Category: Liturgy

The following is the text of the letter sent by Francis Cardinal Arinze to Bishop William Skylstad, president of the USCCB, concerning the liturgical change in America such that extraordinary ministers will no longer be permitted to purify the vessels used at Mass.

CONGREGATIO CULTO DIVINO ET DISCIPLINA SACRAMENTORUM

Prot. n. 468/05/L

Rome, 12 October 2006

Your Excellency,

I refer to your letters of 9 March 2005 and 7 March 2006, in which, in the name of the Conference of Bishops of which you are President, you requested a renewal of the indult for extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion to purify the sacred vessels after Mass, where there are not enough priests or deacons to purify a large number of chalices that might be used at Mass.

I have put the whole matter before the Holy Father in an audience which he granted me on 9 June 2006, and received instructions to reply as follows:

1. There is no doubt that "the sign of Communion is more complete when given under both kinds, since in that form the sign of the Eucharistic meal appears more clearly" (General Instruction of the Roman Missal, no. 240; Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 390).

2. Sometimes, however, the high number of communicants may render it inadvisable for everyone to drink from the chalice (cf. Redemptionis Sacramentum, no. 102). intinction with reception on the tongue always and everywhere remains a legitimate option, by virtue of the general liturgical law of the Roman Rite.

3. Catechesis of the people is important regarding the teaching of the Council of Trent that Christ is fully present under each of the species. Communion under the species of the bread alone, as a consequence, makes it possible to receive all the fruit of Eucharistic grace (cf. Denzinger-Schônmetzer, no. 1729; General Instruction of the Roman Missal, nos. 11, 282). "For pastoral reasons", therefore, "this manner of receiving Communion has been legitimately established as the most common form in the Latin rite" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 390).

4. Paragraph 279 of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal directs that the sacred vessels are to be purified by the priest, the deacon or an instituted acolyte. The status of this text as legislation has recently been clarified by the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts. It does not seem feasible, therefore, for the Congregation to grant the requested indult from this directive in the general law of the Latin Church.

5. This letter is therefore a request to the members of the Bishops’ Conference of the United Status of America to prepare the necessary explanations and catechetical materials for your clergy and people so that henceforth the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, no. 279, as found in the editio typicatia of the Roman Missal, will be observed throughout its territories.

With the expression of my esteem and fraternal greetings, I remain, Your Excellency,

Devotedly yours in Christ,

+Francis Cardinal Arinze
Prefect

Monsignor Mario Marini
Under-Secretary

John Allen has written a number of pieces recently regarding what he is hearing concerning the rumored document on the Tridentine Mass that Pope Benedict is reportedly preparing.

HERE’S THE FIRST PIECE,

in which Allen discusses the possible scope of the document and how it might be a significant redefinition of the state of play on the topic of the Tridentine Mass, yet fall short of the "universal indult" that is hoped for by many.

HERE IS THE SECOND PIECE,

in which Allen reports on French bishops who are distinctly cool toward the celebration of the Tridentine order of Mass.

AND HERE IS THE THIRD PIECE,

in which Allen talks with the head of the English-language International Commission on English in Liturgy, who sees the forthcoming (and much better!) English translation of the current order of Mass as potentially diminishing demand for the former order.

I don’t know what the document B16 is preparing (if any) may contain, but y’all know where I stand: I favor a generous celebration of the former order of Mass, I think that there are practical barriers that–even in the event of a universal indult–will significantly hamper even a universal indult in resulting in the Tridentine order being widely celebrated, and–to introduce an element I haven’t commented on before–I think that a better translation of the current order of Mass could indeed result in a more reverent celebration of the Mass and thus a less sharp choice between the former and present order on the part of the faithful.

B16’s promised post-synodal exhortation following the Synod on the Eucharist last fall is expected out soon, with November being a commonly speculated timeframe. There was some worry that it might take longer because it took the drafting committee that prepared the first version of the document for the pope a long time to complete its work–to the point that the pontiff himself publicly commented on the delay (ouch).

Now news sources are reporting that the release of the document is "imminent."

EXCERPTS:

Citing informed sources at the Vatican, I Media reports that Pope Benedict XVI will soon release his apostolic exhortation on the Eucharist. The Holy Father reportedly was reviewing a final draft of the document late in August.

The imminent release of a papal document on the Eucharist would be noteworthy under any circumstances. But in light of the reports that Pope Benedict is preparing another document on the use of the Latin Mass, the document will be even more anxiously awaited. Some Vatican-watchers have surmised that the Pontiff will release his motu proprio on the Latin Mass in conjunction with the apostolic exhortation on the Synod.

The informed Vatican sources cited by I Media say that the papal document will be quite similar to the list of final propositions endorsed by the Synod fathers after concluding their discussions in Rome last October. In a break from ordinary Vatican practice, the Synod released that list of 50 propositions in an "unofficial" Italian-language statement last October 22. The "official" Synod conclusions, in Latin, were given to the Holy Father.

Pope Benedict, respectful of the collegial authority of the Synod, has made relatively few changes to the text approved by the Synod fathers, sources report.

That would not surprise me at all. Not only does B16 wish to emphasize collegiality in his pontificate but if he were not already in substantial agreement with the 50 propositions that the synod wrote, he would not have taken the unusual step of publishing in the first place.

If you’d like to read my own commentary on the 50 propositions,

LOOK HERE.

(They’re in reverse numerical order, in keeping with the way they were blogged. My apologies for failing to do the last five propositions; my memory is that I had to go out of town.)

The next synod of bishops is going to be devoted to the Word of God, and I’ve seen early reports on it. It’s one I hope folks’ll keep in prayer for it could do significant good . . . or not.

EXCERPT:

Meanwhile the ordinary council for the Synod met in Rome earlier in October to prepare a working document for the next full meeting of the synod, scheduled to take place in Rome in October 2008. The subject will be "the Word of God in the life and mission of the Church."

The Synod council is now working on the lineamenta, the first working document for the Synod discussions. Once that is complete– with a final document expected to be approved by the Synod council in January 2007– the lineamenta is circulated among the world’s bishops for their comments. On the basis of their suggestions a new document, the instrumentum laboris, is drawn up to serve as the basis for the Synod discussions.

GET THE STORY.
(CHT to the reader who e-mailed!)

Up till now the diocese of the Untied States have had permission from the Holy See to allow extraordinary ministers to assist priests in the purification of the vessels at Mass if there are not enough priests on hand to do so (e.g., if there were many cups with the Precious Blood that needs to be consumed).

This indult was granted in 2002 and extended the prior practice in the United States.

The U.S. bishops asked for the indult to be extended when it expired, but B16 has declined.

In an Oct. 23 letter, Bishop William S. Skylstad, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, asked his fellow bishops to inform all pastors of the change, which was prompted by a letter from Cardinal Francis Arinze, prefect of the Vatican Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments.

Bishop Skylstad, who heads the Diocese of Spokane, Wash., said Cardinal Arinze asked Pope Benedict about the matter during a June 9 audience, "and received a response in the negative."

Henceforth if Communion is being offered under both kinds the extraordinary ministers being used to distribute it (if any) could consume what is in the cup that they are holding but could not afterwards purify the vessels.

The letter (which I hope to obtain a copy of) also stresses the option of administering Communion under both kinds using intinction–which to my mind is a good thing. I very much approve of intinction, and recent liturgical documents have made it harder rather than easier to distribute Communion in this fashion.

I’ll keep y’all updated as I get more info. I expect either Bishop Skylstad’s letter, or Cardinal Arinze’s, or both, will be in the next edition of the BCL Newsletter. In the meantime,

GET THE STORY.

A reader writes:

I was wondering about the origin on the custom of not leaving the
Exposed Eucharist alone during Adoration? Is it canonical law or what?

First, kudos for recognizing the distinction between adoration and exposition. One can adore the Eucharist whether exposition is taking place or not. Many folks get these two mixed up.

In inquiring about the origin of the rule, I take it that you are asking what is the basis for this in current ecclesiastical law, rather than its historical origin. If you are looking for information on that, you might try here.

The Code of Canon Law only deals briefly with the subject of Eucharistic exposition. Those canons are part of the general section on the reservation of the Eucharist, which are online here.

The actual basis for the requirement is found in the Church’s liturgical documents. Specifically, it is found in a document known as Holy Communion and the Worship of the Eucharist Outside of Mass, which is published in The Rites, volume 1.

The section on the exposition of the Blessed Sacrament explains:

85. If exposition of the blessed sacrament goes on for a day or
for several successive days, it should be interrupted during the celebration of Mass, unless it is
celebrated in a chapel separate from the area of exposition and at least some of the faithful remain
in adoration.

86. In churches and oratories where the eucharist is
reserved, it is recommended that solemn exposition of the blessed sacrament for an extended period
of time should take place once a year, even though this period is not strictly continuous. In this
way the local community may meditate on this mystery more deeply and adore.

This kind of exposition, however, may take place only if
there is assurance of the participation of a reasonable number of the faithful.

88. Where there cannot be uninterrupted exposition because
there is not a sufficient number of worshipers, it is permissible to replace the blessed
sacrament in the tabernacle at fixed hours that are announced ahead of time. But this may not be done more
than twice a day, for example, at

midday

and at
night.

From what I can tell, there is not an explicit statement to the effect that "There must always be at least one of the faithful present in adoration during the exposition of the Eucharist" in either of the main legal documents that are relevant (i.e., the Code and the one I just quoted), but it seems implicit in Holy Communion and the Worship of the Eucharist Outside of Mass that there are to be people present in adoration during exposition. Otherwise there would be no point to talking about needing a sufficient number of people to allow for a lengthy exposition.

Still, one could read this and say, "Okay, so you need people there generally, but not necessarily every single moment. If someone needs to step out of the room for a few minutes for some important reason, that would be okay."

Given the way HCWEOM is written, you could take that interpretation if you were of a mind to.

Which is why God created instructions issued by Vatican dicasteries.

According to the instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum, issued by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments,

[138.] Still, the Most Holy Sacrament, when exposed, must never be left unattended even for the briefest space of time. It should therefore be arranged that at least some of the faithful always be present at fixed times, even if they take alternating turns.

The instruction thus clarifies the ambiguity that one could see in the primary legal document.

So there you have it.

I am currently engaged in a project of translating certain Church documents that are not generally available in English (sorry, but this is not one of the Secret Projects, or I wouldn’t be telling you about it). Chief among these documents are the "front matter" of the Roman Missal as it existed before the reform of the liturgy that followed the Second Vatican Council.

This "front matter" corresponds loosely to the present General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) and certain other associated documents.

By translating them, I want to not only make available more of the riches of the former rite of Mass to English speakers but also to provide a tool that can be used to track the development of liturgical law between the change in the two orders of Mass.

But I don’t want to waste my time if I don’t need to. Hence this bleg.

I wanted to ask my readers–who are a very well-informed bunch, as is obvious–if they are aware of English translations of the front matter of the previous Roman Missal, particularly the 1962 edition, which was the last before the Council’s reforms began to kick in.

I know that there were English translations of some documents from this period because I happen to have an English translation of the Roman Ritual (not the same as the Roman Missal) that came out back then. I’m wondering if there was a simlar translation (available online or not) of the Roman Missal in its entirety, or just its front matter.

Specifically, the documents I am wondering about are titled in the 1962 edition as follows:

• Pius Episcopus (servus servorum dei, ad perpetuam rei memoriam)
• Clemens Papa VIII (ad perpetuam rei memoriam)
• Urbanus Papa VIII (ad perpetuam rei memoriam)
• Litterae Apostolicae (moto proprio datae; novum rumbricarum breviarii et missalis romani corpus appprobatur. Johannes PP. XXIII)
• Sacra Congregatio Rituum (decretum generale; quo novus rubricarm breviarii ac missalis romani codex promulgatur)
• Rubricae Generales (chiefly concerned with the calendar)
• Rubricae Generales Missalis Romani
• De Anno et Eius Partibus
• Tabula Paschalis Antiqua Reformata
• Tabula Temporaria
• Calendarium Missalis Romani
• Ritus Servandus in Celebratione Missae
• De Defectibus in Celebratione Missae Occurentibus
• Praeparatio ad Missam
• Gratiarum Actio post Missam
• Ordo Incensandi Oblata

If you are aware of an English translation of any of these (a 1962 edition or an earlier one), in print or online, whether in whole or in part, please let me know by combox or e-mail.

The one exception is De Defectibus in Celebratione Missae Occurrentibus ("On Defects Occurring in the Celebration of Mass"). This document–about liturgical abuses–has already been translated into English and is available on a number of web sites (mostly those of radical traditionalists). I have freshly translated it into English, however, because the existing translation does not seem to be very good. I don’t know what Latin original they were working from (clearly it was not that of the 1962 edition), but this version seems to be a startlingly loose and squishy translation, and I felt that a more literal one was warranted.

This translation should be appearing online soon. I’ll let you know when and where.

Thanks much, folks!

Canonist Ed Peters writes:

Fr. Louis Scurti, a campus minister at William Paterson University in New Jersey, "brings his two dogs everywhere [oh?] and that includes Sunday Mass." His pair of pooches set themselves up in the sanctuary during Mass, "making people feel included" [huh?] and providing a "symbol of domesticity" [double huh?]. Although the apparently untethered canines "have been known to growl" at late-comers, Fr. Scurti assures us that his dogs "don’t remove the sacredness of the liturgy at all."

The dictates of common sense are hard to put into words. If one has to explain to a pastor why his mutts don’t belong in Mass, one goes into the effort with the uneasy feeling that such words might be wasted on, well, someone who needs that kind of thing explained in the first place. But most folks can tell the difference between a liturgy and a living room, and many Catholics are out of patience with priests (granted, in shrinking numbers) who still treat the Mass as their personal property.

GET THE STORY.

Actually, I think that one of the canons Ed mentions–1220–would prohibit what the priest is doing. The canon reads:

Can.  1220 §1. All those responsible are to take care that in churches such cleanliness and beauty are preserved as befit a house of God and that whatever is inappropriate to the holiness of the place is excluded.

The highlighted phrase is meant precisely as a catchall to cover all the myriad "Please don’t eat the dasies" situations that the legislator knows he can’t individually envision. Having dogs in the sanctuary–at least dogs who are not assistance animals–is inappropriate to the holiness of the place, and thus they are to be excluded.

By including the highlighted phrase, the legislator intends "those responsible" (including the priest) to exercise common sense in figuring out what is inappropriate to the holiness of the place and–if the priest in question has defective common sense on this point–then someone higher up (his bishop, the CDW) should explain it to him.

After all, dogs are irrational creatures that cannot appreciate the sacred and therefore do not belong in sacred places.

Our Lord may have been making a point about humans when he said it, but the foundation of the metaphor in the animal kingdom makes the same point with even more force:

"Do not give dogs what is holy; and do not throw your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under foot" (Matt. 7:6).

A reader writes:

We have been attending Mass at the local VA hospital whenever we can’t attend our local parish church for daily Mass.

We have noticed that at Communion, Father will reach over to the small table next to the altar(where the water and wine are kept) and pour more wine into the chalice.

We are wondering if this is okay, and what to do about it.

The short answer is that if he’d doing this on a habitual basis then it’s not okay. It is a significant liturgical abuse, and I would take action to deal with it.

The only circumstance in which something like this is permitted is described as follows in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal:

324. If the priest notices after the consecration or as he receives Communion that not wine but only water was poured into the chalice, he pours the water into some container, then pours wine with water into the chalice and consecrates it. He says only the part of the institution narrative related to the consecration of the chalice, without being obliged to consecrate the bread again.

Now, if the priest at the hospital has forgotten to pour wine into the chalice before the consecration and detects this fact afterwards–either by taste or by sight–then it would not only be okay but would be required for him to pour in wine and then proceed to consecrate it. If you saw this happen once or twice then, as long as he did what he was supposed to, no action would need to be taken.

But if he is doing it habitually then he is either so forgetful that it is questionable whether he should be saying Masses–at least in public–or (more likely given what you say) he is committing a grave liturgical abuse.

The precise nature of the abuse depends on whether the priest has included the wine on the side table in his intent to consecrate, but either way you go, there is a grave abuse occurring.

If he has not included the wine on the side table in his intent to consecrate then what he is doing is pouring unconsecrated wine into the Precious Blood, diluting it–possibly to the point that the Real Presence ceases.

That is gravely wrong, both in itself and because of the scandal it causes the faithful.

If he is including the wine on the side table in his intent to consecrate then, since it is still in his moral presence, the consecration takes place, but in this event he is pouring the Precious Blood from one container to another, which is prohibited by liturgical law. All pouring must be done prior to the consecration, lest any of the Precious Blood be accidentally spilled.

The instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum explains:

[105.] If one chalice is not sufficient for Communion to be distributed under both kinds to the Priest concelebrants or Christ’s faithful, there is no reason why the Priest celebrant should not use several chalices. For it is to be remembered that all Priests in celebrating Holy Mass are bound to receive Communion under both kinds. It is praiseworthy, by reason of the sign value, to use a main chalice of larger dimensions, together with smaller chalices.

[106.] However, the pouring of the Blood of Christ after the consecration from one vessel to another is completely to be avoided, lest anything should happen that would be to the detriment of so great a mystery. Never to be used for containing the Blood of the Lord are flagons, bowls, or other vessels that are not fully in accord with the established norms.

If the priest needs additional wine in the chalice for his own reception of Communion or for distributing Communion to others then he should pour this wine into the chalice prior to the consecration. Doing so afterward is not permitted.

If he can’t handle a chalice with more wine in it–for example, because his hands shake–then he shouldn’t be distributing Communion to the faithful under the form of wine, anyway.

So, either this priest is so forgetful that his ability to celebrate Masses in public is in question or he is committing a grave liturgical abuse. Either way, I would talk to him about it.

Jesus tells us to solve problems on the lowest level possible (Matthew 18), so I would speak with him respectfully and politely and find out what he’s actually doing, why he’s doing it, and point out the relevant passages of liturgical law. I would also explain how this confuses and potentially scandalizes the faithful and urge him to adopt the Church’s liturgical norms for the sake of their peace of mind and being a good shepherd that does not unnecessarily disturb the sheep.

If he does not correct the matter then speaking with the bishop and, if necessary, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments would be warranted.

A reader writes:

My mother related an event to me that her friend witnessed.

During the distribution of Eucharist, a young girl about 14 approached to receive. She was wearing a typical teenage dress with spaghetti straps. As she approached the priest, he looked past her and waved her on. Her mother was behind her and said it’s okay, she’s old enough to receive. He didn’t answer, just waved her on again. She moved on without receiving. An older woman who saw what happened, took her shawl and wrapped it around the girls shoulders….the priest then went to where the girl was sitting and gave her communion once her shoulders were covered.

My question is…can he do that? I’m in agreement with dressing appropriately for church. But is it within the scope of the priest’s authority to deny someone Eucharist based on her outfit?

It is very difficult to establish a basis in the law for what the priest did in this case. First, let’s start with a general, hermeneutical canon:

Can. 18 Laws which
establish a penalty, restrict the free exercise of rights, or contain an
exception from the law are subject to strict interpretation.

Laws that would restrict the faithful’s right to receive Communion therefore must be interpreted strictly. If there is doubt as to the applicability of a law, the doubt must be read in favor of the free exercise of the right of the faithful.

Now let’s hop forward in the Code:

Can.  843 §1. Sacred ministers cannot deny the sacraments to those who seek them at appropriate times, are properly disposed, and are not prohibited by law from receiving them.

This canon is phrased negatively–that is, it says what sacred ministers cannot do. If a person meets the qualifications listed then a pastor cannot deny them the sacraments. Whether the canon is convertible such that a pastor can deny a person who seeks the sacraments at an inappropriate time, who is not properly disposed, or who is prohibited by law is not stated, but it seems clear that the minister can do so.

If the minister were to deny the girl Communion based on anything in this canon, it would have to be the on the grounds that the girl was not properly disposed, since her clothing has nothing to do with what time she is seeking to receive Communion and since there are no laws that expressly prohibit a person from receiving Communion based on the clothing they are wearing.

But there is a problem here. Actually, there are three.

First, the Code says further on:

Can.  912 Any baptized person not prohibited by law can and must be admitted to holy communion.

Whatever else it does, this canon lays additional stress on the gravity of reasons that a minister must have for denying Communion to one seeking it (at least during the context of a Mass). The fact that the earlier condition of proper disposition is omitted from this canon is at least suggestive that the minister should not be attempting to judge the dispositions of the communicant. He should not be trying to judge whether the person is displaying sufficient reverence, for example. He should only focus on whether the person is prohibited by law from receiving.

Thus he should be asking questions like, "Is this person baptized?", "Is this person a Catholic?", "Has this person been admitted to Holy Communion?", "Is this person under a penalty like excommunication?"–not "Does this person appear sufficiently reverent?", "Has this person fasted for an hour?", or even "Has this person been to confession?"

This is further undrescored by the following canon:

Can.  915 Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.

You’ll note that the condition needed to deny someone Communion in this canon on grounds of sin is not just that they are in mortal sin or have not been to confession since committing a mortal sin. It is that they are "obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin," which means a whole bunch of things–not only is the sin mortal (or at least grave), it must be publicly known, they must be continuing to do it (as opposed to having stopped it and just not gone to confession yet), and they must do so after some kind of warning (obstinately).

This indicates that, if a priest knows that a person does not have the proper disposition of being free of unconfessed mortal sins then he cannot deny the person Communion. For example, if he knows that the person recently committed secret sin X and that the person has not been absolved of it because just before Mass the person attempted confession to the priest in question and the priest denied him absolution because he wasn’t actually contrite then the priest still cannot refuse him Communion because the sin was secret (not publicly known and thus not manifest) and thus he is not "obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin."

The conjunction of canons 912 and 915 thus suggests that, in the case of the Eucharist, the question of whether a person is properly disposed is to be judged by the communicant and not by the minister. He can deny you Communion if you are prohibited by law from receiving it (e.g., if you are obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin) but it is not his job to judge whether you are sufficiently disposed. That determination is your job, not the ministers. (And, after all, do we really want extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion making that determination on our behalf?)

So that’s problem #1: There is a significant case to be made–particularly in light of the strict construction that canon 18 requires–that canon 912 modifies canon 843 in such a way that the minister is not to attempt to judge the proper disposition of a person seeking to receive holy Communion.

But then there’s problem #2: Even if it is within the minister’s purview to judge the proper disposition of a communicant, there are no canons dealing with proper vesture for receiving Communion. There are other laws establishing the proper dispositions for receiving Communion–you must be reverent, you must have fasted for an hour, you must not be conscious of unconfessed mortal sin, etc.–but nowhere does the law list what kind of clothing you are wearing as a requirement for proper disposition.

The absence of any laws dealing with this thus creates a case for saying that a particular kind of vesture is simply not required for proper disposition as the law understands it, and thus–per the struct construction required by canon 18–the minister would not be allowed to bar a person based on their type of vesture (unless, of course, the clothing they were wearing constituted obstinate perseverance in manifest grave sin; see below).

But even if this, too, is rejected, there’s still problem #3: What vesture is appropriate for receiving Communion is unambiguously culturally relative. In some cultures–like certain places in Africa–women do not wear tops at all, and the Church does not bar them from Communion on this ground. So one is going to have to judge whether the clothing is considered appropriate according to the local cultural norms, whether one approves of those norms or not (per canon 18’s strict construction).

If the local culture permits 14 year old girls to wear string-tied tops that reveal their shoulders–or strapless wedding dresses that do the same thing–then a minister will not be permitted to deny Holy Communion on that basis.

Now, if the local culture doesn’t allow something–for example, women going completely topless, or men going topless in church, or wearing a Nazi armband, or wearing a shirt that uses the F-word or the S-word or the N-word (things which might be nailable under the obstinate perseverance in manifest grave sin requirement)–then the minister (prescinding from problems #1 and #2) refuse Communion, but not if this is what people in the culture are permitted to wear.

Since teenage girls in our culture are commonly permitted to wear string-tied tops that expose their shoulders, it is going to be very difficult to use canon 843–given the three problems here named and the strict construction that must be put on the matter–to deny a girl Communion in our culture on the ground that she is wearing such a shirt.

A minister may not like it–and he may be right to not like it–but it is not easy to find a basis in the law for denying the girl in this case Communion on grounds of strictly constructed improper disposition.

The only other ground I could see is the one in canon 915 regarding obstinate perseverance in manifest grave sin, but this is not going to work, either. A teenage girl wearing a dress that reveals her shoulders–or her bellybutton–is simply not gravely sinning by the mere fact of doing so. She may be dressing immodestly, but she is not committing a sin that will send her to hell (if done with adequate knowledge and consent) simply because she shows her shoulders (or bellybutton) in public.

Further, if she were obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin then the priest shouldn’t have given her Communion simply because someone put a shawl over her shoulders. He should have told her to go to confession.

I thus find it very difficult to find an adequate basis in the law for what the priest did in restricting the girl’s exercise of her right to receive Holy Communion.

That is not to say that the Holy See would not be within its rights to develop a dress code for receiving Communion. It might be well advised to do so–or at least to require the national bishops’ conferences to develop their own national dress codes, but this far it has not done so, and one cannot bar people from Communion based on what one wishes the law said.

Canon 18 won’t let you.

The current edition of the Bishops’ Committee on Liturgy Newsletter (not available online, sorry) has an article about a congress on promoting the liturgy in Africa that was held recently in Ghana. Normally this is the kind of article that I skip or skim, because local meetings of this nature usually have little information that is relevant to my work, but this one had a few interesting points.

A major topic of discussion at the congress was the inculturation of the liturgy in Africa, and there were nice things in the article about insisting on following the Church’s approved means of inculturating the liturgy, which (among other things) involves getting Rome’s approval on what you want to do. That was all fine (and what I would expect from an event conducted under the auspices of Cardinal Arinze, who is a total class act).

For example, one reflection that was offered at the conference was described as follows:

* Inculturation is not the fruit of hasty undertaking or solo effort but an organic process of assimilation that
involves the whole community under the action of God’s Spirit and the guidance of the Church’s
hierarchy. . . . Inculturation puts heavier demands on the Bishops’ Conference: deeper study of chosen cultural
elements, discussion, voting and submission to be approved by the Apostolic See by way of recognitio.

* It is important to follow the norms issued in this matter by the Apostolic See so that inculturation will
bear lasting fruit of faith and holiness. It is therefore important that the Church does not follow
momentary impulses and effervescent emotions of enthusiasts in this matter, under the notion that the
Spirit blows where he wills. There is the duty of the Church to discern the manifestation of the Spirit. The
Holy Spirit is a Spirit of order.

That sends a definite "follow the rules and don’t expect us to approve things that just at the moment happen t sound like good ideas" message.

There was also this cautionary note on the use of liturgical dance (which is permitted in some measure in African liturgy, though not in Europe, America, Australia, etc.):

*The introduction of dances in the liturgy in Africa does require careful discernment. There are many types
of dances in Africa. Only a dance which meets one of the reasons for the liturgy (adoration, praise,
thanksgiving, repentance, petition) need be considered. People do not come to Mass in order to be
entertained. Diocesan or Regional Liturgical Commissions and Monasteries can help in discerning dances
that are prayerful and fit for worship.

What struck me most, though, was a concluding note about a letter Cardinal Arinze had written:

The official report of the Congress was distributed to the Conferences of Bishops in Africa under cover of a letter
from Cardinal Arinze, dated July 11, 2006 (Prot. N. 746/05/L). In his cover letter, the Prefect added further
practical directives on relations with international translating committees, promotional of interdisciplinary studies,
the approval of inculturation initiatives by African Conference of Bishops, church buildings, vestments, elements
of adaptation, experimental texts, funeral ministers, and choirs.

 

The Prefect also listed a number of liturgical abuses, in regard to the introduction of non-liturgical elements into
the celebration of the Mass, the featuring of prominent persons in processions, the illicit use of Extraordinary
ministers, and inappropriate uses of the homily. In this regard, Cardinal Arinze noted: “Homilies should not be
too long. Fifteen minutes of a well-prepared homily is enough. It is an abuse to preach for 45 minutes, or to walk
about the church while preaching, or to punctuate the homily with shouts of “Alleluia” or “Praise the Lord” from
time to time.”

I was startled to hear about African priests doing 45 minute homilies! I’ve never heard one anywhere near that long here in America. I have, though, known of priests walking about the church (though not so much lately), and it’ll be interesting to see if the statement that this is an abuse gets made in a document pertaining to American liturgy.

I also found it striking that the Cardinal would regard puctuations of "Alleluia" and "Praise the Lord" to be abuses. While I’m not used to such things these days, back when I was a Protestant I was used to them and can see how they can fit with a dignified worship service. (In fact, when I was still Protestant but on my way to becoming Catholic and I heard a priest tell the congregation that they couldn’t just ignore the Church’s teaching on birth control, I had to restrain myself from saying, "Amen!") So I can see how a particular culture (like the Evangelical one I came from) could harmonize these interjections in a way that is not disruptive of the dignified tone of the liturgy.

Which is a long way of saying that I don’t think that such interjections are automatically an abuse.

Unless of course Rome promulgates or has promulgated a norm saying that they are (not having the text of the Cardinal’s letter, I can’t evaluate what force it may have; it may contain binding norms or it may not).

I do agree with one thing, though: "Alleluia" is an abuse. Intrinsically. All by itself. Whether it’s in the liturgy or not. The word is just wrong.

In Hebrew (the language the word comes from), it is quite clear that the word is Halleluia, with an H. It’s got an H (technically, a letter he, which is pronounced "hay") right on the front of it.  Hallel is a real word in Hebrew (it means "praise"). Allel is not.

Even when you see the word in Greek, it’s got a rough breathing mark right (which is how Greek symbolizes the sound of the letter H) over the A, telling you to pronounce it Halleluia.

It’s just the lazy Latins who lost track of the H sound at some point, giving us the monstrous "Alleluia."

I cringe every time I hear that.