Setting aside the larger issue—that we should not even have had a liturgical reform let alone have to deal with lay lectors and EMHCs—there is the very practical matter of one's suitability to perform the function one is entrusted with. There are some conditions that should simply disqualify people from certain tasks. Someone with chronic coughing fits should not work in food preparation; a man with uncontrollable rancid flatulence should not drive a taxi—and a man with advanced Parkinson's should not be an EMHC. I am sure this shaky guy was a nice man who had the best of intentions, but there are some conditions that should preclude someone from assuming a given role, regardless of their eagerness to participate.
A few years ago I did an article critiquing the practice of lay lectors simply from a utilitarian perspective ("Utilitarian Arguments Against Lay Lectors," Nov. 2020). In that article I observed that the admission of lay readers and such incidents as I described above are interconnected due to the principle of active participation:
One reason for the subpar lectoring in the Novus Ordo is that, once you admit the principle that the readings should be done by a layperson, you must now find a constant supply of laypeople to do this for every set of readings: day after day, week after week, year after year. Even assuming one lector is going to read multiple times during a month, this is still a tall order. To keep the assembly line of lay lectors flowing uninterrupted, a pastor cannot afford to be choosy with whom he admits to the ambo. Even though canonically the pastor has total discretion over who can fulfill this function, in practice any warm body who wants to lector is going to be permitted.
The same can be said of sacred music, church architecture, sacred vessels, vestments, preaching, etc., etc., etc. We are all now forced by social pressure to conform to the LCD. And what happens when a priest doesn't want to conform to the LCD but wants to raise the bar? Well, typically the choice is either conform to the LCD or hit the highway. The dynamic subtly eats away at the bishop's own integrity, because when he is confronted with complaints about a "difficult" or "demanding" priest—as identified promptly by Susan from the Parish Council—he must either stick his neck out and risk his reputation to defend the priest, or take the quieter path of pressuring the priest to conform to the LCD (or face exile to the boondocks, removal from ministry, or some other form of cancellation). (Peter Kwasniewski, Close the Workshop: Why the Old Mass Isn't Broken and the New Mass Can't be Fixed, [Aneglico Press: Brooklyn, NY., 2025], 82).
In the case of the shaking man I witnessed drop the host, the LCD is reflected in the social pressure this priest must have experienced to allow this man to serve as an EMHC. Telling him he was unsuited would raise complicated questions about how to determine suitability and what disabilities are disqualifying, not to mention risk offending the man, causing friction at the parish, and potentially getting a nastygram sent to the bishop. And besides, what if he didn't have enough EMHCs to fill the slots as it was? Would he want to deal with the hassle of recruiting a replacement?—because, again, once you embrace the principle that all these roles ought to be filled wth lay people, you need to keep those slots filled.
In my article on lay lectors, I concluded that:
...the true North Star of the Novus Ordo is the flawed principle of active participation. It's a kind of liturgical affirmative action: a cleric can objectively "do the job" better, but a less qualified person is chosen, not based on their ability, but solely on their identity. The fittingness of the liturgical celebration comes second; attending to lay "representation" in the ritual is first. It is a perfect example of the schizophrenia of the Novus Ordo mentality―to prefer a watered-down, banal experience that is objectively slipshod and detrimental to faith so long as people can feel like they are "doing something."Once you admit the principle that it is always better for people to be assuming roles in the liturgy, the LCD creates a social pressure towards maximal involvement at the expense of everything else, including basic questions of the suitability of the people involved and what is fitting for divine worship.

4 comments:
Unrelated to this very article, but is there any way I could contact you? I am a faithful Catholic and I would like to get in touch with you over a project I'm working on. Do you have an email address that I could use to get in touch? God bless you and thank you in advance.
I had a very similar conversation with a friend a couple of weeks ago. We’re both parishioners at the TLM but he had occasion to be at a local Novus Ordo Sunday mass recently, and was at a church known to be one of the better ones in our city in terms of liturgy. Well, there was a dog in the sanctuary. A seeing-eye dog, that is, for the lector, who read the epistle from a Braille epistolary. Though his execution of the reading itself was fine, the fact that his DOG had to be in the sanctuary didn’t seem to cause anyone to question the man’s suitability for the task.
uscatholicam@gmail.com
A few weeks ago I had to go to a NO service at St Rita’s in Wellington Fl
During his sermon the priest said the story of Moses with his arms held up by Aaron and Hur was not true - “As Catholics we don’t have to believe in the stories of The Old Testament and think they are real history”
I called the Pastor a few days later and left a message
During Communion a bunch of ladies distributed Communion and in the sanctuary an altar girl spilled some of the consecrated blood of Christ and she wiped it up with some piece of cloth
So yes, the NO is the same rite of all time
The hierarchy knows all this yet noting changes
I’m so blessed to have found the Divine Liturgy in The Maronite Church
Thus difference is night and day
Post a Comment