P
pianistclare
Guest
The US Conference of Catholic Bishops will have to answer that one. Ask them.
Why does the short version of the gospel reading for today's Mass seem to deliberately cut out the uncomfortable part?
- Status
A
agnes_therese
Guest
You’d really have to ask the people who set the options.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Rather than presuming a conspiracy theory, namely that someone is trying to cut out the challenging parts of the Gospel, maybe we might consider an alternative explanation:
if the homilist is planning on preaching on certain aspects of the Gospel (e.g., ‘living water’, or ‘worshiping in the Spirit’), then proclaiming the portion about many husbands – without preaching on it – would seem to be a bad idea. After all, without proper explanation and exegesis, some (or many!) in the congregation might get the wrong idea about what’s meant by these passages.
Rather than forcing a homilist to preach on a certain aspect of the Gospel, then, (i.e., the ‘five husbands’ notion) the shorter option gives the homilist the opportunity to preach where he sees himself called to preach in that assembly at that point in time.
Notice, too, that if the first scrutiny is taking place at that Mass, the homilist is instructed to preach on how the story of the Samaritan woman speaks to their experience as they embrace the Church and prepare to enter into her at the Easter Vigil. Being forced to preach on ‘five husbands’ might hinder that goal…
Just a thought…
I
Isca
Guest
We had the short version, which our priest described as “the long version, as opposed to the very long version”. He also reassured people that if they found it too difficult to stand throughout they were welcome to sit (there were a good many elderly and disabled folk there), as what is important to God is that we hear His Word. I liked that. 
He referred to the omitted passages in his homily, and the whole Mass brought it together in a lovely way.
He referred to the omitted passages in his homily, and the whole Mass brought it together in a lovely way.
I think the main reason there is an option to cut out some passages is because Mass is not bible study.
There is enough going on in the this particular Gospel for a priest to give a homily on all sorts of topics. I know very few homilists who discuss every controversial passage that is read. Some priests and deacons might decide that it is better to not to read those passages in the first place if they don’t intend to mention them in a homily.
For what it is worth, my pastor read the long version. He noted in passing that the Gospel does not say for sure that the woman is living in an illicit relationship with a man; the possibility exists that the man she is living with is a relative who took her in after she was widowed or divorced from the fifth husband. Then my pastor went on to discuss the topics in the Gospel which are included in the short form.
B
Brendan_64
Guest
We had the long version.
C
chefmomster2
Guest
We had the long version today and always do. I don’t believe that it has anything to do with people being uncomfortable with the message in those portions. In fact I cannot imagine any devoted priest making the choice to use the short version for such a reason!
The reading that results from trimming the passage to create the shorter version must flow as a complete unit. The sections in red can easily be removed and still retain this flow. Yes, it could be a more difficult topic, but had it not been in a small easily skipped form, it would have remained, like it or not. Notice that the second red portion was nothing controversial.
General Introduction to the Lectionary (Second Edition)
published on January 21, 1981, by the
Sacred Congregation for the Sacraments and Divine Worship
The reading that results from trimming the passage to create the shorter version must flow as a complete unit. The sections in red can easily be removed and still retain this flow. Yes, it could be a more difficult topic, but had it not been in a small easily skipped form, it would have remained, like it or not. Notice that the second red portion was nothing controversial.
General Introduction to the Lectionary (Second Edition)
published on January 21, 1981, by the
Sacred Congregation for the Sacraments and Divine Worship
- The Longer and Shorter Forms of Texts
- A pastoral criterion must also guide the choice between the longer and shorter forms of the same text. The main consideration must be the capacity of the hearers to listen profitably either to the longer or to the shorter reading; or to listen to a more complete text that will be explained through the homily.
M
MissRose73
Guest
Long version was read at my parish also…
O
OraLabora
Guest
We had the long at the abbey; the abbey always uses the long version but sometimes uses the short version at Vigils. The Gospel is always proclaimed at Vigils when there’s a third nocturne (feasts, solemnities and Sundays). The shorter version is sometimes read then because Vigils with a third nocturne is very long: about an hour and 10 minutes, starting at 5 am 
But at Mass the long version is always read.
But at Mass the long version is always read.
C
christofirst
Guest
We had the long version here too. Even in Los Angeles, no one seemed to be made uncomfortable by it 
P
ProVobis
Guest
Since it’s printed I don’t see much of a problem. There’s nothing to stop one from reading the “cut out” parts. (Of course, he’s got to be a little quicker than the actual reader.) What I am usually curious about is when they leave gaps in the book references. That part they don’t print even in brackets.
C
chefmomster2
Guest
More often than not, I find that the theme flows more smoothly without the skipped parts. (I regularly look up the complete psalm or section.) There are many cases in the bible where due to the literary forms of the day one passage is often “interrupted” by other stories or instruction. Both the main passage and the other smaller lessons are the holy revelation of God. But, for the sake of clearer understanding it is sometimes better to “skip” these lines when using the reading in the liturgy. This often makes the message clearer to us. This is especially useful with congregants who would find the passage difficult to understand in the original form.
M
marytk
Guest
It seems that since the posters heard the short version also heard about the “husbands” durng the homily there is not a conspiracy. I think that it is just because it is a long reading. Some parishes do have Masses back to back.
C
CB_Catholic
Guest
No conspiracy here. Our parish Mission started 1/2 hour after Mass was ended, there was a need to set up for it and clear the parking lot if people were not attending the Mission. Usually we have the long version of everything.
C
ccmcmg
Guest
I attended twice this weekend; the Cathedral had the long version and a regular length homily. The second one was at the liberal parish (see other thread regarding this Gospel and an issue) and it was a different, short version. It seemed very disjointed after hearing the longer version earlier. The homily was short as well.
P
ProVobis
Guest
I don’t want to make it sound like I’m picking on you, but if one’s argument is the the less liberal, the better and/or the longer, the better, perhaps we can petition to make the entire John 4 the gospel of the day? Why is John4:1-4 and John4:43-54 not relevant? Just a thought.
C
ccmcmg
Guest
I was just commenting on the fact that in my own experience, the Cathedral of the city was the expected long version, and the liberal parish (in many ways) was the short version. It’s not different than saying the brown car went faster than the red car. If I said ‘the car went faster than the car’, it wouldn’t give you any information now, would it?
P
ProVobis
Guest
I’m not disagreeing with you but I just wanted to point out that someone made a decision to use precisely John 4:5-42 for this past Sunday. Some reason must have been given for that; perhaps the ability of a normal churchgoer to be able to absorb all that at one time and no more, perhaps not. Then there is the shortened version, perhaps to allow those pastors who think it’s too much for their congregation. At least that’s the way it was set up. We expect longer readings in general moving toward Good Friday but I don’t know if I’d call any parish “liberal” for using the short form. As I stated, I attended a Spanish Mass where the deacon, a not-very-fluent Spanish speaker, struggled enough with the shortened version, with most in attendance were stirring around quite noticeably in the pews. During that time I could have probably read the longer reading twice in English.I was just commenting on the fact that in my own experience, the Cathedral of the city was the expected long version, and the liberal parish (in many ways) was the short version. It’s not different than saying the brown car went faster than the red car. If I said ‘the car went faster than the car’, it wouldn’t give you any information now, would it?
B
buffalo
Guest
Short version - I was disappointed. It would have taken what, 2 more minutes?
E
Elizium23
Guest
I was attending a Men’s Conference and the long version was used, and preached, by our bishop, to extremely good effect. Deo gratias!
As a footnote, my home parish always uses the long version, which is just another reason I love it here.
As a footnote, my home parish always uses the long version, which is just another reason I love it here.
- Status