LETTERS
2004 LETTERS
December
October
September
July/August
June
May
April
March
January
ARTICLES
NEWS
ROAMIN' CATHOLIC
Contents © 2004
by Jim Holman.
All rights reserved.
LETTERS
June 2004
KNEELING IN ROME AND L.A.
The discussion on the posture during Mass in the April issue of Mission in "It's Awkward Kneeling in the Catacombs" and the letter from Patrick F. Flynn in the May issue are interesting for what they omitted. In the April article a sentence from Section 43 of the new General Instruction of the Roman Missal is quoted with the last part of the sentence omitted. The whole sentence reads, "the faithful kneel after Agnus Dei unless the diocesan bishop determines otherwise." Our bishop has determined otherwise.
It was a revelation to me when I read the General Instruction to find that the basic instruction in Section 43 is "the faithful would stand ... from the invitation, Orate, fratres (Pray brethren), before the prayer over the offerings until the end of Mass, except at places indicated below." If I read this correctly it means you would stand through the whole Eucharistic prayer and communion. (The omitted words relate to posture during the Liturgy of the Word and other parts of the Mass that are not part of this discussion.
Among the "places indicated below" is "...as circumstances allow, they may sit or kneel while the period of silence after communion is observed."
After these instructions is the paragraph about posture in the United States: "...they should kneel after the singing or recitation of the Sanctus until after the Amen of the Eucharistic Prayer." The instruction about the Agnus Dei is in this paragraph.
So it seems that in Rome they would stand from the "pray brethren" until after communion. Then, I presume, Cardinal Ratzinger would kneel.
Barbara Durand,
Thousand Oaks
Editor responds: It is correct that the General Instruction, as adapted to dioceses in the United States, allows the local ordinary to determine whether the faithful shall kneel after the Agnus Dei, when the Host is upheld before the people. Our article did not point this out. The article asked the question why Cardinal Mahony would not want the faithful to kneel before their Lord when He is upheld to their gaze -- especially when the norm in the United States is for the people to kneel. Why, in an age that has lost reverence for the Holy Eucharist, does the cardinal want to discourage traditional gestures of reverence toward it? The article further asked whether the faithful are bound by such a dictate from their ordinary. The Holy See has stated that it does not intend to rigidly mandate the postures of the faithful at Mass.
As for when Cardinal Ratzinger kneels -- one would suppose he kneels at the places determined by his local bishops' conference. He certainly kneels at the consecration, for the only place where kneeling is mandatory for the universal Church, it seems, is at the consecration. The Latin text of the General Instruction has in the "places indicated below" of number 43 the following: "genuflectant vero ... ad consecrationem." "They kneel at the consecration." It also says, "ubi mos est, populum ab acclamatione Sanctus expleta usque ad finem Precis eucharisticae genuflexum manere, hic laudabiliter retinetur." "Where it is the custom that the people remain kneeling from the end of the Sanctus acclamation to the end of the Eucharistic Prayer, this is laudably retained."
VERY INTERESTING
What a great article by Charles Coulombe in your April 2004 issue ["L.A. on the Tiber"]. I found his "wanderings in Roma" very interesting. The explanation of a cardinal-bishop, cardinal-priest, and cardinal-deacon was something I was not aware of. Thank you, Charles, for an in-depth explanation of the power those with the "red hat" have in their designated assignments. A great piece of writing that is both entertaining and informative.
Vince Crisci,
Boerne, Tx.
ONE OF THE FEW SOLID PRIESTS
I was rather upset when I read your article on the canning of Father Chris Cunningham ["Orthodox, Trendy, and Canned," May Mission]. Father Cunningham's case is clearly one of a political reprisal by our CEO-style cardinal, notwithstanding his -- and Tod Tamberg's -- attempts to deny the truth about Father Cunningham's demotion. Father Chris violated the law of survival for clergy in this archdiocese -- which might aptly be called "Prelate Roger's Neighborhood." The undeclared law may be stated as follows: "if you are outspoken and liberal, you will be promoted. If you are orthodox and quiet, you may be left alone. But if you are orthodox and outspoken, God help you." Father Chris' further offenses are that he is relatively young, charismatic, and popular with the faithful. This would only be tolerated by Mahony if Father Chris played the "corporate" game and closed his mouth, much like the powerful ecclesiastical enemies of Athanasius or John Chrysostom would have preferred them to do.
I am particularly nonplussed about the trumped-up charges and unexplained sacking of Father Chris, because I grew up in his boyhood parish, knew the Cunningham family, and know enough about Father Chris to know he is one of the few really solid priests in this archdiocese, who loves Our Lord and the Catholic faith enough to preach fearlessly in its defense. I know he fully supports the Holy Father and the magisterium and would be far more likely to defend and explain Humanae Vitae than preach sports scores or tap-dance for the cardinal and call on the Church to create priestesses or reverse its tradition of celibacy.
Though I have not had contact with Father Chris for the last several years, I knew him from a Bible-study group for teens and young adults about twenty years ago, in the home parish we shared, St. Lawrence Martyr in Redondo Beach. I recall one evening in the early '80s (back when the archdiocese had three functioning seminaries that have since been closed under Cardinal Mahony), in which I was acting the young, foolish, and imprudent teenager I was at the time. At a party in Rancho Palos Verdes (the "rich" neighborhood overlooking the ocean on one side and my family's middle-class neighborhood, Torrance, on another), I was doing handstands or something near the edge of a cliff, just because I wanted to make people laugh or impress some girls; I don't recall exactly. A guy who was a few years older than me defied the "code of cool" and walked up to me, put his hand on my shoulder, spoke my name, and in a gentle, fraternal, Christ-like manner told me that I was endangering my life and needed to "mellow out" (or words to that effect). It was Chris Cunningham, as a young man of perhaps 20 or 21, before God called him to the priesthood. I remember the effect his gentle reprimand had on me. If it had been someone else, I might have pushed him away or told him to mind his own business. But Chris had such a gentleness and a manner of fatherly concern and Christian love, I couldn't resent or resist, even for a moment. I mellowed out and walked away from the edge of the cliff to rejoin the others at the party. Years later, when I heard he had entered the seminary, I knew he would make an excellent priest; and it's clear he has. The fact that he spoke truth to power and ran afoul of the cardinal, who is at cross-purposes with the magisterium, is to me a further testament to his excellence as a priest of the Roman (not "Mahonian") Catholic Church.
I hope he will receive justice from Rome; I know he will not receive it from the local hierarchy. My one comfort is that Father Chris' priestly vocation will outlast Mahony's tenure. Our scourge of a cardinal -- the last of the major "Jadot" bishops -- will reach retirement age in less than ten years; or if Rome wises up, he will be given another assignment outside of Southern California, where he can do less damage to the Faith. As for Father Chris, allow me to borrow a blessing from the Eastern (both Catholic and Orthodox) Church: "God grant him many years."
Larry A. Carstens,
received via e-mail