Newspaper Page Text
Thursday, September 7, 2000
Everyday Graces
The Southern Cross, Page 5
“Warning: Lyrics Glorify Romantic Love”
B ack in the 80s, when Tipper
Gore urged the music
industry to provide a rating
system to alert parents to
offensive song lyrics,
many, particularly those
in the music industry, con
sidered Gore a prude and
her efforts a direct assault on
creative freedom. Most of
us parents, however, were
grateful for any help we could get to
protect our children from offensive
material, and now, Gore’s efforts are
generally regarded as a reasonable
alternative to censorship.
As helpful as the rating system is,
sometimes I don’t think it’s suffi
cient. I think a different sort of
warning should accompany most
pop songs, even the inoffensive
ones, that my children and I listen to
on the radio as we make the rounds
to school and back. Perhaps the
label could read: “Warning: Lyrics
Glorify Romantic Love.”
Years ago, as we listened to yet
another song lamenting the sad end
ing to a romance, with the practical
wisdom of an 8-year-old, Jimmy
remarked: “All these singers should
get together, Mom. They’re all look
ing for someone to love. If they find
each other, then maybe they’ll sing
about something else.”
Now, Jimmy himself is a teen
ager, and the cultural obses
sion with romance as con
veyed in pop music has
continued unabated.
While I find nothing
terribly offensive about
the teen idol Britney
Spears, my 9-year-old
Anna’s fascination with
her and her music leaves
me uneasy. Likewise with
Backstreet Boys and ’NSync. I
worry about what sort of influence
this romance-saturated music has on
Anna and other children her age.
Entering adolescence in the 1960s,
I grew up on Bob Dylan, Peter,
Paul, and Mary, and Joan Baez. And
while some of these artists’ lyrics
dealt with romance, much of the
music of that time revolved around
political or social commentary.
Much of my social awareness, for
good and ill, was influenced by the
songs of the time.
I worry about what sort of influ
ence the lyrics of romantic obses
sion convey to youngsters, who, like .
my Anna, are years away from
forming serious romantic attach
ments. Lyrics like “I don’t care who
you are as long as you love me” and
“You’re my everything” suggest that
romantic love is a guarantee of com
plete happiness in life. And I’m con
vinced that if children take these
lyrics to heart, putting so much
importance on finding romantic love
will set them up for profound disap
pointment when they are finally
ready to form intimate relationships.
Happily married couples would
agree that romantic love, once it set
tles into the commitment and inti
macy of marriage, is one of the
most rewarding and meaningful
experiences in life. Yet, those mar
ried for more than a few years also
acknowledge that romance, as
described in popular songs, is far
removed from their everyday lives.
That sort of quest for romance—
typically described as a desperate
search or a superficial fling—can be
a most degrading experience.
Like all parents, I would like to
spare my children the heartbreak
that accompanies unsuccessful
romance. Of course, I know I can’t.
Yet what I can spare them is the
conviction that they are inadequate
without romantic love. And what I
must convey to them is the critical
fact that human beings, however
wonderful, will never be the source
of their ultimate happiness.
One way I try to get this message
across is to comment on the lyrics,
reminding them that there are a lot
more important things in life to sing
about. Sometimes, as the movie
“Sister Act” humorously conveyed,
the lyrics of popular songs can be
converted to songs of praise for
Jesus and reminders of his faithful
and ardent love for us. When Rod
Stewart’s rendition of an old Van
Morrison hit “Have I Told You
Lately” was popular, I used the
opportunity to discussed with my
children how the song could easily
be transformed to a hymn, especial
ly the lyrics: “Fill my heart with
gladness; Take away my sadness.
Ease my troubles; That’s what you
do.”
Indeed, encouraging children to
question the popular and ever-pres
ent message—that life is essentially
meaningless without romantic
love—seems especially important
nowadays, when young people are
vulnerable to sexual experimenta
tion and exploitation.
And, maybe, if we talk it over
with them now, our children will
keep in mind what they, and all
human beings, know at the heart’s
core: That human longing, even that
disguised as a longing for romance,
is ultimately satisfied by only one
source, the source of all love—God.
Mary Hood Hart lives with
her husband and four children
in Sunset Beach, N.C.
Mary Hood Hart
j r “'^uestion: Father Moses’ response (August
\J24) to the lector who asked about bowing
to me altar puzzles me. It quotes the General
Instruction of the Roman Missal concerning not
genuflecting to the tabernacle during the cele
bration of Mass and then makes the jump to
“The standard, therefore, is that lectors ...make a
deep bow to the altar.” I’ve missed the transition
here. Please explain. Also, Father notes that
“Some pastors, however, allow lectors to remain
behind the ambo...and that creates confusion.”
Although we don’t do that in the parish I belong
to, I thought that the new GIRM states that “all
ministers” are supposed to remain in the sanctu
ary for the entire celebration. I imagine that will
make for some fairly crowded sanctuaries if it
includes lectors and all the lay eucharistic minis
ters. Have I misread this? Thanks for your time.
—Jackie Lyons
A nswer: As mentioned last week (August
31), the General Instruction of the Roman
Missal (GIRM) is the instruction book for presid
ing at Mass. The second edition (currently in use)
was issued in 1975. The third edition which is
scheduled to be issued this fall will make some
changes in our liturgical practices, in some cases
it will clarify “gray” areas, and in many other
cases, will make no changes to current practices.
GIRM’s discussion of genuflection is a clarifi-
Questions & Answers
cation. There has been much talk in some circles
concerning the supposed need for priests and
other ministers to genuflect every time they pass
in front of the tabernacle during Mass. With the
new GIRM, it will be clear that this is not prop
er. The proper reverence during the Mass when
one approaches or leaves the sanctuary is a pro
found bow to the altar. This sign of reverence
acknowledges that the altar represents the altar
of sacrifice of our Savior, Jesus Christ. This sign
of reverence also points to the fact that the altar
is again about to become our community's table
of sacrifice. It is for this reason that the taberna
cle is ideally placed in its own chapel, as at
Saint Peter’s in Rome, where it can be the center
of attention without detracting from the rever- ,
ence due to the altar during the celebration of
Mass. If, for reasons of space, the tabernacle is
placed in the sanctuary, it cannot be placed on
the altar of sacrifice and should be located so
that it does not draw attention away from the
celebration of Mass, while still serving as a
focus for devotion outside the liturgy.
Your question about readers remaining in the
sanctuary is one of the areas that is unchanged
from the 1975 GIRM. The second edition says,
and the third will say the same thing, “he [the
reader] takes up his position in the sanctuary with
the other ministers.” This type of statement does
not require a reader to remain in the sanctuary but
rather requires that the reader, after leaving the
Book of Gospels on the altar at the begining of
Mass, would rejoin the other ministers in the
sanctuary, the whole area containing the altar,
ambo (pulpit) and presider’s chair, and not remain
standing at the altar. Granted, the statement pro
vides for the possibility that the reader could be
assigned to remain in the sanctuary throughout
the Mass, although this practice would more com
monly prevail in very large churches which have
large sanctuaries at some distance from the gener
al seating. In other cases, he or she may be direct
ed to return to the congregation.
Finally, there is no statement in the third edi
tion of GIRM requiring that “all ministers” are
supposed to remain in the sanctuary for the
entire celebration. The only new statement that
comes close to this relates to the Sign of Peace.
The following statement is made: “The priest
may give the sign of peace to the ministers,
always remaining within the sanctuary, lest the
celebration be interrupted.” It is the priest who is
to remain in the sanctuary throughout the cele
bration, not the ministers. This statement is fur
ther mediated by the following sentence which
states, “He should do likewise if, for a good rea
son he wishes to offer the sign of peace to a few
of the faithful.” Apparently they are to come to
him and not he to them.
—DKC