Hand Holding and Shaking

[Tantum_ergo]

Since it is not regulated, it is not a change. A change is doing other than what a specific direction indicates.

I don’t think that is accurate.

My diocese, as I mentioned, under our bishop does not permit hand-holding during the Our Father. So by that logic, even though a large number of people were holding hands one year ago, and now almost nobody does (and the ones who do pretty soon find out and stop), we have not made any ‘changes’. That sounds positively Orwellian. . .

Also, there was most definitely a change, despite your contention. 40 years ago, nobody held hands at the Our Father at Mass anywhere in the U.S. Now, lots do. That is a change, despite your way of perception that 'since there was no ‘mandated’ posture, there is no change.

Currently, there is no posture ‘mandated’ for the hands while we stand for the gospel reading. I suppose if we all decided to hold hands, you would say this is likewise perfectly all right because there has been no ‘change’ to a posture?


Well, we’ll disagree I suppose; just make sure if you like hand-holding not to come up to Vermont, unless you want to be disobedient to the bishop by insisting on hand-holding.

 

[adrift]

If you don’t like it, don’t hold hands. You are not required to (and oh, how loud the complaining would be should they require it). But quit complaining about the issue; Rome is eminently aware of the issue and has pointedly ignored it. They have not required it, and they have most obviously chosen not to address the issue in the numerous instances they have had to do so. The non-answer to all the repeated complaints for these 40+ years is deafening.

It isn’t what I want. It is what the GIRM states. IF they had wanted to change it, as you have noted, there was ways of doing so. The fact is that they left it as it was. There are good reasons for this not being done. Because you like it is not one. It wouldn’t bother me at all to do this but I know why it shouldn’t be done and that is what I follow. Holding of hands has not been around for forty years. This issue has been addressed in the negative but I guess that those who are deaf are the ones that wish to do what they want to do.

 

[BloodStaindRose]

The “tradition” of holding hands during the Our Father is a habit many Catholics have assumed from Protestant churches, it is not a Catholic ritual but simply something picked up. I do not believe it is right; it is not neccesary and therefore I do not practice it!

I try to avoid the shaking of hands unless someone “forces” it on me; I feel that it can be a distraction from the Eucharist.

God Bless!

 

[otjm]

I don’t think that is accurate.

My diocese, as I mentioned, under our bishop does not permit hand-holding during the Our Father. So by that logic, even though a large number of people were holding hands one year ago, and now almost nobody does (and the ones who do pretty soon find out and stop), we have not made any ‘changes’. That sounds positively Orwellian. . .

Also, there was most definitely a change, despite your contention. 40 years ago, nobody held hands at the Our Father at Mass anywhere in the U.S. Now, lots do. That is a change, despite your way of perception that 'since there was no ‘mandated’ posture, there is no change.

Currently, there is no posture ‘mandated’ for the hands while we stand for the gospel reading. I suppose if we all decided to hold hands, you would say this is likewise perfectly all right because there has been no ‘change’ to a posture?


Well, we’ll disagree I suppose; just make sure if you like hand-holding not to come up to Vermont, unless you want to be disobedient to the bishop by insisting on hand-holding.

I don’t have a dog in the fight. If the person next to me reaches out to hold hands, I will; it is a matter of charity. If they don’t, then I don’t hold hands. I really don’t care either way; it is about as much a non-issue as could be.

I am also old enought to have attended many Masses prior to Vatican 2. As a matter of fact, some people did hold hands then, they were husband and wife. No one seemed to pay any attention then (and posture was not regulated by the GIRM then either; only by a nun who would rap you with a nuckle on the head - if you were a kid).

The closest I can trace hand holding by groups is to the Charismatic Movement in the 60’s, and it spread like wildfire.

Oh, and if I come to Vermont, I would be more than happy to not hold hands there; 1st, because I would respect the bishop’s wish, and 2nd because I would not require it of the person next to me. As I said, it is a non-issue. I am praying the Our Father then, and I don’t find the issue any sort of a distraction; my focus is on the prayer.

Oh, and the picture I have of everyone holding hands during the Our Father was taken in either 1964 or 1965, and given this is the West Coast and most things theological tend to get here last (it is not exactly a hotbed of Christianity out here), that would make it 42 to 43 years. It is not like we start liturgical trends out here in Oregon; more like non-liurgical ones like assissted suicide. But that’s another thread…

Let’s put it this way: there is a specific rule (viri selectii) for the Washing of Feet on Holy Thursday; Rome made a specific rule and appears to have told then Archbishop, now Cardinal O’Malley, in what I believe is the oldest Archdiocese in America, to do what he felt pastorally correct (he allowed women to be part of the process).

On the other hand, for longer than the issue of women’s feet being washed has been around, the issue of no rule at all about personal posture (or, if you will to one of the posters, public posture) being ignored repeatedly by Rome with 40+ years of protest should tell the protestors something. It appears they choose not to hear the “non-response”.

In short, it is a tempest in a tea pot. Chaput was right; to those who do, there is no regulated posture for the hands (there or anywhere in the GIRM) and they are free to do so without criticism, particularly criticism from those who don’t know how to read Church law; and to those who choose not to, they should be allowed their space and not criticized.

 

[otjm]

]It isn’t what I want. It is what the GIRM states.

That is the point; the GIRM doesn’t state anything anywhere about the position of your hands.

IF they had wanted to change it, as you have noted, there was ways of doing so. The fact is that they left it as it was.

Well, you got the point, but you just didn’t realize you got the point. 1) there was nothing in the GIRM even prior to Vatican 2 regulating how you held your hands. And there was nothing after that, even after people complained at length not only to the bishops but also directly to Rome. If Rome did not want us holding hands after they found out we were doing so, they would have said so. But they specifically chose not to regulate hand position during the Our Father.

In short, tehy left people holding hands (they knew they were from the complaints) when they had the opportunity to regulate something else, or at least specifically regulate that no one hold hands.

There are good reasons for this not being done.

There are reasons given by both side on the issue for why it should be done or why it should not be done; all of them from people who don’t make law (Rome does that); whether they are good or bad reasons at this point is a matter of personal preference.

Because you like it is not one.

I have absolutely no personal preference in the matter. Either way is fine with me. If Rome came out tomorrow and either mandated it or forbid it, that would be fine with me. I truly don’t care; what I care about at that point is focusing on the Our Father, and neither position impacts me when I do so.

It wouldn’t bother me at all to do this but I know why it shouldn’t be done and that is what I follow.

You have a personal opinion why it should not be done, and that is backed up by people who agree with you, and that is fine too. But that is exactly what it is: a personal opinion. You are entitled to your personal opinion, but please stop passing it off as “The Correct Position”. It is your personal opinion, not law. That has been made clear by someone with more liturgical training than you have - Archbishop Chaput.

Holding of hands has not been around for forty years.

you are right; it has been between 42 and 43 years. I have the picture. It was taken of a group of college students from four different colleges at a Mass they were attending, in Oregon. And they didn’t start it; it came from the midwest.

This issue has been addressed in the negative but I guess that those who are deaf are the ones that wish to do what they want to do.

It has not been addressed in the negative by Rome, who makes the rules and interprets the rules. Rome has refused at numerous opportunities to put the kibosh on it. Rome has made a point since before the revision of the GIRM in the 1970s to not address the complaints of those who don’t like it. Their choice to not answer the complainants is the same answer a mother gives to a child who complains that something is not fair; when she doesn’t answer, that does not mean that she agrees. It means she isn’t going to give the child the answer they want.

 

[jmcrae]

The “tradition” of holding hands during the Our Father is a habit many Catholics have assumed from Protestant churches, it is not a Catholic ritual but simply something picked up. I do not believe it is right; it is not neccesary and therefore I do not practice it!

Actually it comes from the Catholic Church in the Philippines.

Protestants don’t hold hands during the Our Father or at any other time, that I know of. The Protestant churches where the Our Father is prayed, the congregation is sitting down at the time; not standing. The Protestant churches where the norm is to stand for prayer, the prayers are extemporaneous - they don’t use memorized prayers of any kind.

I try to avoid the shaking of hands unless someone “forces” it on me; I feel that it can be a distraction from the Eucharist.

This is actually a regular part of the Mass.

 

[KatieD]

I don’t hold hands during the “Our Father” - I close my hands and pray with my hands together because I was taught that our focus should be on our Lord.

That said, I don’t have any problem with shaking hands during the sign of peace. This is the time we are called upon to share peace with our neighbor. If I know someone well, I will give them a quick hug. I don’t think it needs to last a long time or we need to get carried away, but I like the sign of peace.

 

[chevalier]

Please Help!! In what document(s) does the Church condemn hand holding during the Our Father and/or shaking hands during the sign of Peace. Thank you.

Shaking hands is perfectly okay. I’ve seen it from birth here (Poland), it’s very old and we’re quite the traditional breed as a nation. I would be extremely sad if it were to disappear. I have fond memories of how it was expected to end any and every dispute and make things right between people. Is not shaking hands a sign of peace, anyway? It was a kiss back in early Christianity. And I’d rather not have to kiss strangers, even if it’s just the cheek. Not like it doesn’t happen in some churches.

Hand holding during Our Father is different. I have no problem with hand holding while praying if voluntary, but maybe not during mass. At least the normal mass, not talking about some charismatic groups that are used to it, but it’s still probably liturgically wrong.

 

[adrift]

Your using the silence of the GRIM as proof that it is o.k. but it doesn’t work. The GRIM only tells you what you CAN do not what you can’t.

all of them from people who don’t make law (Rome does that);
Exactly my point. Rome has not allowed for holding of hands can you show me where it is allowed? When people hold hands the people are making the law.

I have absolutely no personal preference in the matter.
Neither do I.
you are right; it has been between 42 and 43 years.
Just because some college students might of done this it was not a normal practice. I never saw it until twenty years ago.

By not putting in the GRIM they did address it.

Concerning holding hands in the **Eucharistic Liturgy the Congregation for Divine Worship in Rome responded as follows:
**
QUERY: In some places there is a current practice whereby those taking part in the Mass replace the giving of the sign of peace at the deacon’s invitation by holding hands during the singing of the Lord’s Prayer. Is this acceptable? REPLY: The prolonged holding of hands is of itself a sign of communion rather than of peace. Further, it is a liturgical gesture introduced spontaneously but on personal initiative; it is not in the rubrics. Nor is there any clear explanation of why the sign of peace at the invitation: “Let us offer each other the sign of peace” should be supplanted in order to bring a different gesture with less meaning into another part of the Mass: the sign of peace is filled with meaning, graciousness, and Christian inspiration. Any substitution for it must be repudiated: Notitiae 11 (1975) 226. [Notitiae is the journal of the Congregation in which its official interpretations of the rubrics are published.]

While this addresses the holding of hands at the Sign of Peace the reasons given apply also elsewhere in the Mass, including at the Our Father.

 

[adrift]

No gesture for the people during the Lord’s Prayer is mentioned in the official documents. The late liturgist Fr. Robert Hovda promoted holding hands during this prayer, a practice he said originated in Alcoholics Anonymous. Some ‘charismatic’ groups took up the practice."

catholic.com/newsletters/kke_060411.asp

 

[adrift]

Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical Athenaeum.
zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=44754

A: It is true that there is no prescribed posture for the hands during the Our Father and that, so far at least, neither the Holy See nor the U.S. bishops’ conference has officially addressed it.

The argument from silence is not very strong, however, because while there is no particular difficulty in a couple, family or a small group spontaneously holding hands during the Our Father, a problem arises when the entire assembly is expected or obliged to do so.

The process for introducing any new rite or gesture into the liturgy in a stable or even binding manner is already contemplated in liturgical law. This process entails a two-thirds majority vote in the bishops’ conference and the go-ahead from the Holy See before any change may take effect.

Thus, if neither the bishops’ conference nor the Holy See has seen fit to prescribe any posture for the recitation of the Our Father, it hardly behooves any lesser authority to impose a novel gesture not required by liturgical law and expect the faithful to follow their decrees.

 

[ncjohn]

Adrift is right to the extent that if a priest or liturgical director, or some other third party, is directing people to do it, it is wrong. The priest saying “let’s all join hands as we say the prayer the Jesus gave us” is not allowed.

However, beyond that, if a parish culture has just developed where it is done, as otjm notes, it is no different than the parish culture developing with all folding hands in front of them.

As to Rome having answered in the negative, that is not true. There are two particular documents that address the issue. First of all, Rome delegated the issue to the conferences of Bishops, and the response to the question from the USCCB, to whom the legitimate authority was delegated is that “there is no prescribed position for the hands during the Our Father.” They had the opportunity to forbid it, encourage or discourage it, or whatever, and left the decision open.

The second document is a Noticiae from Rome itself, I believe 11 Noticiae 1975. In it the question was asked whether it was appropriate to substitute holding hands during the Our Father for the Sign of Peace. The response was that such substitution was specifically repudiated. What specifically was NOT repudiated in the answer however is that there is anything forbidden about the holding hands during the Our Father. So Rome has been aware of the issue for at least 31 years and refused to repudiate it.

Finally, in addtition to the changes in the GIRM that didn’t address it, we had a document within the last couple years, Redemptionis Sacramentum, specifically written to deal with liturgical abuses in minute detail. Yet specifically and conspicuously absent is any mention of holding hands at the Our Father.

And to answer the questions about other practices, aside from being red herrings since they have nothing to do with the practice in question which has a substantial history, there are safeguards in place to appeal and correct legitimate abuses. If they are communal–“let us all do jumping jacks as we…”–the Bishop’s office, or Rome if necessary, is there to address them. If they are individual, there is the priest, and on up the hierarchy, to deal with an individual who decides to do something totally unseemly.

There are good arguments both and for and against the practice, which is why, as otjm notes, Archbishop Chaput has proposed a very fair and charitable response as to how we should be treating each other in the matter. Nobody should be imposed upon to participate if they don’t want to. But those who find it a meaningful expression of their devotion to OUR Father, unless and until it is repudiated, should not be looked down on or told that they are doing something wrong, as that is not the case.

Those who don’t like the practice often make comments about people “making the liturgy their own”. But in fact, by trying to place their preference above what the Church has–and hasn’t–said on the matter, they are doing the exact thing they accuse “those others” of.

We would best be guided by the words of Abraham Lincoln from his second inaugural: “…with malice toward none. With charity for all.”

Peace,

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I agree to an extent, John, I truly do. The problem has historically been in the physical ‘forcing’ of people into a gesture which is not a ‘mandated’ gesture. Speaking anecdotally, in my experience there was no real difficulty with hand holding in my diocese (some did it but they did it with respect and consideration and without coercision of others who did not choose the posture) until the practice was ‘forced’ due to a combination of individual priests calling for the gesture specifically, or due to people actually as individuals ‘grabbing’ the hands of others without regard or respect for those others’ personal choices in the matter. Where this ‘grabby’ attitude came from, and whether it is multifocal or not I do not know, but come it did, and this is where the problem (in our diocese at any rate until last August) was.

Again, it is not easy for a person who is using the traditional (yes it is) posture of hands folded to ‘force’ somebody into also folding the hands unless they themselves ‘grab and go’! But it is easy for someone either doing an orans ( and going on to do the variant known as the ‘orans’ Holding Hands or ‘wave’ posture–not to denigrate the orans posture itself which is a legitimate, traditional-at-least-outside-of-Western-Latin-rite-Mass-in-the-last-500-years-or-more posture, without being combined with hand holding) or who himself is holding hands to ‘grab’ the hands of others. So the argument that, “if you don’t like it, don’t do it” falls short when the gesture is ‘forced’ as it has been on many of us in the last 10-15 years.

If the hand holders were to go back to holding hands without forcing it on others directly, indirectly, or otherwise-- let us not forget actions of misinformation, black looks of disapproval to non-holders, punitive actions of "you didn’t hold my hand for the Our Father so I’ll turn my back on you for the Kiss of Peace, or even audibly scold you for being ‘unchristian’, germaphobic, rigid, a people hater, uptight, bigoted, the ‘liturgy police’, cruel, a child hater. . .and I and others I know personally have been called these things. . . so long as there is no contradiction by the diocesean bishop now, or no further development which is crystal clear of “thou shalt not hold hands” signed by Benedict XVI. . . neither I nor I would venture to say 99% of those of us who do not hold hands would ‘mind’ the practice per se. And of course, to be fair, any of those non holders who directed any mean actions of shaming or forcing compliance to non holding toward the handholders should not do so either. That should go without saying. But as for hand holding (and orans too) we didn’t really mind it before the epidemic of ‘grab’ and all other things considered we wouldn’t really ‘mind’ it again although we might ‘prefer’ (as I think all of us, hand holders or no would agree) to have uniformity of posture. But if uniformity is not demanded specifically, and if all people are truly allowed freedom of gesture with due respect, I can certainly ‘live-and-let live’, with malice toward none and charity for all.

 

[ncjohn]

I agree to an extent, John, I truly do. The problem has historically been in the physical ‘forcing’ of people into a gesture which is not a ‘mandated’ gesture.​

…and if all people are truly allowed freedom of gesture with due respect, I can certainly ‘live-and-let live’, with malice toward none and charity for all.

I couldn’t agree with you more Tantum. I’ve been on both sides of this fence and have great sympathies with both preferences. I think that’s why I consider Archbishop Chaput’s statement so beautifully worded.

Of course the problem becomes getting those sentiments out to the parish priests, and from there to the people in the pews so that everyone is reminded that charity must rule.

Peace,

 

[John_Lilburne]

From the 2002 General Introduction to the Roman Missal (GIRM) approved for the USA, which can be accessed from romanrite.com/girm.html :

“237. Then the principal celebrant, with hands joined, says the introduction to the Lord’s Prayer. Then, with hands extended, he says the prayer itself together with the other concelebrants, who also pray with hands extended and with the people.”

Clearly the priests are not permitted to hold hands. They are given explicit instructions to have their hands extended.

The deacon, altar servers and other ministers have these instructions from the Ceremonial of Bishps, Chapter 4, General Norms:

“Joined hands
107 Unless the bishop is holding the pastoral staff, he keeps his hands joined [footnote 80: “Hands joined” means: “Holding the palms sideward and together before the breast, with the right thumb crossed over the left” (Caeremoniale Episcoporum, ed. 1886, I XIX, 1). when, vested, he walks in procession for the celebration of a liturgy; when he is kneeling at prayer; when he moves from altar to chair or from chair to altar; when the liturgical books prescribe joined hands.
**Similarly, concelebrants and ministers keep their hands joined when walking from place to place or when standing, unless they are holding something.”
(Ceremonial of Bishops, Liturgical Press, 1989, ISBN 0-8146-1818-9, page 43).

So this clearly makes it wrong for the altar servers to be holding hands.

The instructions are clear that it the priests who are to have there hands extended. If a deacon, instituted acolyte or altar server did it then he would be imitating the gesture proper to the priest. This is condemned in the 1997 Instruction On Certain Questions, Article 6 §2:
“… Neither may deacons or non-ordained members of the faithful use gestures or actions which are proper to the same priest celebrant. …”.
(The full document is at vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/laity/documents/rc_con_interdic_doc_15081997_en.html ).

The 1963 Constitution on the Liturgy Sacramentum Caritatis has:
“31. The revision of the liturgical books must carefully attend to the provision of rubrics also for the people’s parts.”
(The full document is at vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html ).

So if it wanted to the people to hold hands for the Our Father it would say so. They are deliberately left out of the instructions to have hands extended like the priests concelebrating. To adopt another, similar gesture of holding hands with people next to them is not correct.

 

[maryjk]

If the hand holders were to go back to holding hands without forcing it on others directly, indirectly, or otherwise-- let us not forget actions of misinformation, black looks of disapproval to non-holders, punitive actions of "you didn’t hold my hand for the Our Father so I’ll turn my back on you for the Kiss of Peace, or even audibly scold you for being ‘unchristian’, germaphobic, rigid, a people hater, uptight, bigoted, the ‘liturgy police’, cruel, a child hater. . .and I and others I know personally have been called these things. . . so long as there is no contradiction by the diocesean bishop now, or no further development which is crystal clear of “thou shalt not hold hands” signed by Benedict XVI. . . neither I nor I would venture to say 99% of those of us who do not hold hands would ‘mind’ the practice per se.

Thank you. You are so right. It wouldn’t bother me at all for others to hold hands if they didn’t look at my son and I like we are doing the wrong thing.

Just last Sunday, the gentleman next to my son put his hand in the orans position, right in front of my son’s face. So during the prayer, the gentleman could feel my son’s breath. Of course this gentleman was holding the hand of the person next to him and made motions to hold my son’s hand. My son’s eyes were closed and hands together. During the entire prayer.

I do have to say, if a child makes motions to hold my hand, I will hold their hand.

 

[ncjohn]

So if it wanted to the people to hold hands for the Our Father it would say so. They are deliberately left out of the instructions to have hands extended like the priests concelebrating. To adopt another, similar gesture of holding hands with people next to them is not correct.

That’s an interesting interpretation John, but it’s not borne out by anyone in authority.

The ministers at Mass are given specific instructions about what they are to do with their hands at specific times. The laity simply are not. To try to extrapolate specific instructions to the ministers and imply that their lack of presence implies something about the laity is to say that ANY position of the hands is improper, for there are no instructions at all for the laity with regard to hand position.

I have great respect for your research, and have learned much from reading your citations. On this point though I fear that you’re trying to read something that just isn’t there. The Church has made clear in many different ways that this is not an issue for them. If they thought it was, if nothing else they certainly would have addressed it in Redemptionis Sacramentum, which they did not.

Peace,

 

[John_Hiner]

The idea behind the Sign of Peace is Christ’s command to us to Leave there thy offering before the altar, and go first to be reconciled to thy brother: and then coming thou shalt offer thy gift. (Matthew 5:24)

The purpose of the Sign of Peace is to symbolically make peace with “thy brother” - that is, everyone in the world that you have offended. (Hopefully, you are already at peace with them before you come to Mass, and you have been to Confession for anything serious, but the sign of peace is to represent that this has been done. The person you share the sign of peace with represents everyone in the whole world.)

Is there some magisterial document on which this view is based? There seem to be several problems with it.

First, it comes at the wrong time. The offering is made at the Offertory. The Sacrifice begins with the Consecration, when the Flesh and Blood are made present on the altar and then the presentation of the offering to the Father is mainly done during the Eucharistic prayer. So, the Sign of Peace comes during the sacrifice, and after the offering and the Victim have both been offered. So, if it is viewed as “settling with your brother” then it is not as the Lord prescribed, but rather interrupting the Sacrifice while it is in progress. The Sacrifice ends when the Priest consumes the Victim.

Second, if this formalized and symbolic act is substituted for “settling with your brother” then a great deal of practical good that should flow from the Lord’s command is lost. The Lord’s command seems to me to demand courage, sensitivity to the rights and desires of others, and an actual intimacy among the Faithful. It requires the establishment of peace and love between you and the one whom you have slighted, as a prerequisite for offering your commitment to God.

Third, this command to settle with one’s brother is separate from the command to be pure of sin before offering the Sacrifice. The work done in Confession and continued in the Penitential Rite at the start of Mass is a form of purification, it is not a substitute for the interpersonal work of settling with one’s brother. (Though in the priest’s discretion, settling with a brother may be made a part of penance.)

I am concerned about this issue, because this commandment to settle with one’s brother when one knows that he has a complaint seems sorely neglected among Catholics. It distresses me to think that people are being lulled into thinking that this duty is met symbolically and therefore they are justified in failing to actually defuse resentments which separate them from others of the Faithful. (How many of us who have known “good Catholics” who harbor resentments between family members or childhood friends and who never speak to one another for years – while all the time the Lord has commanded them to settle within seven days, or within one year at the most.)

It is my understanding that the Sign of Peace is rather a sign of unity which is connected with “discerning the Body of Christ” in the Church. It is communication of Christ’s Peace from the altar through the priest to the people. It is then acknowledged as the organizing principle among the members of the Church.

As St. Augustine points out, Christ’s Peace is a principle of order. It orders our interior life to Christ, and through the Church, it orders interpersonal relations and even society overall through a universal alignment to Christ Jesus. This meaning of the Sign of Peace is much more consistent with its placement in the action of the Mass, as a fruit of the Sacrifice and a gift from the altar which prepares us to receive the Body and Blood of the Lord worthily. (See, 1 Corinthians 11:29.)

Pax Christi nobiscum.

John Hiner

 

[cargopilot]

Personally, I don’t like Our Father hand-holding, for all the same reasons the other non hand-holders give and I avoid it, whenever possible. I won’t elaborate on my reasons, I don’t have to.

Hand-holding is the ‘norm’ in my diocese and it is regularly forced on me. I’ve been poked, prodded, tapped, nudged, cajoled, scolded and shunned for not grabbing someone’s hand.

The problem I have with the hand-holders is their desire to force their ‘custom’ on me. It happens at Mass and here on CAF, too. The hand-holders are relentless is the mission to have everyone conform to the hand-holding ‘standard’.

For all the good folks out there who are in love with Our Father hand holding, go ahead and keep doing it, just quit pressuring me to adopt your innovation. You can ‘educate’ me 'til you’re blue in the face and I’ll never ‘get it’. When you sit next to me at Mass, don’t get all offended because I don’t want to hold your hand. I’ll be your buddy at the sign of peace.

 

[maryjk]

Is there some magisterial document on which this view is based? There seem to be several problems with it.
John Hiner

The Catholic Week
Official Weekly Publication of the Achdiocese of Mobile
March 16, 2007

The 131 page document, a papal reflection on the discussions and suggestions made during the 2005 world Synod of Bishops on the Eucharist, was released March 13 by the Vatican.

Pope Benedict said the sign of peace at Mass “has great value,” especially in demonstrating the church’s responsibility to pray for peace and unity in a world too often troubled by division, violence and hatred.

While Catholics at Mass should exchange a sign of peace with those near them, he also called for “greater restraint” to ensure the moment does not become one of irreparable distraction.

The pope said, " I have asked the competent curial offices to study the possibility of moving the sign of peace to another place in the Mass, such as before the presentation of the gifts. To do so would also serve as a significant reminder of the Lord’s insistence that we be reconciled with others before presenting our gifts to God."

Although not a “magisterial document,” moving it as the Pope suggests would solve one of your issues.