I can think of five possible reasons that we wouldn't draw more:
- People haven't heard that we've reopened
- People have heard but find the pre-registration too cumbersome
- People have heard but don't like all the new rules (masks on at all times, every other pew roped off, sanitizing hands prior to receiving communion, etc.)
- People don't feel safe going to mass
- People have drifted away and won't be back
My vote is, All of the above.
Also - I played the piano at a mass each of the last couple of weeks, as our music director has health issues which are keeping him away. One of the rules for restarting the weekend mass schedule is that people are not actually supposed to sing; as Jack has noted, singing is thought to spread the virus. This is a bitter pill to swallow for nearly every Catholic church musician, who is indoctrinated early on in the ministry that a singing congregation is the ideal manifestation of full, conscious and active participation. (Not everyone in the pews shares that ideal; my observation is that about half of them would be fine with no singing or music at mass, ever).
But last week, I noticed that our people were singing, even though the hymnals have been removed from the pews. As congregational singing now is officially frowned upon (grrrr ...), I worked with my cantor this week to try to minimize everyone's participation. So we didn't repeat the refrain to the responsorial psalm; she sang it once and plowed right on to verse 1. Same with the Gospel acclamation. And no raising of arms to bring people in - arm-raising being an action that comes as instinctively to a cantor as stepping on the gas pedal when the traffic light turns yellow. At a subsequent mass, at which I was a deacon, the Glory to God in the Highest was recited rather than sung (ick ick ick ...). I can sing it without referring to a printed text, but darned if I can recite it, especially with those new-fangled words ca. 2011. I wonder why that is?
My guess is that you are right about all five reasons, but that people find #2 particularly off-putting. We don't have pre-registration, probably the main reason being that no one wants to be in charge of it. We do have a contingency plan in case we max out on our available seating (we haven't yet). The plan is overflow seating in the social hall with a livestream screen, and an EMHC would be sent over for Communion. My strategy for securing a place in church is to get there really, really early.
ReplyDeleteWe have only just started having a little music. The guidelines don't say the congregation can't sing, but we are limited to one verse of an entrance and exit hymn. We recite the responsorial, with the lector reading the verses.
I hear you about the Gloria. It just seems more natural to sing it.
People have been positive in their comments about the music which has been added, even though it is limited.
Interestingly the Sunday Mass with the best attendance has been the 7:00 AM (not me!)
Just some questions that puzzle me:
ReplyDeleteHow is limited singing safer than normal singing? If singing spews germs, then a little or a lot is a problem, no?
Why aren't parishioners more grateful to be together and receiving communion than bellyaching about lack of music or other changes?
Why are rules being left to the diocese rather than being promulgated by the USCCB with input from the CDC? Our bishop lives in his own little world.
Instead of pre-registration, why not divide the parish into groups, e.g., last names beginning A-F come on the first Sunday of the month? Post it on the marquee.
I am always stymied by Catholics and other mainline Protestants complaining and speculating about dwindling numbers without making any effort to actually call people to find out why they have fallen away.
I guess a little singing is (maybe) less of a problem than a lot of singing. Especially if nobody has a book. I actually haven't heard anybody bellyaching, the ones who are back seem glad to be there. Not much point to divide it up by alphabet, since we have yet to exceed limitations. Maybe later that will be necessary. Just guessing that the USCCB realizes that each diocese is going to be experiencing different conditions.
DeleteCould be some pretty awkward phone conversations. I remember one extended family member giving the church ladies from Legion of Mary an earful when they called on him to try to get him to go back to church. Especially awkward when one of them was his sister.
Jean, here are my thoughts, FWIW:
DeleteRe: singing: I don't understand all the science, not least because I haven't really looked into the matter very closely, but a music teacher I know tells me that the idea that singing spews more germs than speaking is based on the observation that when a trained singer sings, s/he expels more breath from the lungs than when speaking. How transferrable that is to untrained singers, I don't know, but there probably is something to it.
Re: bellyaching parishioners: I should note that nobody has bellyached to me; these are just my own observations. You may be able to tell that I have mixed feelings about asking people not to sing. I've adopted the attitude that I'm not going to positively encourage singing, and I'm going to take what I consider to be reasonable steps to discourage it, but if people sing anyway, I'm not going to make them stop. From what I am hearing, they're singing softly right now. And they're all wearing masks. I hope it doesn't endanger anyone.
Re: the rules being set by individual dioceses rather than the USCCB: there is church law that the bishop rather than the national conference has jurisdiction over the liturgy (with some enumerated exceptions), but to the best of my knowledge, church law hasn't envisioned the possibility of an infectious disease having this kind of impact on worship. But beyond that: we've seen that the infection metrics vary pretty wildly from one state to another, and even one locale to another. The Miami Archdiocese probably should be on total lockdown at this point, but New York probably can be at least as relaxed as the measures I'm describing in my diocese. I think it's likely that the bishop in a place like New York has access to more sophisticated medical advice than the bishop of, say, Peoria, IL. How these entities engage with the CDC, I'm not entirely sure.
Re: dividing up the parish alphabetically: they could do that. Maybe their thought, valid or not, is that if they make it first come / first served, the motivated people (hopefully with envelopes) will be the ones to sign up.
As to asking people why they have fallen away: I think it's a good idea. It's a little embarrassing, but our parish is sufficiently large (3,000 families, theoretically) that a family could drop out and nobody would notice it. I've had awkward conversations more than once where I've run into a parishioner - or I should say ex-parishioner, but I didn't figure that out until the chance meeting - in a grocery store aisle or similar setting, during which I said, "Hey, how are you? .... come to think of it, I guess I haven't seen you lately, is everything ok?" And then I get an embarrassed explanation, "Yeah, we actually started going to St. Dylan's / Willow Creek / we quit". The reason usually isn't less straightforward than, "We don't like the new pastor" (I used to hear this more often under the previous regime; our current guy is pretty likeable).
Thanks, Jim and Katherine.
DeleteI can't imagine parishes don't know when a family quits attending if Father is monitoring the offeratory envelopes. And it's my impression he and the parish council watch these like hawks.
Lord, I can't see Church Ladies calling people to lean on them to come back, but rather for someone on an outreach committee to, you know, reach out. Of course it will be an uncomfortable. Living the Gospel always is.
Honestly, the people who keep me connected to the Church are my fellow Bad Catholics, the ones who share my frustrations with rules and regs, liturgical changes, and the cliques, but are hanging on to the shreds of their faith because these points of connection make them feel they have not been entirely abandoned.
I recall one conversation I had with someone who left the parish to join another church. I just asked how they were, and they vented a bit. It was about them being frustrated by the annulment process and having to jump through that hoop in order to receive the sacraments. They had been married many years and felt that at some point the statute of limitations ought to kick in about past mistakes. I wish the church could do a better job of meeting people where they are and not be so worried about crossing every t and dotting every i. I would have been willing to try and help them get through the annulment paperwork. But they were not interested.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI left one RC parish for another after 30 years there. I had been active at a low level- I was always involved in a "ministry" as a volunteer. First, when the kids were young, in the kid-oriented ministries. Not teaching though - I disagreed with too many teachings of the RCC so never said Yes when asked to teach. I could not in good conscience teach what they wanted me to teach - at least not all of it. Later I was involved with Social Justice ministries.
DeleteIn a parish with a nominal count of 4000 families, all the priests knew me by name. When I left that parish, I heard from them only twice - first was when the woman who ran the Bread for the World effort called me to volunteer for the pledge to Bread for the World Sunday, as I had in previous years. She was shocked to learn that I was no longer at that parish. She did not ask why, or where I was, just hung up and called someone else. The second was a letter about two years after leaving warning me in no uncertain terms that if I didn't start showing up and putting money in the collection box, I would be dropped from the mailing list. But then I was never part of a clique. I wasn't a church lady, nor a rectory groupie. Most parishes seem made up of a lot of cliques - the "in-crowd", and everyone else just goes their own way. If they leave, those in the "in-crowd" don't even notice.
At that point I had not left Catholicism, just changed parishes. In my second RC parish, a couple of the people I worked with did try to reach out a little bit when I told the SJ committee that I was leaving the parish and the RC church. Two or three briefly tried to change my mind. The response to my statement that I didn't believe many RC teachings bothered them not at all - as one said, well lots of Catholics don't believe those teachings and they stay. I couldn't do that - it seemed dishonest to me to pretend that I believed RC teachings, which is what staying would have implied. I not only didn't believe several doctrines, I came to believe that some of them cause tangible harm to people. Once I reached that understanding I had no choice in conscience but to leave.
About why people don't ask why someone is no longer attending church, part of it maybe a reluctance to pry. I know I feel like that. Similar to asking why someone is getting a divorce, a feeling that it is none of my darn business, that if they want to tell me about it, they will. Of course if it's a close friend one is usually in the loop about what is going on with them.
DeleteThe Number One thing I hear from RCIA flunk-outs is how much their kids hate CCD and church. I don't usually have to ask. They'll ask if I'm still going, and when I say "sorta," they seem happy to vent.
DeleteKatherine, it's a tough thing to do, I agree, without it coming across as prying. So if a parish really is interested in understanding why people leave, they need to find a tactful way to pursue it. It seems to me that few parishes really want to know - some bishops do though because of the loss of $$ from the people in the pews. If someone, a deacon or parish council member etc runs into a former member in the grocery store, they might simply comment that it was nice to see them, it has been a while. Without alluding to church. If the person seems open to further discussion and mentions that they haven't been to that church for a while, you have an opening. Perhaps issue an invitation to coffee at Starbucks, indicating that you/the parish are interested in understanding how those who leave perceive the parish, or the church in general so that you might improve the parish. It's not possible to discuss this in a grocery store. The person may say No Way, or indicate they may be willing to meet in an informal way (probably to vent, as Jean notes). If they do, they should not be met with an apologetics course. They should not be invited to whatever "come home" course the parish is currently trying, since all the previous ones have failed. They should be listened to and not lectured to.
DeleteJim says that being part of a church community is a baseline, a norm, for christians. He gives no reason for this though. A lot of Catholics go on and on about community, yet fail to provide real community for most of their parishoners. The bishop Jimmy M mentioned seemed to think that Catholics are best at community and that a Baptist would be fine all alone with a bible. I would suggest that this bishop has little knowledge or understanding of how Baptists or evangelical protestants operate. They spend way more time in church than Catholics, with Wednesday evening activities, dozens of small groups for bible study, and what they call "home groups" where they relate the highs and lows of their religious life that week, and of their regular lives that week with the group, Apparently they think that these home groups are responsible to hold their brothers and sisters in the Lord accountable, so it can at times sound like a group confessional, or at least a group therapy session - without an actual trained leader. But, they really do forge community!
The baseline of the Christian community was laid pretty early on, in the New Testament. The Last Supper took place in an intimate community, in the upper room. Acts discusses the establishment of many church communities. Most of Paul's epistles are directed to communities.
DeleteKatherine, how many catholic parishes are “intimate” communities? Maybe in rural small towns, but definitely not in the two metro areas I know best (DC and LA) . Many of those early communities met in homes. There were no church buildings. The heads of households, including women, presided over the meal, including the Eucharist. No priests, no hierarchy. Small, intimate communities led by non- clergy. The imperial church that grew out of that does not reflect the small communities Paul addressed in his letters. Really tough to have intimate community in a parish of thousands where you don’t know the people in your own pew, much less many of the several hundred others at the same mass. The church has had mostly communities, partly because of the church being in the startup phase, and also for mutual protection when persecuted (before Constantine turned the church into a personal political force). A small, intimate spiritual community is my ideal. I had that with my CP groups. But after my hearing went, it was too hard for me in a group. So I read, and pray, and reflect mostly on my own. I correspond with a couple of lifelong friends who are long distance spiritual companions. And I sometimes take on the role of gadfly here. Until you all decide to kick me out, anyway. I hope not. I respect everyone here, and all challenge my thinking in different ways. Sometimes I try to challenge others too. Give a different perspective.
DeleteYes, all 5, in my case mostly #4. Your #5 is the one I am least sure of. I can think of a lot of reasons to stop coming, but I'd need one of the reasons; I wouldn't stop coming because I got out of the habit. For instance, if I didn't come back now, it would be because of the reigning Catholic in government resuming the federal death penalty without Dolan noticing, and the officials of the Catholic Church, in the name of God, supporting Duda Duda to keep Poland totalitarian with LGBTQs allowed. There is always something, but inertia wouldn't be enough by itself.
ReplyDeleteI am not up to date on how Sunday attendance is going. But as for singing, everyone is singing (in his or her own fashion, which would make the St Louis Jesuits volunteer for the overseas mission) through their masks at my parish. The sound is no worse than usual.
"with NO LGBTQs allowed." That, not the muzzled press or the corrupted justice system, seems to have been a major election issue.
DeleteFrom our discussion of church reopenings, things don't seem to be going too badly. The people who feel that they can attend safely, with a mask and distancing, are doing so. Those who feel it is too risky at this point are staying home, and watching livestreaming, or doing their own spiritual practices. No one is under obligation either way.
ReplyDeleteI wonder why school reopenings can't be handled the same way. There are sharp differences of opinion among parents. Some need five day school in order that they can go to work, or they feel that their child is falling behind without in-person classes. Others feel that it is too risky for their children to return to school yet, and are willing and able to assume the burden of homeschooling. Why can't the schools open with optional attendance with precautions in place, with some livestreamed classes for those learning from home?
This might not be good in the long term, but people are making do the best they can in this moment.
With optional attendance, what would you do about the education of the kids whose parents opt them out? You could, I suppose, let them watch classes from home, but they wouldn't get the kind of interaction the in-school kids get. And everyone would be fixated on their screen, not the teacher.
DeleteOur nutty governor opined that reopening schools is like reopening Wal-Mart and Home Depot. Of course, everybody spends 6 hours at Home Depot every day. And what do you do withe overflow from a local high school that has 3,600 students -- have them all line up in the bathroom fixtures aisle? But, seriously, that's the kind of thinking that raised Florida's share of the pandemic to fifth among the world's nations the other day.
We used to say, "Thank God for Mississippi" because, thanks to it, we'd never be last. Now we are thanking Him for Russia and Brazil.
To me, it seems that when parents opt their kids out of regular classes, they are assuming responsibility. People can't have it both ways, someone has to make sure the learning gets done.
DeleteI also fear that too many of those who will send their children to school are the ones who are are at most economic risk. They will put on their frayed mask and go to work because their alternative is starvation, and they will drop off their children at school because they have no choice. The coronavirus will run rampant through the less fortunate -- as it is already doing -- and the great and good will find that odd.
DeleteIf you have some kind of "return when you feel safe (or your parents have to go back to work so you don't end up living in your car, see Tom's post above)" policy, it would be a teacher's nightmare.
DeleteYou would have to reconfigure the classroom for distancing every time a new kid came in. You would have to try to catch that kid up (because I guarantee that distance learning and parental teaching is not going to be up to par so they can hit the ground running).
Some schools can probably open safely. Some cannot. And which is which will be in a constant state of flux depending on how willing teachers, staff, and parents are to comply with safety requirements.
A good first step might be encouraging schools to have at least one nurse in charge of a health and safety team with PPE and testing capabilities.
Rather than have the uncertainty of the "return when you feel safe" policy, they could say that you make your decision at the start of the semester. You could opt out at any time, but you couldn't opt back in until the next semester. So that the teachers might be dealing with fewer kids, but never an unexpected influx of more.
DeleteI get what you're saying, but if parents rely on school for day care and opt out of a semester, they are messing up their ability to find work for 12 weeks. Possibly let students in at six week intervals?
DeleteIt still begs the question: How are teachers going to catch up students coming in at intervals, dropping out, then re-entering? More teachers, maybe.
A robust distance learning option would be the obvious solution to keep all students in the same page, but the models we have now work only for certain types of kids, especially the tactile learners. In my experience, that's at least half of them.
What pains me in this whole conundrum is the way Trump and DeVos are rejecting things as not good enough from, I suspect, ulterior motives.
Trump wants parents back to work at all costs so he can tout an economic recovery before the election; and DeVos wants to dismantle public education entirely.
Sorry, meant to say that the tactile learners do NOT do well with distance instruction as it currently exists.
DeleteAs a tactile learner and mother of a tactile learner, I think that distance learning could work if the people designing curriculum were not so obsessed with measurement of knowledge, and were more focused on analysis and discovery.
But that's a whole book ...
Yeah, don't get me started on DeVos. Of course the main problem is the person who appointed her.
Delete