WELCOME !


WELCOME! CrossCurrents aims to provoke thought and enrich faith by interpreting current events in the light of Catholic tradition. I hope you find these columns both entertaining and clarifying. Your feedback and comments are welcome! See more about me and my work at http://home.comcast.net/~bfmswain/onlinestorage/index.html or contact me directly at bfswain@juno.com NOTE: TO READ OR WRITE COMMENTS, CLICK ON THE TITLE OF A POST.

Wednesday, February 17, 2010

#283: George Weigel: Noisy Catholicism?

EXCERPT: George Weigel has done it again--just in time for Lent! He has turned a perfectly sensible appeal for silent reflection and prayer during Lent into a rant aimed at a variety of Catholics whose behavior he deplores.

Liturgists and organists whose prayers, songs, or organ solos produce “all noise, all the time”; children, described as “squawking" twice),” “crying,” “fussing,” “fractious (twice),” and “caterwauling”; worshipers, whom he scolds for “chattering” before mass, “chattering” after the recessional “chattering” during the exchange of peace, “chattering with friends” while entering church, “chattering with neighbors” while leaving church—all these people become targets of George’s ire.

He argues that American culture now surrounds us with noise, citing airports filled with “TSA announcements, airline announcements, airport announcements, muzak, and the ubiquitous CNN-airport channel”—plus “squawking” children, loud conversations, and passengers yelling at cell phones. He concludes:

There is virtually no public space, outside art museums and courtrooms, where our aural senses are not under assault….Churches should be different.

Weigel gets no quarrel from me about the American “noise culture.” I agree with Weigel that environments free from “noise” are increasingly rare. I also half-agree that “churches should be different.” As sacred spaces reserved for sacred activities, it makes sense for churches to offer opportunities to escape the “noise culture” of the outside world.

Does this mean that Mass-time has been invaded by “the contemporary American noise culture”? Hardly!

In fact, the “noises” Weigel describes at church are either ancient (babies crying, people singing and praying) or else date from the liturgical reforms of Vatican II (congregants praying parts of the Mass aloud, speaking at the sign of peace, conversing before and after Mass, singing, even applauding). Everything Weigel complains about was quite commonplace in the churches I knew in the late 1960s and 1970s – well before TSA, CNN, and cell phones.

Then why complain about a lack of silence in church at Mass times? I suspect the clue is in Weigel’s comment that silence is “a way to ensure that you actually get a chance to pray yourself”—as if one only prays when left alone in peace and quiet. In this view, Weigel speaks for many Catholics who simply want to be left alone at Mass.

In fact, I am convinced Weigel uses “silence” as a code word for “private time and space.” And certainly, our spiritual life as Catholics can always benefit from more of that—especially as an antidote to our “noise culture.”

The trouble is, if one wants peace and quiet be alone with the Lord, Mass is neither the time nor the place to seek such privacy. As Vatican II made unmistakably clear:

Liturgical services are not private functions, but are celebrations of the Church, which is the “sacrament of unity,” namely, a holy people united and organized under their bishops…Therefore liturgical services pertain to the whole body of the Church…Communal celebration is to be preferred…to the celebration that is individual and quasi-private.
Vatican II, CONSTITUTION ON THE SACRED LITURGY, #26.

The key here is “communal celebration.” We gather together at Mass, not as random individuals seeking to pray by ourselves, but as a faithful community assembled to offer a communal celebration of the Eucharist which signifies and expresses our communion with Christ, his Father, his Spirit, and each other.

Those who prefer private prayer time with God would do better to come back some other time. Catholic tradition is rich with personal devotions and prayers, and an empty church is not hard to find these days. To insist on privacy during Mass implies one does not want a communal celebration at all.

11 comments:

  1. Alas, dear Swain, you seem to have imbibed a bit too deeply of the "Spirits" of Vatican II rather than simply digesting the documents. As such you're being a bit shifty here in order to imbue Article 26 of Sacrosanctum Concilium with a meaning that simply isn't there. Even in the "all-about-us" wonderland of the Conciliar Church, Art. 26 is no more than simply expressing a preference for Mass with a congregation rather than sine populo; it's hardly a rallying cry to the community to assemble and commune-on-demand.

    And surely you can't mean to imply that somewhere in S.C. one can find approbation for "speaking at the sign of peace (which in any event was not a group-participation activity in 1963), conversing before and after Mass... even applauding".

    Doesn't it speak volumes that the post-conciliar liturgical revolution, touted to increase paticipation, has actually resulted in fewer participants?

    Finally I'm saddened by the intolerance you display toward those with whom you disagree; "come back some other time" bespeaks an elitist ecclesiology actively inhospitable to those who aren't up to your level of enthusiasm for assembling and communing! Unfortunately that mindset is all too common amongst "involved" Catholics of a certain age.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Certainly there are moments during every Mass – no matter how vibrant and lively – when silence is called for. Such moments are in fact designated in the Church’s General Instruction of the Roman Missal.

    There are also moments when the majority of worshipers are silent because they are listing to a scripture reading, a prayer text, a homily, or music. No one can dispute that silence should be, and in fact is, a part of Mass.

    But moments of absolute silence are relatively rare and brief, and the assembled congregation is expected to actively participate with the presiding priest and other liturgical ministers by praying aloud or singing more than two dozen times during Mass. Add in greetings of peace, possible responses to questions, and greetings to others before and after Mass, and the time for breaking the silence heavily outweigh the times for keeping it.

    Weigel seems to find some conflict between the desire that Mass preserve solemn reverence and the tendency of contemporary Masses to be loud. But neither solemnity nor reverence requires silence. A Bach chorale might drown out any noise typical at Mass, yet no one would deny it is unfailingly reverent.

    I realize different people have different personal preferences for different styles of liturgy: short vs. long; organ hymns vs. popular music with modern instruments; large ornate spaces vs. simpler smaller ones.
    But the real issue here is not personal preference; it is the nature of liturgy itself. Mass is not primarily a time for private prayer. It is, by the Council's own definition, the public worship that we, the Church, offer our God.

    I vividly recall the days when priests at my Jesuit high school each celebrated Mass silently and alone at one of the twenty private altars in the school chapel. I also recall the good ladies who whiled away every Sunday Mass silently saying their rosaries. These were good Catholic people, and enjoyed their time alone with God. But their timing was badly off.

    Mass is not something I do alone – it is something we do together. When we do, we experience sacred time and sacred space in our church, not because we keep quiet, but because by gathering together we celebrate Christ’s presence among us:

    Christ is always present in His Church, especially in her liturgical celebrations. He is present in the sacrifice of the Mass …especially under the Eucharistic species…He is present in His word, since it is He Himself who speaks when the holy scriptures are read in the Church. He is present, lastly, when the Church prays and sings, for He promised: "Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them" (Matt. 18:20) [Vatican II, CONSTITUTION ON THE SACRED LITURGY, #7.]

    I stand by this distinction between public worship and private prayer.

    NOTE: MY suggestion to "come back at another time" was NOT ironic, let alone intolerant. When I need extended time for private prayer, I know most churches are empty 95% of the time, so I can be alone and have my silence.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Poor dear Bernie, I haven't seen you in years but you're still so deeply wedded to these novel ideas. What of Pope Benedict? He was a peritus for goodness sake, but eventually he realized how childish the whole post-Conciliar liturgical scene is. I'd like to think I did the same. If only the genii could be put back into the bottle.

    Re: your reply above, can it really be that my preference doesn't matter and that the "nature of liturgy" itself (defined by whom) is paramount? Must I conform or be cast out? Hasn't Holy Mother Church, in Her infinite mercy, got room for me as God made me and His Church formed me? I'm certain that many of the saints would feel alienated if they had been forced to experience the "splendor of the renewal".

    Speaking of saints I'm sure that you're aware that both St. Pio of Pietrelcina and St. Josemaria Escriva de Balaguer - the only two canonized saints who were priests who had the opportunity to celebrate the "reformed" liturgy - sought and received permission to continue using the 1962 Missal for the remainder of their lives... right?

    (I subsequently read Weigel's article and I must say that your response was a bit over the top old chap. One would think he called for the return of the Inquisition or at least the Tridentine Mass, when really he's quite on-target. But he seems to have really gotten under your skin.)

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hey Bernie,

    I was a member of a parish staff in Boston and you conducted a staff retreat for us in 2007. You were quite a powerful speaker, it was a wonder you didn't go into parliamnet.

    Anyway, I follow your blog every now and then and I can't believe it, but it looks like the bloke who has commented on your entry about George Weigel has defeated you. Man! He picked apart your entire argument up one side and down the other.

    Personally, I found your argument to be weak to begin with, but this guy just blew it out of the sky.

    Anyway, have a good day.

    ReplyDelete
  6. It is good to know this blog does not go unread. Too bad, though, when commentators rebut arguments I never made. While I did suspect that Weigel’s critique of “noise” over “silence” was camouflage for his real target, liturgical reforms, I did not defend those reforms. My remarks were not about any particular rite or version of the Mass – they were about liturgy in general as an action, not of individuals, but of the Body of Christ gathered in communion with its Head. Nothing newfangled or revolutionary in that; Vatican II was merely confirming the ancient tradition. Any distinction between “congregation” and “community-on-demand” is false: a congregation is precisely an assemblage gathered for communal action. That’s why Mass on live TV never “counted.” Bad logic will not prove that liturgical renewal “resulted in fewer participants,” or that the pre-conciliar style was more reverent or mysterious. By such reasoning, 1950s masses were superior simply because Catholics packed their churches and kept quiet – even though, nation-wide, 85% of them did not go to Communion, compared to well over 90% of congregants who DO go now. Catholic tradition embraces multiple Mass rites, and even varied versions of the Roman Rite (for those who prefer silence, “quiet” masses abound; every parish I know has at least one). But amid all the differences, the common bond is that the Eucharist is a Communion.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Ah, dear Bernie, I simply don't have time to get off onto tangents so I will try to lay this out as simply as possible. Your original posting projected all sorts of things onto Weigel's article which simply aren't there. "Rant"? "Ire"? Good heavens, man! You "suspect" a "clue" from a "code word" in Weigel's comment, and from these penumbral emanations you claim license to take umbrage at him for... ostensibly "speak[ing] for many Catholics who simply want to be left alone at Mass"? A lesser man would need an Olympic-record long jump to reach that conclusion!

    Pretty flimsy stuff, that, but it's your forum and you're certainly entitled to your opinion. However - aside from an animus toward Weigel and a predilection for anthropocentric liturgy - what's your point? I've read your original post several times - what on earth are you objecting to? The characterizaton of a certain level of extra-liturgical noise as a bad thing? The idea that somewhere, somebody might be less-than-sufficiently enthusiastic about the contemporary manner of "doing liturgy"? Well, it's a point of view!

    And since I obviously can't prove to your satisfaction that the liturgical reform resulted in fewer participants, please enlighten me: where did they go, and why did they leave? Perhaps it's all just a big coincidence but I doubt it - I lived through it too...

    ReplyDelete
  8. Two quick points: 1. There is nothing anthropocentric about my position. I do NOT believe the worshiping community is the OBJECT of liturgy; we are gathered to worship, not ourselves, but the Triune God. But the worshiping community IS the SUBJECT of liturgy---WE are worshiping together, which is a very different thing from when I pray by myself.

    2. The question of Mass attendance is important and complex, and certainly cannot be explained away by a "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" argument about liturgical reform. I have written about it before, and will again. For now, I will say this: among the several factors contributing to lower attendance, the earliest was a lost sense that missing Mass was a mortal sin, and the most recent was the priestly/episcopal sex abuse scandal. Both, I submit, have more to do with Catholics' moral sensibilities than with their liturgical preferences.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Non propter my foot. It's inconceivable that one can radically change the externals of public worship without affecting belief and practice. The architects of the reforms knew this quite well. One doesn't need to know their intent to judge their results: near-decimation of Mass attendance and vocations. If the implementation of the reforms wasn't the prime factor in the debacle, ‘twould be the biggest co-incidence since the unknown guy with the same DNA as O.J. Simpson killed O.J.’s wife!

    Paul VI wept, John Paul II actually apologized - unprecedented! Some guy named Ratzinger wrote quite plainly: "I am convinced that the crisis in the Church that we are experiencing today is to a large extent due to the disintegration of the liturgy". Tell HIM 'post hoc'! But this is the same guy who also thinks that "The greatness of the liturgy depends... on its unspontaneity" so something tells me he's on a different wavelength that you are dear fellow.

    I once thought as you did. Maybe that makes me a real "Recovering Catholic". Peace to you old chum!

    ReplyDelete
  10. And I doubt you can cite a contemporaneous source from the 1950's which proves that 85% of Catholics refrained from Communion on Sundays. I'd sooner bet that 85% went to Confession every Saturday...

    ReplyDelete
  11. Hey Bernie,
    I think you should admit defeat at this point. I find your replies to be getting weaker and weaker! Whoever is commenting on this weeks entry is doing quite a number on you.

    ReplyDelete