Is it okay to cross myself with my left hand?

[Lujack]

Absolutely not.

The Sign of the Cross is traced across the body with the right hand only. To do otherwise is disrespectful to those who taught you the proper rubric, a bad example to children, and offensive to faithful Catholics everywhere.

It is better to refrain from the Sign of the Cross entirely than to show overt contempt for it. There is no exception for rape, incest, life of the mother, global warming. second hand smoke, curvature of the earth, alignment of the planets, or being naturally left handed.
.

It is not nearly that serious; I’ve crossed myself with my left hand driving in traffic that had me a little off-balance because I wanted to keep my right on the wheel, or when I was carrying something in my right hand when I walked past the church, and so on. It isn’t disrespect to the Sign of the Cross to use the left hand. Why anyone (even a lefty like me) would care enough to want to do it that way regularly is something else entirely, but it certainly doesn’t offend me. I might feel like I’m looking in a mirror, but it shouldn’t be offensive.

 

[choy]

i agree

and why would it distract people in the church. if you’re being distracted by the person next to you signing with his left hand, then its your fault. you should be looking in front and your attention at the speaker (the priest or the lectors)

and don’t we sign because its an acknowledgment to Christ’s invitation for us to carry our cross? i don’t remember Jesus asking us to carry our cross with our right hand only.

 

[Mike_Dye]

Darned if I can remember who said it, but I remember I was impressed with the statement… It went something similar to this. “Why worry about the speck in your brothers eye? Worry more about the plank in your own eye and then you can see clearly to remove the speck in your brothers eye”, or something like that.Anyone remember the exact text or who could have said it?

 

[ChadS]

I’m left-handed and I’ve never had any issue with making the sign of the cross with my right hand. I think it would even feel awkward if I tried to do it with my left hand.

ChadS

 

[otjm]

By that same reasoning, the responses at mass are also custom. So, I guess some feminists and others have license to change the wording privately in the pews and say it out loud so others can hear and stumble? I don’t think so since it destroys the harmony. Indeed some have done so in my parish and it is very distracting and confusing almost making me stumble and err in my own responses. It then distracts me from the mass. What other people do at mass can be infectious to others in that they get tempted to copy and cause disruption. Indeed I often depend on the congregation to sometimes remember the words of the Creed and other prayers, it would not be a good thing if someone decided to intentionally change the wording all of a sudden and throw me off along with them. To do it accidentally and unintentionally is one thing, but to do so deliberately is an immoral liturgical abuse. Liturgical abuses are not committed only by the priests and lay ministers, but also can be committed by some people in the congregation as well.

No, by the same reasoning, we get just the opposite results. Why? Because there are rules about the responses at Mass. There are no rules as to how one makes the Sign of the Cross. If one thing has rules and the other doesn’t, then one does not come up with the same results.

Making the Sign of the Cross with your left hand is not immoral liturgical abuse. Please, get over it. Making it with the right hand instead of the left hand is a custom. Nothing more. It is not a moral issue.

 

[otjm]

Ok then do whatever you feel like!!!.. frankly if we have no uniformity at all… or simple little traditions… then why do we have mass…morning prayers… why do we have anything external??? after all doesn’t it just matter what’s in the heart???.? SO maybe we’re just a spiritual religion??? no we believe in the church being the body of christ right??? or maybe not… idk… sorry… if i sound frustrated right now… not your fault… just last tiny tiny straw… that broke the camels back…

Oh please. Get over it. There is a vast diffeence betwseen making the Sign of the Cross left handed or right handed, and having Mass or Morning Prayer. And you know that.

Broke the camel’s back? Get a grip. Just a spiritual reliegion? Are you totally clueless? The vast majority of people are right-handed, a few are left-handed and a few are ambidextrous. The vast majority of people are going to make the Sign of the Cross right-handed, which is going to include some people who are left-handed. And an extremely few will do it left-handed because it is awakard for them to do it right-handed. Try doing something left-handed, like getting food to your mouth with a fork, and you just might, just possibly, begin to have a clue what it is like to do something with your non-dominant hand.

It is not a moral issue. It is not a religious issue. It is not going to subvert the Church. It is not going to send people into a tizzy. That is, maybe you will go into a tizzy, but that is a personal issue.

And yes, it does matter what is in the heart. Which will Christ honor - someone who goes through the motions of making the sign of the Cross right-handed, with no clue or awareness other than enough to do something that looks like they are waving flies off, or someone who makes it left-handed, a bit awkwardly because they are in a right-handed world, but does it thinking briefly of Christ’s passion and death? It is not only what is in the heart; but flipping through the Sign of the Cross right handed just because that is what one does at certain times is really not what making it is about.

 

[otjm]

Absolutely not.

The Sign of the Cross is traced across the body with the right hand only. To do otherwise is disrespectful to those who taught you the proper rubric, a bad example to children, and offensive to faithful Catholics everywhere.

It is better to refrain from the Sign of the Cross entirely than to show overt contempt for it. There is no exception for rape, incest, life of the mother, global warming. second hand smoke, curvature of the earth, alignment of the planets, or being naturally left handed.
.

You should do more satire. You are good at it!

 

[otjm]

Scandal in this sense is as simple as people noticing…

. It doesn’t mean it’s all out there and HORRIBLE!!!

Scandal has to do with moral issues.

Which this is not.

So there is no such thing as scandal, when seeing someone making the Sign of the Cross with their left hand. There might be discomfort. There migh be a sense of disorientation.

Neither of those are scandal.

 

[otjm]

i agree

and why would it distract people in the church. if you’re being distracted by the person next to you signing with his left hand, then its your fault. you should be looking in front and your attention at the speaker (the priest or the lectors)

and don’t we sign because its an acknowledgment to Christ’s invitation for us to carry our cross? i don’t remember Jesus asking us to carry our cross with our right hand only.

Did you miss that? It was Matthew 35, vs. 272…

 

[otjm]

I’m left-handed and I’ve never had any issue with making the sign of the cross with my right hand. I think it would even feel awkward if I tried to do it with my left hand.

ChadS

And that is perfectly fine. There are, however, a few - very few - people whose dominant hand is so dominant that it is far easier for them to make the Sign of the Cross left-handed rather than right-handed.

As I noted earlier, I went to a Mass where the priest was very left-dominant, and he made the Sign of the Cross left-handed. I did a double take when I saw it, and it gave me slight pause; a bit more pause than when I see someone using a fork left-handed, but not much.

How we do it is a custom, and it is a custom that fits ergonomically with the vast majority of people. Just because that is so does not raise it to the level of a moral issue, or a legal issue. I find it amusing that people can be so anal retentive that this rises to the level of contention that it has. Yes, the custom is we make it with our right hand. Yes, the vast majority of people will do so.

But the very bottom line is it is a custom. It is not a law, it is not a moral issue, we are not saying that it is perfectly fine to change the responses in Mass, or stand where the rules say kneel. Those issues have rules. This one doesn’t.

Can someone who is left-handed make it right-handed?

Can that same person use a fork right-handed? Can they write right-handed?

Does it really, really make a difference? And if it does, why? Because we are anal about things which are not moral issues? If so, maybe we could get over it?

 

[malphono]

But the very bottom line is it is a custom. It is not a law, it is not a moral issue, we are not saying that it is perfectly fine to change the responses in Mass, or stand where the rules say kneel. Those issues have rules. This one doesn’t. …

Does it really, really make a difference? And if it does, why? Because we are anal about things which are not moral issues? If so, maybe we could get over it?

Yes, a right-handed Sign of the Cross is custom. So is wearing clothing. There’s no “law” that says one has to be clothed in church either, so what’s your point?

I have no interest in having another go-round with you, and I absolutely will not engage in one, but I have to ask why are you trying to brow-beat this thread into submission to your opinion?

 

[rinnie]

Now that you know the right hand is what you should use, and it has been revealed to you. Do it!

As the nike commercial says JUST DO IT!

 

[otjm]

Yes, a right-handed Sign of the Cross is custom. So is wearing clothing. There’s no “law” that says one has to be clothed in church either, so what’s your point?

I have no interest in having another go-round with you, and I absolutely will not engage in one, but I have to ask why are you trying to brow-beat this thread into submission to your opinion?

There you go again, waving that red flag in front of me!

No “law” saying that you need to be dressed? I would beg to differ; I don’t know of any tribe, anywhere (and who knows, there may be one or two out there in the jungle) that doesn’t wear some type of clothing even though it may be as minimal as a loin cloth. The rule or “law”? Modesty, which intertwines with the issue of sexual sin; something that is so innate in humans that it (the requirement for some form of clothing) goes to our very nature.

So yes, there is a “law” which says that one must be clothed in church, and I am sure you are aware of the cultural side of that issue, the question “how much” since it has been the source of a number of threads in these fora.

The fact that the degree of clothing (as in, how much skin is allowable) can be a cultural issue does not reduce it entirely to nothing more than a cultural issue. At its root is a law, the law of modesty which is interrelated to sexual propriety/sexual sin.

And we both know that there is no sin attached to which hand one uses to make the Sign of the Cross.

Or do we?

Brow beating? Or responding to those who don’t seem to think beyond a knee-jerk response that it is wrong to use the left hand? OK, I will put my brow back up above my eyes.

 

[Layman]

Legalisms aside, why would you want to bless yourself with your left hand, given the connotations I pointed out earlier?

I can think of one reason only: The Church Of Me.

Also: I have seen unusual demonstrations of piety at the Latin Mass I go to. They tend not to persist. I’ve drawn conclusions from that.

 

[malphono]

There you go again, waving that red flag in front of me!

No “law” saying that you need to be dressed? I would beg to differ; I don’t know of any tribe, anywhere … Modesty, … goes to our very nature.

So yes, there is a “law” which says that one must be clothed in church …

The fact that the degree of clothing (as in, how much skin is allowable) can be a cultural issue does not reduce it entirely to nothing more than a cultural issue. At its root is a law, the law of modesty which is interrelated to sexual propriety/sexual sin.

You needn’t go into such detail: in case you missed it, my prior comment was meant to have been something of a reductio.

Anyway, for all of your “explanation” (for lack of a better word), there is still no explicit Church law on either matter. Both are governed by “custom” which has the force of law, and is sufficient.

And we both know that there is no sin attached to which hand one uses to make the Sign of the Cross.

Or do we?

At the risk of being redundant, I have to say again that the “custom” (which, BTW, is the same in both East and West) is for the Sign of the Cross to be made with the right hand.

As for whether there is “sin” attached in using the left hand absent a physical handicap of the right, I am not the one who determines such things, so I cannot address that point.

 

[otjm]

Legalisms aside, why would you want to bless yourself with your left hand, given the connotations I pointed out earlier?

I can think of one reason only: The Church Of Me.

Also: I have seen unusual demonstrations of piety at the Latin Mass I go to. They tend not to persist. I’ve drawn conclusions from that.

Perhaps that is because you think with tunnel vision; you presume that because someone may do somthing differently, that they do it in some sort of spite attitude towards the Church.

There are extremely few people this applies to, to begin with, because the vast majority are right-handed. And since I presume you are right-handed (and I do so because you appear to have no understanding of what it is like to be a left-handed person in a right-handed world), it is easy to presume that what you do with ease and naturally, absolutely everyone else does likewise.

Try this, just for giggles. Next time you are eating something which is small - say corn or peas, and with a fork - try eating them with your left hand. Maybe the experience of trying to do something that is going to be completely awkward will give you enough of a jolt physically to understand that there are a few people out there, very few, but a few for whom making the Sign of the Cross is going to come naturally with the left hand instead of the right hand, and using the right hand will be extremely awkward.

I would presume that you would have enough grace, let alone common sense, to understand that physical limitations may be a bit more than you have experienced, and possbily, just possibly, doing something differently has nothing to do with an attitude of rebellion, but is simply a matter of physical dexterity or lack thereof.

Would you criticize an elderly priest who has knee problems for not genuflecting at the Cosnecration? Is he too a member of your identified group of “The Church of Me”? People with arhtritis may be able to genuflect, especilly if they have help getting back up. Are you going to insist the priest with arthritis genuflect?

And no, being very dominant left-handed is not the same as arthritis; it is just a matter of extreme awkwardness.

This isn’t an issue of a whole bunch of people starting to make the Sign of the Cross left-handed. It is about a rare individual who has a significant problem doing so with any sense of coordination. The Church of Me? No, I don’t think so. Try eating left-handed and see how awkward that is. Maybe you will get it.

Then again, maybe you won’t.

There are none so blind as those who won’t see.

 

[malphono]

Perhaps that is because you think with tunnel vision; you presume that because someone may do somthing differently, that they do it in some sort of spite attitude towards the Church.

There are extremely few people this applies to, to begin with, because the vast majority are right-handed. And since I presume you are right-handed (and I do so because you appear to have no understanding of what it is like to be a left-handed person in a right-handed world), it is easy to presume that what you do with ease and naturally, absolutely everyone else does likewise.

Try this, just for giggles. Next time you are eating something which is small - say corn or peas, and with a fork - try eating them with your left hand. Maybe the experience of trying to do something that is going to be completely awkward will give you enough of a jolt physically to understand that there are a few people out there, very few, but a few for whom making the Sign of the Cross is going to come naturally with the left hand instead of the right hand, and using the right hand will be extremely awkward.

I would presume that you would have enough grace, let alone common sense, to understand that physical limitations may be a bit more than you have experienced, and possbily, just possibly, doing something differently has nothing to do with an attitude of rebellion, but is simply a matter of physical dexterity or lack thereof.

Would you criticize an elderly priest who has knee problems for not genuflecting at the Cosnecration? Is he too a member of your identified group of “The Church of Me”? People with arhtritis may be able to genuflect, especilly if they have help getting back up. Are you going to insist the priest with arthritis genuflect?

And no, being very dominant left-handed is not the same as arthritis; it is just a matter of extreme awkwardness.

This isn’t an issue of a whole bunch of people starting to make the Sign of the Cross left-handed. It is about a rare individual who has a significant problem doing so with any sense of coordination. The Church of Me? No, I don’t think so. Try eating left-handed and see how awkward that is. Maybe you will get it.

Then again, maybe you won’t.

There are none so blind as those who won’t see.

Oh please, give me a break. How absolutely condescending. Well, that approach it might work on others, but it doesn’t work on me.

In case you didn’t notice, I never used the words “The Church of Me” nor did I make any comment about arthritis. I said “absent a physical handicap of the right” meaning the right hand, as in the Sign of the Cross. Perhaps you missed that too. Whatever.

Your bad knee example is a handicap. A withered hand is a handicap. A broken right arm is a handicap, etc etc … etc. Left-handedness is not. It has been around since the beginning, and never has it been considered a physical handicap, so let’s just drop that absurdly “politically correct” silliness.

Recall if you will that I said I was not going to engage in yet another of these interminable exchanges, and I meant just that.

 

[otjm]

You needn’t go into such detail: in case you missed it, my prior comment was meant to have been something of a reductio.

I didn’t miss it. I disagreed that there is no dis-similarity.

Anyway, for all of your “explanation” (for lack of a better word), there is still no explicit Church law on either matter. Both are governed by “custom” which has the force of law, and is sufficient.

They eminate, however, from different reasons. One is obviously an issue tied to morals; the other has no moral implication.

At the risk of being redundant, I have to say again that the “custom” (which, BTW, is the same in both East and West) is for the Sign of the Cross to be made with the right hand.

And we hav never disagreed on this point.

As for whether there is “sin” attached in using the left hand absent a physical handicap of the right, I am not the one who determines such things, so I cannot address that point.

Um, one does not have to be the determinant of such an issue to address it; knowledge of moral issues usually suffices. You are obviously well educated on issues, as your responses in other threads has been very informative.

I think that somehow I have gotten under your skin, probably elsewhere, and that was not my intent. I am truly amazed that anyone would consider that a left-handed person making the Sign of the Cross left-handed should be worthy of any criticism or concern. But it is getting criticism from people who seem to think that it is an involable rule. There is plenty enough to be concerned about in the day to day activities within the Church; this isn’t one of them.

 

[JustaServant]

Doesn’t matter. It’s a superstitious notion and tradition that people do. Thing is, God doesn’t care. Follow His commandments. Repent. Trust Christ. You’re little rituals don’t save you.

God bless

I don’t recall anyone saying it did.
Signing or Covenant gestures date deep into the Old Testament world. It also was a practice in the early Church. The Orthodox and Episcopalians do it as well. “God doesn’t care?” You know this, how?
The sign of the Cross is a wonderful expression of who we are.

 

[Ace86]

I remember being taught that it’s okay as long as you cross over to touch your right shoulder when you say “Holy”.

So basically it would be like doing the motion in a mirror.