Holding Hands

[THutch04]

I’m always afraid of acknowledging someone who wants to hold hands because I don’t want it to be misinterpreted that I wish to do so as well. Like I said before, I do it only out of compliance, given the opportunity, I don’t participate. Looking straight ahead and folding my hands in front of me is the only way I can think of that will politely suggest that I don’t wish to hold hands. I agree I might seem cold and unfriendly. Especially when I was first introduced to the practice, I could feel myself tensing up at that point.

I don’t think any of it is intentional, it’s just that people don’t know any other way to make their preference clear.

 

[sara888]

**I usually hold my hands up to the Lord, when saying the “Our Father.”

Jan**

 

[RevDrNorth]

I am not a fan of holding hands either. Someone once noted that to make the church more “man friendly” they ought to do away with it. I am in agreement.

North

 

[MariaG]

You see, what this all comes down to is, all I ask is consistency - if holding hands is okay because “Rome is silent” on what to do with one’s hands during the Our Father, WHY IS IT NOT OKAY FOR ME TO WILDLY WAVE MY HANDS? I am NOT saying that it IS okay to wildly wave my hands, I am just asking for someone to show me why one gesture is okay and the other is not, using the “Rome is silent’ argument. The fact that NO ONE has answered this question suggests, at least to me, that there is NO logic and the hand holders are, in reality, using the “it feels good so I am going to do it, no matter what anyone else says” argument.

God bless, everyone… Off to Mass…

Because common sense tells us that while waving hands wildly, is disruptive even for the person doing it while sedately holding hands is not.

We ARE allowed to use common sense and this argument as well as the cartwheels and such insult common sense. Admittedly, many people don’t have much common sense, but even my 4 year old understands that waving their arms wildly is “outside” behavoir.

This is NOT an endorsement of holding hands. This is just saying that common sense is allowed to be used when interpreting the GIRM, therefore the “waving of arms wildly” is not even close to the same thing as sedately holding hands. While one is easy to be seen as not allowed, the other is not such a clear cut issue.

God Bless. Hope you had a good Mass

Maria

 

[cjaubert]

Because common sense tells us that while waving hands wildly, is disruptive even for the person doing it while sedately holding hands is not.

Maria, where does it say that we can use common sense to do something different than what is prescribed? To me, common sense tells me if the missal says “stand” that we should stand and NOT hold hands. Why is my common sense to be rejected because someone else’s is different? Put another way, while I agree that wildly waving hands is MORE disruptive than holding hands, that does NOT make holding hands Undisruptive.

In this regard, I don’t see that you answered my question about your husband standing on the corner holding hands, or not holding hands, with a strange woman. Is “standing“ identical to “standing and holding hands” or is it not identical?

Enjoying the repartee…

God bless.

 

[ncjohn]

Okay, I have to press you for an answer to a question you have not yet answered:

If I wish to wave my hands wildly in the air while saying the Our Father, does the fact that no hand posture is prescribed mean that there is, or is not, something wrong with me doing so? I would suggest that such a hand posture would not be acceptable AT ALL, but I would like your take. If you find it unacceptable, then why? If no hand posture is prescribed, then what makes hand holding acceptable, but wildly waving hands unacceptable?

This is a serious question.

Now, on to my donuts. I wonder what hand posture I will use while dunking… .(smile)

Blessings…

Actually, I think I did answer it. I didn’t waste a lot of time on it because the thread is specifically about holding hands and the common attempt to throw in the speculative “if we allow holding hands we can’t NOT allow anything else” argument is a distraction to that since it is not relevant and just creates a separate issue to argue about. As an attorney I’m sure you see the technique often enough and know that it is seldom more than an attempt to distract when one doesn’t have a good argument on the merits of the subject at hand, just as it is in politics.

Holding hands is a well-established and widely accepted position that has been in use for more than a generation now. And though you may not like it, and may not personally consider it a “prayerful positon”, millions of us disagree, and it is really a matter personal preference, much as some us prefer to receive communion on the tongue rather than in the hand, or prefer Chant to contemporary praise music.

However, to address the question, the “waving the hands in the air” (outside of the Charismatic worship style) or “doing cartwheels” or any of the other numerous extrapolations would not, in my opinion, be acceptable for a couple reasons. First of all, I don’t believe that anyone would consider them either “prayerful” or “appropriate”. There are all kinds of mechanisms in place to deal with things that are not considered appropriate, whether done by a congregation or by an individual. The infamous example of the “clown mass” might be a good example of this. Second, and more important though, is the fact that such inappropriate acts would not likely either be accepted or continued by individuals, much less by a group of individuals or a congregation. Thus, unlike holding hands, I just don’t imagine you would find congregations clapping or doing the wave and having this survive over any period of time.

In saying that, I would not conclude that there may not be some other position that might be found prayerful that a group of people, on their own initiative, might implement that would be appropriate and not be distracting. I think though that Bishops would likely react quickly to anything new that was to crop up rather than risk any further division over such things.

Peace,

 

[Jennifer_G]

At my Lutheran church, we don’t hold hands during the church service for anything. However, there is this ‘new’ (been around for almost a decade now) tradition where we greet each other at the start of the service.

 

[ncjohn]

Just because there are alot of people who hold hands, does not make them in the right. You can be sincere in your intentions, but “sincerely wrong”.

Of course then, the logical extension of this statement would then be that just because people have always used “prayer hands” doesn’t mean that they couldn’t be “sincerely wrong” also. I’m not saying that at all, but as you say, just because lots of people do something doesn’t make it right.

And the scarier application of this concept is how many actually seem to think that how we hold our hands while we pray has any bearing at all on our salvation or our acceptability before God. It saddens me to distraction to see the number of threads here dedicated to head coverings, kneeling/standing for communion, receiving on the tongue/in hand, TLM vs NO Mass, what kind of music is played, ad infinitum, all with the implication that those who prefer something different from us are not as “good” or pious as we are–and the graver but unspoken implication that they are therefore less loved by God.

It is truly sad that we don’t see statements rejoicing over the number of people we see trying to come to God rather than disparaging the way they do so, as if God doesn’t want every action and thought of ours to be a prayer to Him. I can only wonder how He must weep to see the division created by those who would teach the “traditions of man as the law of God”, especially after sending Jesus specifically to teach us better than that.

My prayers continue for peace among all my brothers and sisters.

 

[ncjohn]

Did it ever occur to you that they don’t want to be distracted from the Mass by having someone reach out for their hands? If it is clear that the parishioner next to you does not feel comfortable with hand holding, don’t judge them, just leave them alone. They have every right to decline your hand and not be judged for it.

Absolutely agree with you here. Nobody should be getting judged over this in either direction and everyone has the right to decline for whatever reason.

Peace,

 

[MariaG]

Maria, where does it say that we can use common sense to do something different than what is prescribed? To me, common sense tells me if the missal says “stand” that we should stand and NOT hold hands. Why is my common sense to be rejected because someone else’s is different? Put another way, while I agree that wildly waving hands is MORE disruptive than holding hands, that does NOT make holding hands Undisruptive.

In this regard, I don’t see that you answered my question about your husband standing on the corner holding hands, or not holding hands, with a strange woman. Is “standing“ identical to “standing and holding hands” or is it not identical?

Enjoying the repartee…

God bless.

No. Standing and holding hands and standing are two different actions. But so are standing with hands behind back, standing with hands folded in a prayer position, and standing with hands in pocket giving us another scenario. All three tend to bring up different mind sets and different intentions.

Therefore while I do understand and agree with you that the position of ones hands can change what the intent is, (like husband standing and holding hands with someone I don’t know ), not one of the examples above is proscribed in “stand” yet each will bring a very different “flavor” or intent to worship.

So while I do agree with you that holding of hands is disruptive to SOME, many are not even aware that it would be considered that. Whereas everyone is quite aware that the waving of hands is disruptive to everyone in the context of a regular Mass.

Which once again brings me back to my original point. IF holding hands at Mass is such a disruptive and WRONG thing to do, the leadership of the Church should speak out against this (or for it ) and settle this issue once and for all.

Because despite your arguments to the contrary, silence on the issue does not equal forbidden as is the opinion of at least one clergy as well.

And I have enjoyed this discussion as well. Usually these deteriorate into intelligence issues and personal insults but I think we have both managed to refrain from this while still presenting our opinion.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[cathlicnlovinit]

Hey y’all,

Why can’t the answer be that it is not endorsed and it is not prohibited. It is a position that is accepted if it is agreed upon by the individual hand holders but not required, necessary or to be forced on entire congregations. In other words, as it stands now, they can’t make you and they can’t stop you. They shouldn’t make you and they won’t stop you.

So you’d think that if the bishops won’t come down on either sides they could/should at least issue a statement that no one should be expected to hold hands and that it can not be required or even recommended as a parish wide position.

I agree that if it causes this much tension (when we have so many other more serious things to worry about) then it should be formally prohibited .

Heather

 

[cjaubert]

…despite your arguments to the contrary, silence on the issue does not equal forbidden as is the opinion of at least one clergy as well.

Maria, I do not think I ever said that the posture was forbidden, and I concede that it is not forbidden.

No. Standing and holding hands and standing are two different actions. But so are standing with hands behind back, standing with hands folded in a prayer position, and standing with hands in pocket giving us another scenario. All three tend to bring up different mind sets and different intentions.

I agree. That is why when the Missal says “stand” for the Our Father, I stand. I do not stand and hold hands, stand and wave my hands, or do anything other than “prayer hands” (to quote my kids). I don’t think that you would really argue that “standing” for the Our Father and “standing with prayer hands” for the Our Father are different or mutually exclusive postures (or would you?).

So while I do agree with you that holding of hands is disruptive to SOME, many are not even aware that it would be considered that. Whereas everyone is quite aware that the waving of hands is disruptive to everyone in the context of a regular Mass.

You have finally hit on my point - I agree - most people are not even aware of this issue. Yet, it is those people, in my view, who argue the loudest. That is my whole point - the ONLY argument on the other side of this is “it feels good and I like it.” Any attempt to get around that creates the identical “forced” application of logic that non-Catholics use when, for example, they try to assert that Jesus is not speaking literally in John 6 - it just does not float (at least in my view).

I am, indeed, happy that you, apparently, are not in the hand holding crowd. I can’t help but wonder, however, why you so zealously support the hand holders? I would hope that you would not say, “Hey, look, I’m against abortion but it’s okay with me if someone else does it…” (I know, I know, the analogy does not work well, but I think you get my point.)

And finally, I, too, appreciate the grace of your posts. As I have written before, email is all too often one dimensional and one’s true feelings, tone of voice, facial expressions, etc., are lost. I mean nothing but kindness, and I hope that is coming through (at least a little!)

God bless.

 

[THutch04]

Hey y’all,

Why can’t the answer be that it is not endorsed and it is not prohibited. It is a position that is accepted if it is agreed upon by the individual hand holders but not required, necessary or to be forced on entire congregations. In other words, as it stands now, they can’t make you and they can’t stop you. They shouldn’t make you and they won’t stop you.

So you’d think that if the bishops won’t come down on either sides they could/should at least issue a statement that no one should be expected to hold hands and that it can not be required or even recommended as a parish wide position.

I agree that if it causes this much tension (when we have so many other more serious things to worry about) then it should be formally prohibited .

Heather

Or at least formally make a decision one way or the other. It’s very difficult to refuse when the priest is standing up there saying “lets all join together in hands across the aisles” and everyone is expected to do that or he won’t start the Lord’s Prayer.

 

[MariaG]

Maria, I do not think I ever said that the posture was forbidden, and I concede that it is not forbidden.

I agree. That is why when the Missal says “stand” for the Our Father, I stand. I do not stand and hold hands, stand and wave my hands, or do anything other than “prayer hands” (to quote my kids). I don’t think that you would really argue that “standing” for the Our Father and “standing with prayer hands” for the Our Father are different or mutually exclusive postures (or would you?).

You have finally hit on my point - I agree - most people are not even aware of this issue. Yet, it is those people, in my view, who argue the loudest. That is my whole point - the ONLY argument on the other side of this is “it feels good and I like it.” Any attempt to get around that creates the identical “forced” application of logic that non-Catholics use when, for example, they try to assert that Jesus is not speaking literally in John 6 - it just does not float (at least in my view).

I am, indeed, happy that you, apparently, are not in the hand holding crowd. I can’t help but wonder, however, why you so zealously support the hand holders? I would hope that you would not say, “Hey, look, I’m against abortion but it’s okay with me if someone else does it…” (I know, I know, the analogy does not work well, but I think you get my point.)

And finally, I, too, appreciate the grace of your posts. As I have written before, email is all too often one dimensional and one’s true feelings, tone of voice, facial expressions, etc., are lost. I mean nothing but kindness, and I hope that is coming through (at least a little!)

God bless.

Yeah. I am glad we agree that it is not forbidden. It appeared otherwise to me.

Why do I support them? Because the lack of leadership telling that what they do is wrong or the lack telling us it is allowed. Because of this many have been literally brought up holding hands and do not see any problem whatsoever with it especially since this issue is not addressed in any way from the pulpit.

I would disagree that those who are unaware argue the loudest since they are arguing, they are at least somewhat aware that there is an issue, yes?

I speak more to the nice older ladies in my church who despite my bowed head and closed eyes, gently tap my shoulder in order to hold hands assuming the reason I did not hold hands in the first place was because of the distance between us. Or when I hold the hand of my 5 year old in order to help him focus on the moment, I am inviting others to hold my hand also.

And yes , your kindness definitely came through most of the time. And anytime I could not “hear” your tone, I tried to assume that it was just the media and I pray that came through to you from my end also. I also know that sometimes when I write something in humor, and go back to read it later, I think to myself, “oh no, that “sounds” bad and not how I meant it when I wrote it.”

Ah well, I guess we both just need to keep praying for some outspoken and definitive leadership on this issue.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[ncjohn]

I agree. That is why when the Missal says “stand” for the Our Father, I stand. I do not stand and hold hands, stand and wave my hands, or do anything other than “prayer hands” (to quote my kids). I don’t think that you would really argue that “standing” for the Our Father and “standing with prayer hands” for the Our Father are different or mutually exclusive postures (or would you?).

I have to totally disagree with you here. If you take the position that "stand and " is different from just “stand” then “stand with’prayer hands’” is also different from “stand”. Either any prayerful position is implied to be ok there, or no position is implied there. Since we have hands, we must do something with them, and to conclude that only “prayer hands” is to be implied with that statement, when the clear statement from the USCCB is that “no position is prescribed”, cannot logically follow. If it could then there would be a prescription, which we all acknowledge (I think?) that there is not.

You have finally hit on my point - I agree - most people are not even aware of this issue. Yet, it is those people, in my view, who argue the loudest. That is my whole point - the ONLY argument on the other side of this is “it feels good and I like it.”

Again I have to totally disagree. There may be *some * ( I will NOT agree that it is “most”) who just say “leave me alone because that’s what I want to do”, but those of us who debate the subject are largely very aware of it. Further, I find it extremely offensive, despite my belief that you don’t mean to be offensive, that you continue to make the statement that "the ONLY argument on the other side of this is “it feels good and I like it.” , with the attendant uncharitable implication that people who do it are irreverent, disobedient, and uneducated. Believe it or not, people can have many valid reasons that you may not be aware of, understand, or agree with, but that doesn’t make them non-existant or invalid.

Again there may be some who just do it out of conditioning, but those of us who “defend” it believe it to be a true communal sign of the Body of Christ joined together in prayer to Our Father. You may disagree, as is certainly your right, but to continue to make those judgments is to invite the reverse statements–which I also condemn–that you are just falsely pious and concerned about nothing but externals, and are completely missing the point that the Mass is also a horizontal, communal event. You cannot read the hearts or motivations of anyone holding hands any more than they can read your heart.

Again, I fully respect your right to your opinions and preferences, but please consider that others have different opinions and preferences, which the Church shows no indication of finding problematic, which are just as valid and which do not make them any less reverent or any less Catholic–or loved by God–than you are.

Peace,

 

[Trelow]

Now if everyone was holding a small child we wouldn’t have this problem, would we?

 

[paramedicgirl]

Now if everyone was holding a small child we wouldn’t have this problem, would we?

Doesn’t that beg the question of how many Catholics use birth control?

 

[cjaubert]

Okay, two final points…

If you take the position that "stand and " is different from just “stand” then “stand with’prayer hands’” is also different from “stand”.

No, you are being literalistic here, not literal. Certain things are implied. For example, the church does not tell us to bathe before Church, or to come dressed up as opposed to naked. The Church does not have to tell us these things. The same is true for hands. Yes, everyone has hands (some might argue with this, so let me change it to “most people that attend church have hands”). So, we have to do SOMETHING with them. The universal sign of prayer, in probably every church out there, is “prayer hands.” If you asked probably every priest, deacon, bishop, and lay person “What is the position our hands should be in to pray,” I am sure 99.99% would say “prayer hands.” There is, of course, the oddball here or there who would say something different (didn’t some cardinal just ordain four married men last week?), but that exception does not prove the rule.

So, if virtually everyone agrees that prayer hands is the normal or “default” position to keep your hands while praying, anything OTHER THAN that would require, in my view, a reason for the deviation. Just as coming to church naked or filthy would require a reason, since that is not the norm. (Not a perfect analogy, but I think it makes my point.)

There may be some ( I will NOT agree that it is “most”) who just say “leave me alone because that’s what I want to do”, but those of us who debate the subject are largely very aware of it. Further, I find it extremely offensive, despite my belief that you don’t mean to be offensive, that you continue to make the statement that "the ONLY argument on the other side of this is “it feels good and I like it.” . . . those of us who “defend” it believe it to be a true communal sign of the Body of Christ joined together in prayer to Our Father.

No, the lack of awareness is proved by the fact that the post/argument is ALWAYS presented, “I do not like hand holding. Why do people do that?” I have NEVER seen a post that says, “Gee, I love hand holding during the Our Father, why does that old grouch next to me not hold my hand?” My point is, the argument in favor of hand holding is only made (at least in my experience) defensively, which shows the lack of awareness in the first place.

As for my “feel good” argument, I posted numerous GIRM and other references a week or two ago, and about 10 logical arguments against the posture. I have not seen ONE GIRM reference, one Sacramentary reference, one reference to an article, or one reference to ANYTHING that supports the position. Everything printed suggests that the position is not appropriate.

Finally, with respect, what you “believe” (a synonym for “feel” or “think,” at least to me) is besides the point. The Our Father is a prayer TO God - it is vertical. Anything that detracts from the vertical nature of the prayer (holding hands, giving your child a cookie, day dreaming, waving your hands wildly in the air, doing cartwheels, etc.) does just that - detracts from the prayer. I think God should get 100% of our attention, not 99%, or 75%, or anything else.

Sorry to have extremely offended you - it was not my intent. (Gosh, I sound like the Pope here!) If you would show me one article or one internet link or one GIRM reference or anything else that shows that the posture is acceptable, I will change my position. Until I see that, however, I can only conclude that the only argument is “it makes me feel good.” You have so much as admitted that by writing “THOSE OF US WHO “DEFEND” IT BELIEVE IT TO BE a true communal sign of the Body of Christ joined together in prayer to Our Father.” I see this quote as substantively the same as “I do it because it makes me feel good.” In this regard, if I wrote, “Those of us who defend waving our hands wildly in the air believe it to be a true communal sign of the Body of Christ joined together in prayer to Our Father,” you would, I hope, shudder and respond, “Chris, it does not matter how you FEEL wildly waving your hands in the air…”

God bless, my friend, and apologies again for offending you. (Now I REALLY sound like the Pope!)

 

[RCCDefender]

No, you are being literalistic here, not literal. Certain things are implied. For example, the church does not tell us to bathe before Church, or to come dressed up as opposed to naked. The Church does not have to tell us these things. The same is true for hands. Yes, everyone has hands (some might argue with this, so let me change it to “most people that attend church have hands”). So, we have to do SOMETHING with them. The universal sign of prayer, in probably every church out there, is “prayer hands.” If you asked probably every priest, deacon, bishop, and lay person “What is the position our hands should be in to pray,” I am sure 99.99% would say “prayer hands.” There is, of course, the oddball here or there who would say something different (didn’t some cardinal just ordain four married men last week?), but that exception does not prove the rule.

So, if virtually everyone agrees that prayer hands is the normal or “default” position to keep your hands while praying, anything OTHER THAN that would require, in my view, a reason for the deviation. Just as coming to church naked or filthy would require a reason, since that is not the norm. (Not a perfect analogy, but I think it makes my point.)

My thoughts exactly! I’ve been wanting to say something like this but couldn’t figure out how to word it.

 

[ncjohn]

So, if virtually everyone agrees that prayer hands is the normal or “default” position to keep your hands while praying, anything OTHER THAN that would require, in my view, a reason for the deviation.

I don’t think there would be any such agreement. In my many years in the Church, even pre-Vatican 2, I have seen very, very few people ever use “prayer hands”. In fact, pre-Vatican 2 I was always specifically amused that I never saw any adults other than the nuns in our Catholic school ever use the position that we were being taught. You may see the occasional person with hands clasped, but outside of watching an EWTN mass, I seldom see even that. Even in churches I have been in where holding hands is not the norm, what I have seen is simply people standing wiith their hands on the back of the pew or something similar. So no, I would not agree in any way, shape, or form that “prayer hands” is the “default” position (even if you consider it the “desirable” position) and that it therefore deserves some kind of de facto recognition as “the” positon in the absence of something being specified.

No, the lack of awareness is proved by the fact that the post/argument is ALWAYS presented, “I do not like hand holding. Why do people do that?” I have NEVER seen a post that says, “Gee, I love hand holding during the Our Father, why does that old grouch next to me not hold my hand?” My point is, the argument in favor of hand holding is only made (at least in my experience) defensively, which shows the lack of awareness in the first place.

Maybe when you’ve been around these threads on holding hands longer, or if you do a search on them you’ll see those exact statements made all the time. The fact that you see them less here than in the “real world” and see more of the “defensive” ones is because of the more conservative membership of this forum. I have had many PM’s thanking me for saying what I say by people who just don’t want to expose themselves to the ire of those who have such strong biases against it. On the whole though, if this is the only place you’ve seen this discussion, you are right that you’ll see things more in the vein you claim because of the prevailing attitudes here.

As for my “feel good” argument, I posted numerous GIRM and other references a week or two ago, and about 10 logical arguments against the posture. I have not seen ONE GIRM reference, one Sacramentary reference, one reference to an article, or one reference to ANYTHING that supports the position. Everything printed suggests that the position is not appropriate.

Again, what you are going to see is reflective of those posting at this site. There are numerous articles out there, including the letter from Archbishop Chaput of Denver, acknowledging that it is fine and simply a matter of personal preference. And you can make all the arguments you find logical about the topic you want, and I will agree with many of them in support of no one being coerced into participating, but the fact is that the GIRM does not address it; the USCCB specifically says there is no prescription; and the Vatican, in the one case where they actually responded to a question about holding hands specifically declined to say anything more than that it could not be substituted for the sign of peace. As such, the burden is on those who oppose it to show ANY official documentation that says “stop”, which to date has not happened.

Finally, with respect, what you “believe” (a synonym for “feel” or “think,” at least to me) is besides the point.

Exactly!

And what YOU believe, which is all you have presented here, is just as beside the point in this case since neither of us get to make the rules or tell someone that rules exist that in fact don’t. And that is a large part of the point. We each have a right to praise God in a way that we find prayerful in the absence of that being deemed inappropriate.

The Church has shown no official sign of supporting what you believe to be “logical arguments”. They have shown by failing to tell me otherwise despite your protestations (“your” in this case being the collective year’s of complaints) that at the very least they do not have a problem with my belief. As such, to continue to imply that we are being irreverent or disobedient smacks of trying to make yourself “more Catholic than the Church”.

Again, I have no problem with you thinking it is not appropriate, for whatever reason, and not wanting to participate, for whatever reason. The only thing I have a problem with is those who think they can look down on someone else who expresses their devotion to God differently, as if they had all the answers on what God is looking for and are somehow “holier” and “better” Catholics than the rest of us.

I will continue to rejoice that people continue to come to sing their praises to God in whatever form that takes.

Peace,