Laughing at Liturgical Abuse

[benedictgal]

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.

Perhaps it wouldn’t be a bad idea to read the Old Testament. Part of the problem is that we don’t understand how very similar the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is to the OT cultic worship of Yahweh, which was established by the Lord, Himself.

Granted, the Temple did not exist during the time of Leviticus; however, they did have something similar, yet portable, and all of its areas were considered sacred. The lack of respect for sacred space does constitute a liturgical abuse.

The moneychangers set up shop in an area that was reserved for prayer; it was the Court of the Gentiles. Jesus threw the moneychangers out because they were violating the First Commandment. Loving God means offering Him due worship, a fact that perhaps has been somewhat lost in this day and age.

We have collectively lost a sense of the sacred. Glassware is forbidden for use in the liturgy. Just read Cardinal Arinze’s explanation (based on the prohition listed in Redemptionis Sacramentum):

In the United States, we have adequate income, why would we have to use glass or porcelain for the precious Blood and the Body of our Lord on the altar and not gold?

Oh, for the vessels. Ah! Actually, the liturgical laws forbid [this]. This is actually for bishops and priests to work out, because you cannot work out all that. But the liturgical laws are laid down about what type of vessel will be allowed at Mass.

Glass is forbidden. Yes, Forbidden. And anything that can break. Not to talk of those using baskets!

To not care and be flippant about what sacred means and how important such things as vessels are in the Mass (as well as respecting liturgical space) is something very sad, indeed.

 

[japhy]

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.

“Profane” comes from profanus, which means “outside the temple”.

When I see glassware, I think of the secular; when I see a golden chalice, I think of the sacred.

 

[agr4028]

“Profane” comes from profanus, which means “outside the temple”.

When I see glassware, I think of the secular; when I see a golden chalice, I think of the sacred.

I didn’t say a glass chalice was appropriate and proper, I simply stated that it was a different issue than moneychangers being set up in the temple.

A glass chalice, while it may not be “proper” by Canon Law, is used as a part of the Mass. Mass in a Church IS proper.

Setting up “trade days” in the Church is very different.

I’m sorry if you don’t see it that way.

 

[benedictgal]

I didn’t say a glass chalice was appropriate and proper, I simply stated that it was a different issue than moneychangers being set up in the temple.

A glass chalice, while it may not be “proper” by Canon Law, is used as a part of the Mass. Mass in a Church IS proper.
Setting up “trade days” in the Church is very different.

I’m sorry if you don’t see it that way.

You are wrong in your statement regarding glass chalies. This is what Redemptionis Sacramentum has to say on the issue:

Reprobated, therefore, is any practice of using for the celebration of Mass common vessels, or others lacking in quality, or devoid of all artistic merit or which are mere containers, as also other vessels made from glass, earthenware, clay, or other materials that break easily. This norm is to be applied even as regards metals and other materials that easily rust or deteriorate.207

Therefore, glassware is forbidden from use as a “sacred” vessel.

Profaning sacred space is a very serious issue. In the Old Testament, profanation often resulted in severe punishment, sometimes even death. Aaron’s sons were killed because they transgressed the liturgical norms establsihed by the Lord, Himself. Dathan and company also perished for the same reason.

What Jesus did was relatively mild compared to what happened to the Levites in the Pentatuch. However, the principle still applies. The first commandment is to love God. Loving includes giving the Lord the proper worship. Profaning sacred space, which the moneychangers did, violated that first commandment. Jesus, as God, was greatly offended.

 

[japhy]

I didn’t say a glass chalice was appropriate and proper, I simply stated that it was a different issue than moneychangers being set up in the temple.

A glass chalice, while it may not be “proper” by Canon Law, is used as a part of the Mass. Mass in a Church IS proper. Setting up “trade days” in the Church is very different.

A bit of context: under the old covenant, the use of the improper materials for a sacrifice rendered the sacrifice null and void. If you offered an old and crippled animal instead of a pure year-old one, God was not pleased.

While the material of the chalice does not affect the validity of the consecration, it is still willful use of a prohibited material. I agree the degree of abuse differs (using the wrong type of chalice during Mass vs. using a church for a secular purpose), it is still an abuse.

 

[DL82]

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?

I think sometimes it’s a kind laughter, a laughter of amusement at the fact that somebody’s clearly trying but in ignorance at the best way to achieve what they are aiming at.

A bit like when you see a young child trying to imitate an adult. Their youthful enthusiasm only makes you laugh.

We need to avoid being condescending in these attitudes though, as though we are the mature adults and they are the children. Sometimes children teach us something important.

I remember having a real revelation of the full humanity of Christ once during a liturgy when I was still an Anglican, when just as the priest was praying over the gifts before the words of institution, a little kid in the front row looked up at Christ on the cross, stripped to his loincloth, and started to ask his mother loudly “mum, did Jesus have a willy?” She tried to shush him, but the kid was insistent, he kept asking the question all the way through until the priest came down and answered the boy’s question.

I’ve never seen any liturgical abuses here that would constitute sacrilege, never somebody openly and deliberately desacrating the mass. It’s usually silly little things like holding hands at the Our Father, which expresses physically a truth that we are praying in unity and for unity when we pray ‘Our’ Father. Or liturgical dance, which expresses joy at the resurrection which makes the holy sacrifice meaningful for our redemption. Of course, there are better, more reverent, more appropriate ways of doing this, but it’s nice, like the little child trying to be a grown-up. It’s just sad that so many people and priests are so poorly catechised, or so disconnected from Catholic liturgical culture, that these abuses seem like a good idea in the first place.

In my opinion, as long as the intention of the abuse is not to mock or degrade Christ in the Eucharist, laugh away.

Maybe we’re also laughing at ourselves a little. It’s good to laugh at ourselves for being so concerned and scupulous that we can get offended by someone holding hands in church. What’s far worse is the opinion of those rigid conservatives who would tell us that because somebody made a silly mistake they don’t love God, or that God takes great offence at us getting a little carried away while worshipping Him. It’s a short step from there to those schismatics who refuse to believe that the Church can grow or develop or progress, and would engrave in dead stone the liturgy of their own upbringing on the Church for all eternity.

 

[benedictgal]

We need to avoid being condescending in these attitudes though, as though we are the mature adults and they are the children. Sometimes children teach us something important.

I remember having a real revelation of the full humanity of Christ once during a liturgy when I was still an Anglican, when just as the priest was praying over the gifts before the words of institution, a little kid in the front row looked up at Christ on the cross, stripped to his loincloth, and started to ask his mother loudly “mum, did Jesus have a willy?” She tried to shush him, but the kid was insistent, he kept asking the question all the way through until the priest came down and answered the boy’s question.

I’ve never seen any liturgical abuses here that would constitute sacrilege, never somebody openly and deliberately desacrating the mass. It’s usually silly little things like holding hands at the Our Father, which expresses physically a truth that we are praying in unity and for unity when we pray ‘Our’ Father. Or liturgical dance, which expresses joy at the resurrection which makes the holy sacrifice meaningful for our redemption. Of course, there are better, more reverent, more appropriate ways of doing this, but it’s nice, like the little child trying to be a grown-up. It’s just sad that so many people and priests are so poorly catechised, or so disconnected from Catholic liturgical culture, that these abuses seem like a good idea in the first place.

In my opinion, as long as the intention of the abuse is not to mock or degrade Christ in the Eucharist, laugh away.

Maybe we’re also laughing at ourselves a little. It’s good to laugh at ourselves for being so concerned and scupulous that we can get offended by someone holding hands in church. What’s far worse is the opinion of those rigid conservatives who would tell us that because somebody made a silly mistake they don’t love God, or that God takes great offence at us getting a little carried away while worshipping Him. It’s a short step from there to those schismatics who refuse to believe that the Church can grow or develop or progress, and would engrave in dead stone the liturgy of their own upbringing on the Church for all eternity.

First of all, “dance” is a bona fide liturgical abuse. It has been covered extensively in other threads. Francis Cardinal Arinze, the Prefect for the Congegation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments has spoken clearly and concisely on the matter.

Perhaps it would do you well to also read Leviticus. As I mentioned in my previous posts, the cultic worship of the Old Testament was established by Yahweh, Himself. He spent a great deal of time detailing to Moses exactly how He wanted to be worshipped. The Lord did not consider the OT liturgical practices something to be handled casually. Read what happened to Aaron’s sons. One huge error and the Lord smote them. Dathan and company were also stricken for their lack of respect.

In this day and age, we risk falling into that same disregard and casual treatment of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Your last statement, which I placed in bold print, is rather troubling. While the Holy Sacrifice is a living liturgy, it is something that we receive. It is not our own personal property to do with as we please. Whatever changes have occurred have been organic and have developed over a long period of time. What we have, we received from the Apostolic Tradition, from the Apstles themselves, who, in turn, received it from Christ Jesus.

Please note what Redemptionis Sacramentum has to say:

[10.] The Church herself has no power over those things which were established by Christ Himself and which constitute an unchangeable part of the Liturgy.23 Indeed, if the bond were to be broken which the Sacraments have with Christ Himself who instituted them, and with the events of the Church’s founding,24 it would not be beneficial to the faithful but rather would do them grave harm. For the Sacred Liturgy is quite intimately connected with principles of doctrine,25 so that the use of unapproved texts and rites necessarily leads either to the attenuation or to the disappearance of that necessary link between the lex orandi and the lex credendi.26

Therefore, to say that there are those who are carving on a dead stone is to completely miss the point of the Church’s sacred Tradition. To say that God doesn’t care about how we celebrate the Mass shows a disregard for the norms and rubrics establisihed by the Church.

 

[DL82]

First of all, “dance” is a bona fide liturgical abuse. It has been covered extensively in other threads. Francis Cardinal Arinze, the Prefect for the Congegation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments has spoken clearly and concisely on the matter.

Perhaps it would do you well to also read Leviticus. As I mentioned in my previous posts, the cultic worship of the Old Testament was established by Yahweh, Himself. He spent a great deal of time detailing to Moses exactly how He wanted to be worshipped. The Lord did not consider the OT liturgical practices something to be handled casually. Read what happened to Aaron’s sons. One huge error and the Lord smote them. Dathan and company were also stricken for their lack of respect.

Do you really think those priests who allow liturgical dance are thinking “let’s really offend the spirit of the liturgy and those Cardinals. I really want to hurt these people by exposing them to liturgical abuse!” I don’t. I think they are probably very busy priests who were trained in a more lax, liberal climate in the 1970’s and 80’s, and who are too busy tending to the pastoral needs of their congregations, confessions, visiting the sick, burying the dead, weddings, cathechesis, school visits, prison visits, diocesan duties, etc. to have time to trawl the CAF forums for details on the exact letter of the law. Love is the fulfilment of the law.

I’m not saying all liturgical abuse is a laughing matter, I’m just saying that laughter is a good thing, it helps us to put what seem like insurmountable evils in their place. It helps us to focus on the ultimate and final victory of good. Fixating on these things and being deadly serious about them makes them seem bigger than they are. When we can’t argue the devil away, and we’re struggling to see how to pray him away, simply laugh him away.

 

[benedictgal]

Do you really think those priests who allow liturgical dance are thinking “let’s really offend the spirit of the liturgy and those Cardinals. I really want to hurt these people by exposing them to liturgical abuse!” I don’t. I think they are probably very busy priests who were trained in a more lax, liberal climate in the 1970’s and 80’s, and who are too busy tending to the pastoral needs of their congregations, confessions, visiting the sick, burying the dead, weddings, cathechesis, school visits, prison visits, diocesan duties, etc. to have time to trawl the CAF forums for details on the exact letter of the law. Love is the fulfilment of the law.

I’m not saying all liturgical abuse is a laughing matter, I’m just saying that laughter is a good thing, it helps us to put what seem like insurmountable evils in their place. It helps us to focus on the ultimate and final victory of good. Fixating on these things and being deadly serious about them makes them seem bigger than they are. When we can’t argue the devil away, and we’re struggling to see how to pray him away, simply laugh him away.

First of all, the most important obligation that a priest has is to celebrate the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. He has the obligatoin to celebrate the Mass in the manner dicated by the Church. He has no right to introduce any novelty, idiosyncracy or creative whim. This includes innovations such as dance. To do so violates the norms prescribed by the Church.

Celebrating the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is the most important obligation. According to the documents of the Second Vatican Council, the Mass is the “source and summit” of the life of the Church from which everything flows. Tending to the pastoral needs of the souls entrusted to the care of the priest flows from the Mass, not the other way around. You get the Mass wrong, then everything else is skewed and distorted.

Unfortunately, too many priests and liturgists were infected by the so-called Spirit of Vatican II and never bothered to read what the documents of the Council actually said. Pope Benedict, in his book, “Milestones”, lamented this sad fact. Now, as Pope, he is doing something to address this problem.

It is sad to be flippant about the Mass and about the abuses that have occurred over the course of 40 years. The Church, on the oher hand, cares deeply about the matter, so much so that Pope John Paul II, prior to his death, had issued an order to convene the 2005 Synod on the Eucharist. Abuses were at the forefront of the Synod. The Synod Fathers called these abuses “shadows” that needed to be brought to light. Even though Pope John Paul had promulgated the publication of Redemptionis Sacramentum (which was co-written by the former Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger) to cure these abuses, the Synod Fathers lamented that many things were taking place to obscure the Mass. “Sacramentum Caritas” is Pope Benedict’s response to the Synod.

One other note: from your post, it seems to me that there might be some degree of relativism, liturgical relativism, if you will. The problem with that is that we can’t be blowing and going with the flow of every little wind and thought. There needs to be structure. It’s not a matter of doing what we like. It is a matter of being obedient to the Church and doing what she asks.

 

[benedictgal]

This evening, my father showed me the new edition of the Columbian, the magazine of the Knights of Columbus. In it was an article written by Fr. Joseph Fessio, a former student of Pope Benedict XVI. The article is very appropo to the points raised by our London friend.

In his 1998 biography, Milestones, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger said that the abrupt introduction of the Missal of Paul VI (the missal presently in use) “introduced a breach into the history whose consequences could be tragic.” His solution? “A renewal of liturgical awareness that again recognizes the unity of the history of the liturgy and that understands Vatican II as not a breach, but as a stage of development…I am convinced that the crisis in the Church that we are experiencing is, to a large extent, due to the disintegration of the liturgy.”…In his book, the Spirit of the Liturgy, Cardinal Ratzinger said that the liturgical renewal, compared with the restoration of a fresco, is “threatened with destruction.”

It is important to note that Cardinal Ratzinger is not speaking about the occasional wild aberration or outrageous abuse that followed in the immediate wake of Vatican II. He is writing about our current time and is referring to the Mass as experienced by most Catholics, most of the time.

Clearly, the Holy Father did not consider liturgical abuse something laughable or, ignorable. He lived through the Council and its after-effects, which, in his eyes, were most alarming. This clearly was not the springtime that Pope John XXIII hoped to bring into the Church. I’m from Texas. Springtime isn’t all about hearts and flowers. Some of the most dangerous weather occurs in the spring in the form of severe thunderstorms, hail and tornadoes. The innovations that came from the false “spirit of Vatican II” swept through the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass like an F-4 tornado (on the Fujita scale, this is pretty bad).

The Holy Father makes some very valid points. Many are quick to dismiss him because he is a theologian and not a liturgist. However, he has the benefit of wisdom and experience behind him.

Perhaps what is most troubling, and, why I raised the issue of liturgical relativism, is this passage from DL82’s post:

What’s far worse is the opinion of those rigid conservatives who would tell us that because somebody made a silly mistake they don’t love God, or that God takes great offence at us getting a little carried away while worshipping Him.

I keep bringing up the Old Testament cultic worship of Yahweh because it was established, dictated and outlined by the Lord, Himself. Jesus did not come to take away this form of worship. He came to fulfill it. Perhaps we don’t realize that we are not a break-away of Ancient Israel; rather, we are its fulfillment, the New Israel. The Lord commanded Ancient Israel to take its worship of Him very seriously. However, every time they slouched off and gave him half-hearted worship, they were sent into exile, destroyed and on the verge of being wiped out. They did not take their obligation to the First Commandment very seriuosly.

Unfortunately, the New Israel is following the bad example of Ancient Israel. When we don’t care enough about the proper celebration of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, when improper conduct and loose adherence to the norms of the Church don’t matter to us and when we show indifference, we are just like our ancestors in the Faith.

 

[Digitonomy]

To not care and be flippant about what sacred means…is something very sad, indeed.

While this was not directed at the OP, I think it illustrates how some are talking past each other due to misunderstanding in this thread. The OP spoke of laughing at liturgical abuses, not of being unaware or uncaring about them. It is possible to take things very seriously, yet be able to laugh at them all the same. If one can joke about his own death, or the genocide of his people, than surely one can also laugh at liturgical abuses, whether it be improper vestment colors or something more grave.

Finding amusement does not absolve one of the obligation to prevent a wrong, when possible. I may laugh at a burglar’s dimwitted technique for breaking into a building, but go straightaway to report him to the police. I think this is a good analogy with liturgical abuses. A better one may be that I wouldn’t bother reporting the burglary if I were certain the police would take no action, or if I would be disregarded in the future as the boy who cried wolf. But I might still laugh at it.

Laughter is a gift God has given that helps us cope with the fact that we can’t control everything.

 

[benedictgal]

While this was not directed at the OP, I think it illustrates how some are talking past each other due to misunderstanding in this thread. The OP spoke of laughing at liturgical abuses, not of being unaware or uncaring about them. It is possible to take things very seriously, yet be able to laugh at them all the same. If one can joke about his own death, or the genocide of his people, than surely one can also laugh at liturgical abuses, whether it be improper vestment colors or something more grave.

Finding amusement does not absolve one of the obligation to prevent a wrong, when possible. I may laugh at a burglar’s dimwitted technique for breaking into a building, but go straightaway to report him to the police. I think this is a good analogy with liturgical abuses. A better one may be that I wouldn’t bother reporting the burglary if I were certain the police would take no action, or if I would be disregarded in the future as the boy who cried wolf. But I might still laugh at it.

Laughter is a gift God has given that helps us cope with the fact that we can’t control everything.

It doesn’t do anyone any favors by pulling a quote and taking it out of cnotext. This was not directed at the OP; rather, it was directed at commentary made by another poster.

Unintentional bloopers that occur at Mass are one thing. These are beyond anyone’s control. However, when someone makes a cnoscious decision to employ a liturgical abuse, that’s a whole different matter. We need to differentiate between the two. Unfortunately, some people have not been able to do so.

 

[Digitonomy]

Unintentional bloopers that occur at Mass are one thing. These are beyond anyone’s control. However, when someone makes a cnoscious decision to employ a liturgical abuse, that’s a whole different matter. We need to differentiate between the two.

All true. But it wouldn’t automatically be wrong to laugh at either one.

 

[Michael_Neal]

thankfully I have not seen any liturgical abuses at any of the parishes I have attended Mass at. Honestly, if I saw dancing or any other ridiculous thing like that I would get up and walk out never to return to that parish. If it were my own parish I would go somewhere else. I think it is a mockery.

 

[Michael_Neal]

there is a time and place for artistic expression of religion, but Mass is not one of the them

 

[benedictgal]

there is a time and place for artistic expression of religion, but Mass is not one of the them

Amen to that!

 

[bcuster]

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.

My, oh, My! That Mass sounds like it was transported right out of the late 60’s/early 70’s! There was a lot of that going on. It seems like you were attending a liturgical abuse marathon!

It might be worth a letter to the Bishop. At least you would know you’ve done what you could.

 

[benedictgal]

While I can understand that some people will find humor in bloopers which cannot be helped, finding liturgical abuse laughable is certainly lamentable. I will laugh at myself when I’ve made a mistake (like almost falling into the Holy Water font-huge tub–right befoe I went up to the ambo to proclaim one of the readings during the Easter Vigil) or when something bizarre happens (like a fast-melting candle due to an altar server making a mistake in the lighting of same). However, to laugh at abuse just to laugh is to not understand the solemnity and dignity of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

This evening, I opened my regular blurb from Zenit. This article, which I quote in part, gave me the impetus to further address this subject. The interviewee was a former follower of Archbishop Lefevre who was received back into the fold by Pope John Paul II. Before y’all send back responses with rolling eyes or shocking faces, please read his statements. They have a lot of truth to them and actually contain some of the very ideas promulgated by Pope Benedict XVI.

Q: What indications do you give for avoiding scarce attention and respect for the liturgy?

Bishop Rifan: Speaking of the abuses following the liturgical reform, the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger lamented that the liturgy degenerated into a show, in which they seek to make religion interesting with the help of stylish elements, with momentary successes in the group of the liturgical “manufacturers” [in the] introduction to the book “La Réforme Liturgique” by Monsignor Klaus Gamber, page 6 and 8.

Cardinal Edouard Gagnon was of the same opinion. "It cannot be ignored that the [liturgical] reform has given rise to many abuses and have led in a certain degree to the disappearance of respect for the sacred. This fact should be unfortunately admitted and it excuses a good number of those people who have distanced themselves from our Church and their former parish communities [in] “Fundamentalism and Conservatism,” interview with Cardinal Gagnon, “Zitung – Römisches,” November-December 1993, page 35.

I*** think that the central point of the abuses was indicated by Cardinal Ratzinger himself: the door left open to a false creativity on the part of the celebrants [in an] interview in “L’homme Nouveau,” October 2001.

Behind this is the lack of a serious spirituality, [the idea that] to attract the people, novelties should be invented. Holy Mass is attractive in itself, because of its sacredness and mystery. Deep down, we’re dealing with the diminishment of faith in the Eucharistic mysteries and an attempt to replace it with novelties and creativity. When the celebrant wants to become the protagonist of the liturgical action, abuses begin. It is forgotten that the center of the Mass is Jesus Christ.***

The current secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship, Bishop Albert Malcolm Ranjith, laments: "Holy Mass is a sacrifice, gift, mystery, independently of the priest who celebrates it. It is important, I would say fundamental, that the priest draws back: The protagonist of the Mass is Christ. I don’t understand, therefore, the Eucharistic celebrations transformed into shows with dances, songs or applause, as lamentably happens many times with the Novus Ordo."

The solution to the abuse is in the norms given by the Magisterium, above all in the document “Redemptionis Sacramentum” of March 25, 2004, which asks that “everyone do all that is in their power to ensure that the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist will be protected from any and every irreverence or distortion and that all abuses be thoroughly corrected. This is a most serious duty incumbent upon each and every one, and all are bound to carry it out without any favoritism” – No. 183.

All of us make mistakes. As I indicated in my opening statement: I am the first one to laugh at myself, especially when I’ve laid a big egg (and that has happened on many occasions). But, I find no pleasure nor humor when someone purposefully starts toying around with the Church’s most important treasure: the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. These abuses aren’t things to be laughted at; rather, we should lament that such things continue to plague the Church. Certainly God wasn’t laughing when he pulverized Aaron’s sons for their liturgical infractions. Jesus wasn’t cracking a smile when he let the moneychangers have it with his whips and chords.

 

[Digitonomy]

However, to laugh at abuse just to laugh is to not understand the solemnity and dignity of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass…

Those who are able to find some grim humor in tragedy are not as a rule ignorant. Rather, they know well what is going on, know the absurdity of it, and often know their own impotence to stop it.

I didn’t see where in the Zenit discussion of abuses they said laughter was an impermissible response. In fact, the subject matter is the liturgical abuses themselves. They make no judgement about the propriety of individual responses to abuse.

benedictgal:

Certainly God wasn’t laughing when he pulverized Aaron’s sons for their liturgical infractions. Jesus wasn’t cracking a smile when he let the moneychangers have it with his whips and chords.

Not having the authority of the almighty in the situations we face, we are not always called to identical violence.

 

[benedictgal]

Those who are able to find some grim humor in tragedy are not as a rule ignorant. Rather, they know well what is going on, know the absurdity of it, and often know their own impotence to stop it.

I didn’t see where in the Zenit discussion of abuses they said laughter was an impermissible response. In fact, the subject matter is the liturgical abuses themselves. They make no judgement about the propriety of individual responses to abuse.Not having the authority of the almighty in the situations we face, we are not always called to identical violence.

Please do not misconstrue my remarks about the situations in the Bible as saying that I advocate violence. That is a bad misinterpretation and misrepresentation of what I said. My remarks concerned how we deal with the issue of liturgical abuse. For God, neither occasion was a laughing matter, as He takes liturgical worship very seriously. The problem is that we don’t.

Furthermore, the article from Zenit highlights the seriousness of liturgical abuse. Reading between the lines, it’s not something that we should be blase about; rather, we need to take these things seriously.