Showing posts with label liturgy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label liturgy. Show all posts

Thursday, June 30, 2011

154/365 Language

I'm having a difficult time with upcoming changes in the English version of the mass. There, I said it.

I love ritual and living in ritual and coming to deeper understandings of it. Words and gestures. Bad ritual and bad liturgy always make me roll my eyes, like the times I've spent in really bad women's prayer services. A post for another day.

At mass Sunday, Miguel's homily concerned words and meaning. That when things change (like, when we visit churches that say mass in another language), we have to pay closer attention. The mass hasn't changed, just the language it is set in has changed. We can still participate even if we aren't speaking the language of the people.

This was juxtaposed against the upcoming changes. And I have a variety of opinions that fall into the following categories:

1. I fear change. This is a personal problem of mine and I should let it go.

2. It feels kind of...fundamentalist. I mean it this way: as a Catholic, I do not believe in the literal translation, word for word, of the bible. It was written by mortals, inspired by God. The prophets and historians and poets and evangelists were not taking dictation. There was no handheld recorder or speechwriter at Jesus' sermons. And, in addition, I consider the bible to be a more inspired body of work than I do the order of the mass. And so the idea of "going back to the basics of love", so to speak, makes me hesitate. Human language is not static. Civilization is not static. The fact that my denomination is so freaking static makes me crazy.

3. But without ritual stasis, it of course runs the risk of being bad.

4. Lastly, and most specifically, "and my soul shall be healed" grates on my nerves because of the implied duality of mankind:

The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the "form" of the body: i.e., it is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living, human body; spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature.
Our current "And I shall be healed" seems more in line with that statement. But I know I'm no expert. It will become yet another mystery for me to ponder, like the question I often ask about the line in the creed: God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God. Why do we mention God in two different phrases there. Why do we have to say True God after we've just said God? I have yet to get a satisfactory answer, and I think "and my soul shall be healed" will be the same way.

And it shouldn't be that way. Just sayin.

Monday, June 27, 2011

159/365 Vigils

When we lived in Columbia, Missouri, we attended Our Lady of Lourdes parish, attached to the consolidated school and staffed by Benedictines. I was in late grade school when we lived there, and we almost always went to the Saturday evening mass. It was the family-friendly mass, not too long, homilies not too bookish, easy to sing music and relaxed atmosphere. The early Sunday mass was the typical old lady mass, and then the three later masses were: "Couples and Families with Things To Do"; "Cecil B. DeMille Presents"; and "I woke up too late with a hangover." People moved from mass to mass and we sometimes went to "Things To Do". But each mass definitely had its theme.

At our parish, there are three masses. I would characterize them (I'm deeply biased) as "Deadly", "Old and Tired", and "Pull Out All The Stops." We go to the last one, have since the very beginning. I've gone to the early Sunday mass perhaps three times, always because we were on our way to my in-laws for the day and had to get on the road. And Saturday night vigil? Once.

They are not interchangeable at my parish. I wish they were--Fr. Bill made it very clear that if you wanted to be a real part of our community, you'd better come to the 10 a.m. mass. Fr. Miguel hasn't come out and said that, but it still is de facto in many ways. It is two, maybe even three separate parishes. And that is frustrating. I wish I could pack up my kids and go to the Saturday vigil sometime, especially during the winter when it's nearly dark by the time it starts anyway. Can't be outside playing...but you could sleep in if we go to church. I know, I sound like an expedient Catholic, and I'm not, really. I just wish the three Sunday gatherings were less rigid in their attendance and implied meaning.

Saturday evening would probably make a great family mass, from my experiences elsewhere. But to change folks' interpretation of what the vigil means at our parish would be nearly insurmountable. That's the way we've always done it is still the name of the game here in many ways. So I'll stay at the 10 with everyone I know who helped me stay Catholic when golly the Church wasn't helping.

Sunday, June 26, 2011

160/365 Utah Vesti-friggin-bule

The law of unintended consequences is at play here.

One thing, a minor thing, but still a thing that I always liked at our parish is that we didn't have a cry room. We didn't have a glass-walled piped-in-sound enclosure for mothers and infants to sit and sort of be a part of things. And because we didn't have that, babies were a part of our community just like everyone else. Yes, an unruly toddler would be taken to the back, and a crying baby would be handled out in the vestibules. But there was no assumption that children would be neither seen nor heard.

As time went by, though, and more children did appear in our church, the Utah Vestibule was set aside as a place for a mother to sit with a tired crying baby. A place for toddlers to look around for a moment as a distraction. Still a part of the community, still seen and heard, but a nice place, cleaner than before, without dangerous mechanical objects or giant statues or dead plants in the way.

Then a member of parish council made the suggestion that the room be made into an even more child-friendly space, with gates at the two doorways and a rug covering the tile floor. I saw this and thought, that is really smart. That way, a wriggling toddler could be placed on the floor a minute to walk around but not be able to run up the aisles and disturb everyone else. I thought it was so nice that we had this spot, not a cry room but still a place to go. It seemed brilliant.

But like all technical and scientific advances, there were unintended consequences. Through the winter and spring, it became a place for the choir to dump their children--with spouses or babysitters, but there were too many older kids. Kids brought toys and threw them around or fought over them. Cabinets got opened and the contents dumped. Food came and got ground into the rug. Children hung on the gates and squealed.

I began to notice more and more mothers of small babies, the ones who used to go back to that room and nurse or rock, were standing in back instead. I wouldn't go in with Leo unless it were empty. Fathers took their young toddlers out onto the front porch, or downstairs to the basement.

I walked in today, and there were four kids already there, before mass began. One was the wife of the parish council member. The other was the choir babysitter with two children of one of the choir members and one from another (the "babysitter" is actually the wife of one of the singers--not like a teenaged girl or something). Two of the kids, though, were 5, and had taken the furniture apart to build a fort.

I'm a teacher and am not afraid to call out errant children, even in front of their caretakers. This does not make me popular, but it keeps me sane. I told them they weren't doing the right thing, and I rearranged things so that this wasn't her playroom. They had brought lots of toys, and the babysitter explained to me that she had brought even more to leave here in the room for future children. So the floor resembled a sloppy daycare room and Leo proceeded to fight over a puzzle piece with one of the other toddlers. But that didn't bother me as much as the 9 year old who just walked in and started playing alongside the other school aged children, or the two boys who just showed up, with no parents, and started climbing on the gate.

I shooed them away, but they came back after I'd had enough. The family whose baby was baptized today showed up in back with their older child, and a few other children from their entourage. Adults sat around and chatted. There was no connection at all to being at mass. A traditional cry room with piped in sound would have been better. The kids reached critical mass, and I walked out with Leo to pace in back instead.

Gone was the distraction and in its place was a noisy mess. My father commented to me on his way out after mass that he probably could find a cheap swingset to stick in there if we wanted to. He had been sitting about 6 pews from the front and could hear it all the way up there.

When you create an attractive nuisance, children are drawn to it. Children weren't drawn to the Utah Vestibule before--it was a place to sit quietly for a moment before moving on to some other distraction. Now Maeve asks me why she can't "go back and play in the playroom" since she has age-peers sitting back there doing that very thing.

Maybe the families of some of those toddlers wouldn't feel welcome if we didn't have a cry room. That's what Astrid suggested to me. But maybe if the whole community realized that children are part of the Kingdom of God, we wouldn't feel like we had to be necessarily separate from the childless adults in the congregation. And maybe there's a way to make a room like that work--maybe limit it to toddlers and babies and their parents only. Maybe take away the gates, or the rug, or both. Make it less like a family room in your basement and more like church.

I walked up to Fr. Miguel after mass and expressed my annoyance. He put it back on me (fairly): how do we make the change, how do we educate or dictate or whatever needs to be done to make the place welcoming to parents of somewhat unruly children without creating a loud and obnoxious nuisance that draws in older children and parentless children to come play?

I'm thinking about it. I think taking the gates away would be a good start--as nice as they were when Leo was by himself or with one other child back there, they make the room an easy place to dump your kid and stand around and chat. Simply taking the gates away would make it far less attractive, and maybe make parents realize they need to do more with their kids at church than just bring a bunch of toys and let them jump on the furniture.

It's like free parking. Everybody likes free parking. Can't get enough of that free parking, and so there's never enough. But if you charge people to park, then some people will walk or ride a bike. If we build a room designed like a nursery that takes away all adult responsibility, tired parents are going to drop that responsibility like a hot potato. But the room pre-gates was never treated like that. You could nurse a baby back then without being disturbed. A parent and toddler might wander back for a minute to sit and look at a book, but parents had to be engaged because they were, essentially, paying for parking--it wasn't a free ride. Parents of seriously unruly children would have to take them outside or hold them in back like I had to with Leo today. Parents won't see those gates and think "I'll just let my kids wander back there and play."

Because this was, yikes, totally over the top. And I know the child-free amongst the congregation heard all that noise and were not impressed. Critical mass, like I said. We need a better way.

Sunday, May 15, 2011

237/365 Maeve Goes To Church

Mike and Maeve were down at his parents' house for the weekend, helping build a house for his aunt and uncle. And Sunday morning, Maeve was going to go with Mike to the job site since she didn't want to go to church. But she also didn't want to go to the job site...so she settled on staying with Gran and going to church. Mike warned his mother that Maeve is, to put it bluntly, a spazz at church.

They met up at lunch at Mike asked how it went. Wonderfully, his mom told him. She was just fine. "And afterward as we were leaving, she turned to me and said, 'That was short!'"

Ah well. Here's a hope and prayer that my kids learn to appreciate good liturgy as opposed to simply short liturgy (although short does have its place).

Sunday, April 3, 2011

281/365 Dressing the Altar

I've dressed the altar...4 or 5 times? The first times were like any first attempts at new public activities. I was nervous and was still in the "knowingly unknowing" stage of learning. You know--first you don't know what you don't know; next you know what you don't know and you're shaky about anything you're learning; after that you knowingly know--which is when you should teach (or the stage you should force yourself back into in order to effectively teach). Lastly, you unknowingly know. You just do. When I sew, for instance, I can't even teach someone how to do it unless I step outside myself and remember how I hold my body, my hands, how I control pressure on the machine, or design something and include seam allowances, and so forth. I so unknowingly know how to sew that it's like reading or breathing. It just happens.

On the other hand, I will always be in the stage of knowingly knowing when it comes to math. I love math, now, and I love to teach it. But I keep myself as a non-expert because it makes me a better teacher.

It's become a natural thing to dress the altar now. Somewhere in that knowing stage. I know what I'm doing, my partner tonight knew what she was doing (or had enough presence in public to fake it well), and when we went down to the aisle to receive the gifts from Mike and my girls, I was just smiling. Not nervous. It was good.

Saturday, March 26, 2011

291/365 Liturgical Happiness


"I was a happy person before I got involved with liturgy," Rachel says into her ginger ale. In my mind, that sums up Worship Commission right there. Except I don't think it makes me unhappy necessarily. At least not overall. I keep attending, although I keep hoping, unchristianlike, that Lynn will slip away. I would be happier if she did, that's for sure. I keep trying to like her, keep trying to be open and friendly, but there's something there that doesn't appreciate my efforts.

I do notice more things, like any artist or workman. I notice when things don't go well. I notice when music just isn't quite right, or the homily stinks (that wouldn't be at my parish, of course). Having these tiny bits of knowledge from Catechesis of the Good Shepherd training, or from simply attending worship meeting after worship meeting after worship meeting, I see things now that I didn't before. And I know I would be unhappy at a church that didn't work on these things, that didn't care about liturgy.

Fr. Bill had us gather in church, folks on different commissions, parish council (that was why I was there), friends, active people, and told us he was leaving the parish. The first question, logically, was who was replacing him. He told us a little bit about Miguel, but very vague, only saying that Miguel was very interested in liturgy. I had no idea what that meant, I mean, to say someone was "very interested" in it. Aren't all priests, I mean, that's part of their job. It sounded like introducing a new teacher to the school and saying she was very interested in student outcomes.

But 5 years in, I see what he meant. I think I'm happier, actually, having been involved with liturgy, when it's all said and done.

Monday, March 7, 2011

310/365 Change

The language of the mass is changing and I don't think I can get excited about it. Or care. I hate that about me but it's kind of a defense mechanism. I hate change, like I said at the meeting on Wednesday night. What was our tolerance for change? was the reflection question. Lots of people said "change is good" and some said less solid things like "I like change when it's a good change." So I decided to be honest and say I hate it. I hate it when things change. I hate it when things aren't planned and I know what's coming and even then I don't like it much. On the Meyers Briggs scale I'm an ENFJ. My extrovert status is solid, my intuition is solid, my feelings vs thinking is a little fuzzy (I feel, or think, that this is the one you can make yourself change more than any of the others: how you make decisions, etc). But my J? Judging vs. perceiving? It's a 10-0. I am all J. All J all the time. At one point my friends nicknamed me Lady J (I think it's a comic book reference besides) because if I don't have a plan, I have nothing. Change can only happen if it is planned. Well planned. Elections make me physically ill. Surprise changes to my schedule throw me for a loop. Babies mess up my life for, like, 3 years. Change and flux are bad. Bad.

The nice thing about being Catholic is that things don't change. Or change comes so slowly it's more of an adjustment. A tweaking. I don't mind tweaking. Local change? Fine. You don't like this banner, let's make another. Take out the carpet. Restore the tile. Make things a little bit better this year. A liturgical year evolves, it doesn't overhaul and reinvent the wheel each time a new season comes along.

Some of the language changes feel like tweakings to me. Like getting rid of gender references to the Holy Spirit. Or even "it is right and just" instead of "it is right to give him thanks and praise." Thanks and praise have already been mentioned. It is right and just. Other small things are jarring, like the changes to the Gloria, but they don't change the feel of that part of the mass.

Actually, besides the ridonkulous "and with your spirit" flip, which just makes me roll my eyes as I read all these backwards retrofitting revisionist history reasons for it, the only ones that bother me are in the creed. I believe vs we believe I don't mind; rewording the Holy Spirit section so we don't say "he he he" all the time is a great idea. But "consubstantial" and "incarnate" are just wrong. Wrong. The idea that "one in being with the Father" is a worse translation than "consubstantial with the Father" could only be true in the dark recesses of minds like Bishop Across the River Braxton. And the incarnate phrase is awkward--once again we look like jerks here, people, like mentioning that Jesus might have actually been born is such an uncomfortable topic to discuss that we have to hide it with a liturgical euphemism.

Yes, one of the lip-service reasons for these changes is to elevate the language and make it more ritualistic, which I'm all for, to a point. I'm not all for it when it comes to the creed. This is the CREED. This is what we believe. We should understand what we're saying if we're going to say what we believe. Which is why I get so annoyed when we drone on "God from God Light from Light True God from True God." Why do we mention God twice there? Why God and True God? What heresy have we forgotten that this stands against? I ask priests every so often (each change of pastor) and nobody seems to know. Not the point here (it says the same thing in Latin)--but I really feel like if I'm going to say WHAT I BELIEVE then I should use vernacular language. Not slang, not jive, but everyday speech. Incarnate and consubstantial are not in my everyday speech. One in being with the father might not be a phrase I'd use when chatting at coffee, but at least I would use the words.

I know I fear and loathe change. So I've sort of let go from engaging in this. It's one of those things, you know, I can't do anything about it and whatever. If it weren't for the Benedictines and Catechesis of the Good Shepherd and my parish I wouldn't be Catholic anyway--none of this really matters to me. I have many many opinions about the hierarchy, of course, and this just gets dumped on that steaming pile.

Like I said at the meeting, this isn't going to be the issue over which I'm drummed out of the Church. There are so many better reasons.

Monday, February 14, 2011

331/365 Novena Night One

Rachel's voice echoed through the barrel vaulted ceiling of our beautiful church in semi-darkness.

I couldn't help but engage.

Sunday, January 16, 2011

360/365 Benedictine Moments

I stay. I stayed this year. Several times, in fact. At several points, I had a choice presented to me to jump ship, change horses, experience the grass on the other side of the fence. And I never did.

Staying, or stability, is good and bad. The downsides are obvious to someone who has been lots of places and seen lots of things: sameness is dull. Staying put might mean missing a great opportunity. It's a bad idea to stay in a bad situation.

None of my situations were bad, or else I wouldn't have stayed. I say no to many things that I decide aren't a good idea as time goes on. I have chosen not to spend too much time with my too conservative relatives on important holidays. I just don't like them and I don't want to ruin Easter with that. I used to, but I decided it was time for a change--many years ago, not this past year. Just as an example.

My situations I decided to stay in this year are far more mundane than making a break like that. School choice. Irish dance school. Worship Commission. RCIA. Children's Liturgy. Girl Scouts.

Girl Scouts remains constant because I know the difference between hierarchy and local troop, just like I understand the difference in my church. I didn't jump ship and send Maeve to the French Immersion school, even though I was tempted, because we are invested in our school community--and there, stability paid off with good kindergarten teachers and my time not split between two locations. I stay in RCIA because I see others leave and I know it makes it harder on those who remain. Same with children's liturgy, although I also stay there because I know I'm good at it. Irish dance school--a few dancers from our school have bailed for a new school which would be a shorter drive and maybe a good choice, but I know the teacher at our school and Sophia didn't feel the need to leave. She just shrugged and said she was happy where she was. And so, so was I.

And I stay on Worship Commission because I won't let that woman win. Probably not the most Benedictine reason, but it does keep me there.