Monday, August 31, 2026
Time in a Bottle--Jim Croce
Sunday, August 30, 2026
Ad Orientem and Versus Populem
The mass I normally attend on Sunday mornings, the 9:30 am Norwegian mass in the St. Joseph chapel, has changed its format. By that I mean that the priest, who used to face the congregation when he celebrated mass (versus populem or toward the people), now faced away from the congregation (ad orientem or toward the east). I stayed in my pew for all of ten minutes and then left the church, hoping that the 9:30 am English mass at St. Olav's church across the street would have the usual format with the priest facing us. Luckily that was the case. But this is going to become a dilemma for me if the ad orientem format completely replaces versus populem. The St. Joseph chapel has now physically moved its altar against the back wall so that the priest has to face away from us. This was done deliberately and I have no idea why. I only know that I hate the change. I find it rude, stiff, and unwelcoming. The priests have celebrated masses versus populem for over sixty years, since the Vatican II Council, and I see no reason to change the format now. This means that all masses in the chapel will now have the priest facing away from us, and God only knows how long it will be before the masses in the larger church will remain versus populem. And this is not just Oslo, Norway. It's also the case in many churches in the USA, New York City and Tarrytown among them. I have to ask why. The decision to change the format is up to the local bishops and pastors. This means that the pastor of St. Olav's church decided to change the format without even consulting his congregation, asking us what we think of such a change. The ad orientem format is supposed to align the congregation with the priest so that we all face the same way in the celebration of the liturgy. It is supposed to be more solemn and respectful and less narcissistic. The focus is supposed to be more on solemn worship and less on emotion and feelings. Again, it makes no sense to me.
You may think that I am making a mountain out of a molehill. You are entitled to your opinion. My opinion is that this is another example of 'change for the sake of change'. The actual change has neither been discussed nor explained to the congregation. It's just another example of a religious patriarchy forcing unnecessary changes on the faithful.
So I wrote to the church pastor and told him how I felt. I mentioned that I will no longer consider increasing my financial support of the church, as I had actually thought about doing. That's life, and I owe no explanations to anyone. I mentioned that Christ sat around a table at the Last Supper and broke bread with his disciples. He didn't have his back turned to them. He wasn't rude or unwelcoming. I said that I found it rude that the priest now faced away from us. We could hardly hear what he said as he mumbled to himself. I did not feel more in touch with the celebration of mass; I felt annoyed and disappointed. Irritated at a religious patriarchy that again decides what is best for everyone. They will not drag in more churchgoers this way. I need only think of the Church of St. Vincent de Paul in Albany NY that has its altar at the center of the church and chairs for the congregation clustered in a circle around it. Those masses are packed with people. Those masses are welcoming, inclusive, warm, not stiff. I've written about this church before: A New Yorker in Oslo: The Church of St. Vincent de Paul I wish there were more like them, and I hope that they do not change their format.
The pastor of my church did write back to me, thanking me for my concerns. He hoped that we could one day sit down and discuss our viewpoints. I wrote back and reiterated my concerns and my disappointment, and mentioned that perhaps the church as a whole should consider addressing the pedophile scandals that have plagued the Catholic church for many years. Those are the issues that need addressing and resolving, not worrying about changing the orientation of how the priest says mass. I have not received a reply and I know that I won't. Ad orientem or versus populem is a distraction from the more important issues facing the church. For the first time ever in my life, I wished that I was at a service in a Protestant church, where women can be ministers and where the tone is welcoming and inclusive, the way that Christ would have wanted it, in my opinion. I wonder sometimes if any of the religious clergy actually consider what Christ would have wanted or preferred. They think they know with certainty what Christ wants, because they are ordained as priests. But I don't think they do, in my humble opinion. They're only human, and humans are not infallible.
(For an interesting discussion and debate of these issues, I refer you to this article: Ad Orientem: Thoughts on debating the non-essential | Catholic Culture The author presents the pros and cons in depth. But still, I want the priest to face us when he says mass. It's what I've know for my entire life, and I don't see the point of this change now, especially when there are no good reasons for and explanations of it).
When is enough, enough?
Wednesday, August 19, 2026
Tuesday, August 18, 2026
An article worth reading
I'm gifting my readers this NY Times article--Trump's Broken Promises, in 11 Charts, written by Steven Rattner. It's absolutely worth reading.
Monday, August 17, 2026
Some quotes about change
I'm fine with change for the most part, because change is a part of life, and our lives will continue to evolve and change even if we are resistant to the changes. Alan Deutschman summed up my attitude toward change generally when he wrote 'change or die'. But I'm not fine with unnecessary or frivolous change, or both. A number of so-called leaders need to leave their mark on things, so they 'make changes' to existing systems and structures that seem to be functioning perfectly well. Necessary? No, for the most part. Frivolous? Yes, if you're spending taxpayer dollars on vanity projects that reflect your narcissism. I'm a 'don't fix it if it ain't broke' kind of person. I'm also against 'change for change's sake'. There's too much of both in politics, in religion, and in the workplace. Here are some quotes about change, reflecting the pros and the cons:
Do not ever take down a fence until you know the reason why it was put up. –GK Chesterton
Change the changeable, accept the unchangeable, and remove yourself from the unacceptable. --Denis Waitley
Just when I think I have learned the way to live, life changes. --Hugh Prather
The main dangers in this life are the people who want to change everything... or nothing. --Nancy Astor
All change is not growth, as all movement is not forward. --Ellen Glasgow
Because things are the way they are, things will not stay the way they are. --Bertolt Brecht
Any change, even a change for the better, is always accompanied by drawbacks and discomforts. --Arnold Bennett
Face the facts of being what you are, for that is what changes what you are. --Soren Kierkegaard
If we don't change, we don't grow. If we don't grow, we aren't really living. --Gail Sheehy
The changes in our life must come from the impossibility to live otherwise than according to the demands of our conscience not from our mental resolution to try a new form of life. --Leo Tolstoy
I'm always willing to accept change, just as long as it isn't change for the sake of change. If that change will result in a better way of doing things, then I'm all for it. –James Van Fleet
Do the best you can until you know better. Then when you know better, do better. –Maya Angelou
Saturday, August 15, 2026
The movie My Penguin Friend
I can wholeheartedly recommend this movie from 2024 for families and for people looking for a film that taps into the area of their hearts that becomes inextricably bound to animals. Or birds in this case. The film is based on the true story of a Brazilian fisherman, João (played by Jean Reno), who rescues a penguin that has swum into an oil spill. Penguins cannot fly, but they use their wings, which have become flippers, for swimming and for balancing when they are on land. The oil coated the penguin's flippers and body and has made it nearly impossible for him to swim. João cleans him off and feeds him, and the penguin (named Dindim by Lucia, the daughter of Calista, the friend of João's son who drowned when he was a boy) becomes attached to João, and eventually to his wife Maria (played by Adriana Barraza). He stays with them until February, when he migrates from their Brazilian island Ilha Grande to Patagonia, Argentina, his natural breeding ground, a journey of five thousand miles. He then migrates back to Ilha Grande again in June, staying with João and Maria until he leaves again in February. He does this for eight consecutive years. In Patagonia, he and his fellow penguins are studied by a research team that quickly realizes that Dindim is an unusual penguin, one who is friendly to humans. They tag him in order to track his movements. As fate would have it, Dindim becomes a local celebrity back on Ilha Grande, and a video taken of him goes viral. The researchers eventually discover this, and send a journalist and his team to the island to interview João and Maria and to meet Dindim. I won't give away the entire story, but it ends on a realistic but happy note.
It was a pleasure to experience a movie that taps into your emotions in a very real way. João, Maria, and the townspeople are kind souls who are quick to help when help is needed. You end up rooting for Dindim and João, and you realize that not only has João rescued Dindim, but Dindim has helped to heal João. The movie never feels forced or unnatural. Dindim comes and goes as he pleases (realistic), and João describes himself as Dindim's friend. It's a lovely friendship, one that will capture your heart. Kudos to the director David Schurmann and the writers Kristen Lazarian and Paulina Lagudi Ulrich who have done an excellent job of telling a captivating real-life story of a penguin and his fisherman friend.