Messing with the Mass: The Problem of Priestly Narcissism Today
You may have read some of the books by Paul Vitz, an American psychiatrist who has written a number of fascinating books on the relationship between psychology and religion. One of his most recent books is called Faith of the Fatherless, in which he gives an account of the relationship between fatherlessness and atheism. He goes through many famous atheists and attempts to show that they all apparently had very great difficulties with their own fathers. We generally read about their ideas, but rarely about the personal details of their upbringing or their own fathers. It is pretty heart-wrenching to read the accounts of H.G. Wells, Bertrand Russell, Karl Marx, and so many others who were either mistreated, neglected, or forgotten by their own fathers. I say heart wrenching, because after all, nobody chooses their own father. By contrast he shows that many famous theists had excellent relationships with their fathers. Yet neither did they choose their fathers. Naturally there are many exceptions to this general rule, but Vitz helps to underline the crucial role of our own father in our lives, hopefully leading us to honour his memory with thanksgiving to God, but also finding ways of forgiving. Now in this article, Messing with the Mass: The Problem of Priestly Narcissism Today, published this month in Homiletic and Pastoral Review, together with his son Daniel, Dr. Vitz takes another original view. This time he examines all the post-conciliar deviations and abuses in the liturgy from the psychological point of view, not from the doctrinal point of view. He sets out to understand the psychological reasons behind why priests have introduced changes or allowed irregularities in the Mass. The big culprit according to Vitz is Narcissism, that is, extreme self love, which he believes is found in many people in contemporary culture. He stresses that this is not genuine clinical narcissism, such as narcissistic personality disorder (NPD), which is a relatively uncommon major disorder; this is not his concern here (though it seems pretty close). Instead, his focus is on the more moderate narcissistic traits found in many individuals today. I’ll just give you the five relevant characteristics, that he mentions to give you a taste and you can read the rest of the article on line:
- Requires excessive admiration; with this comes extreme sensitivity to criticism. Such criticism often leads to social withdrawal or an appearance of humility. Often this is associated with obvious attention seeking behavior. These narcissistic traits are frequently found in those who introduce and participate in liturgical innovations.
- A sense of entitlement, of unreasonable expectations of favorable treatment and of automatic compliance of others with one’s suggestions and expectations is another narcissistic trait. An attitude of the “rules don’t apply to me” comes with this sense of entitlement — for example the rubrics of the Mass don’t really require me to follow them.
- A belief that they are superior, special or unique and expect others to recognize this; that they should only associate with other people who are special or of high status. For priests this may show by extreme needs to associate with high ranking clergy or with liturgical experts.
- Another narcissistic characteristic is showing arrogant,haughty behaviors and attitudes. At times priests show this in their liturgical style, emphases or innovation or when criticized for such innovations. Such attitudes often underlie the very assumption that one has the right to change the liturgy.
- A lack of empathy, that is, an unwillingness to recognize or identify with the feeling and needs of others. This is sometimes shown by contempt or anger toward those who are offended by changes in the liturgy — often changes that have no real canonical support.
The article goes on with several examples of things that he has seen, not years ago in the 1970s, but now, specifically in the U.S. It does seem a bit reductionist to explain all these deviations to narcissism, because there are also ideologies or visions of the Church that support such behaviour. But also, the whole question is rather delicate, because it obviously touches on something quite central to each person. I might imagine myself discussing a liturgical abuse by having recourse the theological underpinnings, but I can’t just assume that anyone who allows liturgical abuses is necessarily a self-centered narcissist. Still, the article is a pretty powerful warning to signs of self centeredness in the ministry, and an invitation to really hide and disappear and just let Jesus shine.
Interesting…
How can one differentiate between a liturgical “abuse” and a liturgical “innovation?” Or are all changes, major and minor “abuses.” I ask because sometimes a change makes things more meaningful/understood to the congregation in attendance.
I have thought long and hard about this subject as I have friends who are priests and take much liberty with the liturgy(against their bishops orders). They tend to see them selves as rebels or engaging in ‘loyal dissent’. But yes i must admit many have these Narcissistic traits and their motivations are both to improve their church AND to show themselves and others how clever(creative, powerful, innovative) they are. I suppose it comes down to the fact that a hint of narcissism is needed in reformists; otherwise they would be too humble to put forwards their ideas and challenge the status quo.
Eric, the distinction that you mention between abuse and innovation becomes fairly clear when one considers the liturgy as a treasure that has been given me, and that it I something that does not really belong to me to do as I wish. It is not like a machine that you can take apart and dismantle and then see if it works in this way or that. It is rather like a living being, pulsating with tradition yet also growing, like a baby that I’ve been asked to care for. As Cardinal Ratzinger says, “I must serve it and respect the inner laws of this living being”. Abuse will come with my attitude, when I think that I can actually manufacture something better, like an expert who thinks himself almighty in and of himself. Ratzinger recognized that at times certain elements that have been introduced over the years have to be pruned away, but that is for the Church to decide in her teaching and magisterial role, not for me as an individual priest to jump into. In practical terms this really comes down to being faithful to the rubrics and serve the liturgy, particularly the Holy Mass, as the Church wants her to be served. When I celebrate the Mass, I must rectify my intention, and want the people not to see me, but to see Christ, who is at the centre of any celebration. Many priests have the experience of going to celebrate Mass at a parish that is not their own and where the people are not accustomed to how he functions. One often hears the comment after Mass: “Thank you Father, I loved your homily”. Yet a few weeks ago I went to a parish and someone said to me: “Thank you father, I loved your rubrics…” Which suggests to me that people are happier with the priest not being original and just with following the script. Part of that script is preparing a good short homily. They are not going there to be entertained or wooed, but to stand in front of a God who gives himself totally them and invites them to a response. Having said that, there is room in the liturgy not so much for innovation but for different options, and a certain leeway for the priest to choose among several analogous formulas. Perhaps that might end up in a form of innovation, but certainly that is not the first quality that I would pursue in any liturgical celebration.
Mary Ann, thank you for your illuminating comment. I appreciate your attempt to save the good intentions of these rebels that you mention. I can only imagine that they are seeking some good in what they propose. But I don’t see how a hint of narcissism can be good or how being “too humble” can end up not really serving the Church. In some ways you could say that we’re all a bit tainted by narcissism due to the very wounds of original sin plus our own personal sins. But being humble is a positive thing, in fact it is almost impossible to overestimate the value of true humility for the Church, because a humble soul knows that he is merely an instrument and that any good that comes through him is from God. You probably mean the false humility of thinking it is ride to desire the highest greatness of contemplation. I would suggest that what you’re thinking of when you speak of rebels in the good sense is really the virtue of daring, or audacity, or even living fortitude to be faithful, or to do the right thing when the tendencies around you make you lean to mediocrity or “going with the flow”. I remember seeing a graffiti on a wall in Rome many years ago that has always stuck with me. It said in big bold red letters scrawled in front of a school: “Only the dead fish go with the current”. A rebel is someone ready to go against the current, but only when the current is leading you downhill to mediocrity. I suppose I could go on and on about daring and humility, but with regard to the liturgy, the most important thing today is that we should regain respect for the liturgy and a great care so as not to let it be manipulated. As Cardinal Ratzinger says: “That we learn to know it again a the living entity that has grown up and has been given to us, in which we take part in the heavenly liturgy. That we do not seek self-fulfillment in it but rather the gift that comes to us”. He then speaks of a need for a “reform of the reform” that would put an end to the trampling all over the liturgy with one’s own inventions. But he also mentions something about the attitude to the past that Dr. Vitz alludes as a narcissistic trait. Ratzinger makes the key point that if we reject liturgical tradition or despise the Church’s whole past, then how can one even trust her present? (see the Interview with him in God and the World, p. 415).
Fr. Eric,
Good point about the inadequacy of trying to explain all/most liturgical abuse by narcissism. No doubt Dr. Vitz would agree, especially since he’s referring to general narcissistic traits as opposed to the NPD found in the DSM-IV. Nevertheless, Dr. Vitz’s thesis must certainly be true is some cases. You also raise a good point about the practical limitations of confronting a priest you suspect of being a narcissist w.r.t. liturgical abuse. I suspect it’s a bit like denying someone holy communion – one can’t really know (except in the most extreme cases) the state of the communicant’s soul. Similarly, as you say, the priest who doesn’t follow the rubrics might be doing so for all sorts of reasons, but perhaps one way to find out if he’s a narcissist would be to get him to read Vitz’s article and gauge his reaction to it. I suspect that if he reacts unfavorably to the substance of it – denying that narcissism is a danger – it’s very likely that he can’t see the log in his own eye.