Holding hands at Our Father

[sw85]

My understanding was that it was not perscribed and could not be liturgically compelled (ie, a priest cannot compel his people to hold hands), but neither was it prohibited.

This is sort of true, but only in the kind of legally minimalist sense that liberals and hand-holding proponents always accuse their opponents of. There are plenty of cases where I could imagine this understanding would be appropriate, e.g., as a spontaneous gesture during very difficult moments, like Mass during a bombing of the city you’re in, or Mass when you’ve just heard that terrorists have kidnapped the President or something.

But of course it is not a spontaneous gesture, like, almost anywhere. It is a widespread, deliberate gesture intended as an addition to the liturgy*, and it should not be understood in this way as allowed. The liturgy isn’t our plaything. It doesn’t mean whatever we really really really want it to mean. It means what it objectively means. When we take it upon ourselves to add things to it (yes, even if our adding things to do it doesn’t technically run afoul of canon law) we are acting out of turn. In a real sense it’s an offense against the virtue of humility, at least when people who know better do this kind of thing.

• Which is exactly what it’s intended to be, which is why people always defend it by marshalling arguments like “It’s intended to promote unity!” If ‘unity’ were an appropriate theme at this point in the Mass, the Church might’ve prescribed it, no? But it didn’t. So maybe ‘unity’ isn’t what the Our Father is supposed to signify. “But it’s called OUR Father!!!” Certainly not because it’s unitive!

 

[Bayoubeefmaster]

The vast majority of my Parish does this, and soon after we joined several years ago, my husband (a ‘cradle Catholic’) noted that he thought it was weird. He is from New York. We don’t participate - just fold our hands in prayer - but we are among the very few who do not. Does anyone know if this is this common in southern Parishes?

Well it depends. Most parishes where I’m from, including mine don’t really hold hands. Of course there are a few old people who do.

 

[jimkhong]

Thanks guys for all the opinions and sharing your personal preferences.

What I am looking for is the basis for the bishops’ decision if there ever was one. It is always incumbent on the local bishop and pastor to determine the appropriate norms. If an action is mandatory or prohibited, he has to know. If there is an advisory, he will need to consider whether the basis of the advisory is applicable to his situation.

Farley’s posts helped a little. Anyone else knows anything specific on this?

 

[JimG]

Thanks guys for all the opinions and sharing your personal preferences.

What I am looking for is the basis for the bishops’ decision if there ever was one. It is always incumbent on the local bishop and pastor to determine the appropriate norms. If an action is mandatory or prohibited, he has to know. If there is an advisory, he will need to consider whether the basis of the advisory is applicable to his situation.

Farley’s posts helped a little. Anyone else knows anything specific on this?

I could be wrong, but it’s my understanding that there never was a “decision” on the matter of holding hands at the Our Father. There was never a decision because the matter was never brought up as a possible subject of liturgical revision.

I think that the practice originated informally in some charismatic Masses and carried over to regular Masses. It was never a part of the liturgy. People just started doing it.

 

[otjm]

I am not aware of one, but I have not thoroughly searched. The USCCB website just affirms that the laity are not instructed to perform any gestures at this time. This decree was given by the bishop in my diocese. This precise topic is addressed on page 3 point 4. c.

Your comment about the USCCB is correct; there is no prescribed position of the hands at the Our Father. some people take that to say that the USCCB is against holding hands during the Our Father, but that is not what it says. It simply says there is no specific position of the hands required.

Another wy of saying this: If by the comment, the USCCB is saying that one cannot hold hands, then logically it is alos saying that one cannot put one’s hands in the “palms together, fingers either interlaced or pointing up or out” position; and those who are against holding hands would never buy that.

But you can’t have it both ways - one is wrong and the other right, or at least allowed. Either both are disallowed, or it is simply a matter that there is no rule.

There are two different general philosophies of law in western law (and within Church law, which is western in its general orientation); one is called northern, or Germanic; the other southern, or Mediterranean.

The Germanic approach is, generally, “whatever is not permitted is forbidden” and the Mediterranean is “Whatever is not forbidden is allowed”.

In general, Italy, and Rome, is considered to be influenced by the Mediterranean approach.

Rome has known about the issue for decades, literally; I have a picture that goes back to 1965 showing people at Mass holding hands. That is 48 years ago. Rome has issued (I have lost count) 2, if not three or more issues of the GIRM and Rome has known about this from not long after the practice became widespread; and Rome has seen fit, not only to ignore the issue in the GIRM, but also to ignore the issue in every other missive, letter, ruling and etc. issuing forth concerning the liturgy.

It appears, one might say, to be a remarkably American issue of angst over the matter, by those who protest it.

That leaves the issue generally to be moot.

 

[jimkhong]

I fully agree with your observations, otjm.

Am I then incorrect to surmise that there was a ruling by the US Bishops Conference to discourage the practice? If so, it would be left to the individual bishops, including the one from Covington which Farley helpfully provided.

One way or another, there should be a clear position on the issue (Leaving it to individual practice is also a valid position, by the way) to avoid this “I-am-right-you-are-wrong” debate that we Catholics seem love.

Anyone else know of any episcopal rulings or letters on this? If none, I will presume that the bishops in their wisdom, see it fit to leave it to our personal judgement, guided by our respective spirituality, common sense, and sensitivity to others at the same celebration, especially those who have different preferences.

 

[otjm]

I am not aware of one, but I have not thoroughly searched. The USCCB website just affirms that the laity are not instructed to perform any gestures at this time. This decree was given by the bishop in my diocese. This precise topic is addressed on page 3 point 4. c.

By the way I last counted, there are something like 172 dioceses (including archdioceses) in the United States. and something like over 450 bishops and archbishops, active and retired.

So I make my next comments with the understanding that I have not polled them, and I don’t think anyone else has on this matter (with one exception, below).

Your bishop has made a specific statement. There are a series of questions I do not know the answer to, so let’s start:

1. a bishop is the chief liturgist in his diocese.
2. He does not have the authority to overrule Rome.
3. He does have the authority to make decisions where that has specifically been given (and you bishop’s letter points one of them out - standing vs. kneeling after the Agnus Dei).
4. I don’t know whether or not the authority over liturgy extends to making a rule where Rome has specifially not made on; I will leve that to a Canon lawyer os someone actually credentialed in liturgical law. I will assume, until told by one of those experts otherwise, that he is allowed.

I mentioned one exception; the USCCB started the process of making a specific request to Rome to allow the orans posture during the Our Father. It was withdrawn. Allgedly it arose over the initial issue, of hand holding. So I would presume that the bishops have been polled; either formally or informally, by the USCCB, but if so, I have never seen that released. Nor have I ever been able to find any authoritive answer as to why it was withdrawn (and there could be a multitude of reasons).

Another bishop - actually archbishop at the time, and now Cardinal if I remember correctly, was Archbishop Chaput; he (apparently) had had a gill full of the complaints, and made a public statement in his archdiocese in Colorado. He pointed out specifically that Rome had made no statement whatsoever on the matter; and because there was no rule as to one’s hand position, those who wished to hold hands were free to do so, were not violating any liturgical law, and no one else had the right to tell them they could not. He then went further, and said that those who wished to not hold hands were free to not do so, and no one had the right to criticize them either.

And, as I pointed out, he was the chief liturgist in his archdiocese. If I recall correctly, I believe he is a Capucian; a group not exactly known as liberal wool gatherers. That, and he was made Cardinal of Philadelphia.

So as it stands, if the bishop in your diocese has siad you are not to hold hands, then out of obedience to him as the chief liturgist in the diocese and his apostolic succession, I would say you should obey.

On the other hand, I know of several parishes in my diocese, which are generally considered to be a bit toward the conservative end, who have deicded that inspite of the specific authority of our archbishop to say otherwise (well at the time) and direct us to remain standing, they have chosen to kneel. That has always left me bemused.

Otherwise, because I believe it was Vlazny who made the decision (but I am a lousy enough historian that it could have been George or Lavada). Whatever. We have a new archbishop, but he has not waded in on the matter.

 

[otjm]

Quite simply, there is neither a direction to the laity to do this, or an option to do it, in the Genera Instructions of the Roman Missal (GIRM). It is not in the rubrics.

The practice of holding hands at the Our Father was introduced, I think, originally in Holland and quickly picked up by visitors there from the US. From these it spread to a number of countries.

The GIRM / rubrics tells us what we should do, and what we may do. It does not tell us anything about what we should not do. Therefore, if it is not there, we should not be doing it.

I seem to remember Cardinal Arinze, when he was head of the dicastory in charge of the liturgy, telling an audience that this should not be done. Unfortunately, so many of us hurry to join in doing things that seem to us to be “nice”, whether or not we should. It will probably take priests and bishops instructing us not to do it to stop it. At the same time, we all have the personal responsibility to learn what is right and what we should not do and just do the right thing.

The GIRM is silent on more than just what you note. By your logic, one would never be allowed to hold one’s hands palms together, fingers either interlaced or pointing out.

The GIRM simply does not telly you rigidly and absolutely what you should do in all circumstances; it simply doesn’t address how you hold your hands while in the pew.

Cardinal Arinze, in an interview, expressed his personal opinion in a somewhat off-the-cuff answer; and as head of the dicastery, were it a significant issue, he would have had it inserted in one or more of the changes of the GIRM.

He didn’t.

He did, however, make one telling comment. In one issue of the Girm (2 ago, I think) it appeared from the language that everyone after receiving Communion and returning to their pew, were to continue to stand until all had receive.
Cardinal George sent in the dubium, and Cardinal Arinze, in his offical answer, said that Rome did not intend to be that rigid about posture; and that people were free to stand, kneel, or sit while the rest received.

So while he may not personally like holding hands, he also has said that officially (and in his official position) Rome’s position is not that rigid in terms of posture. And that is the difference between his personal likes and/or dislikes, and how Rome officially looks at the GIRM.

 

[otjm]

The GIRM is written under a Roman understanding of law, in which if something is not specifically noted, it is not allowed.
Our understanding of law is that if something is not specifically disallowed it is assumed to be allowed.
See the difference? Since the GIRM does not mention holding hands at the Our Father it is not allowed.

No, that ios not correct; that is the Germanic approach (and one that seems to be consistently American). The Mediterranean approach is that what is not prohibited is allowed. You are correct that your interpretation is the American approach; but it is not Rome’s approach.

 

[otjm]

I agree with the bishops conferences of America. I hate it

Actually, the bishop’s conference in America doesn’t quite know what to do with the issue; as I noted, they were going to petition Rome to allow the orans position specifically.

All they said was, there is no ruleindicating what you are supposed to do with your hands - orans, holding someone else’s or palms together in some fashion.

 

[otjm]

My understanding was that it was not perscribed and could not be liturgically compelled (ie, a priest cannot compel his people to hold hands), but neither was it prohibited. I wish they would simply issue an edict one way or the other.

Well, if the last 48+ years are any indication, neither one of us should hold our breath. I don’t know about you, but blue is not my most becoming color.

 

[otjm]

Everyone just needs a bishop like Bishop Foys!

Clear cut in our diocese.

Or Chaput! Also clear cut, and directly in line with the GIRM.

 

[jimkhong]

Thanks otjm, again I agree with you on all counts. Unfortunately, the bishops in my country are silent on this and I do not see any competently trained liturgist (not taking away anything on the bishop’s role) on the horizon. As a result, the debate reigns supreme, sometime very un-Christianly.

It would seem that those who chose to kneel who be in contravention of the rubrics as they clearly prescribe the posture of standing. Before I start throwing stones, I stand and hold hands at Sunday mass when I am at the Children’s Liturgy of the Word (no strangers here - all the children hold hands) or when I am with my girlfriend. I don’t stretch out to hold hands with anyone else.

Perplexingly, at daily mass, I kneel throughout the Eucharistic prayer all the way to communion. I know this contravenes the rubrics but I believe I can justify it. So far no one has complained about it but rather complained when I am with the children at Sunday mass when it doesn’t contravene the rubrics. I guess Catholics allow contravention of the rubrics if you show yourself more pious than the rubrics or themselves!!

 

[otjm]

So do I.

I’m sorry to have to say it, but the problem is that somehow in the last 40 years or so, people have lost both common sense and common dignity/decency in so many, many aspects of their lives. In the name of diversity, people pridefully demand that they have everything ‘their way’. This is a Burger King society --instant gratification, my way.

Gone are the days when there was a consensus and a societal ‘standard’. Think about it. There are so many ‘exceptions to the rules’ that the rules by and large don’t exist.

Rules like, “be considerate of others; treat them as you want to be treated”
have turned into: “What I want or choose is paramount; if you don’t want it, TOUGH, plus you’re a nasty bigot for NOT wanting or choosing what I want”. . .

Remember when good manners meant that EACH PERSON considered the other person, and if they disagreed, either ‘agreed to disagree’ or reached a compromise?

When, for example, if Joe (an extrovert) wanted to hold hands at the Our Father with Amy (an introvert), Joe would ask (wanting to offer what he considered a 'good experience"), Amy would decline (explaining that while she had no objection to his finding it a good experience, she preferred the equally good experience of folding her hands in prayer). . .and Joe and Amy would each be perfectly satisfied with each other? Or, if Joe and Amy were married, and each had a real strong preference, they would come up with a COMPROMISE? Like, “one week we’ll hold hands, and one week we’ll fold hands”???

Now, if Joe were at Mass with Amy, he would just grab her hand. . .Amy would shrink back at which point Joe would ask what is WRONG with her, it’s the Our Father, for cryin out loud. . .Amy would say she wished to just fold her hands together. Joe would scornfully call her a germaphobe, she would respond that he was a bully, and the two of them would glare at each other for the rest of Mass, and then go home to Facebook or text all their friends about the total JERK they sat next to at Mass. . .

It’s sad.

What is just as sad is either Amy or her best friend, who would try to make Joe into some sort of screaming liberal who beleives the GIRM is simply his playground - when in fact, Joe is a Knights of Columbus member, and vlounteers to stand outside to local abortion mill saying hsi rosary.

I think that there has been a majority of consensus (and consensus is rarely ever absolute) on holding hands. and from what I have seen in parishes in North Dakota, Utah, Washington, Oregon and California, it is about 90%. Of course that leaves a lot of states still to see and experience, and it may well run differently elsewhere.

I agree with you that anyone who does not wish to hold hands should not be forced to do so. I will also agree that in these forae, I have read a number of people say that they have wished to not hold hands and have been rudely treated.

However, I have yet to see anyone in these forae who wish to hold hands be rude to those who don’t. On the other hand, I have found a marked lack of charity expressed in these forae on this matter by some of those who don’t, towards those who do. People who have said things like spitting or blowing snot on their hand and then reaching out… to describe only a few.

Chaput was right - neither side has the authority to criticize the other. Both need to act in charity.

 

[jimkhong]

Well, if the last 48+ years are any indication, neither one of us should hold our breath. I don’t know about you, but blue is not my most becoming color.

Also, not a liturgical color!!

 

[otjm]

This is sort of true, but only in the kind of legally minimalist sense that liberals and hand-holding proponents always accuse their opponents of. There are plenty of cases where I could imagine this understanding would be appropriate, e.g., as a spontaneous gesture during very difficult moments, like Mass during a bombing of the city you’re in, or Mass when you’ve just heard that terrorists have kidnapped the President or something.

But of course it is not a spontaneous gesture, like, almost anywhere. It is a widespread, deliberate gesture intended as an addition to the liturgy*, and it should not be understood in this way as allowed. The liturgy isn’t our plaything. It doesn’t mean whatever we really really really want it to mean. It means what it objectively means. When we take it upon ourselves to add things to it (yes, even if our adding things to do it doesn’t technically run afoul of canon law) we are acting out of turn. In a real sense it’s an offense against the virtue of humility, at least when people who know better do this kind of thing.

• Which is exactly what it’s intended to be, which is why people always defend it by marshalling arguments like “It’s intended to promote unity!” If ‘unity’ were an appropriate theme at this point in the Mass, the Church might’ve prescribed it, no? But it didn’t. So maybe ‘unity’ isn’t what the Our Father is supposed to signify. “But it’s called OUR Father!!!” Certainly not because it’s unitive!

The only time that I have seen law expressed in favor of allowing holding hands is when those who do not know liturgical law say it is not allowed, and someone actually responds. I think the pot is calling the kettle black.

It is also an ad hominem attack on the great majority of Catholics who go to Mass regularly to say with such a broad brush that they are “liberal” because they hold hands. I belong to a parish that has 24/7/363 perpetual adoration; we have had 4 priests and two deacons ordained in that time (better than 15 years) and one young woman (horror of horrors, a female alter server when she was young) join a group of missionary sisters who actually wear a distinguishable habit. And Father does the red and says the blackand is a “JP2” priest. Not what I would call a bunch of liberals.

I so tire of the finger pointing.

 

[otjm]

I fully agree with your observations, otjm.

Am I then incorrect to surmise that there was a ruling by the US Bishops Conference to discourage the practice? If so, it would be left to the individual bishops, including the one from Covington which Farley helpfully provided.

One way or another, there should be a clear position on the issue (Leaving it to individual practice is also a valid position, by the way) to avoid this “I-am-right-you-are-wrong” debate that we Catholics seem love.

Anyone else know of any episcopal rulings or letters on this? If none, I will presume that the bishops in their wisdom, see it fit to leave it to our personal judgement, guided by our respective spirituality, common sense, and sensitivity to others at the same celebration, especially those who have different preferences.

I am not aware of anything coming from the USCCB indicating they do not want hand holding. I am sure there are some bishops who do not want it; I have no question that some bishops are not against it, and the USCCB at one point was proposing to ask Rome to approve the orans position. It was withdrawn.

 

[ProVobis]

I could be wrong, but it’s my understanding that there never was a “decision” on the matter of holding hands at the Our Father. There was never a decision because the matter was never brought up as a possible subject of liturgical revision.

I think you’re right; it has little to do with the liturgy. While I’m firmly against someone grabbing my hands, I don’t see any pastoral value in forbidding people from holding hands, or from talking with one another, for that matter. They may encourage it or do it themselves, but whether the bishops or priests favor it or disfavor it is not really the issue IMO.

 

[sw85]

The only time that I have seen law expressed in favor of allowing holding hands is when those who do not know liturgical law say it is not allowed, and someone actually responds. I think the pot is calling the kettle black.

I’m not sure what you’re actually trying to say here.

It is also an ad hominem attack on the great majority of Catholics who go to Mass regularly to say with such a broad brush that they are “liberal” because they hold hands.

You might benefit from a more careful reading of the words you’re responding to.

 

[jimrob]

Different societies consider bodily contact differently. We still have some people who are shy about shaking hands at the peace. Holding hands for the “Our Father” might be considered a little too familiar by some and as a unifying gesture by others. The risk is that we finish up overplaying the gestures and missing the point of the ceremony. Some people like to extend their arms or wave a hand in the air when they pray and only they know whether they are showing particular devotion or making an exhibition of themselves.

I was at a Mass in Lourdes where we all joined hands at the “Our Father” and it seemed a natural way to demonstrate our oneness in praising God. I can’t see it going down too well in my Parish.