what the heck was that?

I've known for a few years now that the parish I first attended when we moved to AZ had gone 'round the bend, but I had no idea how wacky they had become. I'm not sure if this is a creeping insanity or what, but today's "performance" takes the cake.

Because DS2 wasn't feeling well until the late afternoon yesterday, DH went to Mass with DS1, and I stayed home with the peewees. Theoretically that left me with many Mass-going options today, except I had a coffee date at 10AM -- still not that big a hurdle. Then DH got a last-minute invitation to the Cardinals game, and things became much more time constrained.

So I ended up going to St. Andrew the Apostle, a "Catholic Faith Community," whatever that is -- but they're still part of the archdiocese. I was late, so I didn't notice anything particularly more egregious than last time, except that the candles in their advent wreath were blue instead of purple -- cobalt blue, not blue-violet, which qualifies as purple after all. That's weird, I thought, but minor in the grand scheme of things.

I can deal with the choir getting more attention than the altar. I dislike intensely the practice of the priest/celebrant sitting in the congregration, but that's their thing. I really, really hate the large sculpture they have of the Risen Christ behind the altar, instead of a crucifix -- it makes Jesus look as if he has just fallen off the top of a wall. But all that stuff is old hat for this parish, and I expected it.

What floored me today were the dancers. After Communion, a troop of eight young women (mid to late teens, most likely) processed to the altar. Their long hair was unbound, and they were wearing long, sheer, flowing white dresses with scoop necks and long sleeves, cinched at the waist with narrow cords. They looked startling like maidens of Ancient Greece or Rome. They were all very pretty, too, and I was trying to figure out what their purpose was as they arranged themselves artfully in front of the altar. Then some insipid modern church music started up and they performed a ballet routine consisting mainly of waving arms and twirling.

All I could think was: What the heck is this?

I gave up and left after about a minute, when it was obvious it wasn't going to end anytime soon. I'm sure the congregration applauded, anyway, which is another thing that sets my teeth on edge, so it's just as well I wasn't there.

I suppose (I'm trying to be charitable here) that a beautiful dance can inspire us as much as beautiful music can. I know people who are irked by the persistance of music during and after Communion, because that is the time when we are supposed to be focussing our energy on the sacrament. I like the music because it helps me to focus, even though I can recognize that some people can find it a distraction.

I'm still finding it hard to believe that anyone would find such a dance performance anything but a distraction. The purpose of the Mass is not to entertain the congregation, but I get the distinct impression that the folks who are running the show at St. Andrew disagree with that sentiment.

Maybe it's OK -- maybe there's a book of rules that says you can add inspirational performances to a Mass after Communion. But while I don't know whether or not any rules were broken, I do know that it was a Bad Idea. I'm pretty sure that if DH had been there, he would've had a hard time not laughing. It was just so incongruous!

Reflecting on this incident, I'm trying to discern whether or not I'm hidebound and intolerant or whether the dance really was just silly. I keep coming to the same conclusion: the dance was silly, and an unnecessary distraction at a point in the ritual that should be used for private prayer and contemplation. If thinking that way makes me a fuddy-duddy, I can live with it.