Hugging or kisses spouses during mass

[FrDavid96]

Hand-shaking is just a cultural symbol that is far from universal even in America. The Scripture even uses the term “kiss of peace”. I am curious, according to the Church, has this ever been described as being a hand-shake only, or has a hug or kiss ever been proscribed behavior? I only ask as I really believe in speaking where the Church speaks and not creating additional conditions and rules where the Church is silent. Otherwise, all we are doing is exchanging opinions, when we ought to allow each to act in accord to their own prudence.

I agree. And your post actually expresses a big part of the problem.

Here’s how it works (no opinion, just fact)
The universal norm is that it is left to the conference of bishops for each country/region to determine the method (ie the action itself) for the sign of peace. The Church makes no specific mention of any particular gesture or gestures–neither requiring nor prohibiting.
In the United States, the conference has not yet articulated any particular gesture. The GIRM says (something like) “according to local custom” and simply leaves it at that.

Opinion:
The above contributes greatly to the chaos we see in the sign of peace. On the one hand, we’re a very diverse nation, and we have no “one” universal gesture–since we all come from different backgrounds (unlike, for example a country like Japan which has cultural norms for bowing which are very, very specific.). I think that the bishops were trying to be very pastoral in not describing any one gesture. On the other hand, the lack of any specific gesture causes too many problems because the end result is exactly what we see happening–total chaos (when looked at on a national level). There is some guidance which says a handshake–but it’s just that guidance and suggestion; nothing concrete and certainly nothing that carries any authority.

As I see it, the heart of the problem is not so much the gestures themselves that we see used at Mass; but rather the motivation behind those gestures.
The sign of peace is not a “meet and greet” and it’s not a time to express family or friendship relationships (old friends or meeting new friends–take that either way).

I don’t like the hugging and kissing at the sign of peace in the Roman Mass–however, in most of the Eastern Churches, a liturgical kiss is exactly how this moment happens. The difference is that in the EC, it is (as I just said) a “liturgical” act, rather than a personal one.

When people defend that they do at the sign of peace, they point to the open-ended rubrics which lack a specific gesture. That’s true–completely true. But the problem is that the rubric (in this case) is more than just a gesture or a lack of one. We have to look at the reason for the gesture, as well as the meaning behind it, and not just
the “mechanics” of it. When people say “this is how I express my feelings for my spouse” or “this is how I greet a stranger-future-friend” the meaning of the sign of peace has already been lost.

At the risk of being repetitive, since the sign of peace is not a moment of greeting, our justification for whatever gesture we use should likewise not depend upon our own definition of a greeting. Unfortunately, that’s exactly what has happened. Too many people see it as a greeting, and then determine their gesture based on that false premise.

The sign of peace is a symbolic act, expressing our ecclesial communion. What we should be doing is precisely what we have forgotten: that is, to express that, at that particular moment, we are all one single communion, and our personal relationships just aren’t relevant (at that moment). This can be hard to accept on the one end because it tells us to set aside our individual relationships (like family and friends) but easy to accept in the other extreme because it likewise tells us to set aside any negative relationships. We need to be thinking things like “I might not like my next door neighbor who plays the stereo when I’m trying to sleep, but he’s standing next to me at Mass, and I am in complete communion with him at this moment.” What a lot of people don’t realize is that emphasizing the former (family) likewise de-emphasizes the later (noisy neighbor). We should be not only willing, but eager to express communion with the noisy neighbor in the same way we express communion with a family member–at that moment; because that’s exactly what the sign of peace is all about. We’ve forgotten that part.

I think we can all agree that the sign of peace has gone too far in the last couple of decades. We all have our own little anectdotes about seeing it done the wrong way. I won’t bother repeating them here because we all know what they are.

The problem in discussing the issue (say, in this forum) is that the topic too often digresses into a discussion about “what is an appropriate way for me to greet my fill-in-the-blank?” and not a discussion about the real issue which is to ask “what is the appropriate way for me to greet my brethren in Christ, who are all the same to me as we prepare to receive the Body of Christ as eucharistic Communion, and be the Body of Christ as ecclesial communion?” That’s what we have forgotten.

In summary: the discussion about the sign of peace should be much less about “what” we are doing, and much more about “why” we are doing it. If only we could get ourselves back to that, the sign of peace would truly be that: a sign…of…peace.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

In summary: the discussion about the sign of peace should be much less about “what” we are doing, and much more about “why” we are doing it. If only we could get ourselves back to that, the sign of peace would truly be that: a sign…of…peace.

I so agree with you. What can be more beautiful than hoping that the person you are addressing be filled with peace?

That’s why a handshake is so much more appropriate than a hug. By looking into the eyes of one’s fellow worshipper, and saying “Peace be with you”, a reverent blessing is given by one to another.

 

[Bookcat]

I believe one can simply say it is a liturgical “sign of peace” not a “sign of affection” that is to be given at this time…

 

[zab]

The liturgical gesture is more than just a gesture. We are in fact supposed to make peace before approaching Holy Communion, with our spouse, family, and those around us. Until the Church madates a Holy Handshake as the acceptable gesture for the sign of peace, l think we should rely on our common sense to determine what that gesture or gestures should be in any given situation. We should also refrain from making judgements on those who choose a sign that is different from what we think it should be. We can’t say that a person who kisses their spouse during the sign of peace doesn’t understand the meaning of the Liturgical gesture.

 

[cargau]

I don’t clap in church or hold hands during the Our Father, so, liturgically speaking I am a pretty conservative guy. But…

We should remember that marriage is sacramental. The Peace offered by Christ through the priest to the spouses is one that when shared between the spouses can be a holy and beautiful thing.

I love my wife dearly. But, during the moment that I offer her Christ’s peace, it is done with a kiss not as perverted lustful act but as a gesture of my appreciation of her and her special role in my life. Christ must be at the center of that sacrament of matrimony. And when I ever greet my wife it is always done with a kiss…never a handshake!

 

[zab]

I don’t clap in church or hold hands during the Our Father, so, liturgically speaking I am a pretty conservative guy. But…

We should remember that marriage is sacramental. The Peace offered by Christ through the priest to the spouses is one that when shared between the spouses can be a holy and beautiful thing.

I love my wife dearly. But, during the moment that I offer her Christ’s peace, it is done with a kiss not as perverted lustful act but as a gesture of my appreciation of her and her special role in my life. Christ must be at the center of that sacrament of matrimony. And when I ever greet my wife it is always done with a kiss…never a handshake!

So to continue with what you are trying to get across… when you show a sign of peace with your spouse it is done with a kiss? I agree

 

[JimG]

Originally Posted by Petergee
I must say I was quite shocked to see this answer from the usually very sensible Michelle Arnold. . . .
Secondly it is an old established custom, even I believe allowed for in the rubrics of the Tridentine Mass, for the celebrant to embrace the server/s at the Sign of Peace.

I have not seen the OF-style “Sign of Peace” exchanged during a TLM or EF Liturgy.

Has anyone?

I haven’t seen it. Having been an altar boy during the days when the Tridentine Rite was standard, I can say that no priest hugged any altar boy or anyone else!

I can recall the first time in my experience when the “new” rite of peace was introduced during a transitional liturgy.

Two concelebrating priests gave the standard greeting, then proceeded down the aisle to impart the peace of Christ to the first person in each pew, who was to pass it on. My fiance and I turned to each other, unsure of what we were supposed to do. Actually, nobody knew. Nobody thought it was an invitation to hug. I said to her, “peace be with you,” and she responded similarly.

In my current parish, the greeting runs the gamut, from hugs, kisses, handshakes, to a bow of the head. Some people just don’t like to shake hands. Or hug. The pastor made a point in a homily some months ago that nobody is obligated to do any of this. No touching is mandated. And in fact, many parishioners have settled into my initial response, decades ago. They turn to one another and say, “peace be with you,” or just “peace.”

 

[tinalewis]

OK, let’s hear from married couples on this issue. Seems like there are alot of posts from people who don’t identify themselves as married (and attending Mass regularly with their spouse). Do you know what you think you would do if your soulmate was sitting next to you at Mass?

As for me: My husband and I always share the sign of Christ’s peace with hug across each other’s shoulders. And sometimes we kiss quickly, not always.

Wasn’t there a “kiss of peace” in former times?

 

[chaunceygardner]

I vote for whatever is customary and appropriate to the situation. Hug your spouse, kids, even your mother-in-law. Shake hands with, wave, greet or nod to those around you. A “sign of peace” can be any of these, as well as a verbal “Peace be with you”. At wedding and funeral masses I have attended, I have seen a LOT of hugging going on; totally appropriate in the circumstances. I have the feeling Jesus, if He were physically present, would be in the middle of it.

Peace :grouphug:

 

[zab]

I haven’t seen it. Having been an altar boy during the days when the Tridentine Rite was standard, I can say that no priest hugged any altar boy or anyone else!

I can recall the first time in my experience when the “new” rite of peace was introduced during a transitional liturgy.

Two concelebrating priests gave the standard greeting, then proceeded down the aisle to impart the peace of Christ to the first person in each pew, who was to pass it on. My fiance and I turned to each other, unsure of what we were supposed to do. Actually, nobody knew. Nobody thought it was an invitation to hug. I said to her, “peace be with you,” and she responded similarly.

In my current parish, the greeting runs the gamut, from hugs, kisses, handshakes, to a bow of the head. Some people just don’t like to shake hands. Or hug. The pastor made a point in a homily some months ago that nobody is obligated to do any of this. No touching is mandated. And in fact, many parishioners have settled into my initial response, decades ago. They turn to one another and say, “peace be with you,” or just “peace.”

A few months ago, both my husband and I caught the flu, I guess it was the flu. We had a cough that wouldn’t end. No sooner than one virus was about to run it’s course another came along. This went on for about two months or longer. During that time, I was hesitant to shake hands with anyone. First of all, I didn’t want to spread any viruses, and then again, I didn’t want to pick up another one either. So I was bowing my head for a while at the peace of Christ with those around me other than family.

Another problem I was having for a while was with a certain “Don Juan” who loves to hug everyone. I am not a hugger. It took me a while even to get used to hugging family members. Some people have such wonderful personalities and they are easier to hug than others. But I try not to get into the hugging acquaintances because if I hug “Mary”, then Don Juan" may feel hurt if I refuse his hug.

As far as handshaking goes. That seems to be the best gesture for acquaintances and strangers around me. But at times even a handshake can be not so good a gesture for showing a sign of peace. I have had occassional people usually older men that squeased my hand so hard. In my younger days, I could take it. But now a handshake sometimes causes me excruciating pain.

 

[JimG]

A few months ago, both my husband and I caught the flu, I guess it was the flu. We had a cough that wouldn’t end. No sooner than one virus was about to run it’s course another came along. This went on for about two months or longer. During that time, I was hesitant to shake hands with anyone. First of all, I didn’t want to spread any viruses, and then again, I didn’t want to pick up another one either. So I was bowing my head for a while at the peace of Christ with those around me other than family.

Another problem I was having for a while was with a certain “Don Juan” who loves to hug everyone. I am not a hugger. It took me a while even to get used to hugging family members. Some people have such wonderful personalities and they are easier to hug than others. But I try not to get into the hugging acquaintances because if I hug “Mary”, then Don Juan" may feel hurt if I refuse his hug.

As far as handshaking goes. That seems to be the best gesture for acquaintances and strangers around me. But at times even a handshake can be not so good a gesture for showing a sign of peace. I have had occassional people usually older men that squeased my hand so hard. In my younger days, I could take it. But now a handshake sometimes causes me excruciating pain.

Yes, you can never tell how hard a handshake might be! During a severe flu season last winter, all the priests of my parish simply skipped the invitation to exchange the sign of peace.

 

[OraLabora]

To be honest I was a lot more comfortable when the sign of the peace was abolished for a few months due to the H1N1 virus scare.

 

[Phemie]

To be honest I was a lot more comfortable when the sign of the peace was abolished for a few months due to the H1N1 virus scare.

So was I, but not because I don’t like to shake hand but because people then had to exercise some restraints at this time. It became a quiet period of looking your neighbor in the eye, bow of the head and saying “Peace be with you.”

 

[Michelle_Arnold]

Her quip that priests should not hug servers because of sexual abuse scandals was quite inappropriate and off-colour.

Who said I was joking? I wouldn’t joke about something as serious as the sexual abuse scandal. The OP mentioned that at her “orthodox Catholic university” (which was actually an edit I made to remove the name of the well-known institution), the priests would hug the altar servers. I believed that not only inappropriate for the sign of peace, but also potentially scandalous for the reason given – and not only for the faithful of good will, but also for any cynics who might be visiting the Mass with family or friends and given to making “off-colour” jokes that would offend Catholic piety. One of the consequences of The Scandal is that clergy will indeed have to be far more circumspect in their public behavior than they might have been before. As G. K. Chesterton put it, “When you break the big laws, you do not get freedom; you do not even get anarchy. You get the small laws.”

As for the main question, I think FrDavid and JimG put it well. I was making a distinction between a liturgical ritual and a public display of affection. The sign of peace is a liturgical ritual. Whether or not you “feel comfortable” shaking your wife or child’s hand is not the point. What is the point is that you engage in the ritual that is expected at the moment, whether or not it makes you feel comfortable. As an analogy, does a priest feel comfortable occasionally lying prostrate on his face in front of the congregation? Perhaps not. But when the rubrics call for him to do so, he should do so whether or not he is “comfortable” with it.

Personally, I too would like to see the optional exchange of peace between members of the congregation dropped altogether; but, when it is asked of the congregation to engage in it, I can only recommend exchanging the same sign of peace with everyone, family, friend, and stranger alike.

 

[puzzleannie]

Personally, I too would like to see the optional exchange of peace between members of the congregation dropped altogether; but, when it is asked of the congregation to engage in it, I can only recommend exchanging the same sign of peace with everyone, family, friend, and stranger alike.

this is precisely my feeling, if I hug my husband, or someone I know, but just give a weak handshake or nod to everyone else, it defeats the meaning of the ritual gesture, as in, well I Really Need to Make Peace with my hubby, but just need to give you a token of peace. If everyone is not making the same gesture it is no longer ritual but private time, and becomes exclusionary, not inclusionary, which is its purpose.

 

[zab]

Who said I was joking? I wouldn’t joke about something as serious as the sexual abuse scandal. The OP mentioned that at her “orthodox Catholic university” (which was actually an edit I made to remove the name of the well-known institution), the priests would hug the altar servers. I believed that not only inappropriate for the sign of peace, but also potentially scandalous for the reason given – and not only for the faithful of good will, but also for any cynics who might be visiting the Mass with family or friends and given to making “off-colour” jokes that would offend Catholic piety. One of the consequences of The Scandal is that clergy will indeed have to be far more circumspect in their public behavior than they might have been before. As G. K. Chesterton put it, “When you break the big laws, you do not get freedom; you do not even get anarchy. You get the small laws.”

As for the main question, I think FrDavid and JimG put it well. I was making a distinction between a liturgical ritual and a public display of affection. The sign of peace is a liturgical ritual. Whether or not you “feel comfortable” shaking your wife or child’s hand is not the point. What is the point is that you engage in the ritual that is expected at the moment, whether or not it makes you feel comfortable. As an analogy, does a priest feel comfortable occasionally lying prostrate on his face in front of the congregation? Perhaps not. But when the rubrics call for him to do so, he should do so whether or not he is “comfortable” with it.

Personally, I too would like to see the optional exchange of peace between members of the congregation dropped altogether; but, when it is asked of the congregation to engage in it, I can only recommend exchanging the same sign of peace with everyone, family, friend, and stranger alike.

There is a problem with the gesture that you have mentioned (handshaking) in that it is not a gesture that can be used by all people all of the time. As we have already mentioned, the flu and other viruses and painful joints prevent many people at various times from participating in the same gesture of handshaking. The flu season can last several months. It would seem less of a problem for the common liturgical gesture to be a nod of the head and saying, “Peace be with you.” But as it is, we do not have a common liturgical gesture that has been designated.

 

[rick43235]

OK, let’s hear from married couples on this issue.

At the sign of peace, I give my wife a kiss on the forehead and shake the hands of everyone else within reach (as opposed to roaming all over the church shaking hands).

 

[Bookcat]

There is a problem with the gesture that you have mentioned (handshaking) in that it is not a gesture that can be used by all people all of the time. As we have already mentioned, the flu and other viruses and painful joints prevent many people at various times from participating in the same gesture of handshaking. The flu season can last several months. It would seem less of a problem for the common liturgical gesture to be a nod of the head and saying, “Peace be with you.” But as it is, we do not have a common liturgical gesture that has been designated.

I believe one can simply say it is a liturgical “sign of peace” not a “sign of affection” that is to be given at this time…

 

[Mattapoisett64]

Who said I was joking? I wouldn’t joke about something as serious as the sexual abuse scandal. The OP mentioned that at her “orthodox Catholic university” (which was actually an edit I made to remove the name of the well-known institution), the priests would hug the altar servers. I believed that not only inappropriate for the sign of peace, but also potentially scandalous for the reason given – and not only for the faithful of good will, but also for any cynics who might be visiting the Mass with family or friends and given to making “off-colour” jokes that would offend Catholic piety. One of the consequences of The Scandal is that clergy will indeed have to be far more circumspect in their public behavior than they might have been before. As G. K. Chesterton put it, “When you break the big laws, you do not get freedom; you do not even get anarchy. You get the small laws.”

As for the main question, I think FrDavid and JimG put it well. I was making a distinction between a liturgical ritual and a public display of affection. The sign of peace is a liturgical ritual. Whether or not you “feel comfortable” shaking your wife or child’s hand is not the point. What is the point is that you engage in the ritual that is expected at the moment, whether or not it makes you feel comfortable. As an analogy, does a priest feel comfortable occasionally lying prostrate on his face in front of the congregation? Perhaps not. But when the rubrics call for him to do so, he should do so whether or not he is “comfortable” with it.

Personally, I too would like to see the optional exchange of peace between members of the congregation dropped altogether; but, when it is asked of the congregation to engage in it, I can only recommend exchanging the same sign of peace with everyone, family, friend, and stranger alike.

I continue to feel that a troubling inconsistency - if not a double standard - pervades some of these responses. Granted that the Sign of Peace is in fact a “liturgical action.” Around here, the GIRM is normally - and appropriately - invoked as the authority governing liturgical actions.

As I previously posted, the GIRM at # 154 calls for " . . . a sign that expresses peace, communion, and charity." But the original apologist’s response linked in the “Ask an Apologist” forum (M. Arnold 1-22-09) stated " . . . no, you should not hug your husband during the sign of peace." How did we get from the GIRM’s requirement for “a sign” to, in effect, a “thou shalt not?” Do we cite the GIRM as the authority only when we agree with what it says, but if someone has a personal opinion more strict than the GIRM, then we can dismiss what the GIRM says?

The fact is, I am not in communion with my spouse in the same way as with the good people in the surrounding pews, nor do those good people expect me to be. To say that we are all equal before God is to state the obvious but is a red herring in this context; the gesture called for involves expressing “peace, communion, and charity” with those around you, not with God. This is not about a “public display of affection” (which has a sexual connotation totally apart from what the original question posed). I would not expect my chosen gesture of peace and communion with my spouse to have aspersions cast upon it when that gesture conforms to the norms of the GIRM.

 

[lizaanne]

Personally, I too would like to see the optional exchange of peace between members of the congregation dropped altogether; but, when it is asked of the congregation to engage in it, I can only recommend exchanging the same sign of peace with everyone, family, friend, and stranger alike.

This is one of the countless things I love about our parish. Our pastor has eliminated entirely the public sign of peace, and only extends peace to us, but does not invite us to share. The Mass moves so much more smoothly, there is no disruption waiting for people to wander around, etc.

~Liza