Continued debate
Dear Editor,
In the August issue of ML (25:6) you responded to
complaints about an ad for electric candles. As one of those
who wrote to you, I think your response seemed unnecessarily
defensive and made the problem of "screening" ads bigger
than it has to be.
In addition to the kinds of clearly inappropriate ads you
mentioned, wouldn't it be sufficient to rule out ads that
clearly contradict good liturgical standards, since that is
what ML is all about? The documents call for items
used in or related to worship to be genuine, honest. Two
references that I quickly found are numbers 22 and 36 in
Environment and Art in Catholic Worship. The oxymoron
"electric candles" is a giveaway.
But I objected to the ad also for its emphasis on
"profitable" as a main reason for purchasing electric candles.
Should that ever be a basic reason for liturgical choices?
J.G.F.
East Hartford, Conn.
Preference vs. practicality
Dear Editor,
The following contribution to the electric candle discussion
is a letter I published in our parish bulletin:
Dear Parishioners,
In Advent I spoiled at
least one parishioner's Christmas by raising the issue of
the deleterious effects of the continuous burning of so many
vigil lights in the shrine area. I run the risk of doing the
same for Candlemas Day. Upsetting parishioners is not why I
was appointed pastor, but that's the chance I take when
problems arise, solutions proposed, and actions
taken.
Apparently, the harmful effects of burning 350
live candles without interruption in a confined space has
never been raised in this parish. It has just been taken for
granted that the practice of lighting a candle is a positive
religious experience without any negative consequences. What
I am trying to do is bring to your attention the full
picture, which unfortunately is somewhat besmirched. Let me
present a list.
Financial: Last year we spent $19,800
to purchase candles. Since part of the dynamics of lighting
a candle is to make a contribution to the church, this
expense diminishes that aspect.
Material: The candles
for liturgy are 51 percent beeswax. The vigil lights,
however, are made not of wax but of paraffin. Since this is
an oil-based product, when the price of oil goes up, so does
the price of the candles.
Pollution: This is the more
serious problem arising from paraffin candles. Think of the
concentration of candles as a boiler and the shrine alcove
as a chimney without a vent. The carbon cloud, caused by the
day-and-night burning, deposits its soot on the walls and
has already blackened some of the statues and darkened the
recently painted white ceiling.
Health Hazard: A recent
priest visitor could scarcely finish celebrating Mass
because he was physically upset by the carbon smoke. I leave
it to the medical profession to inform us about its possible
carcinogenic effects.
Insurance: Carriers are reluctant
to insure churches that leave live flames burning
unsupervised. It is ironic to note that this contemporary
structure was built to replace the previous church that
burned down.
The following list shows the range of responses thus far
received:
"Leave the candles, soot and all. I don't hear
God coughing from the result."
"Pushing a button to light an electric candle
is impersonal and commercial."
"I don't even allow fake Christmas trees in my
house."
"How about the narthex for burning candles?"
"Enclose the shrine area and either vent the
polluting smoke out through a vent or pass it through a
filtering system."
"New York is a dirty city, so what's a little
more soot?"
"We all have to clean our walls periodically;
so should the church."
"The value of a vigil light is not in the
candle but in the prayerful intention of the one who lights
it. It is the lighted pledge of your prayer. It does not
really matter if the flame is electric or paraffin."
"Ninety percent of the churches have converted
to electric candles without any great loss of devotion."
Keep in mind that the discussion is not about candles in the
official liturgy but about vigil lights for private
devotion. Decisions will have to be made when we clean the
interior of the church -- a project which should not be put
off to the far future. Till then, think about it. The next
time I address this topic, it will probably be under the
rubric of "Personal Preferences vs. The Common Good."
Msgr. Walter Niebrzydowski
New York
What do YOU Think?
Send an e-mail to ML Editor
or post an entry on the ML Current Issue
Discussion Board. (All submissions become the property of RPI and may
be edited for length.)
—ML |
