Home » Features » Who’s Actually Upset with the New Roman Missal?

Who’s Actually Upset with the New Roman Missal?


Wading through the press coverage surrounding the introduction of the third edition of the Roman Missal, as this post at GetReligion points out, can get repetitive quickly, particularly because of reporters’ insistence on covering the liturgical changes from the angle of a “controversy.” But regardless of whether the press’ inclination to ensure dissenting voices get their due (or, in many instances, undue) column ink is a calculated decision or simply the side-effect of a misguided belief in ‘fairness’ that every story should have competing voices, the real question remaining to be asked is about the source of this alleged opposition. Is there even a serious challenge to the Missal’s revision in the Church’s own ranks, or does the bulk of the criticism originate elsewhere?

Perhaps the most significant and coherent internal opposition came in the form of “What If We Just Said Wait?”, an online petition urging bishops to delay (not abandon) the introduction of the revised text. And, truth be told, this campaign  really wasn’t all that significant: as of today, it has approximately 22,000 signatures, mostly laypeople (despite the New York Timesnumber-immune assertion that “many” priests have signed it). And, in a country where an estimated 77 million citizens are baptized Catholics, 22,000 is a rather miniscule number.

For the most part, it looks as if even the Church’s most articulate internal critics have no desire to wage a protracted battle over the changes. Implementation seems to have mostly gone smoothly on the clergy’s side, and lingering resistance seems to be settling into “loyal opposition”—hardly ideal, but hardly a catastrophe or a civil war in the making. To take just one telling article from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, a prominent member of the local clergy, Fr. Michael Ryan, who is described as a “former critic” of the changes, is now publicly vowing to “make [them] work” as best he can. Though the newspaper seeks out a dissenting voice, it can only find it in “former priest” John Pinette, who lobs laughable hyperbole at the Church (the new translation, he blusters, constitutes “Vatican vandalism” by a sort of ecclesial “Tea Party” uncomfortable with “modernity and pluralism”). [more]


First Things



You can be the first one to leave a comment.


Leave a Comment