September 22, 2001

An article in the September, 2001 issue of the Diocese of Owensboro's "Catholic-Lite" newspaper, the West Kentucky Catholic, titled Meaning and Implementation of the new General Instruction of the Roman Missal Discussed appears to be yet another subtle attempt to thwart any real effort to practice orthodoxy and implement correct liturgical practices that should already be in place.  The article reports that on August 6, 2001, our diocesan Office for the Continuing Education of the Clergy and the Office of Worship brought in an "expert" to "address a gathering of priests and pastoral ministers from around the area".  The expert was a Fr. John Huels, an "expert in liturgical law and the author of numerous publications".  The article outlines a few items concerning the implementation of the 2000 General Instruction (GIRM) and the changes the instruction calls for in our Liturgy.

Probably one of the most outrageous statements made in the WKC article is this:

"Fr. Huels reminded everyone that the Roman Missal is primarily written with the Church of Rome and Mass at St. Peter's in mind.  In Rome, especially at St. Peter's the norm is that there are a large number of priests and deacons to celebrate each (Mass) and therefore fewer lay liturgical ministers are present.  In comparison to Rome for most Catholic communities in the United States the norm is only one priest and a large number of lay ministers (emphasis mine).  With this in mind it is easy to see why the Instruction calls for the priest and or deacon to perform several functions that here in the United States the priest would perform along with various lay ministers."

Just a few of the specific practices that Fr. Huels is referring to that are regularly observed here in the United States are the use of the laity to help with the reception of gifts at the offertory and purify the sacred vessels, allowing the Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist to consume any leftover consecrated wine, and the excessive and unnecessary use of the laity to distribute Holy Communion.  The Church has repeatedly warned against these practices and is obviously trying to prevent the further blurring of the distinction between the priesthood and the laity by specifically outlining the procedures in the revised GIRM.

Regarding the "large numbers of lay ministers...", my own priest has two parishes and never has the myriad of "Eucharistic Ministers" so prevalent today (there are, however, plenty of altar servers who actually know how to serve), he always accepts the gifts himself and finishes any remaining Precious Blood left over from Communion.  It doesn't appear to be a major hardship for him.  Other priests, including our own diocesan Director of the Office of Worship, who should know better, opt to sit while delegating their responsibilities to lay ministers.  This is a great poverty and a cross to bear for the laity who recognize these grave errors and must witness them week after week.  I think a more accurate reason for resisting these directives may be that these "liturgists" and lay ministers feel threatened that Rome is exercising it's lawful authority and trying to put a stop to their antics.

What about the Instruction Inaestimabile Donum (Instruction Concerning Worship Of The Eucharistic Mystery)?  Is this one written only for the clergy who celebrate Mass at St. Peter's?  This document specifically addresses a number of violations of liturgical law such as laypeople reading the Gospel or giving the homily, modifications of the Eucharistic prayers, the use of improper substances for the bread and wine used at Mass, the "Eucharistic Ministers" picking up the consecrated Host and Sacred Chalices themselves and handing them to one another, priests who fail to distribute Communion leaving the task to the laity, or using improper material for sacred vessels (such as glass).  Do none of these apply to the Catholic Church in the US?

Or how about the Instruction on Certain Questions Regarding the Collaboration of the Non-ordained Faithful in the Sacred Ministry of the Priest?  Is this one only for the "Church of Rome"?  It goes into greater detail than Inaestimabile Donum.  It mentions most or all of the abovementioned liturgical abuses plus many more such as the excessive and habitual use of Extraordinary Ministers to distribute Communion and the illegal practice of having the Extraordinary Ministers gather around the altar and handing out the Sacred Host to all of them during the "Lamb of God".  We see some of these being practiced regularly at our Masses in this diocese.  Why doesn't our bishop do anything about it?  Perhaps it is because he actually believes these instructions were written only for Catholics in Rome... or Vatican City... and don't really apply to us?  Not likely.

I wonder too if Fr. Huels would try to convince us that crucifixes are meant only for Rome?  I don't suppose our Bishops could begin replacing those empty crosses and the theologically incorrect Risen Christ's (Jesus rose from the tomb, not the cross) any time soon?  Not to mention the "plus signs" that are supposed to represent crosses.  I suppose that might have to wait too, until it's forgotten about or we get an indult.  Or when will those horrid glass chalices that endanger our Lord be replaced?  I suspect another indult will be sought in order not to obey this directive also.

Bowing during the Profession of Faith is not new to the 2000 GIRM.  Paragraph 234 of the 1975 General Instruction calls for a "profound bow" at the words "by the power of the Holy Spirit".  What is our excuse for not having done it for the last 26 years?  I suppose we'll have to provide a workshop for priests and bishops to learn how to offer a profound bow before we can expect the laity to do so.  This could take years, I suppose, just long enough for the instruction to go away again....  The 1975 GIRM also calls for a genuflection anytime one passes in front of the Tabernacle.  We'll have to teach many of our local priests how to do that too.

I teach my daughter that holy obedience is a big fat pill to swallow.  Yes, it is.  Even for Bishops.  No wonder great numbers of the Catholic faithful disregard the teachings of the Church when our bishop finds every way around doing it himself.

Fr. Huels has apparently been going around the country giving talks on the implementation of the revised GIRM.  If his appearance in our diocese is any indication, he is suspiciously setting the tone for no implementation of the directives at all, old or new, and conditioning the folks in the pews so they won't even notice when our bishop (and others) fails to enforce these guidelines.

Interestingly, none of the issues mentioned are any that haven't already been specifically addressed by written exhortations from Rome.  One of the significant intentions of the new GIRM seem to be to further define and correct abuses (glass chalices, corpus-less crosses) and re-instill practices that should never have fallen to the wayside (a profound bow during the Creed).  Instead of calling the faithful to excited expectation for the beauty of the new instruction as a gift from Rome, the "talks" being given by this "expert", as well as the WKC article, cast doubts about it and it's implementation.

Among Huels' listed credentials is a Master of Arts in Theology and Master of Divinity from Catholic Theological Union in Chicago.  This is the same university that gave Edwina Gateley her degree.  Fr. Huels publicly supports so called "liturgists" across the country that oppose the changes called for in the revised GIRM.  An internet search revealed several articles by or about Fr. Huels.  Among them one can find him supporting the idea of a separate chapel for the tabernacle, arguing against kneeling during the consecration, and incorrectly asserting the the laity can preach a homily at Mass (in spite of the fact that this practice has been specifically forbidden both by Canon law and numerous written warnings by Rome).  He has also gone on public record as stating that genuflecting before receiving Communion is a "disruptive" practice that should be suppressed; that it is "against universal [Church] law".  His name also pops up on the "Equality Illinois" web site in support of a "Gay Rights Bill".

Is this the man we want interpreting guidelines for our liturgy for us?

Also see:

• A summary of the 2000 General Instruction of the Roman Missal.
• Adoremus mentioned Fr. Huels and his "catechesis".