A reader writes:
Would you please comment on the following article in yesterday’s LA Times?
The story in question is about a parish in the Diocese of Orange where the new priest has–among other things–forbidden people to kneel following the Agnus Dei, and a huge controversy has errupted.
IT’S A STORY THAT I’VE COMMENTED ON BEFORE.
But I’ve only commented on certain aspects of it, and the L.A. Times piece gives me the confirmation I need to go further into the issue.
First, though, I’d mention that there are notable flaws in the L.A. Times piece. They don’t get their history of recent liturgical law right, there is a bizarro attempt to link the kneeling issue to The Da Vinci Code (I’m not making that up), and they notably fail to document other aspects of the story that are important, such as the fact that the parishioners weren’t just disinvited from attending Mass because they insisted on kneeling after the Agnus Dei. They are also accused of handing out literature making false allegations against the diocese and the priest, which is a much more serious and canonically actionable offense than refusing to stand at the Agnus Dei. See my prior commentary for more info on this.
They also talk to an expert at the Georgetown liturgy center who is off in liturgical la-la land, but I can’t hold the stupid things he says against the Times. (At least not in a direct way.)
What I find particularly interesting here is a particular assertion that was made by the priest of the parish (he apparently hasn’t been appointed its pastor, just its administrator) in a bulletin. I had seen this statement reported before in material from the distressed parishioners, but I didn’t have confirmation of it. Now the L.A. Times confirms it:
Kneeling "is clearly rebellion, grave disobedience and mortal sin," Father Martin Tran, pastor at St. Mary’s by the Sea, told his flock in a recent church bulletin. The Diocese of Orange backs Tran’s anti-kneeling edict.
Actually, the L.A. Times again has it slightly wrong. You’ll notice that the word "kneeling" isn’t included in the quotation. Here’s what Fr. Tran actually said in context:
As I said before, Liturgy is the "public worship" of the Church whose authority belongs only to Rome, the National Conference of the Catholic Bishops and the local Bishop, and not a private worship or business which belongs to any person(s) or group that can take it into their own hands by intentionally setting their own norms, disregarding the permission from the local Bishop or despising the authority of the local Bishop, the National Conference of one’s country. That is clearly rebellion, grave disobedience and mortal sin, separating oneself from the Church.
The highlighted part is the apparent antecedent for "that," which is what Fr. Tran says is mortally sinful.
And there’s an element of truth in what he says. There are things that one can do in violation of the Church’s norms that would be mortally sinful–for example, if one decided that something other than wheat bread is to be used for confecting the host. That kind of violation of the Church’s norms would be mortally sinful if done with adequate knowledge and intent.
But not all violations of the Church’s norms are created equal. This is a fact that is expressly recognized in the instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum, which recognizes at least three different levels of gravity in liturgical offenses, one of which is clearly non-grave matter.
This means that it is pastorally irresponsible in the extreme to wave the threat of mortal sin in parishioners’ faces unless an actually grave offense is in question, and that does not appear to be the case here. Fr. Tran goes on–immediately after the paragraph quoted above–to state:
The reason for this is that all the current liturgical norms of the Diocese and of the U.S. are officially recognized and allowed by Rome. Furthermore, Fr. Johnson was allowed only to have the Tridentine Mass here at St. Mary’s with its own norms: communion by tongue, with one species, no sign of peace, kneeling after "Agnus Det’l Lamb of God… that some parishioners here name that "traditions" of St. Mary’s. Besides, Fr. Johnson allowed other liturgical practice/norms belonging to the Tridentine Mass to be applied to other Masses of Vatican II, including the Novus Ordo Mass: that is not correct. For it was out of line with the current liturgical norms of the Diocese. These have to be changed. Fr. Sy and I were appointed by the Bishop, working together with the Bishop to re-establish the liturgical norms at St. Mary’s to be in line with the current liturgical norms of the Church in America and of the Diocese (allowed by Rome). And this binds all with total obedience.
As one family, all of us have the responsibility to correct our disobedient brothers and sisters. If they do not listen, that is their serious problem!
Now, it is apparent that Fr. Tran is not the clearest writer in the world. It is also clear that he is not the most pastoral priest in the world. In fact, he comes across as a Grade-A Jerk in this text (particularly toward the end), although allowance must be made for the previous history of the situation, which may have caused tempers to flare on both sides.
Still, it seems that the nut of the issue is that Fr. Tran is trying to bring the parish into line with the Diocese of Orange’s liturgical norms for the current rite of Mass after his predecessor allowed practices from the Tridentine Mass to be applied to the current rite of Mass. What these are, Fr. Tran isn’t clear on, but the most likely friction points are the ones he names as aspects of the Tridentine rite of Mass: Communion on the tongue, Communion under one species, not having an individual exchange of peace, and kneeling after the Agnus Dei.
Communion on the tongue is a protected right of the faithful, so he can’t (validly) accuse parishioners of being disobedient to liturgical law if they want to receive on the tongue. Neither is there any requirement for people to receive under both species if both are being offered to the faithful, so there’s no grounds for valid charges of disobedience there, either. If he’s calling for an individual exchange of the sign of peace and parishioners are utterly refusing to do it (e.g., not even nodding and smiling at those around them) then he’d have some grounds for criticism, but that doesn’t seem to be the big issue here. The L.A. Times–and those on the other side of the issue–seem to understand kneeling after the Agnus Dei to be what’s causing all the ruckus.
So (in the absence of further evidence) let’s go with that: Fr. Tran seems to be threatening people who are kneeling after the Lamb of God with mortal sin. That’s certainly what they’re understanding him to be doing, and–despite the lack of precision with which he writes–he’s definitely waving charges of mortal sin in their faces over lack of compliance with the norms of the diocese, and kneeling seems to be what is at issue.
If that is what he’s doing then he is totally, absolutely, 100% crazy . . . speaking from the point of view of liturgical law.
The Church simply has not invested the question of the posture of the laity with the gravity needed to result in mortal sin. Indeed, Rome has shown significant sympathy and indulgence toward those who wish to kneel at traditional moments.
Here’s a nice test case: Kneeling for Communion. The current norms for the United States establish a posture of standing to receive Communion and–because of the gravity of the moment itself (you’re receiving God Incarnate in Holy Communion) and because of the public nature of the moment (you’re up in front of everybody where you can be easily seen)–kneeling at this moment would be more disruptive by way of example to others than at any other moment in the Mass. So if any moment of kneeling praeter legem would be a grave offense, this one would.
So what does liturgical law say regarding people who insist on kneeling for Communion?
Communicants should not be denied Holy Communion because they kneel. Rather, such instances should be addressed pastorally, by providing the faithful with proper catechesis on the reasons for this norm [GIRM (2002, U.S. ed.) 160].
Now, canon law requires ministers of the Eucharist to deny Communion to anyone who is "obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin" (can. 915), so if a person insisted on kneeling in spite of admonitions then you’d have to deny him Holy Communion if this were a grave sin (since it’s obviously manifest). Since the text says that Communicants are not to be denied Holy Communion, the only conclusion is that kneeling for Communion is not a grave sin and thus not capable of being a mortal sin.
And if kneeling for Communion is not a mortal sin then–a fortiori–kneeling after the Agnus Dei is not a mortal sin.
The claim that it would be is just crazy and shows a profound lack of awareness of the mechanics of liturgical law and the way Rome handles these things.
Indeed, the actions of Posture Nazis (of liberal or conservative bent–and there are conservative Posture Nazis) are simply not consonant with the attitude Rome takes toward the regulation of posture at Mass. That attitude is expressed in a recent Responsum issued by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments regarding kneeling after Communion:
Dubium: In many places, the faithful are accustomed to kneeling or sitting in personal prayer upon returning to their places after having individually received Holy Communion during Mass. Is it the intention of the Missale Romanum, editio typica tertia, to forbid this practice?
Responsum: Negative, et ad mensum [and for this reason]. The mens [reasoning] is that the prescription of the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani, no. 43 [i.e., the main section dealing with posture], is intended, on the one hand, to ensure within broad limits a certain uniformity of posture within the congregation for the various parts of the celebration of Holy Mass, and on the other, to not regulate posture rigidly in such a way that those who wish to kneel or sit would no longer be free [June 5, 2003 (Prot. N. 855/03/L); printed in BCL Newsletter, July 2003].
So whether one would insist that it is mortally sinful to kneel or not to kneel at particular points in Mass, one would be misreading liturgical law. The Church simply has not invested the regulation of posture with grave matter and it intends only to establish "a certain uniformity" that has "broad limits" and it does not intend to "regulate posture rigidly."
This makes troubling a reported comment by a diocesan spokesman. According to the L.A. Times:
Father Joe Fenton, spokesman for the Diocese of Orange, said the diocese supports Tran’s view that disobeying the anti-kneeling edict is a mortal sin. "That’s Father Tran’s interpretation, and he’s the pastor," he said. "We stand behind Father Tran."
You’ll note that once again the L.A. Times has not gotten the word "kneeling" into the quote, so we’re not entirely sure what Fr. Fenton said (assuming he was even quoted accurately). Given the number of other sloppy, problematic points in the article, I can’t be sure if he was quoted accurately or if the question he was responding to involved the issue the Times represents or, if he was and if it did, whether he was speaking after mature deliberation or just reflexively trying to support a diocesan priest in the face of criticism.
But I can tell you this: If this matter goes up to Rome the mortal sin interpretation of the parishioners’ actions will not be sustained.
Instead, we’re likely to get back something that sounds very much like the Responsum on the question of whether you can kneel after Communion.
