Apr
18
Critics vs. the critics of the critics
April 18, 2008 | 2 Comments
Since the Papal mass yesterday there has been a lot written on the liturgy, particularly the musical selection. Many have criticized the choices – some vehemently – and some in turn have either defended the musical selection or have simply criticized the critics themselves. I don’t think I need to link to all the commentary – frankly, if you’re interested in the topic, you’ve probably already read it all.
What strikes me is that there is considerable difference between people who were in attendance and people who watched on television. This seems natural to me. Those of us who were there were obviously just glad to be there, and we were a lot more willing to overlook anything which otherwise might have bothered us. I don’t mean this as a putdown at all of those who could only watch on tv – it’s simply a fact that we have different perspectives. No matter what type of Mass it is, it’s just going to be different for those who are there in person than for those who are not.
As I have said before, I recognized that the music was . . . not good. It didn’t escape my attention. But I am learning as time goes on not to let that sort of thing bother me. We can’t be critics while we’re at Mass. It’s not a performance – it’s Mass. Sure, there are some who seemingly want to make it more of a performance, but those are battles to be fought at other times. Quite frankly I was much more bothered by the idiots shouting into their megaphones about the whore of Babylon than I was by the awkward musical setting of the responsorial psalm. It was much more saddened by the hatred I was hearing outside than the perhaps awkward expressions of love I was hearing inside.
That said, I can certainly sympathize with the critics, especially those who feel that the musical selections were a complete slap in the face to the Pope. I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt and hope that those who planned the Mass were in no way really trying to “send a message.” We don’t know that the Pope was displeased. I’m sure he knew what to expect. And even though the Pope prefers a more traditional setting – as do I – I’m sure he was and is ecstatic to see so many joy-filled and faithful Catholics joined together. In a world where so much is going wrong, 50,000 people getting together and joining in the Eucharist is an occasion for joy, no matter what might be blaring over the loudspeakers.
In the long run, liturgy matters. It is not inappropriate to have a discussion about the liturgy and the musical selections and other things which do detract from the full meaning of our liturgy. It’s certainly questionable as to whether multilingual Masses do more to fracture than to unite us. I do not think all of the bloggers – or many – were being disrespectful when they discussed the Papal Mass. Some of the comments sections got heated, but the bloggers themselves I thought tried to be as respectful as they could be. I don’t think you need to have a Ph.D in order to debate this issue, nor are all bloggers who question these matters to be sneered at as if their voices are irrelevant. There are some who ought to temper their remarks, but the same can be said for those so quick to attack the Catholic blogosphere.
I guess this is all a long way of saying that while I was moved and uplifted by the Papal Mass, we can’t ignore the deeper issue of how we celebrate the Holy Eucharist in America. Asking that any discussion be civilized and respectful should go without saying. Sadly, it will probably go without so doing.
No TagComments
2 Comments so far
You’re hinting at something that I’ll go ahead and say straight out. The experience of being at a Mass is fundamentally different from the experience of watching a Mass; the former is an form of worship, the latter is a form of entertainment. I really really REALLY don’t want to go whole-hog McLuhan, but I think a mediated experience brings out the inner critic in all of us.
Admittedly, I’m spoiled by being in the Diocese of Arlington (to speak only of music and rubrics and priests; Arlington is among the worst dioceses in the country for architecture, for historical reasons) … but I have never been too bothered by liturgical issues at Masses I’ve gone to. I have preferences of course and I notice when they’re not met, but I’ve forgotten them within 10 minutes of leaving (with the exception of one particular case that I’ll regale you with if you ever want to meet, Paul …)
The experience of being at a Mass is fundamentally different from the experience of watching a Mass; the former is an form of worship, the latter is a form of entertainment.
Bingo. This was hammered home for me when I was watching the Mass from Yankee Stadium yesterday. Try as I might to “participate” from afar, it is not the same thing.
Admittedly, I’m spoiled by being in the Diocese of Arlington
I’ve heard only good things about Arlington. Architecture is, unfortunately, a problem for a lot of suburban communities. I am fortunate to belong to a Parish that has – at least at the Mass I attend – perfect marks on all scores.
I have preferences of course and I notice when they’re not met, but I’ve forgotten them within 10 minutes of leaving (with the exception of one particular case that I’ll regale you with if you ever want to meet, Paul …)
I gotta know what’s behind that particular story.