If there is one thing that Catholics on all sides of the liturgical divide can agree on, is that the besetting problem of the Catholic clergy today, and often the liturgy they celebrate, is narcissism. The navel-gazing preoccupation with the self at the expense of the common good and the communion of the Church is faulted for many of the Church’s woes. But just where that narcissism lies, Catholics are in disagreement.
There are those who argue that young priests today are unbelievably narcissistic. All they care about is cappa magnas, lace albs, highly cultured music, and imposing a pray-pay-and-obey mentality on a faithful increasingly tired of clerical self-absorption. The charge is that many of those who seek a reform of the liturgy in a certain direction are using that as a disguise for clerical narcissism.
Then there is the riposte. There are others who condemn the consciously Vatican II style priests as the real narcissists. They obscure the sacred behind talk-show, living room, vulgar antics. They advance an agenda of heresy and schism by preferring their own half-baked opinions to the solid rock of doctrine. They are the ones who have necessitated a reform of the liturgy because of their reign of narcissism.
How has this come about? Often theories are put forward based on gender confusion. For some, this narcissism is motivated by repressive, introspective tendencies that have come raging out as crass effeminacy. For others, it is squarely the effect of a womynization of the Church and capitulation to an ideology of feminazi origins. And for others, it is precisely because there are not enough women in the Church to counter the male’s tendency to fall into the pool of self-admiration.
As with most things, there are actually merits to all of the above arguments even as there are also significant problems with them as well. They also focus almost exclusively on the narcissism of the clergy, as if that alone is the root of the malaise in the contemporary Catholic Church. In this essay I would like to explore what I opine to be some of causes of narcissism in the Church and possible avenues of correcting it.
Causes of Narcissism:
1. A confusion of the natural/supernatural
One of the great projects of modern theology has been to try to underline the fundamental unity between the natural and the supernatural, and to overcome the dichotomy by which man is seen as independent of the supernatural order and God. This project has not been universally successful at the theological level. Too often, it has lapsed into subsuming the natural into the supernatural or reducing the supernatural to some pale unnecessary addition to nature.
Yet if I somehow sees the supernatural life of grace as a right owed to human nature, then it is impossible for me to see anything beyond my own intrinsic goodness. Even the recognition of my error and sin can be dismissed by a distorted understanding of Divine Mercy. How many people in our pews and sanctuaries have deceived themselves into believing that they are good people and that God must grant them eternal life just because they exist? The relativization of sin and its consequences has led to a dismissal of God’s justice. My human nature is good and this is all that is. Grace is just a good happy feeling that I have that God sees me as good too. The supernatural life of grace is reduced to my own self-esteem. This leads to an unhealthy preoccupation with myself and my own natural happiness, because of my inability to see my nature in its reality and God’s supernatural power to transform and perfect my nature. In the liturgy, this leads to an attitude that the sacraments are merely human rites that must be manipulated to grant me the maximal boost to self-esteem. Liturgy becomes a celebration of my best self.
2. The exaltation of immanence over transcendence
Often we speak of a tension between the vertical and the horizontal in the liturgy, between a focus on God and a focus on man. In reality, the liturgy contains this tension. There is the aspect of adoration, of praise rendered freely to God, as well as instruction and inspiration of man. But it also must be recognized that while the supernatural is found within the soul in sanctifying grace, immanent, it is also entirely transcendent, and independent of me. If the liturgy does not incarnate an attitude of reverence and respect for the absolute holiness of God, then it will lapse into a preoccupation with individual and social human needs. Against the backdrop of confusion over nature and the supernatural, the exaltation of the immanence of grace in me versus the transcendence of God means the end of doxological aspect of worship becomes secondary to the liturgy seen as a means to fulfill my own need to transcend myself. But that transcendence can only be had by divine agency, but having banished it, I continually seek for the liturgy to serve me instead of its being a place to praise God.
3. Gender Ambiguity
It is a truth that every human person is not only a rational animal sharing a common human nature, but an engendered individual. We are either male or female, and that brings with it a corresponding biological, spiritual and psychological component of our nature. This is independent of the way that culture and history conditions perceptions of gender roles. The liturgy incarnates in its own symbolic way the engendered nature of the human person, according to divine revelation. Political attempts to modify the cultural and historical perceptions of gender roles have been translated into the liturgy. There are calls to modify the language and symbolism of the liturgy according to the changing perception of gender roles. This leads to a preoccupation with the physical gender as well as the conformity or lack thereof to gender roles of those in the sanctuary and in the pews. It deplaces the attention from the gender-independent Mystery behind the rites to the gender of those who participate in them. In so doing, it leads to a preoccupation with conforming the liturgy to however I want to reshape gender roles instead of respecting the engendered nature of liturgical symbolism which points beyond the symbol to something transcending it.
4. Democratization and Declericalization of the Liturgy
Calls for reconstituting the Church along the lines of an imagined democratic organization have obliterated the distinction between the ministerial and the common priesthood. Emphasis on the sacraments as encounters with Christ the High Priest has been replaced by an exaggerated emphasis on the rights of the priest over the rights of the laity and vice-versa. The laity, in assuming or usurping roles that belong by right or by tradition to the clergy, have correspondingly been clericalized. The clergy who protest at such a phenomenon are dismissed as clericalists. Either way, the respect for the difference in roles at the liturgy and their ontological and theological roles has faded before the demands of a politically motivated egalitarianism. Just as in political life, the struggle for equality requires a constant calling attention to where inequalities remain, when this is translated to the liturgy, the rites become a battlefield for the destruction of inequality and not a place of prayer. Attention is given to political change within the Church and not to the adoration of the Divine Majesty reflected in the hierarchical communion of the Church whose constitution was given to it by Christ.
5. Individualism
The perduring idea that the liturgy should correspond to my likes and dislikes perpetuates individualism within the liturgy. The refusal to actively participate in the liturgy, both interiorly and exteriorly, privileges an atomist understanding of the human person vis-à-vis God. The subjection of public prayer to private devotion, individual initiative, temerarious opinion, and the arbitrary decisions of committees reinforces the idea that the liturgy is a merely human rite capable of manipulation by individual interests. When I see the liturgy in this fashion, it is easy then to focus on how I want to change the liturgy to correspond to my own individual needs.
Antidotes to Narcissism:
1. Mass is not a What, it is a Who
The first antidote to narcissism in the liturgy is catechetical. We must be taught again that the Mass is not a what, it is not a human rite which can and should be manipulated so as to express human desires or to promote human goods. The Mass is a who, rather it is the prayer of self-offering of Jesus Christ to His Father for the remission of sins. A vigorous reproposal of the teaching of the Council of Trent and Vatican II on the sacrificial aspect of the Mass will help us to overcome the tendency to make the liturgy a merely natural human phenomenon.
2. Ad Orientem
The celebration of the parts of the Mass which are not directly aimed at the instruction or the edification of the faithful must be returned to a symbolic focus which is not the people. The classical ad orientem position of the celebrant at the altar in celebrating the Sacrifice of the Mass underscores the transcendence of Christ’s action in the Mass. Facing the people during those parts of the Mass which are for their instruction or edification will then highlight the immanence of the divine life of grace in us. The balance between immanence and transcendence will thus be restored in the liturgy.
The celebration of all of the parts of the Mass versus populum actually assists clericalism. It makes the altar into a barrier between presider and people, and sets him up against the people. Rather, the fact of presider and people facing the same direction indicates the unity of the priest with his people, rather than give the opportunity for the priest to manage the people by his actions.
3. Eucharistic Cultus
Pius XII stated that the tabernacle and the altar should not be separated. This follows upon the principle that Sacrifice and Sacrament are not separated. To that end, the placement of the tabernacle once again upon the altar prevents the celebrant from arbitrarily placing himself at the center of the divine drama. It also shows the unity between the sacrifice of the Mass and the sacrament shared in Holy Communion. The adoration of the Blessed Sacrament outside of Mass flows from Mass: Adoration, Benediction, Processions and Holy Hours all stem from the Mass.
The cult of the Eucharist is a pledge of faith in the Incarnation of the God-Man. Because Jesus is a divine person with a divine but also a human nature, engendered, incarnational and Eucharistic devotion also underscores the proper sphere of gender in the human person without ambiguity, as well as points to the Mystery of God which is beyond gender and humanity.
4. Communion on the Tongue and Kneeling
There is nothing inherently wrong about receiving Holy Communion standing or in the hand. But the reception of Holy Communion kneeling is a sign of adoration of the transcendence of the Divine Majesty. It is a corrective to a democratization of the liturgy in that it emphasizes the humility of the believer who does not stand with rights before God. It also is a corrective to the declericalization of the liturgy because Communion on the tongue emphasizes that the Body and Blood of Christ come as a gift from Christ the High Priest. Just as a baby bird is nourished by its mother directly in the mouth, the Christ the Priest through the ministerial priest nourishes the spiritual child directly in the mouth with no other intervention.
5. A Liturgical Communitarian Spirituality
Homiletics during the liturgy must focus on the intrinsic connection between liturgy and life. The Eucharist has dimensions which extend far beyond the church doors. It reaches into the family hearth, the school, the workplace, the soup kitchen and the courtroom. The correspondence between the celebration of the Sacred Mysteries and the social apostolate of the Church and the moral life of families in the world combats individualism in the Church. The realization that as a Church we are a communion of holy people sharing in the Holy must be accompanied by the vision of the Church on a mission to build the Kingdom of God in the world.
These are just a few ideas of the causes of narcissism in the Church today, as well as some practical ideas for overcoming them. I have never claimed the charism of infallibility, so feel free to disagree with me or challenge the above. I do think that it is a disservice to the Church to pin narcissism on such superficial things as the fashion, hobbies, and quirks of the clergy. Those things can certainly be manifestations of narcissism, but the roots are much deeper, and affect not only the clergy, but the whole life of the Church. It is imperative that we discover those roots, and get rid of them. But the eradication of all that is less than it should be in the Church will come, not from polemic and mutual incrimination, but through conversion of heart away from ourselves and towards God.
I think that for a lot of priests after the council when we went to Versus Populum, the Priest felt he had to say something or show his personality more. They may have even been trained that way. I have a problem sometimes shutting up at announcement time where it turns into a soliloqy. One of my good parishioners sits down when I do the announcement, which is a warning to me to keep them short.
Thank you Fr. Smith for the article. I pray that the faithful as well as clergy choose the 'better options'from their hearts that Vatican II provided for the liturgy.
I remember what my boy said once when he was little, "everyone says we have to be leaders, then who's going to be the followers?" Although I didn't pay much attention to it then, it still rings in my ear. It's something I think we need to think about in our time.
Bravo Fr. Smith! As a 55 yr old former altar boy, who went from 1962 Latin Mass across to the 1970 ICEL Novus English, perhaps the humility I believe actually felt by most attending Mass might be given more support with restoring the genuflection at the "incarnatus" of the Creed.
"It is a truth that every human person is … an engendered individual. We are either male or female …"
Actually, this is a biological falsehood. You may want to avoid the argument spun from this premise, as it may not apply to every human person. It's also dangerous to attach too much notice to gender or sexual difference as much of this is cultural, and can vary from place to place. While Europeans associate farming with masculinity, for example, other cultures see it as woman's work.
While I appreciate the effort into analyzing narcissism, I think it's easier to cut through it with a four-word question: Do you imitate Christ?
In reading the gospels, and modelling one's life and ministry on Jesus, soon enough kenosis confronts narcissism.
As a matter of fact, I don't think narcissism is a trait confined to clergy. Lay people have had the problem–we've always had it. We bloggers especially struggle (or not) with it. A case might be made that some bishops have lost something of the notion of Christ's self-sacrifice, but that has likely always been so.
Antidote 5 is excellent. Four and two not so much. I would argue in favor of an architecture that makes the priest's direction irrelevant. Either antiphonal or in-the-round seating are a better solution for presidential narcissism.
"Either antiphonal or in-the-round seating are a better solution for presidential narcissism."
Rather than dealing with a singular narcissism of the priest, seating in the round accomplished nothing other than Collective Narcissism where the One True God is forgotten and replaced with the nauseatingly present "We are Church" worship of the group.
There is a reason antiphonal seating was reserved for clergy in choir and seating "in the round" is an aberration that has no legitimate historical precedent.
Thank you Father for this observation. In some ways I agree, but all of these are short of the main problem.
Both "sides" of this question are actually dependent on each other. It matters not whether one receives on his knees (remember St Basil… "we do these things standing on our feet") or standing (with ones hands jutting out for our "right")
Let's consider a middle way…
Holiness should both flow from the Sacraments into us as a constant remembrance of the unity and actions of our lives in Christ.
A priest cannot be above his people, as a bishop should not be seen as the master of his clergy… This has been one of the primary sins of the historic church.
We are all; and we must always remember, servants… and as long as we forget this, our cult will fall short as the true meeting with Christ.
Mass without the kenotic outflowing of our love (which ultimately flows from the Heart of God…);
our sacraments will be empty shows of the worst narcissism.
Thank you, Father, for this wonderful article.
I am very blessed to work with two very humble priests whose focus in the liturgy is always clearly on Christ. It's always a wake-up call when visiting priests come in to the parish for weddings–such was the case today. Many often do all that they can to desacralize the Nuptial Mass as soon as possible, and continue to do so throughout the liturgy. The result is a liturgy not about Christ, not even about the bride and groom, it becomes about them! I always feel so bad for everyone present, especially the bride and groom. It is such an insult.
Such was the case today. This was a first: During the solemn exchange of wedding vows the priest asked the bride and groom "will you accept children lovingly from God?" They answer "we will". His next question is "will you name one of them after me?!?… hehe…" I was beside myself. One of the most sacred moments in the course of the course of the married vocation and the priest had to steal it and remain the center of attention. Unbelievable.
Thank God for our holy priests who make it their task to remain transparent in the liturgy, directing attention only to Christ.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Jmaes, could you specify what it means, "we do these things standing on our feet." what kind of things he is referring to?
Of course kneeling and receiving our Lord at the communion will not make one automatically a better Catholic, but we can all try to be more humble in our gestures and everything we do in the liturgy. What I found out in my experience is that the more humble my attitude that is expressed in the liturgy, the more I receive grace to be holy that I can live my life holy and 'Holiness flow from the Sacraments into us as a constant remembrance of the unity and actions of our lives in Christ.'
The original practice of the church was that Prayer and reception of Communion was standing; with full prostration was done at points of prayer.
While prolong kneeling became a practice during fasting seasons and of fasting days (Weds. and Fri.), kneeling was specifically forbidden on Saturdays and Sundays throughout the church until it became a practice in the medieval west.
When the statement was made… He was referring to prayer and attendance at Liturgy.
"His next question is 'will you name one of them after me?!?… hehe…' I was beside myself."
I would be too. This is horrific on the scale of a 1981 priest who was saying daily Mass in a private chapel, and sent a server to announce to a waiting congregation wondering about 12:10 Mass that "Father would be out shortly to give Communion."
Narcissism is a problem among people of any ideology. Naturally, there are priests of great virtue who are progressive and conservative.
Narcissism in the Extraordinary Form often derives from clerical and lay ignorance of the Latin language. I have noticed that priests who are not well read in Latin often substitute ceremony for a simpler celebration that emphasizes the proclamation of the Latin text in an audible and comprehensible manner.
Intensive and sustained clerical and lay instruction in Latin will remove the focus of the Mass from a theatrical performance towards an honest and critical love of the Latin liturgy as the vehicle of Word and Sacrament. So long as priests remain ignorant of their sacral tongue, the Mass will spiral out towards a smokescreen of externals consciously or unconsciously designed to mask a manifest illiteracy in the Roman Church's liturgical language.
James, I think certain practices that were accepted as common at certain times and places don't have the same meaning to us. What the Holy Father shows by his example at the communion says a lot more powerful message to me as a Catholic. My children and I saw the video clip when he started 'kneeling and tongue only' at the communion, we decided we will follow his example. Sometimes I was hesitant when no one else was kneeling at OF, but it was my boys who encouraged me by saying 'mom, we should do it.' They see what is better and more humble gesture at the communion. It seems that the children often see the simple truth better than the adults and not afraid to carry out that in their action. We teach them, but we can also learn a lot from them.
Intensive and sustained clerical and lay instruction in Latin will remove the focus of the Mass from a theatrical performance towards an honest and critical love of the Latin liturgy as the vehicle of Word and Sacrament.
—————————————
Having served at pre-1962 pontifical and parish masses at every possible level of solemnity, I can say without hesitation that to assert Latin "will remove the focus of the Mass from a theatrical performance" is utter nonsense.
I liked Fr. Smith's reference to the altar as a barrier. Picking up on that theme, rather than fussing about what side of the altar a priest should be standing to celebrate Mass, I can think of no better way to emphasize the sacrality of the entire eucharistic liturgy than to create such a barrier. A Roman iconostasis , rood screen, or architrave with chancel barrier, containing a set of doors and curtain(at one time a fairly common feature of both eastern and western liturgical practices)would go even further in establishing a demarcation line between the sacred and the profane; between priest as celebrant set aside specifically for the "mysteries", and as the leader of his people.
My solution for the reception of holy communion,like the Anglican Church, take the host in the right hand (not the left), bring you hand up to your mouth, or your mouth down to your hand. As is common in the east, approach the priest with hands crossed over one's chest, make a profound bow or a genuflection and take the host in your right hand. It,in effect, serves as a "throne", to use one of the early Church father's terms.
Kneeling is a more powerful reminder of our unworthiness, but it might be even more powerful a sign for us if it is restricted to penitential occasions. Refusing communicants the host because they elect to kneel is completely uncalled for and it is uncharitable. I'd report that priest to the bishop in a heartbeat.
This is an excellent article and hits the nail on the head. In terms of ad orientem, that hits the nail on the head too. My prayer is that it is highly encouraged by bishops and perhaps prescribed to be the norm by legislation from on high so that those who would like to do it could catechize about it and not be seen as "doing one's own thing" independent of other parishes or even what the bishop of a particular diocese would like. In other words it should not be seen as the idiosyncrasy of a particular priest, Mass or congregation. Fr. Allan J. McDonald
To my surprise, kneeling at the communion at OF has been welcomed by all the priests in various parishes even on Sundays. (I asked for a permission on daily Masses. We don't have kneelers for the communion, which would be very nice to have one, and people don't have to kneel if they don't want to, but it can be a good reminder and encouragement. But the pastor was happy, and he also mentioned that it will remind others about the true presence of the Lord at the communion.
Beautiful article. I especially appreciate the focus on the immanent transcendent: God is closer to us than we are to ourselves, and at the same time, completely other and beyond.
Just as an aside, the word "immanent" is unfortunately equivocal, referring both to the presence of God in creatures, and to God "in se"–the Triune God in their eternal and happy life. In my own research I struggle with finding an alternative term for the presence of God in creatures. "Indwelling" can be too easily thought to refer to aspects of the creature. Presence? I feel we need another word.
Kudos to Father Smith on his fine article. He's dead on in terms of ad orientem and it is validating to see Father McDonald concurs. In my opinion (thus it's not a fact) the change to versus populum was probably the most deleterious of the "reforms." It's hard to be a talk show host when you're facing the tabernacle.The sooner the Liturgy of the Eucharist is restored to ad orientem celebration, the better.
Father, thank you for this article. It has inspired this posting, about a "pet peeve" of mine:
http://www.ccwatershed.org/blog/2011/feb/13/correct-way-fold-hands-mass/
There is a reason antiphonal seating was reserved for clergy in choir and seating "in the round" is an aberration that has no legitimate historical precedent.
———————————————–
Nothing could be further from the truth. There is evidence there were masses in the round in early Norman churches in Sicily and Britain, particularly in fortress chapels; in the East Syrian churches the congregation gathered around the clergy seated in the nave; in the basilicas of North Africa and in Rome itself the congregation often pressed in around the altar. In North Africa, there are a number of basilicas where the altar is often located close to the congregation between the transept and nave–closer to the where the congregation was.
The origin of the sanctuary barriers or chancel walls was to keep stray dogs out and keep the congregation from pressing in too close to the altar. At house masses (domus ecclesiae) we have no reason to believe there were separate sanctuaries at all. Certainly, not until the legalization of Christianity and the basilica becomes the normal setting for the liturgy.
We can only speculate, bit where synagogues were used for the eucharist, the bema would have been located in the center or just off-center with people literally worshiping in and around it. The idea of a separate sanctuary for the altar and clergy is a much later development and not a uniform practice by any means.
Yes James, The Church has a long history of employing graduated solemnity and different postures for different themes or moods evoked in the liturgical year. Kneeling for certain times and standing for others.
The idea of perpetual kneeling for communion is a late one that starts in Lent, spreads only gradually. It becomes the norms everywhere only in the 15th century and while eucharistic theology is reaching full flower in the widespread acceptance of "transubstantiation".
To say kneeling is a sign of belief in transubstantiation or the real presence is absurd because most protestant churches,especially the Lutheran and Reformed churches have also had a long history of kneeling–more in keeping with the penitential nature of their communion services. The practice of taking the small cups of grape juice and cubes of bread in the pews is relatively recent practice for them.
What the Holy Father shows by his example at the communion says a lot more powerful message to me as a Catholic. My children and I saw the video clip when he started 'kneeling and tongue only' at the communion, we decided we will follow his example.
———————————————-
Odd, the pope still hasn't told the priests in St. Peter's basilica to insist on kneeling and giving the host on the tongue. Most continue to place the host in the hand and communicants are standing stand. Is the pope's practice intended more to mollify certain groups, or does he really believe kneeling is the ONLY acceptable posture. If so, he had better make that a universal norm and tell the eastern rites that as well. Betcha, he doesn't do it.
I kneel and receive on tongue at the communion with humble hearts. I'll do it everyday all year around, until I can't do it physically. Since I fail everydat, I'm not worthy to receive him on this earth. After I receive him, I can stand. This has added so much to my receiving communion and I thank our Holy Father who showed me. Roman catholics have choices. Holy Father doens't force you to do so.
( I wish people stop talking about the protestant practices and Eastern rites. Their standing gestures and others referred ones here are out of context. I went to a Byzantine service. Their standing posture at the communion flows within their liturgy. The kneeling has a different meaning in Latin rite.)
This comment has been removed by the author.