Keep Your Hands to Yourself?
I read with great interest Prof. Ronald J. Rychlak’s article on why he doesn’t hold hands at Mass (“Why I Don’t Hold Hands at Mass,” July/August 1998). Not I say “great interest,” not agreement. I am a convert to the Church, coming in in 1995. When I first came to Mass at my local parish, there was no holding hands at the Lord’s Prayer. Then our parish got a new priest who encouraged us to do so. And I, for one, enjoyed it.
Not only did I enjoy it, I learned to understand it for what it truly symbolizes: that we are the Body of Christ. That bread and wine on the altar is not just bread and wine. It is Christ, and it is not just Christ for me as an individual. It is for us corporately. That is what binds us together. Our focus is always on Christ at Mass, and part of that is showing his love to others. I don’t know if this is what Catholic apologists think, but that’s what I’ve come to believe.
Brian Robinson
Downington, Pennsylvania
Stop Obsessing
What was the point of Prof. Rychlak’s article? Two solid pages of criticism of the Catholic Church in America and his response: “In church, I will recite the Our Father with my hands folded and my heart in communication with God. Perhaps others will do the same.” Maybe the Church hierarchy will go through every parish and clean up liturgical abuses. Do new ceremonies make kneeling and focusing on God impossible for all believers? I am a child in the faith, and I deeply desire greater orthodoxy in the liturgical environment and in the Church as a whole. However, my greatest battles of concentration and focus on the Lord happen in my own mind. Holding hands during the Our Father actually helps me to focus on the Father because I become keenly aware that I am among his children. I’m not saying that I would oppose the elimination of hand holding if so instructed by the Pope and the bishops in union with him. I simply don’t see the hand holding as a big barrier to prayer. I do know that obsessing with the Code of Canon Law and every possible liturgical abuse is very distracting for me personally during the liturgy.
Donald Karls
Billings, Montana
Shocked, Shocked, I Say!
Having read the article “Why I Don’t Hold Hands at Mass,” I find myself amazed that you accepted it premises at all, much less printed it. As a periodical that holds itself in a teaching position, This Rock holds a great responsibility to see that heresy is not preached within its pages. The same holds true of the responsibility to remain in line with the Church you are supposed to be supporting.
Prof. Rychlak states, “The Mass was once a vertical proceeding between the priest and God, with the rest watching on or engaging in their own vertical communication, through prayer.” That is true. And the Church found that situation unacceptable. The Church that Jesus founded was for his people. When Jesus ministered and prayed publicly, he was accessible, not remote. He rebuked his disciples when they attempted to bar children from approaching him. Our Mass now incorporates both vertical and horizontal elements, as it should.
Prof. Rychlak states, “If Christ is present due to the community of the people, there is no sacred place in the church. It is just a meeting place.” This is heresy. Christ is present due to the community of the people: “For where two or three are gathered in my name, there I am with them” (Matt. 18:20). Where Jesus is present, there is sacredness. To intimate otherwise (and to print it) is a grave error. At the same time, Christ being in our midst due to community does not preclude or diminish his particular and miraculous Presence in the Eucharist.
The title issue of the professor’s article is that of holding hands in Mass, which leads him to the adjoining issue of having his vertical communication being interrupted for a variety of reasons that grow out of being part of a congregation. If the professor seeks quiet, then he should arrive earlier than he does for solitary prayer before Mass or should seek solitude in a side chapel. An island-like stance of refusing to hold hands shows an unwillingness to be approached or to accept the unity which is expressed by holding hands—the unity of the Mystical Body of Christ. Refusing to hold somebody’s hand during prayer speaks of disdain for others, not love. It is Sadducee-like in its rigidity.
Is there a tendency in some parishes to seek human answers to our problems rather than to rely on God? Certainly. Are there parishes where there is a distinct lack of reverence for the Mass and an undue focus on the horizontal.aspect of a community in worship? I do not doubt it. Let’s not leap to unwarranted conclusions that these parishes speak for the Catholic Church or that the Catholic Church approves of improper liturgies. Neither let us encourage one another to withdraw into solitary aloofness within the context of a gathering that celebrates our oneness in Christ.
Mary Schindler
Tacoma, Washington
God Is Immanent Too
Ronald J. Rychlak rightly warns us of the dangers of a Mass dominated by its horizontal elements. Those of us who witnessed the liturgical changes following the Second Vatican Council are all too aware of the abuses that diminished our sense of the transcendent (vertical dimension) in the Mass.
Accordingly, I concur with much of what Prof. Rychlak says.
The article is flawed, however, in that it fails to express clearly and precisely some of the essential qualities of both the horizontal and vertical elements in the Mass. When we speak of transcendence (vertical), we speak of our God, “who dwells in unapproachable light, and whom no human being has seen or can see” (Tim. 6:16). The vertical bespeaks of God’s mystery and beyondness—a reminder that God is not confined by time or space and that his existence extends beyond the universe which he created.
Architectural features such as high vaulted church ceilings that seem to soar all the way to heaven convey a sense of transcendence, as does light filtered through beautiful stained glass windows. Liturgically, the otherworldly sound of Gregorian chant and the use of incense give expression to the vertical. God is indeed transcendent, and the Mass must reflect that reality. But our God is also immanent which means that he has inserted himself into human history by becoming man.
As Catholics we adhere to the ancient dogma that Christ dwells among us and in us. “For in him we live and move and have our being” (Acts 17:28), and so it is in others that we encounter God in the horizontal elements of the Mass. When I turn to offer Christ’s peace to the person sitting next to me, I am not just shaking hands with some casual acquaintance that I happen to meet on the street. Nor am I interrupting my prayer or the prayers of others when I do so. Offering Christ’s peace is an extension of my prayer since I am conscious of God’s presence in those with whom I exchange the sign of peace. Mother Teresa of Calcutta made frequent reference to the biblical notion that we encounter the suffering presence of Christ in the poorest of the poor. This in no way diminishes our need to glorify, praise, and acknowledge God’s transcendence. By holding hands during the Lord’s Prayer we give ritual expression to the Catholic belief that we are united to each other through Christ’s Real Presence in Holy Communion. “We are one body in this one Lord,” as we sing in one of today’s well-known hymns. Accordingly, holding hands is not some trite social gesture that interrupts an otherwise solemn liturgy. Rather, it is ritually meaningful and therefore a legitimate part of the Eucharistic prayer.
The Church teaches that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the son of Mary. Accordingly, he possesses a dual nature that is both divine and human. When we overemphasize one aspect of Christ’s nature to the exclusion or neglect of the other we fall into error. Orthodoxy hinges on holding the two.aspects of Christ’s nature in balance. The same can be said regarding the vertical (divine/transcendent) and horizontal (human/immanant) elements of the Mass. Both are essential in that each complements the other. When vertical and horizontal lines intersect they form a cross which represents Christ’s dual nature and the instrument of our salvation.
Deacon Edward M. Hickcox
Munds Park, Arizona
Not an Approved Gesture
Ronald J. Rychlak’s article provided food for thought regarding liturgical changes since Vatican II. It also presented an opportunity to reflect on the importance of being faithful to the official directives of the Church regarding the liturgy.
We should not hold hands at Mass because the Church teaches that the liturgy is the official prayer of the Church, to which no one may add prayers or liturgical gestures on his private initiative, not even a bishop. Hand holding is not an approved liturgical gesture. At a recent meeting of the American bishops a request was made to approve this practice, and it was rejected. Had the request been accepted, it still would have required the approval of the Holy See.
One thing the article seems to overlook is the desire of the Church that the faithful “participate” in the Mass, not merely “attend” Mass. Participation requires a certain horizontal relationship with the priest-celebrant and the rest of the congregation, in order that all may participate vertically in the liturgical act of worship. In this respect, the horizontal relationship does not really infringe on the vertical relationship between God and man but enhances the vertical relationship, raising it from a private act of personal prayer to an official act of liturgical prayer. Unfortunately, this valid point is obscured by liturgical innovators who want the Mass to remain on the horizontal level, changing it from a participation in prayer to a celebration of “community.”
Catholics need to distinguish official Church teaching and liturgical discipline from private innovation. We also need to distinguish what is required from what is only an option, like Communion in the hand. And we need to accept what is official and what we cannot change, even when we do not understand the reasons for it.
E. William Sockey III
Bethleham, Pennsylvania
I Bolted
I very much enjoyed the article explaining “Why I Don’t Hold Hands at Mass.” The author made it clear where our focus should be. It’s also a real shame that the noise during the sign of peace is almost deafening, but the Great Alleluia is either whispered or lip-synched. This is one reason why I have started to attend the Melkite Catholic Church.
Robert Lozano
Woodstock, Georgia
Holy Conga Line
Ronald J. Rychlak’s reasons for not holding hands at Mass are loftier than mine. The first time I managed to get my husband to attend Mass in one parish (he had not practiced his faith in over forty years), he nearly fainted when a gentleman in the pew pivoted around at the Our Father and grabbed his hand without so much as a by-your-leave. My husband found every excuse in the world not to go back to that parish, so I often attend Mass alone.
Another gentleman, during the Our Father, held my hand in such a way as to raise the hair at the back of my neck. The smile he flashed was, well, weird. The next morning, making my accustomed visit to the Blessed Sacrament before work, I was aghast to see him again, ready to engage me in unwanted conversation. A chat with the “pastoral administrator” revealed that this man lived close to the church and was publicly and loudly in search of a wife.
My stories may not be typical, but I’ll wager they are not unique. In a more formal time, at least socially incompetent people were isolated by shyness rather than by inappropriate social advances and scaring others half to death. Today I attend Mass in a parish where families might hold hands at the Our Father, but they do not make it into a holy conga line. And just in case of a worst-possible scenario, I have located a segment of pew where a pillar supporting the choir loft separates me from the rest of the row, lending new meaning to the saying that attending Mass is a foretaste of heaven.
Name Withheld
Editor’s reply: Whew! We received a gaggle of letters complaining about or praising “Why I Don’t Hold Hands at Mass.” Each correspondent made good points—even those folks who partly misunderstood what Prof. Rychlak was saying. From these letters, from others, and from my own observations let me summarize:
1. There is a community-oriented or horizontal aspect to the Mass, and holding hands, some think, can highlight and deepen that aspect.
2. But holding hands (and similar gestures) can undercut the vertical aspect of the Mass. It is difficult to keep the two aspects in balance. Nowadays, in many parishes, the vertical aspect is overshadowed by the horizontal. This strikes me as indisputable, but some people dispute it anyway.
3. Some folks like to hold hands at the Our Father, saying the practice makes the Mass more meaningful to them.
4. Others feel that hand holding is intrusive—or even inane. They wonder why those who don’t want to hold hands must be forced to do so and why the hand holders should be able to dictate what the congregation as a whole does.
5. In our culture, hand holding is an intimate gesture, one not undertaken in public except in limited circumstances (husband and wife, boyfriend and girlfriend, parent and young child). Strangers or adults of the same sex do not normally hold hands on the street, though they may shake hands; for them to hold hands seems perverse—and sometimes is.
6. Holding hands at the Our Father undercuts the meaning of the immediately following liturgical act, the sign of peace, precisely because hand holding is a more intimate act than is shaking hands. (This is a point emphasized by Fr. Peter Stravinskas, himself a liturgical expert.)
7. The internal logic of the liturgy, then, seems to argue against the practice.
8. In any case, there is no provision in the rubrics for holding hands.
9. Yes, it is true that the practice is not expressly forbidden by the rubrics, but neither is standing on one’s head forbidden, but no one should do that during Mass. Rubrics are prescriptive. They indicate what must be done, by the priest and by the people. Anything not mentioned should not be done. (Civil law works the other way around. It’s proscriptive. It indicates what can’t be done, so anything not mentioned is permitted.)
10. The Mass is the public prayer of the Church, which means that no congregation, no priest, and no bishop has the authority to add to it or to subtract from it. Holding hands during the Our Father may be a widespread practice, but that doesn’t make it liturgically proper, even if many Catholics find it a boost to their spirits.
11. Not everyone will agree with these points, but I calls ’em as I sees ’em.
Even Convicts Have Souls
My heart broke when I read what Vin Lewis has written to Greg Adams (“Dragnet,” June 1998). Does Mr. Lewis not read the very Scripture he claims to defend? Our Lord was a death row convict, and he gave eternal life to a fellow death row convict during his own execution. Does Lewis think, then, that no other convict can find Christ in prison?
Lewis complained about casting pearls before swine. My first thought (somewhat uncharitably, I admit) was that this was a classic case of the swine casting pearls. I also was highly offended by Lewis’s rhetorical question: “Do none of you guys have families?” That was cruel. As a matter of fact, Mr. Lewis, too few of the men rotting in hell-holes that you fecklessly think of as country clubs have families. They never did have families. That is one of the reasons why they are in prison.
I could have bitten nails in two when I read Lewis’s postscript: “If you reply, PLEASE no more ‘sob’ letters; it makes you sound like a woman. Play the man!” This deserves comment. Admittedly, convicts tend to “whine,” but so would every other reader of This Rock is he lived the life of a convict—despite guilt or innocence. The biggest temptation all convicts must face daily is giving in to depression. They are separated from all they knew and loved, packed into cells with two or three times the number of men the cells were designed to house, fed garbage Lewis wouldn’t feed a dog (I eat food every week from cartons marked “Not Fit for Human Consumption”), treated cruelly by guards just for the sport of it, forced into violent confrontations by the more predatory convicts who “run” the prison, constantly fend off unwelcome homosexual advances (or attempted rapes), and a thousand other things I could mention. Convicts may be guilty of having committed a crime, but they are still human persons for whom His Majesty chose to die.
Mr. Lewis cannot begin to understand the inner workings of men’s souls. To stereotype convicts as worthless bums is a grave error. I know. I work with these boys daily. I’ve watched them weep when they learned about the Real Presence. I’ve held sobbing convicts in my arms as they tell me their families rejected them because they could not themselves reject the divinely revealed truth of the Catholic Church. (The last words I ever heard my own father say on the phone before he died were, “No son of mine is a Roman Catholic!”) I’ve watched men leave the confessional in tears because they felt clean for the first time in their lives. I’ve witnessed the metamorphosis of cold-blooded murderers into paragons of charity and of sex offenders into extraordinary examples of chastity. I’ve seen Catholic convicts face persecutions by anti-Catholic prison officials, even to the extent that the convicts were led to believe they would face real martyrdom—but still they proudly and loudly proclaimed the faith. Lewis needs to stop worrying so much about money and start being Catholic by caring about souls. If he is so zealous against crime and criminals, all he has to do is get his hands dirty by going into the prisons to evangelize. It works!
As for Greg Adams, I understand his pain. Been there, done that, got the tee shirt. I’ve spent nearly twelve years experiencing pain firsthand. Adams is neither a “cry baby” nor “a woman.” He just should pray for Vin Lewis and will end up the better man.
Russell L. Ford
Elmore, Alabama
“Marxist” Trends
Rachel Fay’s article in your April issue [“That Celibate Bachelor Was Right”] was excellent and to the point. Have you noticed similar articles appearing all over? And of course you know that three bishops in Canada are now trying to get the other bishops to take back their dissent to Humanae Vitae!
Rev. Paul Marx, O.S.B.
Front Royal, Virginia
St. Alphonsus Would Approve
I enjoyed and profited from the cover story of April. Please pass along my congratulations to the author, Rachel Fay.
Rev. James Higgins, C.SS.R.
Liguori, Missouri
No Crumbs for Cons
I was saddened by the reply Greg Adams received from Vin Lewis of All Roads Ministries at his request for information. The hate and bigotry in Mr. Lewis’s letter were palpable. How very sad for a man who is supposedly doing God’s work to speak to his brother in Christ that way. It brought to mind the parable of the great feast (Luke 14:16–24). Mr. Adams has been specially invited by the Master to the feast, but Mr. Lewis would not give Mr. Adams a crumb. But thanks be to God for Mr. Adams—he will now partake, through Catholic Answers and This Rock—of the fullness of the feast. I pray that God will continue to bless him and lead him straight into the arms of Holy Mother Church!
Cathy Mungo
Akron, Ohio
Prayers, Please
I was quite moved by Fr. Peter J. Grant’s article on his journey of faith in South Africa. I can’t begin to imagine how heart-rending his experiences must be, and I praise God that he has called someone like Fr. Grant to his holy priesthood. Certainly, under apartheid there were excesses and abuses, and the Church rightly spoke out against them. I pray that God will bless Fr. Grant, and I ask all people of charity and good will to pray for the people of South Africa.
Sean W. Nunley
St. Marys, Georgia