Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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