Concerns over attire in church got me to wondering: how would people feel about the priest’s dog accompanying him during Mass? I’m not talking about the Blessing of the Animals, a special service when pet-owners bring their critters to Mass (usually in commemoration of St. Francis).
I know how people feel in the parish I’ve been attending. The dog, Abydos, is loved and understood, as was his predecessor, Nabucco.
First, you must know that this parish is Episcopal/Anglican—verrrry high. All the smells and bells, and the choir chants the Proper every Sunday (Introit, Gradual/Alleluia, Offertory, and Communion). Gorgeous vestments, lots of kneeling and bowing. On feast days the Epistle and Gospel are intoned.
The parish is also quite a melting pot—it is truly the most diverse place I’ve been. I think at least half come from African countries and the Caribbean, and there are others who have come from numerous other places around the world.
So. Abydos has his own tasseled black pillow, behind the altar rail, where he is to go when the procession begins. It’s a few feet from the altar, but it’s the most out-of-the-way place for him, and Fr. H. can keep an eye on him. Now and then he gets restless, and Fr. H. calmly re-installs him in his place. Abydos is also a regular attendee of our Compline service there.
Abydos is a Saluki, as was Nabucco. Fr. H. notes that the only dog Muslims accept as clean is the Saluki, a very old breed—they say that Allah “kissed the Saluki” right above the eyes (evidenced by white “eyebrows”). Abydos looks a lot like this. So he’s already liturgically furred, though as Fr. H. notes, he often sits with his back to the High Altar.
Unfortunately, Abydos’ breeder maintained one of those nightmares you hear of on the news—way too many animals, malnourished, abused—she’s doing time for how she treated her animals. Fr. H. got involved with a “rescue” operation for Salukis, and agreed to adopt three-year-old Abydos, not knowing for sure if loving care could restore his spirit. Ten months later, Abydos looks as a dog should look (initially he took up as little space as he could and his tail was always tucked between his legs). He had to learn not to relieve himself wherever he was; in the kennel he had been caged, left to live with his own offal. He’s learned to go for walks. He’s learned that if Fr. H. is gone for awhile, he will come back (part of the reason Fr. H. keeps him close by at church).
Not all the damage can be undone—he’s definitely scarred. He’s still skittish around people he sees all the time (especially women, I think, because the damage was done by a woman).
So perhaps this is not so much about dogs in church, but a dog in a church, being restored to his rightful nature. Sometimes people treat their pets better than they do their fellow human beings, but this isn’t the case with Fr. H. How he deals with Abydos is a manifestation of his character—it’s how he deals with people. He greets all his parishioners by name, including all their children, and takes the time to learn newcomers’ and visitors’ names (and is amazing at remembering them). If he hasn’t seen someone in a while, he asks that person’s friends or relatives about his or her well-being.
If you were to walk into my parish, not knowing any of the above, what would you think?
8 comments:
Even knowing what you have written, and since you asked, I would think that it is inappropriate. Except for service dogs or for a service of animal blessing, and regardless of who the dog belongs to, dogs do not belong in the church - particularly during worship.
As much as I love a good high liturgy, if I saw a non-service dog in the chancel of the sanctuary, it would be my last visit to that parish.
I think it would be lovely to meet Abydos and observe his calm presence in the midst of people who understand that he is healed by their presence and by the presence of his master within view. There are lessons to be learned by Abydos' attendance at worship, and one ought to look for those, rather than only looking with scorn.
Today's gospel lesson! Oh my! "Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table." Read it! Matthew 15:21-28
In Genesis, God charged humankind (Adam) to have dominion over the animals. Having dominion does not mean making them co-dependent, or being co-dependant upon them.
Since we are talking about a Christian Church here, it might be best if we worry less about what Muslim law is regarding dogs, and concentrate instead on what the Christian canons say. If you go back and look, you will find that the Christian canons forbid dogs in church.
I think it is wonderful that your priest adopted a rescue dog. It is a noble thing to do. However, it sounds like it would have been in the best interests of him and of your parish if he had adopted a dog less needy, or if he could find someone to stay with the dog during liturgy.
I'm sure there is a wonderful rush of "oh, isn't that sweet" and "look how obedient that dog is" and "see how the dog loves this person", but that isn't Church.
Anonymous,
Your last comment probably took a cue from just the fact that I wrote about Abydos, but you know, he attracts almost no attention. People do focus on worship, rather than the dog. So it is Church.
You clearly find this issue to be of greater import than do I. I would not insist that a dog (or any other animal) be included in a worship service, but canon law against attendance? C’mon. The Episcopal Church has no such prohibition (I searched the canons, out of curiosity).
As for “it sounds like it would have been in the best interests of him and of your parish if he had adopted a dog less needy, or if he could find someone to stay with the dog during liturgy”—you know none of the participants in this situation—you haven’t witnessed any interactions—and yet you suggest that the dog is benefiting at the expense of the Church. The only information you are using to judge this matter is the fact of the dog’s presence at worship. You are not in a position to judge. And the rector is a person who demonstrates, not only in this matter, but in the entirety of his life, that he doesn’t back out just because the going gets rough. That kind of love and commitment? That’s what church is about; a church not grounded in God in that way is a bunch of empty ritual. Nobody’s getting short shrift in this, unless it’s people who would love to go to that church if only there weren’t a dog.
I am also not interested in dueling scripture verses over such a trivial matter, but you did refer to Adam having dominion over the animals, saying, “Having dominion does not mean making [animals] co-dependent, or being co-dependant upon them.” How on earth does any of this situation fit that description? Again, you are not in a position to judge.
I will only add that, if animals were present at the birth of Jesus, how bizarre is it that their presence would be banned at the Great Thanksgiving?
I love the idea of a parish pet. Just not my pet...he's nuts.;-)
You clearly find this issue to be of greater import than do I.
>>>Well, I'm not the one who posted about it to begin with ...
... but canon law against attendance? C’mon. The Episcopal Church has no such prohibition (I searched the canons, out of curiosity).
>>>Who said anything about the Episcopal canons? Go a little further back (alot further back, actually).
You are not in a position to judge.
>>>So when you asked what people think about this, you really didn't want to hear from anyone who doesn't agree with you, right? Sorry, I thought it was an open question.
And the rector is a person who demonstrates, not only in this matter, but in the entirety of his life, that he doesn’t back out just because the going gets rough. That kind of love and commitment?
>>>Seems to me that the rector has a misplaced sense of priorities ...
That’s what church is about; a church not grounded in God in that way is a bunch of empty ritual.
>>>Of course it is - but having your dog at liturgy has nothing to do with being grounded in God. It has nothing to do with God at all.
...but you did refer to Adam having dominion over the animals, saying, “Having dominion does not mean making [animals] co-dependent, or being co-dependant upon them.” How on earth does any of this situation fit that description?
>>>Your rector has clearly established a co-dependent relationship with this dog. The dog apparently cannot be away from the sight of its master (although one would have to ask how the rector managaes to get out to a decent restaurant for dinner - how does he make hospital calls? Go to the library, theater, grocery shopping...?). This is not having dominion over the animals. Animals (pets, too) were meant to live along side human beings, to serve humans, not the other way around.
It also sounds like your rector needs the constant affirmation he receives of having in his presence at all times a living thing which (he thinks) needs him every minute of the day. It's all sort of sad, really. It's a dog - not an infant. There IS a difference.
I will only add that, if animals were present at the birth of Jesus, how bizarre is it that their presence would be banned at the Great Thanksgiving?
>>>Why don't we all worship in barns, then, and drink the blood of Christ from a trough because Christ himself was laid in a a trough - wouldn't that be totally COOL imagery????
C'mon.
Anonymous, I think you should just go to that church and see for yourself. I bet you'd find your characterization of the priest, the dog, the congregation, all very different than you are currently imagining.
I think this is delightful. I am very high church, and as long as the dog is not distracting anyone or up to any antics, why not have him there? I cannot imagine God getting upset over it, so why should we?
Post a Comment