Wednesday, September 28, 2011

Change

I suppose I am a reverse reactionary when it comes to institutional Church changes in protocols, prayers and procedures. Anything that feels pre-Vatican II immediately gets my sneer and rejection, pretty much out of hand. Two recent changes really made me anxious. The first was the introduction of the new English translation of the Roman Missal – new words for Mass, that were to be more faithful to the original Latin text – yikes! Next we’ll be back to celebrating the Mass in Latin. My parish began using the new text a few weeks ago, and it was sensitively introduced by our terrific priest – he was aware people would be uncomfortable with the new words, if for no other reason than that most of us can pray the Mass by rote. And that was my first thought that maybe it wasn’t all bad – having to think about prayer rather than just reflexively go through the motions could really add meaning to the liturgy. We went through the translation before Mass (and were given no homily, just to keep us all on side). Upon reflection and a few weeks of getting used to it, there’s still a lot that troubles me – the penitential rite goes back to the old mea culpa of “my fault, my fault, my most grievous fault” – ah yes, the drumbeat of Catholic guilt. But some parts are truly beautiful – the reply of “And with your spirit” rather than “And also with you” for one. I think switching to “I” rather than “we” in the Creed is good – definitely makes me think about what I do believe rather than hiding behind shared declaration. In all, thinking about the words we pray and learning about the why rather than just arriving at an opinion reminds me why participating in this blog is so important for me, too – I am woefully under-informed when it comes to Scripture and tend to duck around the passages that make me uncomfortable – having to confront the text of the faith I purport to believe in is essential if I am ever to move anywhere in my faith journey.

The second change is social rather than doctrinal, and still leaves me unsure. Starting in mid-September, the practice of abstaining from eating meat on Fridays was reinstated for the Catholic Church in England and Wales. I find it uncomfortable even writing this, largely because one of the reasons behind this was to solidify a more Catholic identity – for example, if you were with friends on a Friday, you’d have to mention you couldn’t eat meat. Even during Lent, not eating meat and getting ashes often feels like a showy substitute for real action – it’s not much of a sacrifice, and I’m not sure it has meaning in modern society. But perhaps it does – certainly a large part of the reason I find this uncomfortable is the public identification of Catholicism. But there are aspects of making a more regular sacrifice that feel very important – I live such a privileged and easy life while so many suffer. I’m not sure what the answer for me is, but I am incredibly impressed by the movements in some segments of the Church to live sustainably and in solidarity with the poor (for example, http://www.cafod.org.uk/livesimply). Maybe I need to think about my Friday penance more in that direction, and maybe for a change, try to turn that thinking into doing …

3 comments:

  1. Thanks for opening my mind. I had the same inclination about the changes. This is helpful.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Great piece Cath! Totally agree. I've talked about it a lot in my faith group and lots of people are upset about it. I don't love all the changes either. But that is just what it is - a change - and change in any realm of life always upsets people. But I have been thinking, I had to learn some new words for the creed when I lived in England and I didn't get all uptight about it - it was their tradition and so I learned it and adapted to it - so why am I getting upset about these changes now? A girl in my faith group who is Indian and has lived all of the world shares a bit of my persepctive - because she has lived all over, she has always had to adapt to slightly different language depending on the country. So this change doesn't upset her. It is true, when you keep yourself flexible in life, expose yourself to different traditions and cultures and languages, etc., then you keep your mind open, and you don't get so attached to one way of doing things, and isn't that a good thing? The words of the mass to this point have been like a tradition - like Thanksgiving, where everyone has to have a certain food and if they don't have it, it doesn't feel like Thanksgiving. But you can't actually take away the meaning of mass or your relationship with God by changing some words. We get attached to things as they are and don't want to change. Yes, this change is hard, but we will adapt over time. The push back and frustration over this change is more to do with mistrust in and fear of the institutional church and motivations behind the change. The positive side of the change - it has gotten people talking again, a lot, about what church and scripture and prayer and being Catholic mean. It has gotten lots of people engaged. That's not a bad thing. So yes, changes can be made to the mass or laws, but no institution can change or take away the most foundational thing, individuals living in relationship with God.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Maura, thanks for your insight—it's really helpful as I struggle with this. I really agree with this:
    "The push back and frustration over this change is more to do with mistrust in and fear of the institutional church and motivations behind the change. "

    That's the biggest part of my struggle with it. (Though I must say that the linguist in me is bugged by the use of language that seems so oblique rather than direct.)

    Thanks for helping me reframe this challenge!

    ReplyDelete