I was looking through the site that Christine sent me in regards to liturgical dancers and also noticed that holding hands is not a proper action during the Our Father. What shold one do whan everybody is holding hands in ones church, or at almost every Church around. If one refuses to hold hands, it could cause scandal to those who don't know why you are refusing to hold their hands. If you hold hands one is only contributing to a dissorder. Any advice out there?

-- Joseph Carl Biltz (jcbiltz@canoemail.com), December 10, 2002

Answers

Hello, Joseph.

I found it particularly interesting that you used the word "scandal" in the following way:
"If one refuses to hold hands, it could cause scandal to those who don't know why you are refusing to hold their hands."

Since the Church does not require us to hold hands -- nor mention it as a legitimate option -- it follows that not holding hands is a way of obeying the liturgical law. For your comment to be valid, one would have to be able to say, "When one follows the liturgical law, one can cause scandal." I hope that you would agree with me that such a thing would be erroneous. But, just in case you don't agree with me, let's take it a step further ...

Let's see if your statement is too strong -- or even inaccurate -- by reading how the new Catechism defines and describes "scandal". I will insert my own comments in brackets.
"2284-2286. Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. [When one does not hold hands, that does not "lead another to do evil."]
"The person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor's tempter. ... [When one does not hold hands, he is not "tempting" others to do something wrong. He is giving good example by following liturgical rules. (Ironically, you could argue that someone who tries to persuade another to hold hands is "his neighbor's tempter," if the first person knows that the Church has not given permission for hand-holding.)]
"Scandal takes on a particular gravity by reason of the authority of those who cause it or the weakness of those who are scandalized. ... [Being unwilling to hold hands does not prey upon the weakness of anyone. Again, the question arises: Is the scandal actually being given by the hand-holders? Don't many others who see them experience the aforementioned "weakness" and join in?]
"Scandal can be provoked by laws or institutions, by fashion, or opinion. Therefore, they are guilty of scandal who establish laws or social structures leading to the decline of morals and the corruption of religious practice ..." [Someone who will not hold hands do not do something "fashion[able]" nor anything immoral nor anything "corrupti[ve] of religious practice."]

From all this, Joseph, I would say that there is no "scandal" caused by not holding hands. There may be uncertainty caused, but not scandal. You referred to "those who don't know why you are refusing to hold their hands." Actually, there ought not to be any people "who don't know why," since everyone should know about this, from reading or hearing, if people in authority are doing their job properly. But when there really are people "who don't know why," they can politely be told: "I'm sorry, my friend, but the Church does not give us permission to do that."

Joseph, I think that holding hands is improper. Some folks here at the forum agree with me, while others disagree. We recently had a long conversation about this and about the (seemingly related) "orans" posture. If you'd like to read the conversation, please click here.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 10, 2002.

Joseph,

We here on this forum have had this topic brought up before. I just wanted to state that I feel exactly the same as you. I know that there is the "appropriate" definition of "scandal", as John pointed out. However, in the human understanding of the term, I think it is fitting. It may not scandalize the Church so to speak, but refusing to hold someone's hand might individually scandalize me or the other person. It may be the "textual" thing to do according to the letter of the law, but somehow I feel during Mass that it would indeed be inappropriate to refuse someone’s hand. Let me explain why:

If someone offers me their hand and I refuse, a few things necessarily will occur. The person will feel rejected. There will be absolutely no time *during* the Mass to explain myself. And because the person now feels rejected and I haven't the chance to explain myself, the person (and me) will then receive our Lord in Communion with both our minds on this matter and not on Him.

Sure- it may be easy to say; well I did the right thing... And I would be able to explain myself later after Mass. But realistically, I don't want to spend time after each Mass I attend explaining why I didn't hold the persons hand. After all, every Sunday may be a new person next to you, whom you would need to explain this to. Moreover, the fact that I just made someone feel bad (as in hurt feelings possibly) before receiving our Lord would make me feel guilty – regardless of whether I can explain it to them later or not! It is extremely hard for me to believe that several Bishops either don’t know about this or are liturgically in schism. Realistically the Bishops most likely DO know, but the fact that it really is not a liturgical “abuse” leads to their silence. If it is “scandalous” to hold hands during Mass, then I guess a large portion of California’s churches are “scandalous”, as well as the Bishops who know about this. I have seriously thought about this due to the previous discussion, and I am content to hold hands with those who offer them, until a statement is made telling us NOT to hold hands. There currently is no such document or statement. There is documentation explaining the “correct position” to pray the Lords Prayer during Mass, however it doesn’t necessarily state for us NOT to do this.

I have also researched the topic, and truthfully there are very real and GOOD reasons NOT to hold hands. I agree with them! Holding hands brings a pinnacle to the “unity” of the Church when everyone is in connection, and this detracts from the real Pinnacle, which is Holy Eucharist. This is the most powerful argument for not holding hands. However, I know the real Pinnacle, and I will gladly explain the real Pinnacle of Mass to anyone. But I refuse to reject someone’s outstretched hand, causing him or her to receive our Lord with a saddened heart (because I had not held their hand).

This is a sticky situation for one who belongs to a parish where absolutely 100% of the people hold hands (actually most of the Parishes in my area are like this). If you are lucky enough to be in a parish where people don’t (or even better a Parish where people know what the GIRM is), then you are a very blessed person.

Remember, Joseph, this is merely my own experience. Please don’t let me pull you away from doing the “right” thing. I simply felt like I should let you know that you aren’t the only one with those feelings.

In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), December 10, 2002.

Thanks John & Jake, I meant scandal in the sense that Jake means it. I personally long for orthodoxy in our Church.

I want reverence and I find myself often compromising that for not "hurting feelings" of others. I work as a youth minister and I see so much politics, whereas I just want to help teens know Christ adn his will through fidality to the Church. It is really frustrating sometimes.

My wife and I will be having a baby boy in April :)! and I wonder in what atmosphere do I want my son to grow up in. What can I do to offer him access to what the Church should be? It is a big concern of mine.

Joe

-- Joe Biltz (joebiltz@netzero.net), December 10, 2002.

There are two things the Church could do without, but it is up to the priest to announce it from tne pulpit. Holding hands is one, tne other is shaking hands.

Did you ever sit next to a guy with a bad cold, blowing his nose, or picking his nose, and cringe when you have to shake hands with him? 0Then you go to receive with germs on your hands, hold the Host ahd put it in your mouth. Not too appetizing.

-- ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), December 10, 2002.

Joseph,

IMHO. The tradition [or say fashion] of holding hands together, has been derived from the Jews and from certain protestant denominations. It is definitely not a Catholic tradition / action.

I completely agree with John F.G that holding hands is improper.

Once a priest was telling in my parish, to stretch out your hands is a sign of emptiness; it is a sign of surrendering yourself [whatever we are] to GOD; it is a sign that we are helpless and weak. When we are weak, than we are strong. God’s strength is proved in our weakness.

Only the Charismatic movement some times [very rare] holds hand together, but strictly during singing hymns. When it comes to reciting the Our Father they too stretch out their hands. Hope this helps.

Peace

-- Xavier (crusaders_warship@yahoo.com), December 11, 2002.

Joe,

Take a chill pill. Rules like this can change tomorrow and yet again the day after. If you don't want to do it don't. Personally I only hold hands with my wife and children. Again, lets not get over fixated on the letter of the law, rather look to the spirit of it.

-- james Xwing (James_xwing@hotmail.com), December 11, 2002.

I agree with you, Ed. Luckily most people (though not all) are cognizant about this and will whisper "Don't want to give you my cold) and you nod and smile instead. I am usually standing in the back (in case I have to duck out with the baby) so I usually miss both the hand holding and the hand shaking. I have always held that if someone is obviously lost in prayer (head bowed, etc.), it is very inconsiderate to nudge them to hold hands, but not everyone feels that way either.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), December 11, 2002.

Thank you, Xavier, Ed, and GT.

Hello, Jake.

Well, I wasn't expecting to take this subject up with you again, but here we are! I'll try to keep my comments briefer this time. Your words will be in quotation marks.

"I know that there is the 'appropriate' definition of 'scandal,' as John pointed out. However, in the human understanding of the term ..."
[Just had to giggle at this, Jake, because you are saying that "the human understanding of the term" is preferable to (or should override) the Church's "definition," even at a Catholic forum. I can't agree with that.]

"It may not scandalize the Church so to speak, but refusing to hold someone's hand might individually scandalize me or the other person. ... If someone offers me their hand and I refuse, a few things necessarily will occur. The person will feel rejected."
[I'm still trying to figure out what you and Joseph mean by "scandal." From the above, it appears that you mean that a person is "scandalized" if he is made to "feel rejected." I'm not at all familiar with that definition of scandal.]

[Be that as it may, there is no reason at all for the person you described to "feel rejected," in my opinion. No one should be so hypersensitive as that, because common sense should tell each person that there are a variety of legitimate reasons why someone may not want to hold hands. That being true, it follows that there should be no hurt feelings. If no words are spoken, the one refused would (and should) just turn back and completely forget about what happened.]

[On the other thread and on this one, Jake, I stated that I would politely tell the other person: "I'm sorry, sir (ma'am, etc.), but the Church does not give us permission to do that." You spent quite a bit of time just now writing about the difficulty or impropriety of having to give that explanation to someone after Mass. But never did I say that one should wait until then! I always had in mind the idea of giving that explanation right away! In that way, the possibility of hurt feelings or rejection could not enter into the picture even in the rare case of a hypersensitive person that lacks knowledge of ordinary reasons (health-related, etc.) for which some people don't want to hold hands.]

"After all, every Sunday may be a new person next to you, whom you would need to explain this to."
[Absolutely! That is a very good opportunity to get the proper practice gradually re-instituted througout the parish.]

"It is extremely hard for me to believe that several Bishops either don't know about this or are liturgically in schism."
[No one said that the bishops don't know about hand-holding or that they "are liturgically in schism." In the wide scope of liturgical improprieties and abuses, this is something wrong, but mild. The bishops have apparently chosen not to address it vocally. Instead they have chosen to continue to withhold permission for hand-holding -- even though they just had the opportunity to incorporate it into the new U.S. appendix to the G.I.R.M., an appendix that may remain in effect for decades to come. That silence speaks volumes, in my opinion.]

"I have seriously thought about this, due to the previous discussion, and I am content to hold hands with those who offer them, until a statement is made telling us NOT to hold hands. There currently is no such document or statement."

[Ay, mama mia! Jake, please go back to the old thread and look it over again. I worked VERY hard to explain to someone (or several people) just why the "principle" you have just stated you are following is illegitimate. I don't want to do it over again, so I urge you to go back and read that thread. Well, let me just give one quick example to try to show that your principle is invalid. I will take your words and substitute a different action within them:
"I have seriously thought about this ..., and I am content to chew gum and to blow (and pop) bubbles during Mass, until a statement is made telling us NOT to chew gum and blow bubbles. There currently is no such document or statement" forbidding me.
I hope that you now get my point, Jake. The Church does not give an exhaustive list of things that we are forbidden to do, but rather a complete list of things that we are required or permitted to do! Hand-holding (like gum-chewing/bubble-popping) is not on that list, so we don't do it. I couldn't care less if 90% of the Catholics in California do it. That doesn't make it right. (Hmmm. Sounds like a mom [Holy Mother Church?] properly telling her kids not to follow the bad example of the ALL the other kids in the neighborhood.)]

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 14, 2002.

[I'm still trying to figure out what you and Joseph mean by "scandal." From the above, it appears that you mean that a person is "scandalized" if he is made to "feel rejected." I'm not at all familiar with that definition of scandal.]

Yes, “feel rejected” would be what “scandalized” means to me. There certainly is, as you pointed out, the correct definition for the Church. I didn’t intend to mean that it “overrides” the Churches. Sorry, I guess I should have been better with words, John. Here is what the Webster dictionary says about “scandalize”:

“Function: transitive verb Inflected Form(s): -ized; -iz·ing Date: 1566 1 : to speak falsely or maliciously of 2 archaic : to bring into reproach 3 : to offend the moral sense of : SHOCK”

In this case, I think 3 would work just fine. If I were to reject someone’s hand they might be offended or “shocked”. Hope that helps.

“[Be that as it may, there is no reason at all for the person you described to "feel rejected," in my opinion…”

I hope that you know that your “opinion” isn’t necessarily fact.

“No one should be so hypersensitive as that,…”

Pretty judgmental, in my opinion. You haven’t the slightest clue (nor do I) of what someone’s been through to cause them to feel rejected. I think presuming this is “hyper[-in]sensitive.

“If no words are spoken, the one refused would (and should) just turn back and completely forget about what happened.]”

“Should”!? According to who? You? John, you aren’t anyone to tell anyone else how they “should” react. There is likewise a variety of explanations as to why someone might feel rejected!

“[On the other thread and on this one, Jake, I stated that I would politely tell the other person: "I'm sorry, sir (ma'am, etc.), but the Church does not give us permission to do that."…I always had in mind the idea of giving that explanation right away!”

John, since it is apparent that you’ve never actually been in that situation, you wouldn’t know this: by the time the priest calls everyone to say the Lords Prayer, and hands are being offered, the Prayer has already begun. So, coming from someone who HAS been in this situation, there is no time for explanations DURING the Mass.

"After all, every Sunday may be a new person next to you, whom you would need to explain this to." [Absolutely! That is a very good opportunity to get the proper practice gradually re-instituted througout the parish.]”

Actually, an even better way would be for our Pastor or parish priests to say something. But they don’t!

“[Ay, mama mia! Jake, please go back to the old thread and look it over again. I worked VERY hard to explain to someone (or several people) just why the "principle" you have just stated you are following is illegitimate. I don't want to do it over again, so I urge you to go back and read that thread. Well, let me just give one quick example to try to show that your principle is invalid. I will take your words and substitute a different action within them: "I have seriously thought about this ..., and I am content to chew gum and to blow (and pop) bubbles during Mass, until a statement is made telling us NOT to chew gum and blow bubbles. There currently is no such document or statement" forbidding me.”

Apples and Oranges, John. Blowing bubble gum, etc. is no where near in comparison! Okay, then, John, please show us how exactly we should hold our hands! It DOESN’T say to hold them at our sides. It doesn’t “permit” us to hold them in front of us folded. It doesn’t permit us to do anything with our hands. So, since it doesn’t tell us that it is okay to have them at our sides or in front of us – then is it “wrong”. How should we interpret this according to you? See what I mean? To YOU holding hands is inappropriate. Yes, and to others as well. And I do see their arguments as valid. However, since the GIRM, etc. don’t show us exactly what to do with our hands, it is apparent that it is up to our judgment. (not like chewing gum – and actually there IS a specific document which requires us to fast for at least an hour before Mass).

Hope my view is a little clearer. I’ll just leave it at that.

In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), December 16, 2002.

The real question is how handholding at the Our Father comes into conflict with what was said on that other thread about whether holding hands before marriage is a mortal sin. HahAHa! Oooh... this is one of those logical circles within a circle now, isn't it. Not all handholding is evil handholding.

Here's what I have done. Sometimes I forget to plan an avoidance strategy beforehand, and by the time I hear the pews slamming up, I know I've been had. It's too late; I'm surrounded.

Some tips to avoid this unfortunate circumstance:

1. Infants and small children make for human shields. Double-Plus- Good if your wife is already holding the child; you score points for helping out.

2. Feign a runny nose and lack of tissue for 5 minutes beforehand.

3. If you have enough children, begin strategic re-alignment, with the children on the outer edges, the east and west fronts, as a buffers.

Failing these, the only options are direct frontal assault ("sir, I'm not going to be holding hands...") or surrender. I've actually done the previous.

The 'shake of peace' is a cluster bomb of affection that can only be avoided by running one of your children to the back vestibule.

"This Foe is beyond any of you. RUN!"

My reasoning Jake, is that I'm a grump and I don't like holding hands with people. =)

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 16, 2002.

Emerald that was funny. I have to say,John, since our last conversation on this a few months ago I think of it at every Mass. Truthfully I don't sweat it too much, there's so much other stuff to sweat. {but I know.. if I capitulate on the small stuff I'm going to give in on the big stuff..}.. the other morning during the weekday with a small crowd at Mass, I opted to keep my arms down, but I couldn't help looking to the side and there was a little arm held out.. attached to a little oriental lady with a gleam of love in her eyes.. I could no longer resist holding her hand then the man in the moon!

What struck me on another day was.. I thought the idea of not holding hands was because we are not the priest, it's not a time of reaching out, and our palms should not be up like the priest's. And there were all these people not holding hands, but with palms up. I still maintain, it's the heart, you could go crazy with so much mental- gymnastics to distract you.

Our Lord knows our hearts, at least let's make sure He does.

-- Theresa (Rodntee4Jesus@aol.com), December 17, 2002.

Jmj

Well, we tried again, Jake H, but I can see that neither of us will persuade the other on this. Maybe you'll change your mind later in life.

I can't give in to you, because I know that you are mistaken. The thing that you have going against you is that you cannot argue from facts and logic. You are arguing in the weakest way -- from emotion, especially the imagined, possible emotion (maybe "feeling rejected") that you are projecting onto the person you are picturing standing beside you.
I can't make decisions on right and wrong based on possibilities and emotion. I don't believe in "situation ethics." If something is not permitted by the Church, it doesn't suddenly become permitted because some individual may feel badly when I am obedient.

Please think about following the reliable principle: "The end does not justify the means." A good end (avoiding the tiny possibility that someone may feel rejected) does not justify an improper means (going against the Church's norms of worship).

You quoted me as having written. "Be that as it may, there is no reason at all for the person you described to 'feel rejected,' in my opinion…" Then you wrote, "I hope that you know that your 'opinion' isn’t necessarily fact."
[Come on, Jake. If I thought it was fact, I would have left that phrase ("in my opinion") off the end of the sentence!]

Then you quoted me as saying, "No one should be so hypersensitive as that ...". To this, you responded, "Pretty judgmental, in my opinion. You haven't the slightest clue (nor do I) of what someone's been through to cause them to feel rejected. I think presuming this is hyper[-in]sensitive."
[I don't think that it is "judgmental" or "insensitive" to observe that, if someone will not hold another's hand, the second person ought to accept it in stride, without feeling rejected. The person ought to assume that there is a good reason, not a personal insult. You just destroyed your own argument by saying that you "haven't the slightest clue" whether any given person may feel rejected. We can't live our lives walking on eggshells, altering our normal behaviors, constantly worried that our proper actions may adversely affect some (imagined) hypersensitive souls. It's up to the person who feels rejected (if such a person really exists) to stop feeling rejected. It's not up to me to do wrong in order to prevent feelings of rejection.]

You then quoted me as saying, "If no words are spoken ..." [etc.]
[I am not going to comment on what you said about this (the improper accusation of hyperinsensitivy, etc.), because I reject the idea that no words can be spoken. I know that we can (and I think that we must) speak up immediately -- else it too often won't get done at all. I don't agree with your statement that it cannot be done until later. One just has to lean over and whisper the necessary words into the other's ear, and the matter is closed. Even an overly sesitive person will not feel "rejected," when he has heard that the other was merely trying to act in obedience to the Church. You guessed wrongly, Jake. I have been in the situation twice. The first time, I was so surprised that a person would do this (reach out to hold my hand) that I could not react verbally. The next time, I was ready and told the person what he needed to hear.]

"Actually, an even better way would be for our Pastor or parish priests to say something. But they don't!"
[And they won't, until you persuade them to do so. Many priests are cowards about things like this. Just as you wrongly fear that people are just ready to feel rejected, so many priests wrongly fear that the congregation will dislike them if they ask everyone to be obedient. So they keep mum as much as possible. But if people would encourage them to speak up, they may lose their fears.]

"Apples and Oranges, John. Blowing bubble gum, etc. is nowhere near in comparison!"
[I think that you know better, Jake. The example I gave (bubble gum) is such a good illustration or analogy that it proves that you may not follow your proposed principle (to do what you wish, since it is not explicitly forbidden). You have no real answer for my example, other than to cast it aside without justification. You can try to hide from it, but you are going to think about it nonetheless.
[In reply to your series of comments about "how exactly we should hold our hands," I ask you, Jake, to recall that I have already answered such comments and questions on another thread -- one that was started after we had had our original conversations on that long thread.]

You wrote: "there IS a specific document which requires us to fast for at least an hour before Mass."
You're mistaken about this. Only those who will receive Communion must fast. And those who do fast must do so from one hour before reception of Jesus, not one hour before Mass starts.

I'm sad to know, Theresa, that you keep thinking about this and keep experiencing discomfort each week. I confess that I am just the opposite. I never think about it. I am not looking at the people around me. I am absorbed in the prayer that everyone is united in praying. I would say that, as the priest is speaking the "invitatory" words (e.g., "Jesus taught us to call God 'our Father' ..."), we can close your eyes if we need something to help us concentrate and avoid distractions. People's hands can then come together when it is appropriate -- at the "sign of peace."

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 18, 2002.

Did anyone see the syndicated column "Miss Manners" last weekend? A woman wrote to her, very upset about this practice. The interesting thing is, this woman is NOT a Catholic.

She was visiting a Catholic church with a friend and said she felt very uncomfortable about holding hands during the Our Father, because to her, it implied that she agreed with what was being said the prayer, when in fact she does not.

Now Miss Manners didn't know that this is NOT a standard or required practice of the Catholic Church; however, she did suggest that, while it might be rude to blatantly refuse to hold hands, the woman could just kind of wave her hand and whisper "sorry!" if someone tried to take it.

Me, I usually pretend to have arthritis! ;-)

-- Christine L. :-) (christine_lehman@hotmail.com), December 18, 2002.

Hi everyone,

Wow, I haven't been around much, but now that the kids' basketball season is over with, I hope to be able to be more of a "regular" again. We shall see. Anyway, I was doing some research the other day, and came across this article from the archbishop of the Denver, CO diocese (Archbishop Chaput). I would regard him as an extremely reputable source, and so I am copying his article and also posting the link. Moderator, if I'm supposed to only provide the link, please delete the copied article. Sorry for not knowing the protocol.

Link: http://www.archden.org/archbishop/docs/12_18_02_our_father_liturgy.htm

Article:

Liturgy Series Part 11 The 'Our Father': Appropriate gestures for prayer December 18, 2002 Denver Catholic Register

As we stand after singing the "Amen" to the Eucharistic prayer, we come to the beginning of the Communion Rite. This part of Mass includes the "Our Father," the sign of peace, the breaking of the bread, reception of holy Communion and thanksgiving, and the prayer after Communion. Toward the end of the Eucharistic Prayer, the priest prays, "May all of us who share in the body and blood of Christ be brought together in unity by the Holy Spirit. ... Make us grow in love." We were privileged to be present at the consecration when the bread and wine were changed into the body and blood of Christ. Now we ask to be made, ourselves, into the body of Christ. By baptism, we have already entered into that reality. However, through the example of Jesus' self-giving in love and the nourishment we are about to receive, we long to grow more deeply in communion with one another.

The celebrant invites us to pray the words of Jesus in the "Our Father." This is the prayer Jesus Himself taught us, and because of that, it's the model prayer for the Church. How should we pray it?

A lot has been said in popular writing about our gestures at this point of the Mass. Do we fold our hands, or hold them outstretched, or hold hands with those around us? Some people have surprisingly strong feelings about this issue. Our answer to this question needs to come from the Church's understanding of this moment in the Mass.

The priest stands with his arms outstretched as the prayer begins. The assembly should also stand. There are no options for gestures listed in the General Instruction for this part of the Mass. For many persons, folding their hands during the "Our Father" is the best way to express their prayer. For others, they may hold their hands outstretched. Still others hold hands.

None of these gestures is mandated or forbidden by the Church. So our guiding principles should be respect for the dignity of the Mass, and respect for the freedom of our fellow worshipers.

Some people feel that holding hands during the "Our Father" enhances a sense of community. This is perfectly appropriate — so long as it can be done with dignity and without the unseemly acrobatics that sometimes ensue.

For other people, holding hands is a kind of intimacy they reserve for family members. It makes them uncomfortable to hold hands during Mass, and they prefer not to do it. This is also perfectly appropriate. A parish may have several ways of praying the "Our Father," depending on the people who take part in a specific Mass. No one should feel coerced, and the beauty of the liturgy should always be observed.

We have seen before that the Mass is rich with symbols and signs. The beauty and centrality of the Eucharist, which our Lord entrusted to the Church for all times and all peoples, should always be evident in every celebration of the Mass. Thus, those involved in liturgical education should take special care not to allow their private preferences to influence their work.

The liturgy is the public worship of the whole Church, not merely the local community. And it is God's gift — through Jesus Christ and His Church — to all the faithful, who have a right to the truth and an obligation to ask for it.

me again:

According to the archbishop, the gestures are neither "mandated or forbidden by the Church". "No one should feel coerced, and the beauty of the liturgy should always be observed." This IS the guideline that I personally will follow.

cksunshine

-- cksunshine (ck_sunshine@hotmail.com), March 02, 2003.

Jmj
Hello, CKsunshine. Well here we are again!

You wrote: "This IS the guideline that I personally will follow."

I would recommend that you not do this, because it is not a "guideline." It is just an opinion. Without a doubt, it is an opinion from a very fine bishop -- one of the best in the nation -- but it is just his opinion, and I can tell that he arrived at it without fully (if at all) considering the arguments against it.

If he could read the conversations we have had here (on two threads), Archbishop Chaput would be able to reflect on why the Church does not want people to hold hands during the Lord's Prayer. I am quite sure that he has not been exposed to all (if any) of the persuasive arguments.

For example, he says: "There are no options for gestures listed in the General Instruction for this part of the Mass. For many persons, folding their hands during the 'Our Father' is the best way to express their prayer. For others, they may hold their hands outstretched. Still others hold hands. None of these gestures is mandated or forbidden by the Church."

This tells me that he is unaware of the principle by which the Church mandates gestures or suggests alternative gestures -- but does not forbid gestures by listing them specifically. Thus, as he seems unaware, gestures that are not mandated nor suggested are ipso facto forbidden.

He also seems not to have reflected on a very sobering fact: By his logic, there could be hand-holding (or a multitude of other, newly conceived gestures) spontaneously inserted by the faithful into various points in the Mass wherein "none of these gestures is [now] mandated or forbidden by the Church." See what I mean? Once he says that hand-holding is OK in one part of the Mass (because not forbidden), then hand-holding (or embracing or kissing or many other things) could begin to appear throughout the Mass -- and he will have no grounds for forbidding these things.

Well, I don't want to go over everything again. We've probably covered it completely already. I just needed to show that even a very fine shepherd like Abp. Chaput can make mistakes in fact or judgment (as I'm sure he would be honest enough to admit to you in person).

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@Hotmail.com), March 03, 2003.

christine lehman,

if there are threads that need complaining about, well....

-- derek duval jnr (derek.duval@virgin.net), March 03, 2003.

Dear Friends,

I have purposely stayed away from this forum for the last several weeks. Every time I even lurk here, I come away feeling so discouraged and disheartened for a variety of reasons. However, at the risk of dragging this up one more time, I feel I have some unfinished business here to handle.

John,

First, I would like to say that I am glad that we agree that Archbishop Chaput is indeed a "very fine bishop, one of the best in the nation.” You also called him “a very fine shepherd." I also agree with this. However, I do NOT believe that he intends for the faithful to read his series of articles on the new GIRM and Roman Missal as “just his opinions” (which is what you called his guidelines). Indeed, in his very first article he states:

“In March of this year, the Holy Father promulgated a new edition of the Roman Missal for the celebration of the Mass. This is one of the most important — and one of the best — developments in the liturgical life of the Church since the Second Vatican Council. Studied and followed consistently, the new Roman Missal has wonderful potential for recovering both the beauty and power of Catholic worship. We don't yet have an official English edition of the text, but we do have a "General Instruction" (the GIRM) to guide us in applying what's new and different about the Missal's content. My responsibility as archbishop is to ensure that this new abundance of good information about the Mass is welcomed in all our parishes. With that end in mind, I'm beginning this week a series of columns here in the Register. My goal is not just to explain the elements of the Mass, or the diversity of our roles within the Eucharist, or why we do certain actions like kneeling, standing or singing. All of these things are important, of course. But my real goal is to reawaken in all of our hearts a love for worshiping God together as one faithful Church. I hope you'll join me.”

He is taking his role as archbishop very seriously and educating the people, not just giving his opinion, about the new Roman Missal and the GIRM. A very worthy goal of a fine shepherd!

His articles (here is a webpage that has links to all his articles http://spiritofchrist.org/frjeff/newmass.asp ) are very thorough and well thought out. In reading the articles, one can tell how much effort he is putting into his responsibility to educate the people. Why, if he is putting all this time, energy, thought and reflection into these articles (especially when he knows that he is writing and teaching in his role of archbishop), would anyone doubt that he does not know what he is talking about, has not done his homework and appropriate research, and/or reflected adequately on these subjects?

Again, John, you state this principle: “the Church mandates gestures or suggests alternative gestures -- but does not forbid gestures by listing them specifically. Thus … gestures that are not mandated nor suggested are ipso facto forbidden.”

You also said,” If he could read the conversations we have had here (on two threads), Archbishop Chaput would be able to reflect on why the Church does not want people to hold hands during the Lord's Prayer. I am quite sure that he has not been exposed to all (if any) of the persuasive arguments.”

As you’ve indicated, we’ve been over this thoroughly in the two threads. Well John, if you truly believe what you say (and I know that you do), then I invite you to write to the archbishop, show him these threads, and expose him to this principle and the persuasive arguments.

I, for one, am not persuaded by your arguments. If however, Archbishop Chaput is persuaded, I invite you to email me and let me know, and I will immediately come back to the board and humbly admit the error of my ways.

Until then, I will follow his teachings and guidelines. Why? Not because what his teaching happens to be is in line with my current practice. Rather, because he is a very fine bishop, he is extremely credible, he is taking his responsibilities seriously and putting great effort into educating the people, AND he is the highest authority in the church, to date, that I have read/heard clear teaching on the new Roman Missal and GIRM and what our (the people’s) part and role should be.

I do not mean any disrespect here, but I believe that his teaching has authority over yours, John, by the very role that he has within the Church, and by the impeccable record and credibility that he has exhibited to date in his role as priest and bishop. I know and fully understand that Abp. Chaput is a human being that can make mistakes in fact or judgment. If he has in fact erred in his teaching, then I’m sure he will be humble enough to admit it. And I will give him all the more credibility for it.

However, until that time, or until a time when a teaching comes forth from a higher source (ex: the pope, the council of bishops, etc), I will respect his teaching and authority, and follow the guidelines that he has set forth. (Moreover, I’m not talking about “the bishops didn’t authorize it, therefore we can’t do it, kind of argument, unless that’s what the BISHOPS themselves say.)

I don’t expect in any of this that I would persuade you John. That is not my goal here actually. Because I’ve been vocal about this subject, I did not feel that I could in good conscience leave this hanging out there, in the event someone ever pulls this thread up from the archives.

Thanks for your recommendation, but I respectfully decline, because I find the archbishop’s credentials and authority to exceed yours. Carolyn

-- cksunshine (ck_sunshine@hotmail.com), March 21, 2003.

Jmj
Hi, Carolyn. I'm not interested in pursuing this specific subject (licit gestures/postures) any further. All that could be said has been said. It does not bother me for you to have the last word on the specific subject matter.

However, I feel that I have a duty to correct you on two other, more basic, things, which are contributing greatly to our basic disagreement here:

(1) You are mistakenly taking Abp. Chaput's comments/opinions as "teachings." [Your words: "I do not mean any disrespect here, but I believe that his teaching has authority over yours ..."] His articles that tell about the G.I.R.M. are his best effort to explain what the Vatican has published. They are not "teachings." Teachings/doctrines are things that we have to believe by faith. If Abp. Chaput really were imparting doctrine, then I would be right alongside you submitting to his teaching authority.

(2) You wrongly think that I am trying to "teach" and to claim an authority equal to or above Abp. Chaput's. [Your words again: "I do not mean any disrespect here, but I believe that his teaching has authority over yours ..."] The reality is that I am not trying to "teach," and I claim no authority at all! I am merely stating facts, arguing logically, and trying to persuade people to agree with sensible ideas. And what I am trying to pass along is not contrary to Church doctrine or discipline.

Finally, I will not be writing to Abp. Chaput. It is not my place to do so, because he is not my bishop. I have written to my own bishops more than once (on other topics). I encourage anyone who sees this thread (and the other one) and who lives in the Archdiocese of Denver to print the threads and send them to Abp. Chaput. However, I must say in advance that his opinion of what anyone says on these threads would not be binding on anyone. Only the Vatican (or the majority vote of a Conference of bishops, followed by Vatican approval) can bind on most liturgical matters, including gestures/postures.

I'm sorry if it hurts you to read these words of mine, CKS, but I think it quite likely that your "feeling so discouraged and disheartened" arises from an unwillingness to "surrender" to arguments that are more convincing than your own. This kind of "denial" -- clinging to a position that has been shown to be untenable -- can lead to feelings of depression (in your words, "feeling so discouraged and disheartened"). I think that if you "surrender," you will feel a lot better. However, if you are feeling greatly oppressed by people and events in your life, and if opposing me gives you a much-needed sense of self-respect, then please continue without surrendering. Your emotional health is more important to me than your agreeing that we should avoid a certain gesture or posture.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 21, 2003.

my, what a pompus ass. have you any clue how thoroughly distasteful and arrogant you truly are? must you "anal"yze and argue every nit and tittle into the ground? enough already!!!!!!

if the moderator WERE to assign any deputies, it'd surely better not be you lest the forum die of oppression and irritation. reading your responses reminds one of the dentist chair - bunching up the stomach, gripping the arms ever tighter, wanting desparately to scream in agony over the non-stop annoyance - and looking for the nearest baseball bat to slug someone over the head with.

imagine trying to assert that something is forbidden because the Church doesn't specifically say you CAN do it, "ipso facto" my ass. can you say legalistic bull-crap? get a clue Johnny-boy, and get a life. and while you're at it, start treating Carolyn with the respect she deserves - that sweet, faithful lady is a far better example of the Christian faith than you'll ever hope to be. don't let him get to you dear, he's not worth the frustration.

-- fed-up with the (arrogance@gecik.com), March 21, 2003.

While I don't agree with Biltz's level of aggression, I also wish to point out that convincing oneself with an argument is different from convincing someone else. If all that could be said on the subject has already been said, why does the topic continue? Obviously, it is because others are not convinced by your argument, and you feel compelled to sway their opinions.

Comparing gum-snapping to consensual hand-holding is truly apples and oranges, a common argumentative fallacy. There are many gestures, body positions and human interactions that are not mandated nor suggested by the Church, and if you take a moment to think just how wide a range of activity this would include, even you would agree that they are not all, and neither should they all be, forbidden. There is obviously something beyond your argumentative point of “allowing only that which is mandated or suggested” that should dictate acceptable Mass behavior. I suggest that the additional factor is a judgment on whether the activity retains the dignity of the Mass to yourself and others, as the Bishop suggested. Certainly there is nothing incorrect with your refusal to join hands with others during the “Our Father”, and in fact, a case could be made that universal hand-holding detracts from your personal perception of the dignity of the Mass, but that argument would have to be tempered in the same manner which you dismissed other’s feelings of rejection by a refusal to hold hands.

So we come now to the real heart of the issue. Why is it that you are so personally bothered by the hand-holding? Did someone crack your knuckle once when you were small? I’ll bet I’m close…

-- DavidCyrus (DavidCyrus@yahoo.com), March 21, 2003.

I received an email from John, and because we had been discussing this on the forum (ie in public) I would like to post the response that I sent to him, for continuity's sake.

To John, (and everyone)

First of all, I want you (and everyone) to understand that I am not trying to have the last word. In my original post about the archbishop, I had come across information that I thought that I would post for everyone's discernment, and then explained my own response to this information. I did not try to tell anyone, or persuade anyone what they should do or think.

You chose to respond to that post. I would not have responded again, except that in your post, you made a personal recommendation to me. I felt that required a response from me. My response was that I would not be following your recommendation, and the reasons why. I am not trying to persuade anyone of anything, so I do not feel that my arguments are more or less convincing, because they are not arguments at all, simply information, and my own response to that information.

Second, I understand what you are saying here about teaching/comments&opinions. But in regards to the archbishop's opinions/comments/series of articles geared toward the faithful, I believe that because the archbishop is a man of integrity, he would be very careful about what he is saying/writing, especially considering his audience, because he knows that he is the archbishop and people will take very seriously what he is saying. Therefore, I will revise what I said earlier, and say that I will take his opinion over yours because of the criteria that I stated in my earlier message. Just as you stated that the archbishop's opinions are not binding on anyone, neither are yours.

Third, I would publicly like to ask you to, if you have not already, reconsider your words to me: "I'm sorry if it hurts you to read these words of mine, CKS, but I think it quite likely that your "feeling so discouraged and disheartened" arises from an unwillingness to "surrender" to arguments that are more convincing than your own. This kind of "denial" -- clinging to a position that has been shown to be untenable -- can lead to feelings of depression (in your words, "feeling so discouraged and disheartened"). I think that if you "surrender," you will feel a lot better. However, if you are feeling greatly oppressed by people and events in your life, and if opposing me gives you a much-needed sense of self-respect, then please continue without surrendering. Your emotional health is more important to me than your agreeing that we should avoid a certain gesture or posture."

I am not hurt at all by what you wrote. While I do appreciate that you state that my emotional health is important to you, you and anyone who read my post in the "thoughts and a decision" thread will realize that my feelings about this forum have absolutely nothing to do with what you've written here.

(*John stated in his email to me that he had written his post before he had read the other thread*)

I understand that you had written these words before you read that post. Whether you had read it or not though, I simply think that to bring this discussion down to this kind of personal level is at best, inappropriate.

Well thank you for your time, and I do wish you and everyone on the forum the best. You'all shall continue to be in my prayers.

God's blessings,

Carolyn

-- Carolyn (ck_sunshine@hotmail.com), March 21, 2003.

Dear Fed-up,

John is not getting to me, but thank you for your concern that I be shown respect. While I appreciate your defense of me, I would also ask that, although you (judging from what you wrote) and I do not agree with his logic, that we treat him with respect also. Sometimes it's hard to show Christian love, especially when we feel strongly about something, and we, every single one of us on this forum, myself included, have failed at it. But still we should try to do this.

As I wrote to John, "to bring this discussion down to this kind of personal level is at best, inappropriate."

Carolyn

-- Carolyn (ck_sunshine@hotmail.com), March 21, 2003.

Dear fed up

Are you elle?

-- - (food@forthough.t), March 21, 2003.

Hi All.

1 Timothy 3:8 New American Standard Bible (cuz it's the one I just happen to have next to me at the moment.)

"Therefore I want the men in every place to pray, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and dissension."

I guess this verse implies the holding of hands with the palms facing up or the hands held up, but the main emphasis seems to be that we should pray together in a peaceful mood with each other.

(This post has many entries. If this has already been mentioned, well.....sorry.)

rod

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), March 28, 2003.

I came across this discussion via a reference in this article: http://online.wsj.com/article_email/0,,SB107203488235996900- H9jeoNplaZ2o52vZn6Ia6eCm5,00.html

The article notes: 'The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops prefers that worshipers raise their open hands in a position known as orans rather than hold hands.' I have to say that the orans gesture bothers me even more than holding hands: the latter over-emphasises the community rather than the transcendent Father 'in Heaven' to whom it is addressed, but the orans gesture is a *priestly* gesture, traditionally reserved to the ordained clergy, and its use by the congregation contributes to a blurring and confusion of roles.

For centuries, Catholics have prayed with their hands together. Why the sudden need to do something different -- to hold hands or appropriate a priestly gesture for oneself? I pray the Pater Noster the same way I pray all the other prayers of the Church: with my palms together in front of my chest with my right thumb crossed over my left. Not only is this the traditional position for everyone except the priest, it makes it obvious to your neighbours that you are not extending your hands in a offer to hold their's.

-- John Hudson (tiro@tiro.com), December 27, 2003.

I agree with you, Mr. Hudson. There's no call whatever for a Catholic at prayer to make any other gesture except his hands raised before his heart, palms together. This is traditionally correct. Orans isn't, nor is the ''daisy- chain''. We have for a holy example the most Blessed Virgin Mary. Her prayer is the most efficacious by far. Every portrait of the Virgin shows her hands in front of her, palms together. Our Lady of Guadalupe, the holy Virgin who appears in the Grotto of Lourdes, and in Fatima. All giving us the tried and true example. No other is necessary, IMHO. No other is holier.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 27, 2003.

Jmj

Hello, John Hudson. You referred to an online article (no longer accessible, it seems), which you said states the following:
"The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops prefers that worshipers raise their open hands in a position known as orans rather than hold hands."

That is an inaccurate statement. A "conference" cannot "prefer" something. Only a person or group of persons can prefer something. Currently, the majority of the USCCB has chosen against approving the use of "orans" and "hand-holding" as gestures for the laity at Mass.

For an accurate chronology, etc., on the subject of the use of "orans" and hand-holding during the "Our Father," I refer everyone to this article from the "Adoremus Journal." [Thanks to an outstanding forum "regular" for bringing this article to my attention.]

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 28, 2003.

Quoting from the linked article:

"Furthermore, the bishops did not forbid hand-holding, either, even though the BCL originally suggested this in 1995. The reason? A bishop said that hand-holding was a common practice in African- American groups and to forbid it would be considered insensitive. "

-- interesting (to@note.com), December 29, 2003.

Why did you find that sentence "interesting to note"?

-- (@@@.@), December 30, 2003.

The bishops made a CONSCIOUS decision not to forbid holding hands.

They did not require it of course. But because they made a conscious decision not to forbide it, one cannot then argue that it is not permitted. Obviously it is permitted, but it is not required.

-- interesting (to@note.com), December 30, 2003.

That's what I feared was your logic, "interesting."

Your belief is mistaken. The writer of the article made a slip in saying, "... the bishops did not forbid hand-holding ...", because that phrase implies that the bishops needed to "forbid hand-holding." In fact, they don't need to "forbid" anything, because the GIRM is not written in negative (forbidding) terms, but in positive (permitting/requiring) terms. Since hand-holding is not mentioned in the GIRM (or U.S. adaptations) as permitted or required, it is automatically prohibited.

You can see this for yourself by considering some other gesture -- lets say, "hugging" (or even "hands-around-shoulders"). The bishops didn't expressly "forbid" hugging during the "Our Father." Nevertheless, we know that hugging is not OK, because it is neither permitted nor required by the GIRM. It is automatically prohibited. And the very same is true of hand-holding.

There are far worse liturgical abuses that need to be brought under control, of course, so no one is going to penalize hand-holders (forbidding Communion, etc.). If wise, they will just refrain from doing this on their own, after they come to understand what is permitted and required by the GIRM/rubrics.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 31, 2003.

Why the obsession with accidentals? I can't believe things have become so innane that people are approaching the subject of hand- holding during the Lord's Prayer syllogistically.

It's a year this coming month since I decided to exclusively attend the Tridentine Mass, and I couldn't be happier for making and sticking to that decision.

Let me tell you something, it sure feels good not to have to be burdened by this nonsense anymore. No liturgical abuses, no improvisation, no more bad music.

And no more handing holding. I always hated that; I always did think that was so phony.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 31, 2003.

"...And no more handing holding."

Or hand-holding either. What the heck was that? Oh well.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 31, 2003.

Let me tell you something: my own parish in Nor Cal is just fine with me and hundreds of devout Catholics. Our Lord makes it fine, not nostalgic preferences. Your decisions are your own business. It won't hurt MY feelings.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 31, 2003.

I have no doubt, Gene, that if I were to keep banging my head against the wall, I would eventually achieve your level of understanding.

Perhaps there is hope for even one such as myself.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), January 01, 2004.

That being said, we hold this in common agreement:

"We have for a holy example the most Blessed Virgin Mary. Her prayer is the most efficacious by far. Every portrait of the Virgin shows her hands in front of her, palms together. Our Lady of Guadalupe, the holy Virgin who appears in the Grotto of Lourdes, and in Fatima. All giving us the tried and true example. No other is necessary, IMHO. No other is holier."

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), January 01, 2004.