To tamper with religious ritual can have
a devastating effect on
a faith community and be of great detriment to souls.

Changing liturgical rites

By Michael P. Orsi

The purpose of the liturgy is to focus us on Christ’s Paschal Mystery. It is designed to take us out of self and to immerse us into the Transcendent. The very structure of any ritual, its different parts, use of language and appointments is geared toward a locus of consummation that accentuates its purpose (Pickstock, C., 1998). Any addition or subtraction from this sacred drama not only distracts from but also distorts the truth that the liturgical action is supposed to convey. Cultural anthropologists who study ritual have provided an abundance of empirical data attesting to its formative power in shaping human self-understanding and how people think about the world (Rappaport, R.A., 1999). Therefore, to tamper with religious ritual can have a devastating effect on a faith community and be of great detriment to souls. So aware were the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council of the inherent dangers of liturgical innovation that in “Sacrosanctum Concilium,” the document on the liturgy, they stated, “no one, not even a priest, may add, remove, or change anything on his own authority” (26, #3).

I offer this as a prelude to a discussion of three unauthorized accretions to Catholic liturgical practice that have become so widespread and indeed expected that when informed clergy try to dissuade their usage they are met with incredulity as to their illegitimacy, outrage at being denied what people perceive to be a right, and accusations of downright meanness on the part of priests and deacons who try to prohibit them. I speak of 1) The use of the Unity Candle at weddings; 2) The blessing of children at Communion time; and 3) Eulogies given by family and friends after the closing prayer at a Mass of Christian Burial. All three of these practices, it should be noted, have their genesis in Protestant churches which have either limited or no sacramental life. In any case however it can be safely said that these churches lack a Catholic understanding of sacraments and sacramental imagination (Greeley, A., 2000) No one would deny that in themselves these acts are at least innocuous, probably meaningful and very beautiful when well done. Nevertheless, in the wrong context they can be liturgically devastating (Irwin, K.W., 1994). As the old adage goes, “there is a time and a place for everything.” The Mass then as ritual is not the setting for extra-added actions. To make my point I will examine each of these acts in light of a) the present culture assumptions that promote these acts, b) the inherent catechetical implications, and c) possible pastoral solutions.

It looks nice

If any one word could describes our contemporary culture it is the word “shallow.” No doubt television has played an important part. This visual media has caused a shift from the power of words to the power of the image. It has had a significant effect on how people worship, and in the end one must wonder whether society’s insatiable appetite for the visual, at the expense of the verbal, has diminished peoples’ capacity for faith. The mega-churches are a case in point of how state of the art technology has transformed liturgy and belief. The giant video screen has a prominent place in the sanctuary. The theology these mega-churches present can best be termed “lite” with little focus on doctrine and no mention of other worldly goals. These churches are usually non-denominational and serve as community centers. They promote the secular religion of human self-actualization with their basic tenets grounded in pop-psychology. Their therapeutic creed borrows selectively from scripture to promote their programs and lends a veneer of ecclesial legitimacy. For them image is what is important.

While Catholic ritual is sensitive to the visual it is secondary to the “word” since we are a “Worded” people formed by the Word of God. In Genesis, the “Dabar” or creative Word of God made all things. Throughout Scripture it is the Word that established the various covenants and finally Jesus is called by John the “Word of God.” Mimetic of this concept of “Word” each of the sacraments uses words with specifically defined matter to effectuate the reality of their specific communication of grace; in Baptism the formula “I baptize you. . . ,” in the Eucharist “This is my body. . . “ and so forth for the other sacraments. In marriage it is the powerful words, “I take you to be my husband/wife,” of the man and woman that create a new entity forming a bond that can never be broken. Words have a transcendent value that no material image or tableau can match or improve upon which is what the Wedding or Unity Candle attempts to do. The candle lacks validity because it is limited, fragile, material and thus misleading. Its power is simply in show and thus it minimizes the awesomeness of the preceding exchange of the worded vow. This visual ceremony can overwhelm language and overshadow the reality created by the form of the sacrament.

Unfortunately lighting of the Unity Candle after the vows has grown in such proportion that it has gained prominence over the essential part of the marriage ritual. So much so that it has become in the mind of many a sine qua non for weddings. This photo-op has even expanded in some cases to include the mothers of the bride and groom, long explanations of the candles symbolism, and accompanying background music. In many cases, dealing with both the churched, those having a Catholic educational background, and even more so with under-churched Catholics, candle lighting has not only minimized the vows but has supplanted, in the minds of many, the Nuptial Mass.

The Rite of Marriage is so arranged that the Liturgy of the Word sets the context for the worded covenant to be established by the man and a woman. After the readings and the marriage instruction the stage is now set for its culmination in the sacramental moment of the exchange of vows. This is the highpoint of the ritual, the words “I take you to be my wife. . . I take you to be my husband. . .” now form a new reality in Christ. The simple exchange of rings that follows, though not a necessary gesture, designates the couple’s new status and exclusive commitment to each other. To add any other symbolic act after this is anticlimactic and diminishes what has already taken place.

Since people have come to expect this, in part due to poor catechesis, the use of popular marriage manuals which designate the Unity Candle as an option, e.g., Together for Life, or simply because couples have seen it done at weddings they attended, the priest or deacon has to be willing to explain why this cannot happen in the church ceremony. Clergy should expect anger and resistance from some couples since this is in their minds the anticipated high point of the ceremony. These couples should be allowed to question and vent their feelings. Answers should be presented gently but firmly as to why the candle ceremony is inappropriate. Pastors should then suggest that the lighting of the Wedding Candle take place at their reception and try to make the case that, in some way, this can connect the events of the liturgy with the wedding banquet to follow. Pastors should explain how within the context of the reception this can take place before or after grace and that it will have an impact on the guests. In doing this words and symbols will not be confused and the sacramental event will not be diminished. The candle also can serve to solemnize the wedding reception and allow for beautiful photographs. Yes, people can have their wedding cake and eat it too! This usually satisfies most couples and even their mothers.

Something for everybody

A second area of concern is the growing practice of blessing children, who have not yet received First Holy Communion, as they accompany adults on the Communion line. The underlying thought is that no one should be left out of anything. It reflects a something for everybody mentality that has grown in our culture. It is almost inconceivable for some people to think that there are those who for one reason or other are ineligible to take part in certain things so we create new venues for inclusiveness. This stems from the philosophy of egalitarianism. This ethos presumes equivalency of persons, culture and religion. It denies difference and therefore deference. It has caused a breakdown in respect by the young for their elders and those in authority; it promotes multiculturalism to the detriment of Western Civilization’s Judeo-Christian values; and has led to religious indifferentism.

The communion ritual is designed for a specific purpose, i.e., to receive Holy Communion. The entire Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist prepare us for this moment. Everything to this point in the ritual is building toward the crescendo of receiving the Body and Blood of Christ; to be in communion with God and one another in an extraordinary sacramental way. The words and gestures of those distributing and those receiving the Eucharist are therefore simple and direct in order to make a point and guarantee that there is no ambiguity as to what is taking place. Any deviation in word or action becomes a distraction and a source of confusion. Is the uniqueness of the moment compromised by disruptive and distracting blessings? Does this affect the Eucharistic piety of the priests, deacons and ministers distributing the Eucharist? To all the above the answer is yes! Perhaps this example will make the picture clearer. Suppose you are attending a Mozart concert and there are children present. The conductor wants to be inclusive and sensitive to the young people so from time to time he has the orchestra switch the score from Mozart to some Sesame Street tunes. This would be certainly doing violence to Mozart’s music and ruin the mood and beauty of the concert.

Pastorally it is necessary to explain the Rite of Communion as a time to receive Communion and nothing more. It is also important to explain that everyone in the church is blessed at the end of Mass. Those who demand a personal blessing for their child should be encouraged to come to the priest or deacon after Mass and a blessing should be gladly given. This may be done in a group or individually as children leave Mass with their parents. The Book of Blessings (1989) provides some beautiful models. This should assuage many who want something special since they couldn’t receive communion. It is also in keeping with the long tradition of priestly and deaconal blessings distributed to those who ask and to children in particular.

The last hurrah

Lastly, there is a growing custom for family members and friends to deliver a eulogy or eulogies after the closing prayer at the Mass of Christian Burial. The Order of Christian Funerals states, “a member or friend of the family may speak in remembrance of the deceased” (#170, p. 89). Liturgists in a recent Catholic News Service survey contend that this provision should be understood as permitting brief, simple remarks, not a full eulogy (The Catholic Standard and Times, April 27, 2000, p. 2).

Sadly, experience has shown how rubrics not tightly defined or controlled by a competent authority can be so transmogrified that they become destructive to the liturgical experience. This is the case here; first of all, since at many funerals the number of speakers has grown far above the “a” meaning “one,” and secondly, often the content of “the remembrance” has become at best a eulogy extolling the deceased and at a worst trite and even sometimes quite inappropriate.

This phenomenon is driven by a philosophy of materialism. Materialism is man centered and has a earthly vision of human existence limited to the here and now. Because of this vision it can only focus on memories. This worldview requires a speaker familiar with the deceased who is able to speak of past events, the fun, and of course the character who is now gone. The recurring themes are “Our memories are all we have. We had some great times. We’ll have some more fun in the next life, if there is one, where we’ll continue to have fun.” In the eyes of many this is a memorial service. The priest and the liturgy are for many simply de rigeur. Christ himself has become superfluous. This is about the deceased, his earthly life accomplishment, friends, family and their common experiences. Few speakers mention heaven, if they do its not the Christian concept, or ask for prayers for the deceased. “The rewards of the next life seem to be considered just as more intense and longer lasting pleasures than this one” (Taylor, C., 1989, p. 267). Under these circumstances the eulogy basically serves as therapy. It is the substitution that a society based on materialism offers for traditional religion. For many the remembrance is an attempt to deal with personal feelings of loss and grief by people who have lost faith in life after death in and with Christ. This is essentially insulting to the Mass. It distorts the liturgy’s purpose, which is to celebrate Christ’s Paschal Mystery, to offer prayers for the soul of the deceased who may be in Purgatory (what’s that?) and to proclaim the Christian hope of sharing in Christ’s Resurrection (Pieper, J., 2000). When the “remarks of remembrance” detract from the mystery celebrated by length of time or content they effectively replace Christ as the central theme of the Mass and eliminate the primary consolation that faith in him has to offer.

How then are we to curtail this practice? First, bishops must require diocesan liturgists to correctly explain what this option “may speak in remembrance of the deceased” means. It is simply meant to be a few words on behalf of the deceased and the deceased’s family. It should not exceed a few minutes. It should also not be a time for the reading of poetry or letters. The designated speaker should not use this time to grandstand, exercise rhetorical or creative writing skills or crack jokes. Most people are not professional speakers nor are they trained in Catholic theology. In order to guard against inappropriate comments and to guard the content of faith and the sacred context in which the words are spoken pastors should meet with and guide the one who is to deliver the comments beforehand. It is also wise to ask them to put their comments in writing. One typed written page should be the limit. Although, whenever someone gets before a microphone it is hard to control what they say and how long they will speak. Because of this the better pastoral solution is to encourage eulogies and other comments to be made at the funeral home. This is the proper forum since it delineates the sacred and the secular environment (see Meis, J.A., 2000, p. 28).

Pastors must remain firm. No doubt some people will be angry. Some will protest “after all he’s my dad, she’s mom I have a right to speak!” Its almost like this is our show. Priests have to emphasize that this is Christ’s event and the Church’s celebration. Our faith, celebrated in the liturgy, is the only consolation we have as Christians. To continue to tolerate this rapidly growing and volatile addition to the liturgy is to subtract from the truth the liturgy is designed to convey — the awesome mystery of Eternal Life it proclaims for those who have died in Christ.

Catechesis on these points should begin immediately in parish bulletins and from the pulpit. Guidelines should be put in writing to prospective brides and grooms stating the reasons for not allowing the Unity Candle. It is wise to have the couple sign the parish regulations before they make any further wedding plans. Parishioners should also be instructed as to the single focus of the Communion Rite both for spiritual and practical reasons. Pastors should offer to bless all children after Mass with a blessing out of the Book of Blessings especially designed for them. And, finally pastors should provide in writing for funeral directors and for families of the deceased guidelines for “words of remembrance” to be delivered at the funeral liturgy. To allow these unauthorized additions to continue will further confuse the faithful and subtract from the sacramental life of the Church.  

References

Barzun, J., (2000). From Dawn to Decadence. 1500 to the Present: 500 Years of Western Cultural Life. NY: Harper-Collins Publishers.

Book of Blessings (1989). Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press.

Greeley, A., (2000). The Catholic Imagination. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Irwin, K.W. (1994). Context and Text: Method in Liturgical Theology. Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press.

Meis, J.A., (Dec. 2000). “Funeral Celebrations,” Homiletic and Pastoral Review, pp. 26-32.

Order of Christian Funerals (1989). Chicago. Liturgy Training Publications.

Pickstock, C., (1998). After Writing: On the Liturgical Consummation of Philosophy. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers Inc.

Pieper, J., (2000). Death and Immortality. South Bend, IN: St. Augustine’s Press.

Rappaport, R.A. (1999). Ritual and Religion in The Making of Humanity. Cambridge, U.K., Cambridge University Press.

Standard and Times (2000, April 17). “Brief, Simple Remarks at Irish Funerals.”

Taylor, C., (1989). Sources of the Self: The Making of Modern Identity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Reverend Michael P. Orsi, a priest of the Diocese of Camden, N.J., is the author of four books and many articles. He has served as Assistant Chancellor and Director of the Family Life Bureau. Fr. Orsi has a Ph.D. in education from Fordham University. He is presently serving as Chaplain and Research Fellow in Law and Religion at Ave Maria School of Law, Ann Arbor, Mich.