By now, many readers will have heard about the draft liturgical policy, “‘Go In Peace, Glorifying the Lord By Your Life’: A Pastoral Letter on the Celebration of the Liturgy”, produced by Bishop Michael Martin of the Diocese of Charlotte, and the firestorm it has ignited.
At the outset, I want to clarify a few points. First, the document on which I shall reflect is a draft text; second, Bishop Martin presented it to a subcommittee of the Presbyteral Council for their comments; third, this text was subsequently leaked to the public.
Sources present for the discussion between the Bishop and the priests have indicated that he seemed open to their input (which was almost universally negative). So, how much of the clerical reaction will be reflected in a final document is an unknown, or if there will even be a final document. That said, I think it is still important to comment on the text as offered to the clergy because it reveals the Bishop’s mindset on matters liturgical—a troubling mindset, maintained by not a few of a certain generation.
A problematic and troubling document
Let me state unequivocally that this is one of the worst liturgical texts I have ever encountered, which is saying a lot, given my involvement in the “liturgy wars” for over four decades. Further, the Bishop was fortunate to inherit a thriving diocese, with a burgeoning Catholic school system and a glut of seminarians, causing me to have recourse to the adage, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”
What Bishop Martin seeks to set as particular law for the Diocese of Charlotte for the “Ordinary Form” of the Mass ought also to be interpreted in light of his near-total shutdown of the “Extraordinary Form” of the Mass.
So, here goes my commentary (generally presented in parentheses and in italics, if following a direct citation of the Pastoral Letter).
- The Bishop’s mantra throughout is his reliance on three adjectives, “full, conscious, and active” participation, coming from the Vatican II Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, 14, from which he then draws the following conclusion: “These three words taken together are the heart and foundation of my following reflections and instructions on the sacred liturgy in our diocese.” One must ask, however, what those words mean. At a 2003 liturgical conference in Paris, I delivered a major paperon that theme; to wit, in Reader’s Digest form, “active” would be better translated as “actual” to reflect the original Latin and the entire trajectory of that word from the time it was first used by Pope Pius X in his liturgy motu proprioof 1903. So, if the guiding principle is flawed, what follows will inevitably be flawed.
- He critiques those who make liturgical practices based on personal “preferences,” yet that is exactly what he does repeatedly as he attempts to make his “preferences” matters of law for his diocese. In Pope Leo’s homily to the cardinals, the pontiff warned that a shepherd should never be an “autocrat.” Bishop Martin goes on to say that what he is proposing is “in communion” with Pope Francis and “my brother bishops.” However, I am unaware of any bishop (even the most “liberal”) who has legislated such drastic measures. He justifies his behavior by reminding all that he is “the moderator of the liturgy” in his diocese, as well as the “chief liturgist,” which is true. Once again, however, if he is claiming those titles, what he mandates must be in accord with established norms and not his “preferences” or the “whims” against which he rails later on.
- “I ask all of us to reacquaint ourselves with Sacrosanctum Concilium, the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, which is of utmost importance and from which so much of the Church’s liturgical life flows.” Indeed. And if that were the guiding principle of his pastoral letter, most of his proposals would not stand, inasmuch as the conciliar Constitution either does not mention his concerns or directly contradicts them.
- Very oddly, he consistently refers to the “ordinary” form of the Mass as the Novus Ordo,seemingly unmindful that this designation is often used by would-be traditionalists as a cudgel to condemn that rite!
- Material on Latin in the Sacred Liturgy is particularly problematic; indeed, it exhibits a most unhealthy neuralgia. The Bishop makes assertions about Vatican II’s directives relative to the vernacular that have no basis in the conciliar texts. He also posits dubious motives for those desirous of using Latin (not unlike the recently deceased Pontiff)—that is, he operates from a hermeneutic of suspicion (Francis suggested mental illness!).
A sampling of what I mean:
- “. . . the faithful’s full, conscious, and active participation is hindered wherever Latin is employed..” (What is gratuitously asserted may be gratuitously denied.)
- “Most of our faithful do not understand and will never comprehend the Latin language, especially those on the periphery. It is fallacious to think that if we employ Latin more frequently, the faithful will get used to it and finally understand it. Our ancestors ‘heard’ the Mass in Latin every Sunday but never understood it.” (Firstly, it is deeply offensive to suggest that “those on the periphery” [presumably Hispanics] are dumber than Anglos! Secondly, even as a second-grader, already praying the Mass in Latin, I knew very well what was being said.)
- “Full, conscious, and active participation in a liturgy that uses Latin would require each person to learn the Latin language, which is an impossible request.” (One doesn’t need a doctorate in Latin to understand what is being celebrated. In point of fact, one can make the case that the comprehensibility of the Latin prayers is easier today after six decades of the vernacular than it would have been in the pre-conciliar period. If the Bishop wants to demand total fluency in a language, then he might have to curtail celebration of Mass in Spanish by priests who lack the requisite fluency, which is probably the majority, or of many Hispanic youth who attend a Mass in Spanish but who have only a marginal understanding of the language!)
- “So many of our faithful simply walk away when they don’t understand the language and then miss out on the other beautiful aspects of the liturgical celebration.” (In reality, pastors all over the country can document the very opposite, namely, that use of Latin in the liturgy attracts folk; it doesn’t repel them—and that is especially true of those under the age of 30.)
- “The Church does not, however, call for the Latin language to be used widely in the liturgy. On the contrary, we are called to use languages that our people understand. I cannot comprehend why a vocal minority of the faithful who themselves admit to not understanding Latin would advocate a revival of the Latin language within our diocese, rendering the liturgy unintelligible for all but a few of our people. Moreover, as a diocese that is comprised of so many immigrants, we would be imposing on them an even greater burden. Not only are they trying to learn English and assimilate into our culture, but then they have another language imposed upon them that is foreign.” (As I shall demonstrate shortly, the Church does indeed call for a wide use of Latin in the liturgy. Beyond that, I don’t know anyone calling for Latin who claims not to know what is being prayed. And, again, a perhaps unintentional put-down of immigrants. Ironically, Hispanics can comprehend Latin more readily than English, given the Latin roots of their mother tongue.)
- “. . . there are several places that are introducing Latin Mass responses, Latin Ordinary chants, Latin antiphons, and even the Memorial Acclamation and Our Father. Latin polyphony and motets are being sung at the Offertory and during the distribution of Holy Communion. All these parts are rendered less engaging by the use of Latin.” (These are the very parts of the Mass specifically and repeatedly called for to be sung in Latin. In 1974, Pope Paul VI issued Jubilate Deo, a document offering these very items as a “minimum repertoire of Gregorian chant” for the use of the faithful. Every pope since Vatican II has had these parts sung in Latin consistently (even Francis); when Pope Leo took possession of the Lateran Basilica and presided over the priestly ordinations for the Diocese of Rome last week, although the Mass was largely in Italian, the very parts identified by Bishop Martin as inappropriate to be in Latin were, in fact, sung in Latin.)
Strangely, the Bishop ignores the guidance offered by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops in their 2007 document: “Sing to the Lord: Music in Divine Worship,” where we read the following:
- . . . care should be taken to foster the role of Latin in the Liturgy, particularly in liturgical song. Pastors should ensure “that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.” They should be able to sing these parts of the Mass proper to them, at least according to the simpler melodies.
- At international and multicultural gatherings of different language groups, it is most appropriate to celebrate the Liturgy in Latin, “with the exception of the readings, the homily and the prayer of the faithful.” In addition, “selections of Gregorian chant should be sung” at such gatherings, whenever possible.
- To facilitate the singing of texts in Latin, the singers should be trained in its correct pronunciation and understand its meaning. To the greatest extent possible and applicable, singers and choir directors are encouraged to deepen their familiarity with the Latin language.
- “The use of Latin in our parishes fosters two unacceptable tendencies. The first is a rejection of the Novus Ordo Missae. When Latin is used in our parishes, other elements of the Missal of 1962 are always interwoven into it. Latin is not being used in our liturgies for its own sake but seems to be a way to incorporate older customs and actions which are not prescribed in our current liturgical books. Second, pastoral leaders who use Latin in the liturgy are creating within their own communities a divide between the haves and have nots: those who understand and those who do not understand. This fosters a clericalism that is unacceptable because, sadly, the priests are those who are more likely to understand while the faithful remain left out. Latin diminishes the role of the laity in the Mass. They are deprived of the full, conscious, and active participation of which they have a lawful right.” (This is a particularly offensive paragraph as it clearly posits ill will of those promoting the Latin language. Elements of the 1962 Missal are “always interwoven.” I find that hard to believe, but if they are, they should be stopped. Pope Benedict XVI was quite clear that there should be no mixing of the two forms of the Roman Rite. The Bishop goes on to repeat his assertion that use of Latin is an example of some kind of “classism” and even “clericalism.”)
On the matter of the “cross-pollination of the liturgical rites”
The “Pastoral Letter” moves into a second phase with a discussion of “cross-pollination of the liturgical rites.”
Firstly, the Bishop takes umbrage at the fact that some priests have told their people that “it is better to receive the Holy Eucharist kneeling, on the tongue, from the priest, and even at an altar rail.” Of course, it is “better” to receive Holy Communion on the tongue, and the evidence for that is that reception on the hand is granted only by way of indult (which is the canonical equivalent of a grudging permission).
And, yes, it is better to receive from a priest because, in the vast majority of instances, there is no objective reason to have an extraordinary minister. The 1997 interdicasterial document, Ecclesia de Mysterio, indicates that, among other practices to be eliminated, is “the habitual use of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion at Mass thus arbitrarily extending the concept of ‘a great number of the faithful,’” He maintains, however, that eliminating extraordinary ministers “frustrate[s] the ability of the faithful to receive Holy Communion under both species.” Not really, because a viable option exists in the distribution of Communion by intinction, whereby the priest dips the Sacred Host into the chalice and places It directly onto the tongue of the recipient (the procedure used in all the other 22 rites of the Catholic Church—and Orthodox).
Eastern Catholics (and Orthodox), before receiving Holy Communion (which is only given directly into the mouth), make a profound bow (which is their sign of adoration), not a nod of the head! In the Western Church, the sign of adoration is genuflection or kneeling. And, as St. Augustine reminds us, “let no one receive who has not first adored.”
The Bishop likewise bemoans the phasing out of altar girls in many parishes, going so far as to declare later in the document that “no one may be denied a liturgical role proper to the faithful based on their gender”! While it is true that a 1994 document of the Holy See permitted female servers, a subsequent document in 2001 clarified that no priest may ever be forced to celebrate Holy Mass with a female server; in other words, it is not a decision of an episcopal conference, or a bishop, or a pastor, but of each individual celebrant.
Amazingly, he alleges that all these matters (extraordinary ministers, altar girls, etc.) were “brought about at the behest of the Second Vatican Council.” An outrageous claim, for there is not a single word in any conciliar document even hinting at any one of those practices.
Martin expresses concern that some priests eliminate the offertory procession and the sign of peace. However, neither of these is required, and the sign of peace is clearly left to the discretion of the celebrant by the rubrics. “‘Fiddleback’ chasubles, crossed stoles, server gloves, and the maniple” are all verboten, says he. “Fiddlebacks,” more properly called the Roman style, are not forbidden and are in use all over the world (even donned by “liberal” priests). 1 I don’t know how he includes “server gloves” in the laundry list, but they are never mentioned anywhere. The other items, however, he is correct on: there is no provision in the current liturgy for the use of birettas, crossed stoles or maniples—and, therefore, they should not be used. Why? Because rubrics tell us what to do and not what not to do.
Very oddly, he then instructs the priests not to pray the vesting prayers, formerly required. Whether or not those prayers are said has absolutely no impact on the laity. Why intrude on the personal piety of a priest? He then goes on to suggest that, instead of those prayers, the priest pray with any and all liturgical ministers before leaving the sacristy. Where is that called for? It is no more sanctioned than the vesting prayers. Or, why can’t a priest do both?
We are next told that “the music chosen should encourage signing [sic], not simply listening.” From what document is that directive drawn? Its inspiration lies in the faulty psychological and pedagogical assumption that “listening” is a passive action, which it is not. In fact, listening can actually engage a person more fully than singing, all things being equal.
Like the Cardinal-Archbishop of Chicago, he then takes aim at the St. Michael prayer because it is no longer required after Mass—granted—but he proceeds, once more, to second-guess devotees of the prayer by suggesting that they want that prayer because they think “that the Eucharistic liturgy is somehow insufficient to bring about the scattering of evil.” I have never heard anyone make such a connection and, certainly, that was not in the mind of Pope Leo XIII, who wrote the prayer and added it to the conclusion of a Low Mass! Since the period after Communion is open for the recitation of any kind of prayer, the St. Michael prayer could be done even in that spot, let alone at the end of Mass.
Next, we get to the truly neuralgic issue of “The Altar and Its Orientation,” where the Bishop loses his own orientation as he declares, “the Council requires visual engagement. For this reason, the Church has been clear that ad orientem is not appropriate.”2 Who has ever said that? In what document? In reality, the rubrics of the current form of the Mass presume that the priest is not facing the people during the Liturgy of the Eucharist as it instructs him several times to “turn and face the people” for a greeting or blessing!
At any rate, he declares that an ad orientem celebration “has not been permitted and will not be permitted in the future in any public chapel, church, or oratory in the Diocese of Charlotte.” But there is more: “Moreover, it is important that the altar of sacrifice be free of any visual impairment. Candles, standing crucifixes, and Missal stands all impede the ability of the faithful to see the Eucharistic elements.”
And then comes this supposed historical factoid: “These elements were all incorporated into the Roman Rite when it was offered ad orientem, but they no longer are needed. . . .” What he describes is precisely what Pope Benedict XVI recommended, thus becoming known as “the Benedictine arrangement.” Actually, the placement of candles on the altar is the first option which the General Instruction of the Roman Missal envisions (allowing for candles to be placed around or near the altar). Banning a missal stand? And what does any of that have to do with the old rite?
Puzzling prescriptions
At last, we arrive at “Conclusion and Prescriptions,” which section is almost as long as what has preceded, beginning with this blast: “It is unjust for the people of God to be subjected to older liturgical practices, musical selections, and ancient languages that were intentionally reformed or eliminated from the Novus Ordo Missae.” Once more, he makes unsupported declarations, which are likewise unsupportable from any factual or objective perspective. Many items in this section repeat policies already enunciated earlier.
Altar rails are not permitted and, where possible, are to be removed. Even more draconian: “The placement of a prei dieu [sic] for the reception of communion is not appropriate.” In other words, the priest should be so inhospitable as to make it as difficult as possible for his people to receive Holy Communion.
The minutiae continue:
- “When a cross cannot be placed near the altar, it is to be laid flat on the mensa so that the faithful’s view is not obstructed.”
- “In Masses with the faithful, the vernacular is to be retained for all parts of the Mass. Latin Mass parts are to be chosen judiciously only for those particular celebrations in which the majority of the participants understand the language.”
- “I direct that the faithful always be invited by the deacon or, in his absence, the priest, to exchange the sign of peace during Sunday and holy day Masses” (although the rubric leaves this to the judgment of the celebrant).
- “The ringing of a bell(s) to signal the congregation to stand before the Opening Hymn is no longer to be used at any Mass. A verbal welcome by the Lector (or other suitable minister) followed by an indication of the hymn to be sung and an invitation to stand is most appropriate and should be normative at all Masses” (I have never heard of anyone being bothered by the ringing of a bell!).
- “Women who have chosen to wear a veil as an expression of personal piety are not to do so when they are assisting in any official capacity (lector, cantor, altar server, usher, etc.) at Mass” (Really?).
- An even stronger ban on Latin is reiterated, but with an additional rationale: “Even in places where they have become used to it (meaning, singing Latin responses) by more recent practice, this becomes problematic for visitors and/or new parishioners or those coming to the faith for the first time.” (What about visitors accustomed to Latin in their home parishes and not finding such in Charlotte?)
- With another salvo into the issue of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion, the Bishop writes that reducing their number is “an affront.”
- Altar servers are forbidden to “kneel in front of the altar during the Eucharistic Prayer.” (even though, as recently as last week, they did so at all the papal Masses in Rome)
- “The use of communion pattens [sic] by altar servers is to be implemented judiciously. . . .” (Patens are required by the General Instruction, not optional)
Finally, we are introduced to the Bishop’s self-acknowledged “Liturgical Preferences,” not binding norms. (As though what has preceded has not been merely “preferences” since most of the “norms” have no grounding in universal liturgical law):
- No separate “patten” [sic] for the celebrant’s host.
- No ciboria that resemble chalices.
- No use of a pall (unless insects are present!).
- Communicants should not make the sign of the cross after receiving Holy Communion.
- Worship aids should not contain the Scripture readings since they should be listened to and not read. (Even though any educational psychologist will tell you that the more senses one engages, the deeper the impact of the message.)
A final assessment
This is a most puzzling document for many reasons.
Firstly, the Bishop most assuredly did not take into account the theological and liturgical orientation of his clergy. And, if he did, his agenda can only be categorized as lacking in pastoral prudence, at best, or tyrannical, at worst. As I noted earlier, the Charlotte Diocese is one of the healthiest in the country, precisely because of the orthodoxy of her clergy and their sensitivity and appreciation for beauty and tradition.
Secondly, while the Bishop castigates those who introduce practices he does not like for imposing their “preferences” on the people, he does the very same thing throughout. Most importantly a bishop cannot contravene universal liturgical law.
Thirdly, his own liturgical language is rather traditional (and even poetic at times), as he speaks of “the altar of sacrifice,” “a new Calvary,” “a new Bethlehem.” That said, his liturgical praxis can be called into question (e.g., he regularly walks around during the homily, in spite of the rubric indicating that a bishop’s homily is to be delivered, either from his chair or from the ambo).
Fourthly, he fails to realize that banning many of the practices he finds offensive will drive many parishioners into the Extraordinary Form of the Mass (if they can get to the one site he now permits) or directly into the arms of the Lefevrists.
Finally, he is counting on the unquestioning obedience of his clergy. However, obedience is to be reasoned to and thus be seen as reasonable. Demanding unreasoned obedience is nothing less than episcopal bullying. Those exercising authority in the Church need to take seriously the adage: “I have no obligation to obey what you have no right to command.”
As I mentioned at the outset, some of the priests perceived a listening attitude on the part of the Bishop as he was confronted with the near-universal objection to this document. Going forward, he should keep in mind that maxim attributed to St. Augustine:
In necessariis, unitas. (In necessary things, unity)
In dubiis, libertas. (In doubtful things, freedom)
In omnibus, caritas. (In all things, charity)
And thus, episcopal preferences should never and can never become law.
Endnotes:
1For the record, I don’t generally wear them because I prefer the fuller Gothic style and often joke when asked why I don’t like them I say that it is because I am not a “modernist,” inasmuch as the Roman style was an invention of the sixteenth century, while the Gothic (or even the “conical” style) goes back to the earliest days of formal liturgical vesture.
2For those not conversant with the “liturgy wars,” offering Holy Mass ad orientem (facing eastward) refers to the priest and people facing the same direction, or, put in other terms, that the priest does not face the people during the Liturgy of the Eucharist.