OUR FATHER WHO ART HOLDING HANDS ...
SAN FRANCISCO CITY COUNCIL GOES BONKERS
Dear Friend of Catholic Answers:
As part of my Lenten readings I'm going through Dom Hubert Van Zeller's "Spirit of Penance, Path to God." After writing about penitential practices that can be injurious to one's health without necessarily helping one's soul, he writes about practices you can take up without fear of going overboard and without needing to get guidance first from your spiritual director:
"A man in no way endangers his health, for example, if he does not talk whenever he gets the chance, and when he keeps custody of the eyes; nor is a woman's health at stake if she does not paint her face.
"To dress simply and cheaply, to ban useless questions from one's conversation, never to cut short an interview with people who bore one, to single out one's less attractive acquaintances for attention and kindness, to aim at a high standard of thoughtfulness, and to be as exact as possible in such disagreeable things as accounts, correspondence, and punctuality: in these kinds of penances, a soul does not have to worry about neglecting prudence or slighting obedience.
"There is little likelihood of one's appearing singular in practicing them, and in most instances they promote rather than offend against charity."
These are all "invisible" acts of mortification. You run no risk of playing the Pharisee whose mournful expression is obvious to everyone. These "invisible" acts do not draw people's attention to you.
Still, I suppose some women may think that doing without make-up is asking too much even for Lent, and, for my part, I find it difficult not to "cut short an interview [that is, a conversation] with people who bore" me, though I do make an effort to exit such "interviews" gracefully.
ORIGINS OF HAND-HOLDING
The current issue of the "Adoremus Bulletin" says this in response to a query from a priest in the Bronx:
"No gesture for the people during the Lord's Prayer is mentioned in the official documents. The late liturgist Fr. Robert Hovda promoted holding hands during this prayer, a practice he said originated in Alcoholics Anonymous. Some 'charismatic' groups took up the practice."
My long-time sense had been that hand-holding at the Our Father was an intrusion from charismaticism, but I had not been aware of the possible connection with AA. If this is the real origin of the practice, it makes it doubly odd: first, because hand-holding intrudes a false air of chumminess into the Mass (and undercuts the immediately-following sign of peace), and second, because modifications to liturgical rites ought to arise organically and not be borrowed from secular self-help groups.
Periodically, on "Catholic Answers Live" I am asked about hand-holding during Mass and explain that it is contrary to the rubrics. Usually I get follow-up e-mails from people who say, "But it's my favorite part of the Mass" or "We hold hands as a family, and it makes us feel closer."
About the latter I think, "It's good to feel close as a family, but you can hold hands at home or at the mall. The Mass has a formal structure that should be respected. That means you forgo certain things that you might do on the outside."
About the former comment I think, "If this is the high point of the Mass for you, you need to take Remedial Mass 101. The Mass is not a social event. It is the re-presentation of the sacrifice of Calvary, and it is the loftiest form of prayer. It should be attended with appropriate solemnity."
KNOW-NOTHINGISM IN SAN FRANCISCO
Three years ago the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, then headed by Joseph Ratzinger, held that homosexual couples should not be permitted to adopt children.
This year, on March 9, the new head of the congregation (and former Archbishop of San Francisco), William Levada, affirmed that adoption agencies run by Catholics should not place children with homosexual couples.
On March 17 the new Archbishop of San Francisco, George Niederauer, announced that Catholic Charities in San Francisco would cease placing children with homosexuals.
The San Francisco City Council (which doubles as the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Francisco, the City and County being coterminous) didn't like this at all. In a March 21 resolution the Council said:
"It is an insult to all San Franciscans when a foreign country, like the Vatican, meddles with and attempts to negatively influence this great City's existing and established customs and traditions such as the right of same-sex couples to adopt and care for children in need."
This is a "tradition"? How many weeks does a practice have to be around before it counts as a tradition? I wish there were a rule that nothing can count as a tradition until its instigators are dead for at least a century.
Ah, but I did like the part about "a foreign country, like the Vatican"--it reminded me of the good old days of nineteenth-century Know-Nothingism and those Thomas Nast cartoons that showed bishops drawn as mitered crocodiles.
Let's continue with the Council's resolution:
"The statements of Cardinal Levada and the Vatican" against adoptions by homosexuals "are absolutely unacceptable to the citizenry of San Francisco."
Just as in Sodom there were a few good people, so in San Francisco there must be a few people, at least among the Catholics, who actually accept the Church's position. Given this untidy outburst by the City Council, I can understand how such people would hesitate to acknowledge that they think the Church is right. Who wants an angry mob at his door? Anyway, the Council surely exaggerates when it claims to speak for all the citizens of the city.
The resolution continues:
"Same-sex couples are just as qualified to be parents as are heterosexual couples."
No, they are not. Heterosexual couples have a distinct advantage: One of them is a man, and the other is a woman; one of them is the father, and the other is the mother. Besides, the issue is not so much about which couples are "qualified" as about which arrangement is better for the children. To say the arrangements are equally good for the children is to betray such a lack of common sense that one should be disqualified from further participation in the discussion.
The resolution then says:
"Cardinal Levada is a decidedly unqualified representative of his former home city and of the people of San Francisco and the values they hold dear."
If so, then this is the highest commendation yet given to the new Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
The next line of the resolution:
"The Board of Supervisors urges Archbishop Niederauer and the Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of San Francisco to defy all discriminatory directives of Cardinal Levada."
Hey, why don't you Supervisors follow the principle you otherwise so ardently admire, the separation of church and state? In other words, butt out. If you don't like the way the Catholic Church handles adoptions, make some other arrangement. Maybe the Metropolitan Community Church would be willing to take over ...
p.s., If you have a comment about anything appearing in this E-Letter, please do not hit your Reply button. Instead, go to Catholic Answers' discussion forums at
http://forums.catholic.com
where you may post your comment in the forum dedicated to the E-Letter. You will find a thread devoted to this issue of the E-Letter. Feel free to add your comment in the form of a reply to that thread.
|
[TOP]
Discuss
Index
Prior issue
Next issue
Sign up