Uncategorized Archives - Page 98 of 275

July 20, 2015July 21, 2015

Fortitude, Patience, and Meekness: Three Virtues We Often Separate, but That Belong Together

There is an important interplay and balance between the virtues that many modern minds set in opposition to one another. False dichotomies often prevail when the subtlety of virtues are lost or their meanings are grasped in simplistic or inaccurate ways.

Consider three virtues that are related and which enable and moderate one other: fortitude, patience, and meekness. To most people, these virtues seem more opposed than related. Today, fortitude conjures up an image of a fearless warrior in battle, or an intense prophet fearing nothing of the opinion of men. And meekness seems to be thought synonymous with weakness and conciliation. Finally, patience in modern parlance often means either not acting at all, or acting indecisively and without courage.

There are, of course, many problems with this thinking; the modern understanding of these words is quite different from their biblical or scholastic meaning. So part of our task is to recover a more accurate understanding of these words. But another aspect is to see how these virtues balance and moderate one another.

Fortitude – Consider first that fortitude is the virtue that enables us to withstand even great difficulties that hinder us from attaining our true goal. A chief feature of fortitude is enduring difficulties and seeing an act or decision through to the end. Thus it is not merely being brave in the face of danger or of sallying forth into battle; it is also being steadfast in spite of obstacles and enduring without sadness or loss of faith.

As with any virtue, there are certain sins that may emerge (by excess or defect) in relation to fortitude. Timidity, pusillanimity, faintheartedness, and softness are defects of fortitude. Yet there are also excesses related to fortitude such as being foolhardy, presumptuous, overly ambitious, vainglorious, and headstrong (pertinacious).

And thus patience and meekness are aspects of fortitude, especially in helping to govern excesses related to fortitude. While the modern mind considers them to be in opposition to fortitude, they are actually integral parts of it, since they not only moderate fortitude but are ways of living and expressing it.

Patience – This is perhaps the most frequent form under which fortitude is exercised in the face of the difficulties of life. St. Thomas Aquinas said that patience is attached to fortitude because it helps us to resist giving way to sadness, and to bear up under the difficulties of life with a certain equanimity or steadiness of soul. By it, we do not give way easily to emotional sadness or excessive anger. Thus patience is an act of fortitude, since it bids us to endure painful or difficult things without weakening in our faith or our commitment to the truth. With patience, we are steady in the face of the vexations and contradictions of life.

Sadly, many in our culture equate patience with weakness. But to be patient and to endure is a great strength.

Now the fact is that many troubles and contradictions last for a long time. Not all (or even most) things can be changed for the better simply or quickly. And so patience and suffering are often necessary acts of fortitude; they require great strength and brave endurance. Jesus says, In this world you shall have tribulation, but have courage, I have overcome the world (John 16:33). And St Paul adds, Through many tribulations we must enter into the kingdom of God (Acts 14:21).

So while fortitude will often summon us to face danger bravely, to proclaim the faith, and to do what is right; while it will rebuke cowardliness, faintheartedness, and softness; it will also enable us to endure difficulties without sadness, fear, depression, or excessive anger. In all these ways there is strength and courage to be found. While the modern mind does not often connect patience with fortitude, it is in fact one of its most common manifestations.

Meekness – Even more so the modern mind does not connect meekness to fortitude. The average person today does not even know the real definition of the word “meekness.” Most consider the word to be associated with being a pushover or a doormat. In this flawed sense, meekness is despised as weakness and fearfulness.

But meekness, in its traditional and theological sense, is anything but weakness. The meek are those who have authority over their anger, who can command and control its power, moderating and directing its energy to good rather than destructive ends.

Aristotle defined meekness as the proper middle ground between too much anger and not enough. Anger has an important place in the human psyche but it must be mastered and moderated, for it is unruly. The meek are those who have mastered their anger and know how to use its creative power to set things right.

In our culture, the “angry prophet” gets some credit as he denounces the powerful and vents his anger. But a prophet who is merely angry is not a true prophet. True prophets love God’s people; their anger results from the love of God, of His truth and of His people. Beware mistaking true zeal borne out of love from angry zeal, which sermonizes indiscriminately. The angry prophet preaches to get something off his chest and to vent his anger. The true prophet speaks out of zealous love and from a meekness that is able to have authority over his anger and zeal.

Fortitude without patience and meekness is like fire with nothing to contain it. Such a fire spreads wildly and destroys what it should illuminate and heat; it destroys what it should purify and transform.

Therefore patience is not opposed to fortitude but is itself an act of fortitude, since it courageously resists discouragement when the battle seems long and fierce. It enables fortitude to act over a long period, consistently and persistently, to attain an end that mere zeal would impatiently forsake in the absence of immediate results.

Similarly, meekness is also not opposed to fortitude but is also a form of it, by authoritatively governing the anger directed against injustice and error. The meek person is ultimately at peace deep inside, even while engaging in a struggle on the outside. This, of course, is essential for fortitude to reach its goal since reaching a goal (say, of establishing the truth, refuting error, or restoring justice and respect for life) is nearly impossible for a soul consumed by anger. Meekness therefore is the courage of fortitude along with the control that helps focus anger, zeal, and brave action.

Thus, as with so many things, we ought not to separate what God has joined: in this case fortitude, patience, and meekness. Scripture says, be angry but sin not (Eph 4:26). And for our virtues we might add: have the courage and zeal of fortitude, but be not foolhardy, presumptuous, or headstrong.

So, have the courage and zeal to enter the battle. Don’t be like so many today who are soft, cowardly, and indiscriminately conciliatory. But enter not with wild, ungoverned fortitude (which isn’t really true fortitude at all); enter with a fortitude that is patient and willing to endure through what may well be a long battle. Enter with a fortitude that is authoritatively mastered and stable through meekness.

By God’s grace, true fortitude will win the day.

July 19, 2015July 21, 2015

All Have Fallen Short of the Glory of God – A Reflection on the Need to Remember That Heroes Are Still Human

Throughout my youth, my father had many teachings and expressions that we came to call “dad-isms.” They were memorable little sayings packed with truth. One of them I recall him saying to me in the aftermath of a disappointment I had experienced regarding a friend. He simply said, “Charlie, people disappoint.”

Yes, they do. We need not be cynics to understand and accept that people cannot always come through for you. Sometimes they let you down and even shock you. It is a hard but freeing truth. Human beings struggle, are imperfect, and even have mighty falls. But that doesn’t mean we should be fearful or refuse to trust others at all. However, we do need to be sober because “People disappoint.”

The recent allegations against Bill Cosby seem to have been confirmed now, even by him. Disappointment, shock, and anger have been common responses.

But allow a moment like this to cause us all to reflect on our own national (and personal?) tendency to size people up based on very little real information. We often ask public figures to fulfill our idealistic (but unrealistic) notions and be the people of our dreams.

Unrealistic expectations are premeditated resentments. Idealizing our “heroes” can cause us deep hurt. Some of these hurts and shocks can be prevented, or at least lessened, by prayerful and careful discernment as we go through life.

Discernment is a spiritual discipline that is important for us to develop in our Christian walk. The word “discern” is derived from the Medieval Latin word cernere, meaning to sift, separate, or distinguish. Hence, discernment is a discipline that counsels us to make careful distinctions and to avoid rash conclusions.

Yes, it is an often-troublesome human tendency to “size things up” too quickly, before we really have all the information and can carefully sift, separate, and distinguish. There is also the tendency to make conclusions that are too sweeping or simplistic, given the limited information we have. We do this in the case of both people and situations.

Regarding people, too often we like to assess them quickly and put them into one category or another. For example, we may conclude that “Jane is a really wonderful person!” based on just a few interactions with her or on very limited information.

We do this a great deal with the famous personalities and “heroes” of our culture, seeing them in broad and simplistic ways. In fact, we usually know very little about them at all other than what we see in a rather cursory and public way. In lionizing and idealizing people, we are often setting ourselves up for deep disappointment. And this disappointment is rooted in our rushed and simplistic judgments about people.

The fact is, people are generally a mixed bag, often possessed of great gifts, yet afflicted by human weaknesses and flaws. Scripture says, No one is good but God alone (Mk 10:18 inter al). It also says, For God regards all men as sinners, that he may have mercy on all (Rom 11:23). This the human condition: gifted but flawed.

Hence, we do well to carefully discern, to sift, sort, and distinguish when we assess one another. Not all things or people are as they first appear. And no one should be regarded simplistically. We are usually a complicated mix of gifts and struggles.

In Scripture, there is the story of Samuel, who was sent by God to find and anoint a king among Jesse’s sons. Arriving and seeing the eldest and strongest of the sons, Samuel was quick to conclude that he must be the one to be anointed:

But the LORD said to Samuel, “Do not look on his appearance or on the height of his stature, because I have rejected him. For the LORD sees not as man sees: man looks on the outward appearance, but the LORD looks on the heart” (1 Sam 16:6).

Samuel was eventually led to anoint the youngest and least likely of the brothers, David.

Here are some other references from Scripture:

Call no one blessed before his death, for by his end shall a man be known (Sir 11:28).
Paul cautions Timothy, Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, and do not share in the sins of others. Keep yourself pure … Remember, the sins of some men are obvious, leading them to certain judgment. But there are others whose sins will not be revealed until later (1 Tim 5:22,24).
Sometimes we fail to note the gifts of others. Scripture says, So we have stopped evaluating others from a human point of view. At one time we thought of Christ merely from a human point of view. How differently we know him now! (2 Cor 5:16)

Discernment regarding people ought to proceed with careful deliberation, so that we resist the urge to quickly size them up or categorize them. We should exercise careful discernment that is ongoing, charitable, and sober.

Regarding situations, the rush to judgment is also to be avoided. Often we do not have all the facts and so our judgment can be both rash and wrong. We often think we know the whole story when in fact we do not.

Likewise it is often easy to take sides quickly in disputes and to assess blame in simplistic ways. In marriage counseling, for example, I have learned to resist the urge to be too sympathetic toward one spouse or the other. In the past I would tend to be more sympathetic to the one who had called to make the appointment, and whose side I had heard the most of already. But a one- sided pancake is pretty thin; there’s always another side. Very few marriages are in trouble because one is a saint and the other is the devil. There are usually issues on both sides; there is both bad and good in each of them.

Thus, as with people, the assessment of situations also requires discernment, the careful sorting, sifting, and distinguishing of many things.

Disclaimer – Discernment should be seen as a middle ground between quickly claiming we know everything, and claiming we can know nothing at all. The need for discernment does not mean that there is no truth to be found, or that we are locked away in a purely subjective and relativistic world where no judgments can be made at all. Rather, it is a caution against making sweeping, simplistic, or rash judgments that are not based on things we really know; it is a call to sobriety. People and situations are usually more complicated than we first grasp, and it takes time to make proper assessments.

Some (including me) have criticized the Church for not operating at the breakneck speed of the modern world. We often want quick and bold statements to be issued. We want rapid responses and bold initiatives made in response to every issue that emerges. Of themselves, these desires are not wrong, but they need to be balanced with an appreciation that discernment is often accomplished at slower speeds than we would like. A quick response may sometimes be desired and even necessary, but there is something to be said for following the priority of the important rather than the urgent. Careful discernment is important and has its place.

To discern: to sift, separate, or distinguish.

July 17, 2015July 18, 2015

A Video With a Shocking Ending

This is one of those videos that I think you should watch before I say much about it.

There is something shocking about the ending, something awful. And yet the request by the young man in the video is a common one, though it often comes cloaked in more subtle forms. People today use one another in the most crass, utilitarian, and selfish ways! Do others exist merely to give you pleasure? Is this not often the message of cohabitation and sex without marital commitment?

Let me ask you one question about the ending of the video: Why does what the young man says shock you?

July 16, 2015July 16, 2015

Three Words That Can Change Your Life

Sometimes we like to complicate things. Every now and again it is good to simplify, to make it plain and simple. The other day it occurred to me that three words describe the well-being I have discovered in my physical, emotional, and spiritual life. They are, respectively, move, breathe, and trust.

Let’s look at each in turn. “Move” pertains to the physical, “breathe” to the emotional and psychological, and “trust” to the spiritual.

I. Move – Some years ago, my doctor told me that the secret to good health, strength, and longevity, comes down to one word: “move.” A sedentary lifestyle can cause innumerable problems: weight gain, lethargy, fatigue, boredom, depression, muscular atrophy, weak and/or brittle bones, shallowness of breath, poor posture, a weakened heart, an increase in the likelihood of pulmonary issues such as asthma, less-oxygenated blood, and less-clear thinking … just to name a few.

Well, you get the point. Move! Walk every day. Except for swimming, there is almost no better exercise. If your joints are already arthritic or problematic, an elliptical machine is a good low-impact option.

I was a runner earlier in life but my knees suffered. I don’t personally think that the human body was designed for sustained distance running; there’s just too much impact on the joints. Injury is common and some of the damage to the joints can be permanent. Because of this, I took up walking about fifteen years ago and walk at least two miles a day, six days a week.

Walking is low impact and easy on the body. It promotes aerobic breathing rather than the anaerobic panting of running. It requires little or no equipment, and provides time for praying, listening to music or podcasts, talking with a walking partner, or chatting on the phone (I recommend a hands-free device so the arms can swing naturally). I really look forward to my evening walks!

The people of the Bible were amazing walkers. Our Mother Mary, St. Joseph, Jesus, and all the Apostles made the annual trek to Jerusalem on foot, 70 miles each way. They walked nearly everywhere they went, through very hilly and mountainous regions. Mary walked 70 miles to Bethlehem when she was nine months pregnant. She and Joseph walked hundreds of miles to Egypt, carrying Jesus, and then back again. The people of the Bible were hardy; they walked nearly everywhere, often carrying heavy loads.

Move! Walk every day if you can. If you need to, start by just walking one block; then try to increase the distance a bit every day. But move. When you can, take the stairs instead of the elevator, walk instead of driving, but get off the sofa. Some people even have standing desks to work at in their offices. (See photo above right.)

There’s a handy little device called the “UP” bracelet that actually counts your steps for you each day. The goal for the average adult is 10,000 steps per day. Yours truly averages 12,000-15,000 thousand a day. There’s a video at the bottom that describes the “UP” system. (And, no, I’m not getting a kickback!)

Move; it will change your life, improving not only your body but your soul as well.

II. Breathe – My psychotherapist has a plaque on her desk that reads, “BREATHE.” Most of us don’t know how to breathe properly. We breathe with our chest and only fill the top of our lungs.

It isn’t hard to learn how to breathe better, using the belly. Babies do it naturally, but as we get older and more self-conscious about the appearance of our bellies, we tend to breathe less deeply. There is a video below that demonstrates the proper way to breathe deeply.

To breathe is to get in touch with our innermost self and also our body. Breathing is very spiritual. As we breathe in, we receive the blessings of God. As we breathe out, we let go of inner stresses and struggles. Exhaling is a form of release, inhaling a form of receiving.

Deep breathing can be very relaxing; it reduces stress and is a wonderful way to prepare ourselves to pray. Too many of us are out of touch with our body and our very self. Breathing can reconnect us to our own self and to God. Too many of us store up a lot of stress. We need to learn how to exhale. Too many of us live on fumes. We need to learn how to draw more deeply from the life breath God offers.
Breathe!

III. Trust – My Spiritual Director has often reduced his advice to one word: “trust.” The root of all the anxiety I have ever experienced is the fact that I did not trust God. To the degree that I have learned to trust God, I am less anxious. In fact, I rarely get anxious anymore. It is the result of a fifteen-year journey out of panic disorder and into trust.

I cannot write a whole article here on trust, but two things ought to be emphasized.

First, the illusion of control is a big enemy of trust in God. Control is ultimately an illusion. You may have a few things under your control, such as what you will eat for dinner, where you will shop for clothes etc. But even those things you think you can control are based on innumerable things that you cannot control: the next beat of your heart, whether or not there will be an accident that backs up traffic on your way to the store, whether or not your car will break down, etc. You also have no control over whether the store burns down or the item you want is to buy is actually in stock.

Thus, control, in any thorough sense, is both illusory and limited. Thinking we can and should be in control is to live under an illusion, and living under such an illusion is stressful and frustrating.

We often think that if we could just be in control we would be less anxious; but this is not so. The great paradox about serenity is that acceptance of the fact that there are many things we cannot control reduces anxiety and brings peace. The fact that we are not in control is a “hard” truth that brings great serenity and induces trust if we come to accept it.

Second, a central way to open the door to trust is to remember to be grateful. In the spiritual sense, to remember means to have deeply present in my mind and heart what God has done for me, so that I am grateful to Him and different because of it. To remember is to discipline my mind and heart to ponder how good and faithful God has been, to spend time every day considering the gifts and graces of God and how He has sustained and provided for me. This makes me grateful and different.

It also builds trust, and trust drives out our fears, resentments, and all forms of anxiety. Through gratitude I become a man of hope. That is, I confidently expect God’s help and providence to see me through to my goal of being with Him in glory.

An old song says, “Through it all, I’ve learned to trust in Jesus, I’ve learned to trust in God … I’ve learned to depend upon His Word.”

That is my story; I’ve learned to trust. And over the years, in the laboratory of my own life, I have proved God’s Word and His promises and found them to be true. Learn to trust, to lean, to let go. God says, “I’ve got this, so you let go.”

These are three words that can change your life: move, breathe, and trust.

July 15, 2015July 18, 2015

Things Are Often Not as They Seem – A Lesson from the Life of Moses

We are currently reading the story of Moses in daily Mass. The story reminds us that not all things are as they appear, and that God’s ways are not our ways.

Moses’ early years are marked with clear signs that he is gifted and chosen. Drawn from the water by Pharaoh’s own daughter, Moses’ very own mother is chosen to be his caretaker and is paid for that privilege by getting to live in Pharaoh’s palace. Pharaoh pays for Moses’ diapers, his food, and his education. And he is unwittingly preparing and equipping his nemesis. God can be very sly!

But at age forty, Moses gets ahead of God (never a good idea). He grows angry at an Egyptian who is oppressing a Hebrew and ends up killing the Egyptian. Moses has to flee.

Now why has God let this happen? From our perspective, Moses was in the prime of his life. At forty, he has experience but has not lost his youth. He is educated, gifted, and has access to power and lots of connections in Pharaoh’s own palace. Moses is in a perfect position to lead the people out of slavery! Or so we think. Except for one problem: God doesn’t think so.

But why not? In a word, pride. Moses, in getting out ahead of God and trying to take things in his own hands, is exhibiting pride. God says, in effect, “You’re too proud. I can’t use you in this condition. It’s time for some lessons in humility.”

And so Moses learns humility. He is forced to flee (humiliating). He must live out in the desert (humbling). And he marries and has children (quite humbling indeed! J).

Ok, so a few years’ worth of humility lessons and then Moses gets started. No, not a few, forty years’ worth!

Now Moses is eighty. He’s feeble, leaning on a staff, and he stutters when he talks. And God comes and tells Moses that it’s time to lead the people out. Moses says, in effect, “Are you crazy? I’m old, I can’t speak, I’m feeble … I can’t do it.” And that’s just the attitude that God needs from Moses: that he can’t do it. And he couldn’t do it at forty, either; he just didn’t know it. God has to do it and Moses will be His instrument. But now this instrument will be docile in the hands of the artist, now Moses can be useful to God.

This is not the way we think. We equate ability and leadership with vigor, power, money, access, talent, etc. For us, the prime of life is in our thirties, forties, and fifties. But God’s ways are not our ways; His thoughts are not our thoughts. Moses at eighty is what God needs. Moses at forty was not of use.

What are some conclusions we can draw?

First, be careful how you assess your own life. In typical earthly fashion most of us consider our prime as being those years when we were most in command of our gifts, when we were working, “making a difference,” earning an income. We measure human life in its prime in terms of money, power, access, physical strength, stamina, etc.

But has it occurred to us that our most powerful moments might be on our deathbed? For there we have many sufferings to offer and our prayers will pierce the clouds as never before. The Lord hears the cry of the poor, the suffering, and the repentant.

I often counsel the bedridden, and the dying in this way: I tell them that we are depending on their prayers as never before because their prayers are more important than ever before. And even if they have a hard time, because of age and discomfort, formulating prayers, just one word on our behalf, “Help!” may change the history of the world. St. Augustine said, More is accomplished in prayer by sighs and tears, than by many words (Letter to Proba).

Yes, be very careful how you assess your life’s worth. Our math is not God’s math; our thoughts are not His. God sizes us up quite differently.

Second, be careful how you assess the lives of others. Here, too, we tend to value those people who are powerful, have money, strength, beauty, talents, and “obvious” gifts. But the Lord warns us in many places that we should esteem the poor, the disabled, and the suffering. He says, Many who are last shall be first (Matt 19:30).

God also counsels that we ought to make friends among the needy and poor by our use of worldly wealth, so that when worldly wealth fails us (and it will), the poor and needy, those who benefitted from our generosity, will welcome us to eternal dwellings (See Lk 16:9).

Yes, befriend the needy, the disabled, and the poor. In this world they need us, but in the next world, we are going to need them! Those who have suffered and those who were poor due to injustice, if they have been faithful, are going to be in high places in Heaven. We’re going to have to get an appointment to see them! Things are not always as they appear. The poor, the disabled, and the suffering are quite often among the real powerhouses of this world.

So pay attention to what the story of Moses tells us. Not as man sees does God see (1 Sam 16:7). We are vainglorious and we look to worldly power and its categories. God is not impressed with our sandcastles, our big brains, and our bulging muscles. He bids us in stories like these to say, with St. Paul, Therefore I am well content with weaknesses, with insults, with distresses, with persecutions, with difficulties, for Christ’s sake; for when I am weak, then I am strong (2 Cor 12:10).

Things are often not as they appear to us. Put on your “God glasses” and by God’s grace see more as He sees.

July 14, 2015July 15, 2015

Three Helpful Prayers from the Roman Missal for Those Living in Dark and Difficult Times

One of the great and often-missed moments in the Mass is the opening prayer, also known as the “collect.” It is called this because after priest says to the faithful, “Let us pray,” he waits a moment as they do so and then “collects” their prayers and directs them to God.

Most of the collects (pronounced káh’-lects) are quite ancient and are minor masterpieces. They are succinct, like most of the prayers of the Roman Rite, and make use of creative word order, almost as if to paint a picture of sorts. Reading them in English never does them justice, because word order is more rigid in English and the creativity of the Latin is often lost.

Even in English, though, they remain a great source for reflection, especially the newer and more faithful translations. Father John Zuhlsdorf is, of course, the great master in breaking these prayers open for us.

As my own poor contribution to this end, I would simply like to place before you three of the collects that occur during these summer months, since they are encouraging for us in dealing with the current cultural meltdown that is picking up speed almost daily.

All three of these prayers point to the problem of error and darkness in this world and ask protection for the faithful, and the courage to reject error, embrace and reflect truth, and journey bravely to our heavenly home through an uncertain and rebellious world.

Let’s look at them in their English translation. I won’t examine the Latin extensively, just making a few observations with each prayer.

O God, who through the grace of adoption chose us to be children of the light, grant, we pray, that we may not be wrapped in the darkness of error but always be seen to stand in the bright light of truth. Through our Lord Jesus Christ … (13^th Sunday of Ordinary Time)

This is a prayer that reminds us of the great battle between light and darkness spoken of so extensively in Johannine literature. Recall some of the key lines from St. John:

In [Jesus] was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it (John 1:4-5).
This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God (John 3:19-21).
Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life” (Jn 8:12).
We must work the works of him who sent me while it is day; night is coming, when no one can work. As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world” (John 9:4-5).
The Crowds rebuked Jesus saying … who is this Son of Man? So Jesus said to them, “For a little while longer the Light is among you. Walk while you have the Light, so that darkness will not overtake you; he who walks in the darkness does not know where he goes. “While you have the Light, believe in the Light, so that you may become sons of Light” (John 12:34-36).
As soon as Judas had taken the bread, he went out. And it was night (John 13:30).
The one who loves his brother abides in the Light and there is no cause for stumbling in him. But the one who hates his brother is in the darkness and walks in the darkness, and does not know where he is going because the darkness has blinded his eyes … (1 John 2:10-11)

And thus we see in the prayer the great drama between the darkness of sin and the Light of God’s glory and holiness. It is a drama that unfolds all around us and we ask to be preserved from the deadly advance of enveloping darkness. We base our hope on God’s grace and the fact that Scripture says, For the Lord has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves (Col 1:13). And now, recalling that grace, we ask to be preserved in the gift He has given us in letting us be the children of light.

The Latin verb translated here as “wrapped” is involvamur. This can also be translated as “enveloped” and gives the impression of motion. Thus, may we not, O Lord, be caught up in the darkness of error. May we not be enveloped, or spun about and disoriented by the darkness of sin and error! Yes, spare us, O Lord!

And though the English translation asks that we always be seen to “stand” in the bright light of truth, the Latin verb is maneamus, and can also be translated as “remain.” Remaining or abiding in the truth and with the Lord is a very precious Johannine concept. The goal of our life is to remain in the Lord and dwell habitually in His light.

The prayer also asks that we may be seen to stand (remain) in the truth. This is the public witness of our love of the truth and our rejection of error. Here, too, the Latin word conspicui delivers a stronger message. In other words, may our remaining in the bright light of truth be conspicuous; may it be obvious by what we say and do.

Not a bad prayer for dark and erroneous times! Here’s the second prayer:

O God, who show the light of your truth to those who go astray, so that they may return to the right path, give all, who for the faith they profess are accounted Christians the grace to reject whatever is contrary to the Name of Christ and to strive after all that does it honor. Through our Lord Jesus Christ … (15^th Sunday of Ordinary Time)

This is a similar prayer, but more focused on recalling those who have been lost in error. Indeed, how many have been lost and thus how necessary such a prayer! Restore those lost in error, O Lord, those who have strayed! For indeed, there are many things in this fallen world that are contrary to Christ and His Holy Name, which is truth.

Latin contains many words that are quite physical, even violent. The Latin word translated here as “reject” is respuere. The word literally means to spit, to eject by spewing out. And this is what we must do: radically cast off whatever is contrary to the truth of Jesus and His teaching.

The image evokes the Easter Vigil when, in some ancient accounts, the catechumens, just before their Baptism, turned to the West (toward the darkness) and renounced Satan and all his works and all his empty promises, spitting as they did so. They then turned to the East (toward the light) and professed their faith in God.

Yes, this, too, is a very powerful prayer with a memorable vigor. May we spew from our life anything contrary to the Lord’s truth and strive to live His truth!

Finally consider this third prayer for difficult times like these:

O God, who cause the minds of the faithful to unite in a single purpose, grant your people to love what you command and to desire what you promise, that amid the uncertainties of this world, our hearts may be fixed on that place where true joys are. Through our Lord Jesus Christ … (21^st Sunday of Ordinary Time)

Such a beautiful prayer, and quite a masterpiece in describing the grace of the New Law! Indeed, to love what God commands and desire what He promises is the essential grace of the New Covenant that we must seek and lay hold of. It is best expressed by Ezekiel:

And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances (Ez 36:26-27).

Yes, for us who live in a fallen, darkened, rebellious, and confused world, grace is needed to overcome the stubborn and obtuse rejection of God’s truth by our flesh. God can and does do this. Of this I am a witness in my own life and I pray that you are as well. I have learned to love what He commands and to hate what is contrary to His truth.

The prayer goes on to describe the fickle and passing qualities of this world. It is something that we must ultimately escape. And while journeying through its deceptive and passing beauty, its trendy and flashy sinfulness, we ask the grace to keep our hearts fixed where true gladness is found.

Amen! These are three good prayers for us who are journeying through dark and difficult times. Don’t “tune out” during the opening prayer of Mass. Listen carefully. There are real riches to be found.

July 13, 2015July 15, 2015

It Happened, but It Wasn’t Holy or Helpful – Biblical Teaching Against Polygamy

Given cultural trends and recent court decisions to redefine marriage, the move to accept and legalize polygamy and polyandry has intensified. For example, an essay at Politico declares, “It’s time to legalize polygamy.” Another article at Slate Magazine is entitled “Legalize polygamy.”

Some are already coining the term “trouple” or “throuple” to describe “marriages” of three people (of any combination of sexes).

Such moves are not unexpected and are sure to beginning coming through the courts and legislatures soon. Clearly, the Catholic Church does and will oppose such moves based on Natural Law and biblical arguments.

But the biblical stance on polygamy is less clear than it is on homosexual acts (which are unequivocally condemned at every historical stage of biblical record). Polygamy, on the other hand, while not envisaged by God in His plan for marriage (see below), was tolerated in biblical history. Some of the greatest biblical patriarchs had numerous wives. And God does not punish them for this. Indeed, He works with them and blesses them to lead Israel.

Yet as we shall see, the Scriptures do teach against polygamy, but more phenomenologically than legally or theologically. In other words, the fact that the patriarchs engaged in polygamy is presented to us as a fact, as a phenomenon, and little direct explanation, defense, or condemnation is given. However, the phenomenon of polygamy almost always led to trouble. And this reality is presented, too, as we shall see.

Thus the Bible does teach against polygamy, but more in the form of a morality tale than a direct condemnation. The fact is, polygamy leads to serious trouble. Departing from God’s plan always leads to trouble. This is all the more so for marriage. So while admitting that the biblical approach is different in the case of polygamy, let’s survey what the Scripture reports of the trouble that polygamy causes.

God’s clear plan for true marriage – When God sets forth marriage as described in the Book of Genesis, there is poetically but clearly set forth a definitive form for marriage: one man and one woman in a stable, lasting, fruitful relationship of mutual support. For God said, It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a suitable helpmate for him (Gen 2:18). Already we see that “helpmate” is singular, not plural. After teaching the man that animals are not suitable companions, God puts Adam into a deep sleep and fashions Eve from his rib (cf Gen 2:21). Note again that in presenting a suitable helpmate for Adam, God created Eve, not Steve. And so we see that marriage does not include any notion of homosexual union. But neither did God create Eve and Ellen and Sue and Jane as collective helpmates for Adam. And so implicitly and poetically, but clearly, we see excluded the notion of polygamy.

God’s plan for marriage is one man and one woman. Scripture goes on to insist that marriage be a lasting union, for it says that a man shall “cling” (Hebrew = דָּבַק = dabaq) to his wife (singular, not plural), and the two (not three, four, or more) of them shall become one flesh (Gen 2:24). God then went on to tell them to be fruitful and multiply (Gen 1:28).

So far, it’s clear enough: one man and one woman in a stable, fruitful relationship of mutual help and support.

But then, what to make of the polygamy of the patriarchs (Jacob, Moses, Gideon, David, Solomon, and many others)? Does God approve of this? There is no evidence that He thunders from on high at their seemingly adulterous and clearly polygamous behavior. The fact that they have several wives goes unrebuked, and is mentioned more in passing in the Scriptures, narrated with little shock. For example, Nathan the Prophet has many things for which to rebuke David, but having multiple wives is not among them.

What of this polygamy?

We ought to begin by restating that the Scriptures teach in various ways. There is the methodology of straight rebuke, wherein sin is both denounced and punished. But there is also a more subtle and deductive way, in which Scripture teaches more through story than prescription. And in this way, the Scriptures do teach against polygamy. For we learn by story and example how polygamy causes nothing but trouble. In fact it leads to factions, jealousy, envy, and at times, murder. But as we shall see, the problem is less the wives themselves than the sons they have borne.

But, to be clear, polygamy was a common thing among the Old Testament patriarchs. The list is not short:

Lamech (a descendant of Cain) practiced polygamy (Genesis 4:19).
Abraham had more than one wife (Genesis 16:3-4; 25:6, some are called concubines).
Nahor, Abraham’s brother, had both a wife and a concubine (Genesis 11:29; 22:20-24).
Jacob was tricked into polygamy (Genesis 29:20-30) and later he received two additional wives, making a grand total of four wives (Genesis 30:4, 9).
Esau took on a third wife to please his father Isaac (Genesis 28:6-9).
Ashur had two wives (1 Chronicles 4:5).
Obadiah, Joel, Ishiah, and those with them “had many wives” (1 Chronicles 7:3-4).
Shaharaim had at least four wives, two of which he “sent away” (1 Chronicles 8:8-11).
Caleb had two wives (1 Chronicles 2:18) and two concubines (1 Chronicles 2:46, 48).
Gideon had many wives (Judges 8:30).
Elkanah is recorded as having two wives, one of which was the godly woman Hannah (1 Samuel 1:1-2, 8-2:10).
David, had at least 8 wives and 10 concubines (1 Chronicles 1:1-9; 2 Samuel 6:23; 20:3).
Solomon, who breached both Deuteronomy 7:1-4 and 17:14-17, had 700 wives and 300 concubines (1 Kings 11:1-6).
Rehoboam had eighteen wives and sixty concubines (2 Chronicles 11:21), and sought many wives for his sons (1 Chronicles 11:23).
Abijah had fourteen wives (2 Chronicles 13:21).
Ahab had more than one wife (1 Kings 20:7).
Jehoram had multiple wives (2 Chronicles 21:17).
Jehoiada, the priest, gave king Joash two wives (2 Chronicles 24:1-3).
Jehoiachin had more than one wife (2 Kings 24:15).

Well, you get the point. So we have to be honest: polygamy, at least among wealthy and powerful men, was practiced and its practice brought little obvious condemnation from God or His prophets.

But the silence of God does not connote approval, and not everything related in the Bible is told by way of approval. For example, it would seem that God permitted divorce because of the hard hearts of the people (cf Matt 19:8). But to reluctantly permit, as God does, is not to command or to be pleased. Jesus would later withdraw divorce and remarriage from the range of tolerated behaviors. And polygamy seems to have largely abated by the time of Jesus.

And, as we have noted, God teaches in more than one way in the Scriptures. For the fact is, polygamy, whenever prominently dealt with (i.e., mentioned more than merely in passing), always spelled “trouble” with a capital “T”.

Consider some of the following internecine conflicts and tragedies.

Jacob had four wives, whom he clearly loved unequally: Leah (with whom he felt “stuck” and whom he considered unattractive), Rachel (his first love), Bilnah (Rachel’s maid), and Zilpah (Leah’s maid). Leah bore him six sons and a daughter (Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, Zebulan, and Dinah). Rachel was stubbornly infertile but finally bore him Joseph and Benjamin. Bilnah bore him Naphtali and Dan, and Zilpah bore him Gad and Asher.

Now all these sons by different mothers created tension. But the greatest tension surrounded Joseph, of whom his brothers grew jealous. His father Jacob favored him because he was Rachel’s son. This led to a plot by the other brothers to kill him, but Joseph ended up being sold into slavery to the Ishmaelites. At the heart of this bitter conflict was a polygamous mess. The unspoken but clear teaching is, “Don’t do polygamy.”

Gideon had many wives (Jud 8:30) and by them many sons. Scripture tells a story of terrible violence and death that results from these many sons by different mothers, all competing for kingship and heritage.

Now Gideon had seventy sons, his direct descendants, for he had many wives. His concubine who lived in Shechem also bore him a son, whom he named Abimelech. At a good old age Gideon, son of Joash, died and was buried in the tomb of his father Joash in Ophrah of the Abiezrites. Abimelech, son of Jerubbaal (i.e., Gideon), went to his mother’s kinsmen in Shechem, and said to them and to the whole clan to which his mother’s family belonged, “Put this question to all the citizens of Shechem: ‘Which is better for you: that seventy men, or all Jerubbaal’s sons, rule over you, or that one man rule over you?’ You must remember that I am your own flesh and bone.” When his mother’s kin repeated these words to them on his behalf, all the citizens of Shechem sympathized with Abimelech, thinking, “He is our kinsman.” They also gave him seventy silver shekels from the temple of Baal of Berith, with which Abimelech hired shiftless men and ruffians as his followers. He then went to his ancestral house in Ophrah, and slew his brothers, the seventy sons of Jerubbaal (Gideon), on one stone. Only the youngest son of Jerubbaal, Jotham, escaped, for he was hidden (Judges 9:1-5).

At the heart of this murderous and internecine conflict was polygamy. These were brothers who competed for kingship, power, and inheritance; brothers who had little love for one another since they were of different mothers. Abimelech’s loyalty was not to his brothers, but to his mother and her clan. Thus he slaughtered his brothers to win power.

Among other lessons in this terrible tale is the lesson of chaos and hatred caused by polygamy. It’s as if to say, “Don’t do polygamy.”

King David had at least eight wives (Michal, Abigail, Ahinoam, Eglah, Maacah, Abital, Haggith, and Bathsheba) and ten concubines. Trouble erupts in this “blended” (to say the least) family when Absalom (the third son of David), whose mother was Maacah, sought to overcome the line of succession and gain it for himself. When his older brother Chileab died, only his half-brother Amnon stood in the way. The tensions between these royal sons of different mothers grew very hostile. Amnon raped Absalom’s sister Tamar, and Absalom later had Amnon murdered for it (cf 2 Sam 13).

Absalom fled and nourished hostility for his father David. Eventually he sought to overthrow his father’s power by waging a rebellious war against him. Absalom is killed in the ensuing war and David can barely forgive himself for his own role in the matter (2 Sam 18:33).

But the family intrigue isn’t over. Solomon would eventually become king, but only through the intrigues of his mother, Bathsheba, David’s last wife. As David lay dying, his oldest son Adonijah (son of David’s wife Haggith), the expected heir (1 Kings 2:15), was acclaimed king in a formal ceremony. But Bathsheba conspired with Nathan the Prophet and deceived David into thinking that Adonijah was mounting a rebellion. She also reminded David of a secret promise he had once made to her that Solomon, her son, would be king. David then intervened and sent word that Solomon would be king. Adonijah fled, returning only after assurances of his safety by Solomon. Yet despite those assurances Adonijah was later killed by Solomon.

Here, too, are the complications of a messed up family situation. Sons of different mothers hating each other, wives playing for favorite, securing secret promises, and conspiring behind the scenes. At the heart of many of the problems was polygamy. Once again the implicit teaching is, “Don’t do polygamy.”

Solomon, it is said, had 1000 wives (700 wives and 300 concubines). Again, nothing but trouble came from this. Scripture says,

King Solomon, however, loved many foreign women. … He had seven hundred wives of royal birth and three hundred concubines, and his wives led him astray. As Solomon grew old, his wives turned his heart after other gods, and his heart was not fully devoted to the Lord his God, as the heart of David his father had been. He followed Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, and Molech the detestable god of the Ammonites. So Solomon did evil in the eyes of the Lord (1 Kings 11:1-6).

The tolerance of pagan religious practices encouraged by these wives, along with other policies, led to great hostility and division in the kingdom. Finally, after Solomon’s death, the northern kingdom of Israel seceded from Judah. There was never a reunion and both kingdoms were eventually destroyed by surrounding nations.

Lurking in the mix of this mess is polygamy. Once again, the lesson is, “Don’t do polygamy.”

Abraham’s dalliance with his wife’s maid Hagar, while not strictly polygamy (more adultery, really), also leads to serious trouble. Hagar bore Ishmael at the behest of Abraham’s wife, Sarah. But Sarah grew cold and jealous of Hagar and Hagar fled (Gen 16). She eventually returned and gave birth to Ishmael. Later, when Sarah finally bore Isaac, Sarah concluded that Ishmael was a threat and had to go. She had Abraham drive Hagar away (Gen 21).

Ishmael went on to become the patriarch of what we largely call the Arab nations. Isaac’s line would be the Jewish people. And the rest, as they say, is history.

Polygamy, once again, lurking behind a whole host of problems. Don’t do polygamy.

So the Bible does teach on polygamy and, through stories, teaches us of its problematic nature. We ought not to be overly simplistic when interpreting these stories, as if to say that polygamy was the only problem, or that these things never happen outside polygamous settings. But polygamy clearly played a strong role in these terrible stories.

It would seem that in the Old Testament God tolerated polygamy, as he tolerated divorce, but nowhere did He approve of it.

In Matthew 19, Jesus signals a return to God’s original plan and hence prohibits divorce. For he says, Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, unless the marriage is unlawful, and marries another woman commits adultery” (Matt 19:8-9). He also says, Have you not read, that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate (Matt 19:4-6).

Back to Plan A – So, whatever one may argue with regard to the Old Testament’s approach to marriage, Jesus makes it clear that we are going back to Plan A: one man and one woman in a stable, fruitful relationship of mutual support.

And thus the Scriptures do teach against polygamy. Even if it was tolerated, God taught them through bitter experience, “Don’t do polygamy.” It is trouble with a capital ‘T.’

While the first video accurately but lightly depicts the polygamy of Jacob, the next two videos recall the problems it engendered.

July 12, 2015July 15, 2015

How Do You Dress for Church? Some Helpful Encouragement from a New Video

I have written at length before on the issues of modesty and how we dress for Mass:

Rather than repost all that commentary here, I would like to focus on a new video (thanks to Brandon Vogt and the other producers) that invites us to be more considerate about how we dress for Holy Mass. The video is quite balanced and presents a range of views. One man wears a tie, the other does not; one woman wears a dress, the other, slacks. The point is not to specify in minute detail what is to be worn, but rather to reinstill a devotion that influences our clothing and demeanor at Mass within a range that is culturally recognizable as appropriate for the occasion.

As a “range” this will vary a bit based on age, season, climate, personal issues, and the like. But a range, while admitting variability still has limits beyond which we ought not to go. Consider of a road with several lanes; it also has shoulders and a guardrail. And while one may travel in any of the different lanes (styles), the shoulders should ordinarily be avoided (except for urgent reasons). The guardrail represents a final limit which, if transgressed, indicates that one has gone beyond safety and prudence.

Here are a few random observations about the range of clothing decisions for Holy Mass and what might affect and influence that range.

Church norms and rules – There are no official, specific Church norms or requirements for lay persons who attend Mass mentioned in Canon Law or the Sacramentary. Surely for priests and other clergy there are many rules and norms, but I am unaware of any currently binding norms for the laity. Although veils were once required for women (in the 1917 Code of Canon Law), the current code is silent on the matter.
Hence it seems that the culture supplies most of the norms. A factor to be considered is that in the West, the culture has become secular and does not therefore supply a proper sense of the sacred. Therefore Catholics ought not to simply consider cultural norms in assessing proper attire for Holy Mass.
For, indeed, in American culture we almost never dress up for anything anymore. Casual is an almost ubiquitous norm. Most of us who are older than fifty remember a time when this was not so. Prior to 1968 (when the culturkampf really exploded) one would almost never think of going into a restaurant in shorts or a T-shirt. Trousers with a belt, and a button-down shirt with a collar were the expected norm. This norm prevailed in most other public places as well. Shorts and T-shirts were fine for the backyard, but not out in public. Today such norms are long-gone and casual attire prevails almost everywhere. Jeans and T-shirts, once considered rather sloppy except for those engaged in physical labor, and are now considered fashionable.
So the cultural norms have changed. Some of us who are older or more conservative lament this. But some room has to be made for the general consideration of things like fashion and for the fact that people have different opinions about what is acceptable.
But remember, saying that there is a range does not mean that there are no limits. There is some right and duty to insist on limits and to indicate offense when necessary. The culture, even if it has gone casual, does not alone supply a proper sense of dress for Holy Mass, since the culture has become secular.
Sadly, even among many Catholics, attitudes about Holy Mass have changed, too, arguably for the worse. Poor catechism, bad liturgical practices, secularism, other cultural trends, and even architecture have all lessened the reverence many Catholics have for Holy Mass. Many do not consider that they go to meet and worship God. Communal dimensions, not bad in themselves, prevail; they are out-of-balance and eclipse the presence of God and the orientation that Holy Mass should have toward God. We aren’t just “going to Church,” we are going to encounter God and worship Him. But this is simply not the emphasis in most people’s minds and it affects the way they dress.
God cares how we dress. One of the replies that sometimes comes back in discussions about proper attire is that “God doesn’t care how I dress.” One ought to avoid saying that God doesn’t care about things, especially when His revealed word indicates otherwise. There are actually a number of places where God indicates in His Word that He does care about such stuff. There is the general directive to Adore the Lord in holy attire (Psalm 96:9; Ps 29:2). Moses was told to remove his shoes for he stood on holy ground. There are directives for the Passover meal that one should have staff in hand, with loins girt, and sandals on his feet (Ex 12:11). St. Paul speaks to norms of his day regarding decorum and orderliness in worship, that women cover their heads in prayer, etc. (cf 1 Cor 11 – 14). Granted, these norms spoke to the culture of that time and admit of interpretation. But it is wrong to say categorically that “God doesn’t care how I dress.” God does care, because, as we all intrinsically know, the way we dress says a lot about how we regard something and affects how we behave. Even in our more casual times, people know the value of dressing well for a job interview, or for important events such as a prom, a wedding, or a State dinner. Clothing both signifies and affects our attitudes. To this extent God does care, because he looks to our heart and its condition. And we, too, should care, by observing a proper range of clothing choices for something as significant as Holy Mass, wherein we go to worship the God of the Universe and take part in the Wedding Feast of the Lamb. Holy attire is fitting for holy things, holy rituals, and holy people.
Climate – Another common reply is that it is “hot.” Yet here in America, I can hardly avoid chuckling at that response. For the most part, people leave their air-conditioned homes, get into their air-conditioned cars, and walk into air-conditioned churches. It may be hot outside, but most people spend little time in any sort of heat. It is also fascinating to me that our most recent ancestors, who had no air-conditioning at all, usually dressed and wore a lot more clothing than we do. I suspect one thing that helped them was that they wore more natural fibers such as cotton and linen. So this retort seems more rooted in a “comfort culture” that has made us soft and out-of-touch with the real weather outside. However, as noted above, climate and weather are factors in the range of clothing that is acceptable. Back in the “old days,” before the revolution, during the hot summer we would usually wear “only” a shirt and tie to Mass. It was mainly in the cooler months that a suit jacket was worn.
Getting smarter about clothes? People often ask me, as a priest, how I tolerate the hot summers in Washington. I generally find that loose-fitting clothing is actually better than less clothing. My summer cassock (which has no liner) is a better option around the parish because it breathes more and shades my skin from the hot sun. Linen albs are best in hot weather since modern polyesters don’t breathe well. I am least comfortable in the black business suit I am often asked to wear. I shop for suit jackets without liners, but they are hard to find.
The common good – In going to Mass, we do not simply dress to “suit” ourselves. We ought to have the common good in mind as well. Demonstrating the sacredness of Holy Mass is helpful to us and to others as well. Being careful not to dress in ways that distract others (by immodesty other such things) is important. The way we dress can be a teachable moment for others.
Charity – Discussions about attire can easily descend into a lack of proper charity. We have to accept that there are going to be differences of opinion and, as I have said all along, there is a range of what is appropriate. The main hope is to scope out a sensible range, allow reasonable diversity within that range, and seek to correct extremes. Simply scoffing at others from either side (too casual or too formal) creates more heat than light. The main point is to consider what Holy Mass is, and to dress accordingly within an acceptable range, out of faith and charity.

What to wear, what not to wear?

Hence at the risk of seeming old and stuffy I’d like to suggest a few norms for attire at Holy Mass. I hope you’ll supply your own as well.

Men should wear formal shoes. We used to call these hard shoes (because they were) but today many formal shoes are actually quite comfortable. Sandals (not flip-flops) can be acceptable.
Men should wear trousers (not jeans).
Men should not wear shorts.
Men should wear a decent shirt, preferably a button-down one. If it is a pullover shirt it should include a collar. Wearing a plain T-shirt without a collar seems too informal. No sleeveless shirts or tank tops should be worn.
Men should consider wearing a tie, and in cooler weather, a suit coat. Some may consider this a bit too stuffy and formal, but who knows, you might be a trend setter!
Now as I talk about women I know I’ll get in some trouble!
Women should wear decent shoes. Flip-flops and beach sandals seem inappropriate. Some forms of sandals are more dressy and can be acceptable
Women, like men, should not wear shorts.
Women, like men, should not wear jeans, and though there is such a thing as fashionable jeans, they are seldom a good match to the Sacred Liturgy. Some nice and modest slacks can be fine.
Women should consider wearing a dress or at least a skirt in preference to pants. It just looks a bit more formal than pants in most cases.
Women should wear a nice blouse or shirt (if not wearing a dress). The blouse or shirt should not be too tight.
Women should not wear tank tops, tube tops, spaghetti straps, or have a bare midriff.
For both men and women, T-shirts with loud and obnoxious slogans or secular messages are inappropriate, as are sports jerseys and other sports paraphernalia.

Well, have at this list; add or subtract as you will; the discussion is open. But please, try to remain charitable; we all have opinions. Someone who doesn’t share your exact view isn’t necessarily a bad person. There is a range of acceptable options. Don’t attack the blogger (me) or your fellow commenters. Stick to the issue and comment on that.

If possible, please watch the video before commenting.

I have avoided speaking directly to modesty in this post. That, too, admits of a range and often leads to debates about men and women that I’d like to avoid here. Let’s focus on a sense of the sacred in attire, a theme that includes modesty but is wider than just modesty.

Here’s the video: