basic, nonheretical questions about gender equality in the church,” as the Times editorial claims.

Such sloppy and incomplete reporting leads one to think that the Times and other secular media rather enjoy playing up any controversy related to the Catholic Church, even when they do not know the facts.

— Ann Carey is author of Sisters in Crisis: The Tragic Unraveling of Women’s Religious Communities.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, Biased Media Coverage, Magisterium of Nuns | Tagged , , , ,
10 Comments

Obama receives a key endorsement

Hey, this is a coveted endorsement!

O’Grady: Castro Endorses Obama

The dictator’s daughter gets a visa to make speeches here while the regime continues to hold an American hostage.

President Obama has received yet another endorsement, this time from the daughter of Cuban military dictator Raúl Castro. Mariela Castro proclaimed her support for the sitting president 10 days ago, during a visit to the United States. “I believe that Obama needs another opportunity and he needs greater support to move forward with his projects and with his ideas, which I believe come from the bottom of his heart,” she said in a CNN interview in New York.

[…]

I know that Hugo Chavez has health problems, so we can cut him a little slack.  He’ll endorse The First Gay President pretty soon.

Posted in Dogs and Fleas, The future and our choices | Tagged , ,
10 Comments

Fishwrap’s Sr. Maureen Fiedler uses her ruler on those pesky Wisconsin Bishops!

Readers want me to fisk one of our favorite contributors to the National Catholic Fishwrap, the perennial Sr. Maureen Fiedler.   Alas, I two tags for Sister, the other is here.

This week Sister has knuckle-slapped the Bishops of Wisconsin for not defending the poor, the oppressed, the unions and the union-backed candidate in the recent gubernatorial election in which Gov. Walker handily prevailed.

The Wisconsin bishops were silent!  How dare they not speak out?

On the other hand, the Bishops of Minnesota have consistently and vigorously defending natural marriage.

Has Sr. Fiedler praised the Bishops of Minnesota for their bold public statements in this the matter of this great social issue?

I don’t remember seeing her praise of Archbishop Nienstedt of St. Paul and Minneapolis and the other bishops for being so active in the public square.

Posted in Biased Media Coverage, Lighter fare, Magisterium of Nuns, One Man & One Woman, Our Catholic Identity, The Drill, Throwing a Nutty | Tagged , , , , ,
4 Comments

The Bold And The Beautiful

I have been mulling over the recent support given by the Catholic Theological Society of America to Sr. Margaret Farley.

Let’s be clear about a large slice of the group. There is in the CTSA a serious percentage of self-legitimating theologians who have the smugness of the academic elites. They don’t want to admit that – as the trends are changing – they are more and more irrelevant in their Catholic institutions. Thus, they can bask in Sr. Farley’s celebrity for a moment or two and be heroes by supporting her!

Think about the objections the liberals have to what the CDF has done. They don’t say that proper procedures weren’t followed. They don’t deny that the CDF reflects the Church’s promulgated teachings. They don’t say that Farley’s book is not in harmony with what you find in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. They cede that what the CDF Note reflects is “official” teaching. What they are saying is that what the CDF Note reflects shouldn’t be official teaching.

They say catholics believe other things. Therefore, the theology “of the Vatican” is not the theology of “the majority of Catholics”. They juxtapose two different kinds of Magisterium.

Also, the CTSA should be a scholarly group. They laud Sr. Farley’s book as a great piece of scholarship. The problem is that Sr. Farley’s book isn’t all that impressive from that point of view. It doesn’t reflect a lot of hard work or research. Sure, there are a few footnotes and a little bibliography, but hers is not the well-researched book one would expect at a high level of theological reflection. Or is the standard for certain authors a bit more … relaxed?

To be fair, Farley doesn’t cite Oprah, but she does The Kinsey Report.

Instead, what substitutes for work in Sr. Farley’s book is personal experience.

You might think about it this way.

The Poor have experience X, therefore Y should be done for them.

Sr. Farley wants justice for the “oppressed”. She morphs something like the “preferential option for the poor” into something like the “preferential option for the lesbian”. Lesbians are the new poor and marginalized. Lesbians are the new anawim!  They need a new sexual ethic.

Research might be a little thin when it comes to this claim.

So, where do you ground your arguments? In your personal experiences and those of your students.

Think about it this way:

A 20 year old would-be lesbian comes to your office during office hours and breaks down crying. She was abused, she is a little over-weight, she is in tears. She comes out: she is a lesbian. You think, this is God’s daughter and she is in pain. I have to give her a sexual ethic that will free her from oppression.

Sr. Farley is perfecting soap-opera theology.

Posted in Magisterium of Nuns, One Man & One Woman, Our Catholic Identity, The Drill | Tagged , , , , , ,
11 Comments

I’m on pins and needles!

If I am not mistaken, tomorrow, Tuesday, the leadership of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR – a subsidiary of the Magisterium of Nuns) will be meeting with the leadership of the Congregation for Doctrine of the Faith.

What do you want to bet that  – from their deep conviction that the Church simply must know about the drama of their plight – almost immediately after the meeting with Card. Levada the gals will hold a press conference, even if it is outside with a single and handheld camera?

Frankly, I’m on pins and needles.

Posted in Lighter fare, Magisterium of Nuns | Tagged , ,
8 Comments

A critic of the CDF Note about Sr. Farley’s dreadful book

Several people sent me links to an piece on Religion Dispatches about pro-abortion Mary E. Hunt’s defense of pro-abortion RSM Sr. Margaret Farley’s dreadful book.

My readers wanted me to fisk Hunt’s arguments.

Since I have a little jet lag and a lot to do, I will sum my comments up this way.  You should be able to figure out Hunt’s arguments and motivations from this.

Mary Hunt is a lesbian.

Posted in Dogs and Fleas, Throwing a Nutty | Tagged , , ,
26 Comments

Geeky and Beautiful

For your “Look! Up In The Sky!” file, you Transit of Venus fans will want to watch the ultra-hi-def video of different views of the transit.  This is from the Sun people at NASA and Astronomy Pic of the Day, so the shots are the best around.   I guess that, now that the The First Gay President, Pres. Obama, has gralloched NASA, and with that gralloching our collective dreaming, NASA has more time to make these nice videos.

In any event, this is geeky and beautiful.  Venus is shown moving across the Sun’s variously filtered surface.

The music is sort of new-agey or movie soundtracky but I don’t think Sousa’s Transit of Venus March would have produced quite the effect they were aiming for.

[wp_youtube]4Z9rM8ChTjY[/wp_youtube]

Posted in Just Too Cool, Look! Up in the sky!, O'Brian Tags | Tagged , , , ,
1 Comment

Sr. Farley SPEAKS or “Did God say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree of the garden’?”

From NCFishwrap:

Vatican-criticized nun addresses fellow theologians
Jun. 10, 2012
By Joshua J. McElwee

ST. LOUIS — Mercy Sr. Margaret Farley addressed for the first time publicly Friday evening the Vatican’s harsh criticism of one of her books, saying it points to “profoundly important” questions facing the Catholic community regarding the roles of truth and power.
Speaking slowly, and at times faltering for words, Farley, a prominent moral theologian, addressed the issue during a session at the 67th annual meeting of the Catholic Theological Society of America (CTSA) that saw some 300 colleagues gather to ask what the Vatican’s critique might mean for the future of their discipline.
Ultimately, said Farley on Friday, the critique of the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith of her book Just Love, indicates different understandings of the role of theologians in the church and how our tradition changes and grows over time.  [They think they have their own “magisterium”.  The phrase “Magisterium of Nuns” might apply, as a matter of fact.  In any event, Sr. Farley and the CTSA do not determine what the ecclesial vocation of the theologian is.  There was a document on this important question.  HERE.]
“We clearly have grown in many spheres of knowledge — about humans, about the way the universe runs,” said Farley. “It seems reasonable … that if we come to know even a little bit more than we knew before, it might be that the conclusions that we had previously drawn need to be developed. Or maybe even let go of.
“Because it would be a contradiction to Roman Catholic frameworks for doing moral theology to say that we can’t. That would be to imply that we know everything we can know and there’s nothing more to be done.” [I think what she might be saying, in fact, is that we are all grown up now.  We have evolved out of the old human being, and into a new sophisticated modern person who can chose her own morality.]
In her talk Friday, which came during an hour-long session set aside by the CTSA specifically to address the Vatican’s critique, Farley also spoke of her reason for writing her book, which explores how theories of justice might be applied to help create “norms” to guide our sexual actions.  [Yahhh…. not so much.]
The Vatican’s critique, released in a formal “notification” June 4, did not mention that aspect of the book, only citing Farley’s positions on a number of specific issues, which are only briefly discussed in the work. [How much of the book has to be dedicated to the errors?]
Among the areas criticized by the Vatican are Farley’s treatment in the book of the morality of masturbation, homosexual relationships and unions, and divorce and remarriage.
“My reasons for thinking its important for everyone to think about these issues,” said Farley, “is because people are suffering. All over the place, people are suffering.” [Is that an argument for the things she defends?]
Ending her talk, Farley asked what she called “profoundly important” questions.
The issue is, finally, in our tradition, is it a contradiction to have power settle questions of truth? Or to say we all have a capacity to know what we ought to do?” asked Farley.  [Gen 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtle than any other wild creature that the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree of the garden’?” 2 And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden; 3 but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.'” 4 But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not die. 5 For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”]
“We can make mistakes, we can disagree — but is it the case that natural law is let go when we really only know the answers because of grace of office? This is a profoundly important question in our tradition today.”  [Repeat after me: “Magisterium of Nuns” over and against that of the bishops and Holy Father.]
[…]

Posted in Dogs and Fleas, Magisterium of Nuns, Our Catholic Identity | Tagged , , , ,
27 Comments