Evaluation how the RM3 implementation process worked / is working?

I just received this request:

 . . . now that we’re 6 months into praying with the RM3, I was just wondering if you knew of any resources to help us evaluation how the implementation process went in our parish. I’ve been looking around out there in cyberspace and can’t quite find anything. I’ve also called our diocesan office and they don’t have anything either. Ideas? Do you have anything? It seems like there were all these great resources out there to help us implement, but nothing to help us evaluate.

Can you help me help?

19 comments

  1. I’m looking forward to the answer to this. But it seems like my mother would have said “The proof of the pudding is in the eating.” That would mean are your sisters and brothers in faith in the parish happy with the changes, are they grumpy, but most importantly, are they participating?

    1. At my parish in suburban Columbus, OH, the people are participating fairly heartily, without grumpiness, no longer needing the worship aids. And interestingly – although I’m not trying to draw a direct correlation – attendance at our daily 6:30 am Mass has approximately doubled in the last few months.

      1. Hummmmm – we have seen the exact opposite happen. Well, so much, for drawing universal conclusions from one isolated event.

  2. David Woods of the diocese of Galveston-Houston and I (diocese of Portsmouth UK) collaborated on a survey. I do not know how his went, but ours has just closed with hundreds of responses now to process. In addition to responses from within the diocese, we also received responses from all over the country, from Europe (e.g. people living in France but occasionally worshipping in the UK), and from as far afield as the US. As well as laity, respondents included clergy and at least one bishop. It will be some time before all this material has been processed and becomes available.

  3. At our Seattle parish, we used Survey Monkey to do a simple online survey of parishioners, to gauge reactions both to the new translations and to our various catechetical endeavors. We received about 550 responses. If you are interested, you can see the questions we asked and the results at our website, http://www.stjames-cathedral.org/liturgy/romanmissal/rmsurvey.htm. I don’t know how typical we are, but the results are interesting nonetheless.

    1. Thanks! Would there be a repeat of the survey, say, after 6 months? Might be interesting to track the changes.

      Of course, change leadership would demand appropriate interventions to move people towards embracing the changes.

  4. In my parish about half of the people have simply stopped responding or they nearly silentlysay the old responses. The majority of people who do respond are still using the cards. The people who do respond are generally the grade school age children and the over 60 crowd with a smattering of people from all groups. The teenagers are pretty silent, but they were silent on the previous missal also.

  5. Just a guess, but the lack of materials for follow up and evaluation, means those that foisted the project DON’T CARE.

  6. Just a guess… but the lack of a plan and materials for follow-up and evaluation means those that foisted the project DON’T CARE. The translation was always a fait accompli, not a process, and certainly not one open for evaluation. There’s no follow-up because nothing is supposed to change, just silent obedience in the pews. Until “they” change their minds in twenty years.

    In fact the only thing open to evaluation now a days are dedicated sisters and nuns, HHS secretaries, and gay Catholic high school teenagers who win Matthew Shepard scholarships to the University of Iowa…

    Not translations, not the lack of pastoral vision and preaching capability of clergy and certainly not bishops who have, and still are, aiding and abetting abuse of all kinds in action or omission.

    1. For those intensely interested in the debate the lack of reaction from the faithful may seem odd. I suspect that many just accept the new texts on trust.
      If I am right then it is a sign of confidence in the church authorities.
      Don’t forget that readers of this blog are almost certainly interested in the debate so we are poor judges.
      While the response so far is worth noting it will be that over the generation that counts. It seems far to early to tell.

  7. I agree totally with J. Thomas. “They” didn’t want any real in-put in the nearly decade-long preparation period, and they certainly don’t want any after. While it is not an unmitigated disaster, MR’11 is no real gain over 1973. The texts are ungainly and broken-backed, just piles of words.

    Good pastors would acknowledge the failure, and announce a plan to begin all over again in a fresh and truly consultative way, including a totally new team. The project should be aimed at 2020, 2021. And the English-speaking conferences should insist on the disbanding of Vox Clara.

    My extensive experience after five months is resigned acceptance (What can we do?) to sullen discontent.

    1. Wait until they announce that since everyone is now using the same words in their own languages all over the world, the next natural step is for everyone to use the same words in one language, which of course will be Latin. If you don’t think that isn’t their long term plan, well…..

      1. While I would not be surprised to see the return of some Latin to the regular parish celebration of the Ordinary Form, I would be dumbfounded if a complete stripping away of the vernacular were to be enacted.

        I would gladly welcome a return of a little Latin to the Mass. Y’know, in the Spirit of Vatican II, SC 54.

  8. While I hope Sean, is wrong, I have a feeling he’s right. Of course it will be a long, long, time in coming, and most certainly not in my life time. But I fear it will eventually happen.

  9. Jeffrey Pinyan :

    While I would not be surprised to see the return of some Latin to the regular parish celebration of the Ordinary Form, I would be dumbfounded if a complete stripping away of the vernacular were to be enacted.
    I would gladly welcome a return of a little Latin to the Mass. Y’know, in the Spirit of Vatican II, SC 54.

    Yes, but the strongest hermeneutical key to the entire document is that all changes are to be made with the idea of full, conscious, and active participation in mind. Spare me the “silent partricipation”; I know its possible, but it’s also true that embodied participation and silent participation within the depths of one’s heart go hand in hand. And if they don’t, then priests are in REAL trouble, since the have the most conscious, active embodied participation of us all.

    1. Whether you use Latin or not doesn’t determine whether the participation is silent or not. It’s just as easy to program music in English that’s impossible to sing.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.