Laughing at Liturgical Abuse

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tempest
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Tempest

Guest
I understand it is a very serious matter when someone disrespects the sacredness of the Liturgy. Some things I’ve read/heard though, are just so outrageous and bizarre I can’t help but laugh at them. If I don’t intend to disrespect Christ, is it sinful to be amused by the weirdness of certain violations/abuses?
 
Abuse and amusement seem in opposition to me. The word “abuse” suggests something is serious. The word “amusement” suggests it is not serious.

Here is an extract from the 2004 Instruciton Redemptionis Sacramentum:
“[5.] The observance of the norms published by the authority of the Church requires conformity of thought and of word, of external action and of the application of the heart. A merely external observation of norms would obviously be contrary to the nature of the Sacred Liturgy, in which Christ himself wishes to gather his Church, so that together with himself she will be “one body and one spirit”.”

So it is thoughts and the heart that matter as well. An attitude of amusement seems wrong.

I can understanding humour as part of an approach to correct abuses. Again, from Redemptionis Sacarmentum, the end of n. 4: “In some places the perpetration of liturgical abuses has become almost habitual, a fact which obviously cannot be allowed and must cease.” There is a problem that needs fixing, and humour will be part of that.

In weighing up these approaches, the problem of sacrilege needs to be considered. From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
“2120 Sacrilege consists in profaning or treating unworthily the sacraments and other liturgical actions, as well as persons, things or places consecrated to God. Sacrilege is a grave sin …”.

If you laugh at someone’s liturgical abuse, are you laughing at them, or with them? Does it convey approval? It does not matter?
 
Cm’on John - I hate irreverant masses, but sometimes all you can do is hang your head and say “good grief, they don’t get it!” while chuckling.

The only time I get ANGRY, is when I see things that ARE blatently sacriligeous, clearly INTENDED to disrespect.

If I see a gospel divided between a lay person and priest, with music interspersed, I don’t get ANGRY; I think “They must not have a good liturgy person here or a pastor knowledgeable about liturgy” and I pity them.

And yeah, frankly, some of the more ridiculous things - like liturgical dancing, et al, would inspire laughter.
 
Though it’s not a liturgical abuse in the strictest sense, there was something that happened at Mass about 6 months ago that made me laugh.

My great-aunt directs a choir for seniors, and they sang at a First Communion Mass. One of the hymns they sang was called “thanks and praise” and was to the tune of “Edelweiss”. It was the epitome of bad 1970s liturgical music–something too out there for even those awful Glory and Praise hymnals. I had to bite my lip to keep from laughing. I don’t think Father has asked them back since. Sometimes I wonder what Father Zuhlsdorf’s reaction would have been if he were there…
 
I was at Religious Congress in Los Angeles and during one Mass there was this guy about 45 or so. He looked like Levar Burton but throw in a about a pint of estrogen, and put him in a blue form fitting dance suit. Have him prance around and try to get us to so also, with a fish like swimming motion.
It was so ridiculous and such a tribute to stupidity that all I could do is laugh. There really was no sacrilege going on yet, it was just shameful attempts to modernize the liturgy, that were straight out of a gay pride parade, or an event like that.
(in my wayward youth I once went to the Castro Street Fair to look at the weirdos, some liturgies at Los Angeles Religious Congress would fit right in)
All you can do is laugh and shake your head sometimes.

God Bless
Scylla
 
Sure we can laugh. I agree with the earlier poster that, when it is done blatantly, my only real emotion is anger, but when it comes from those who don’t know better in our misguided parishes, sometimes humor is the best approach.

Maybe something like this.
 
I never laugh at liturgical abuse. I only get angry. It is almost as though the Devil rejoices not only in mocking the sacredness of the Mass but also in angering those of us who care about it to the point of making it difficult for us to concentrate on the reason we are at Mass.
 
Chovy said:
I never laugh at liturgical abuse. I only get angry. It is almost as though the Devil rejoices not only in mocking the sacredness of the Mass but also in angering those of us who care about it to the point of making it difficult for us to concentrate on the reason we are at Mass.
Click to expand...
Nothing healthy about that – or beneficial to the Church either.
 
Spiller said:
Nothing healthy about that – or beneficial to the Church either.
Click to expand...
Oh, I know. Last week we had to go to the “last chance Mass” at a neighboring parish. Our 2 sump pumps failed, flooding our finished basement and I noticed this 5 minutes before we were to leave for 9 am Mass. By the time the workmen left, the only Mass available was this 6:30 PM one in the neighboring town.

At the Offertory, they sang “Lean on Me,” by Bill Withers. Then the priest ad libbed the entire Eucharistic prayer in a manner which made it appear that he was perhaps planning to try out for the role of a preacher in a Broadway show using words not contained within any of the sanctioned Eucharistic prayers. The recessional was one of those Protestant songs that is advertised on a 2 disc CD set available on WTBS complete with clapping and hand waving.

All of this was serious to me, and not at all laughable. Through closing my eyes and trying desperately to block everything out except Jesus, I was able to stop being angry. We will NEVER again attend Mass at that Church.
 
Pious_Mat said:
Though it’s not a liturgical abuse in the strictest sense, there was something that happened at Mass about 6 months ago that made me laugh.

My great-aunt directs a choir for seniors, and they sang at a First Communion Mass. One of the hymns they sang was called “thanks and praise” and was to the tune of “Edelweiss”. It was the epitome of bad 1970s liturgical music–something too out there for even those awful Glory and Praise hymnals. I had to bite my lip to keep from laughing. I don’t think Father has asked them back since. Sometimes I wonder what Father Zuhlsdorf’s reaction would have been if he were there…
Click to expand...
What is so awful about “Glory and Praise”? It is full of beautiful hymns. 🤷
 
Personally, I think if more people would just laugh out loud when some of this nonsense starts happening, it might must stop.

I mean, if we all started laughing when the liturgical dancer started twirling and stretching, that would probably be the end of the dancing.

Gertie
 
LRThunder said:
Then how would you describe Jesus’s anger when he drove the money changers from the temple?
Click to expand...
Setting up the temple as a “trade day” facility is a far cry from “liturgical abuse”. Let’s compare apples to apples.

🤷
 
agr4028 said:
Setting up the temple as a “trade day” facility is a far cry from “liturgical abuse”. Let’s compare apples to apples.

🤷
Click to expand...
I disagree. They were making a mockery of a place to worship. Liturgical abuses do the same or threaten the same possibility.

The liturgy is not a toy for anybody to play with: not the priest, not the deacon, not the laity.
 
agr4028 said:
Setting up the temple as a “trade day” facility is a far cry from “liturgical abuse”. Let’s compare apples to apples.
Click to expand...
They were profaning the temple. I’d say that’s a fair description of liturgical abuse.
 
LRThunder said:
Then how would you describe Jesus’s anger when he drove the money changers from the temple?
Click to expand...
Jesus was only doing what His Father did to Aaron’s sons when they committed the first liturgical abuse: rebuke them. Although, in the case of Aaron’s sons, the Father smote them (literally). Jesus, on the other hand, threw out the money changers because they were abusing the Court of the Gentiles, which was a section of the Temple reserved for the non-Jewish people to pray. This, in fact, was holy ground.

I wish the “temple” would have been cleansed at the LA Religious Congress. But, Benedict is coming so, maybe some sort of cleansing will take place.
 
agr4028 said:
If you say so…:cool:
Click to expand...
Actually, japhy makes a very valid point. If you read the post I wrote after his, you will find that the Lord was very specific as to how He wanted his cultic worship carried out. The money changers were abusing the proper use of the Temple. Remember, they set up shop at the Court of the Gentiles, where non-Jewish folks came to pray to the Lord. This was already sacred space, and, Jesus was most disturbed that this area was being profaned.
 
benedictgal said:
Actually, japhy makes a very valid point. If you read the post I wrote after his, you will find that the Lord was very specific as to how He wanted his cultic worship carried out. The money changers were abusing the proper use of the Temple. Remember, they set up shop at the Court of the Gentiles, where non-Jewish folks came to pray to the Lord. This was already sacred space, and, Jesus was most disturbed that this area was being profaned.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I disagree. Setting up moneychanger tables and creating a traders’ village in the temple and using a glass chalice aren’t the same from my point of view.

🤷
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top