Some media outlets are jumping down Prince Charles throat for shaking hands with Robert Mugabe. I think they're jumping down his throat for the wrong reason.
First, a bit of context. This was at the pope's funeral. They were, of course, conducting a full catholic mass. At one point in a catholic mass, the priest says "Let us share with each other the sign of peace." The everyone shakes hands with their neighbours and says "Peace be with you."
I don't think a funeral mass is an appropriate place to make a political statement, so on that level Charles should have refused to shake hands with Mugabe. However, perhaps he should have not shaken hands with anyone, because that might count as participating in a religious service for a religion he doesn't subscribe to.
Because I sometimes find myself in this position, I have read up on the etiquette for attending the services of a religion you don't subscribe to. The goal is to show appropriate respect without actually participating. In catholicism, this means that you stand when they say to stand, sit when they say to sit, and remain sitting when they say to kneel. You do not say any refrains or sing any of the songs, or go up to receive communion. However, I have not been able to find a directive on what to do with the "Peace be with you" part of the mass. As an atheist, I can honestly and sincerely wish someone else peace, but I cannot do it with whatever religious intent is inherent in catholicism.
If anyone has any insight on the etiquette for non-catholics regarding the sign of peace, I would greatly appreciate if you could share it. And if it is not appropriate to share the sign of peace if you are not catholic, how do you politely refuse?
But at any rate, the most appropriate options for Charles would have been to shake hands with everyone if that was apporpriate in catholicism, or to shake hands with no one.
5 comments:
I thought the whole thing was just beyond silly.
When is it ever inappropriate to shake someone's hand and wish them peace? I think it would have been very rude of Charles (or anyone else) to turn away. He really had no choice but to shake Mugabe's hand.
It's likely that Mugabe was only thinking in political terms and his offer of a handshake was self-serving and insincere. If that was the case, he was the one whose behavior was inappropriate.
There's not much point in speculating on motives in this case, because whether Mugabe had the best of intentions or the worst of intentions, the end result is exactly the same.
Speaking of catholic protocol, another rule is that you have to have confessed before receiving communion. I wonder if they had confession facilities for all those pilgrims at St. Peter's?
Speaking of catholic protocol, another rule is that you have to have confessed before receiving communion. I wonder if they had confession facilities for all those pilgrims at St. Peter's?
Our local church interpreted the confession requirement as only applying to serious sins. In fact, we shared our priest with two other small towns and so he usually only had confession for a half-hour before Mass, which would not have been enough time to hear confessions from everyone eligible for communion. And so it was assumed those in most need of confession should have priority. Of course, that often led to many people not going to confession at all, lest the rest of the people arriving for Mass should think "he/she must have done something *really bad*", lol.
The protocol is so illogical and inconsistent. Even those who have had confession are supposedly governed by the part of the Mass that says "Lord, I am not worthy to receive you..." Uh, why? I followed all the rules, including confession, so if I am still not worthy, what do I have to do?
And then the rest of that line says "...but only say the word and I shall be healed." Which, to me, makes confession redundant. If I am sincerely sorry, He will say the word and I am healed, without any need for a priest.
Ritual makes my head hurt.
If we're on the topic of ridiculous rules, I once read somewhere of uncertain authenticity that apparently it says in the bible that everyone is necessarily breaking the first commandment (about having no other gods before God (i.e. capital G = THE God) because everyone sometimes puts time and energy into things other than worshipping God. And because the bible says that everyone is breaking the first commandment, there is no possible way that you are not.
The logical fallacy (that doing something other than worshipping God is equivalent to worshipping another god) notwithstanding, if everyone is necessarily and without exception must be sinning because the bible says so, why even bother trying not to sin?
And the word god looks really funny now...
if everyone is necessarily and without exception must be sinning because the bible says so, why even bother trying not to sin?
I've wondered something similar: isn't everyone considered imperfect, and so *expected* to sin? Why even bother with an endless cycle of confession and repentance, if we are most likely going to sin again?
I remember asking my grade school religion teacher and the only response I got was that we shouldn't question the church's teachings and even thinking that way might have been a sin. Oops, lol.
Post a Comment