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

moses-0715We 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.

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

light in darknessOne 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 … (13th 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:

  1. 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).
  2. 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).
  3. 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).
  4. 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).
  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).
  6. As soon as Judas had taken the bread, he went out. And it was night (John 13:30).
  7. 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 … (15th 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 … (21st 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.

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

the Word of God

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:

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

  1. 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.”

  1. 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.”

  1. 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.”

  1. 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.”

  1. 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.

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

0713blogI 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.

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.

  1. 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.
  2. Men should wear trousers (not jeans).
  3. Men should not wear shorts.
  4. 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.
  5. 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!
  6. Now as I talk about women I know I’ll get in some trouble!
  7. Women should wear decent shoes. Flip-flops and beach sandals seem inappropriate. Some forms of sandals are more dressy and can be acceptable
  8. Women, like men, should not wear shorts.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. Women should wear a nice blouse or shirt (if not wearing a dress). The blouse or shirt should not be too tight.
  12. Women should not wear tank tops, tube tops, spaghetti straps, or have a bare midriff.
  13. 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:

Five Fundamental Freedoms for the Christian Evangelizer

UntitledOne of the great obstacles to effectively evangelizing is that most Christians lack the requisite freedom and simplicity of life to carry forth the task consistently and coherently. In today’s gospel, the Lord offers some counsel on what is required to evangelize effectively.

As we read a gospel like this, it is tempting to think that it speaks only of specialists such as missionaries, religious, priests, or deacons. But such a presumption forgets that everyone is called to evangelize: clergy to people, parents to children, elders to youngsters, siblings to siblings, friends to friends, neighbors to neighbors.

Thus this gospel is for all of us, and it summons us to a greater freedom that will equip, empower, and enable us to evangelize more effectively. Let’s look at the Lord’s counsels.

I. The Freedom of SUMMONS – The text says Jesus summoned the Twelve and began to send them out two by two and gave them authority over unclean spirits.

It may not be immediately obvious how a summons is freeing, but consider that, to the extent that we know we are called to do something by someone in authority, we are often more courageous and diligent in doing it, even if it is hard. A commanding officer may have to ask his troops to engage in a difficult battle, but because he knows that his own commanders have ordered it and that it is part of a wider strategy, he tries to rally his troops. He speaks not only with his own authority but that of others, and thus he is courageous and his words have weight. And even if his troops protest or seem unenthusiastic, he remains strong because he knows his duty and that he is doing what is right.

Yes, being under a summons is freeing and empowering. And so for us, if we know that the Lord has summoned us and sent us to evangelize (and he surely has (cf Matt 28:19)) we can go forth with courage to rally God’s people and summon them to the Lord’s team. And even when people react poorly we need not be discouraged, for we know we are under the orders of God Himself and that what we speak is right.

As a priest, I am often called upon to speak on topics that some do not want to hear. And yet, to the degree that I know I have called to speak it, I do so with courage, knowing that when the Lord and His Church bid me to address something, I speak not only with my own authority but with that of God. Some may grumble that they don’t want to hear me talk about money, abortion, religious liberty, or homosexual or heterosexual sin. Yet to the degree that I know I AM called to speak on these things, I still do so and do so with courage. Yes, I am summoned. I am compelled to preach. Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel! … for God has given me this sacred trust (1 Cor 9:17).

Do you know that you have been summoned? Have you experienced this call? Do you see it as a mandate, as something you have been summoned to do? Priests and deacons need to recognize our call to preach the Word of God unambiguously. We are under orders from the Lord. As Scripture says, In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, I give you this charge: Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage–with great patience and careful instruction (2 Tim 4:1-2). But honestly, can any of you who are parents and grandparents not see that you are called to the same for your children? And who of us here can say that any but perhaps the youngest are exempt from the summons to preach, to declare the Word of God?

Knowing and experiencing that you have been summoned is freeing! 

II. The Freedom of SIMPLICITY – The text says, He instructed them to take nothing for the journey but a walking stick— no food, no sack, no money in their belts. They were, however, to wear sandals but not a second tunic.

One the most fundamental reasons that people do not evangelize is that we have way too much baggage. What kind of baggage? Consider that our lives are

  1. CLUTTERED – We have too much stuff. And stuff needs attention, maintenance, and money; it takes up space and ties us down. We also have the baggage and clutter of too many commitments. We’re overscheduled and overbooked. We have many wrongful priorities such that we spend too much time worrying about things that don’t matter all that much in the end. And what does matter gets put on hold. Reading Bible stories to your kids? No time for that; we’ve got to get to soccer practice!  Yes, our lives are cluttered with the excess baggage of too many distractions. And what is a “dis-traction?” It is something that gets you off track and makes you lose traction in what really matters.
  2. COMPLEX – Most of our lives are so cluttered and choked with excess baggage we don’t even know where to begin to simply it. We don’t know how to break the cycle, how to say no. So we end up carrying all this stuff and are quite enslaved to its demands.
  3. COMPROMISED – All this extra baggage weighs us down and entangles us with the world. Thus, our values are not the values of the gospel. Instead, we are tied down to the world, loyal to it, and invested in its thinking and its ways.

We need to be free to preach the Gospel and to evangelize. So the Lord says, simplify! Too much obsession with money, food, clothes, boxes of stuff, popularity, and fitting in will hinder you.

Think of a runner in a race. He does one thing only and carries nothing extra that would weigh him down. Travelers, too, do not take their whole house with them, only what is necessary. And, in terms of this world, we are just traveling through.

Most of us just have too much stuff. Because of this, we are tied to this world and lack the kind of freedom necessary to witness prophetically to what is beyond this passing world. Ask the Lord to help you gently but persistently simplify your life so that it increasingly becomes about the one thing necessary.

III. The Freedom of STABILITY – The text says, He said to them, “Wherever you enter a house, stay there until you leave.”

Stability is the freedom to accept what is and to work with it rather than to be constantly looking for something better. It is the freedom to bloom where you are planted, and to use what God actually gives rather waiting for something better.

There’s a real freedom to staying put and developing the deeper relationships that are usually necessary for evangelization to be effective and lasting.

One of the bigger problems with handing on the faith today is that there is very little stability in families, communities, and parishes. When things and people are passing and ephemeral, how can values rooted in lasting things be inculcated?

Preaching the gospel often depends on well-founded relationships, patience, perseverance, and taking the long view of life. Running here and there and living life only on the surface will not cut it. Shallow soil does not sustain taller growth. Only deep roots can do that.

Ask for the freedom to stay put and to be less anxious about the possibility that there may be a better job, a better community, a better deal out there somewhere. There is value in being grateful for what you have and working with that, in setting down deep roots and lasting relationships. This is the deeper and richer soil in which evangelization can happen.

IV. The Freedom of SURETY – The text says, Whatever place does not welcome you or listen to you, leave there and shake the dust off your feet in testimony against them.

Here is one of the greatest freedoms of all: the gift to be free of our obsession with being liked, approved of, and popular. Too often we are overly concerned with being popular. We care too much about what others think of us, at the expense of the truth of the gospel.

In effect, Jesus implies here that rejection will surely happen and when it does, shake it off, let it pass over you. Speak the truth and don’t worry about rejection, expect it! This is a very great freedom.

Too many parents are desperate to have their children like and accept them. They avoid discipline and difficult teachings. It is necessary to be free of this “need.” The Lord can give that to you.

We are not speaking here of becoming sociopaths, caring not one whit what others think. This is not an invitation to be impolite, or to fail to groom ourselves and be presentable. Rather, it is an invitation to be free of our obsession with popularity so that we can shake off the rejection of the gospel that we will inevitably experience. And again, the Lord can give that to us.

V. The Freedom of SUBSTANCE – The text says, So they went off and preached repentance. The Twelve drove out many demons, and they anointed with oil many who were sick and cured them.

There is freedom in knowing what to say and what to do. And this freedom flows from the SUBSTANCE. For we do not preach ourselves, but Christ Crucified. This is freeing, for we cannot be compelled to change or adapt the message that has already been set for us. There is a freedom in sticking to the message proclaimed once and for all. The world demands compromise, that certain passages of Scripture be modified. But we, who in no way can do this, are free of such compulsion.

Only those who are enslaved to the times and the mentality of this world can be so compelled. But to the degree that we know we are summoned, sent, and given the substance of what to preach, we are free to announce, and free from coercion to compromise.

And substance was “repentance.” As we have noted before, the Greek word μετανοῶσιν (metanoosin) means more than simply to clean up one’s behavior. It means “to come to a new mind,” or “to change one’s thinking.” Hence the evangelizer seeks to appeal to the whole person. It is not only a person’s behavior that is important; it is also how he thinks and what is taking place in the deepest part of his soul.

The Lord seeks to heal the whole person from the inside out. Thus the Apostles and those of us free enough to be true evangelizers are not seeking merely to inform but to transform.

And note how the text describes them as driving out demons and curing the sick. Is this merely some exotic ability of the early Apostles? No. We, too, by this proclamation, drive out the demons of sadness, meaninglessness, ignorance, misplaced priorities, atheism, agnosticism, worldliness, materialism, and so forth. We also bring healing and peace for those accept the power of the Word of God into their lives. These healings are very real. I know them in my own life and have seen them in the lives of others.

Are you free enough to evangelize, to preach the gospel, and to bring healing and peace to others? Are you free enough to be a means of God’s transformative Word?

An Image of Dying and Rising in a Touching Cartoon

"HONDA ASIMO".  Licensed under  CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons
“HONDA ASIMO”. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons

One of the greatest paradoxes told to us in the Scriptures is that if we would save our life, we must lose it in Christ (Luke 9:24). That is, we must die to this world to inherit eternal life. “Eternal” does not simply refer to the length of the afterlife, but to its fullness as well. To inherit eternal life is to become fully alive.

This idea that we must die to ourselves to go up to something higher is evident throughout nature. Minerals and other aspects of the soil are taken up into plants by being leached out of the soil. But in so doing, they “come to life” in the plant and are no longer simply inert minerals. Plants, too, must die and be taken up into the animal that eats them. But in so doing, they become part of sentient life. And animals, too, must die and be taken up into the human person. But in so doing they go up higher, joined to the life of a person with a soul, one who ponders meaning, studies the stars, writes poetry, and knows God. And man, too, must die to himself, die to this world, in order to be swept up in the life of the Trinity in the glory of Heaven. In every stage, we die to something lower in order that we may go to something higher.

The video above presents a very moving story, one which requires us to suspend some notions of reality. Obviously, robots do not have consciousness and feelings—but this one does. The robot is sent to the home of an older woman in order to take care of her.

When the robot is first taken out of the box and turned on, he behaves just like a robot, going through chores mechanically. But in his association with the woman, he begins to go up higher. Dying to himself and serving this woman puts him in association with her. This relationship begins to give him almost human traits: love and loyalty, joy and sorrow, and even desire. We see the first change in him as he admires a sunset, in imitation of his mistress. The lesson here is that we learn what it means to be more fully human from one another and by gazing into the light of God’s glory.

It seems that the circus is coming to town. And oh, how the robot wants to go! The tickets are purchased and the anticipation builds.

But one thing we notice in the story is that this robot lives on battery power. And no matter how good battery power is, it can only last for so long before it lets you down.

The day of the circus arrives, and oh, the joy that awaits! But alas, his mistress dies that very day. Misunderstanding the higher life he has been serving, the robot tries to revive her by putting batteries in her pockets. But no amount of battery power can help, for the power of this world is powerless over death. Upon her death the robot sits gazing at the sunset, remembering a time when he first began to experience life.

We who view the story know that the robot cannot last for long, because his batteries, which symbolizes the things of this world, are sure to fail. Sure enough, five days later, his lights go out, and his eyes close in a kind of death.

But in dying, we are born to eternal life. And suddenly his eyes open, and he is in a world brighter than he has ever known. And there she is, his mistress, the one he served. She has come to walk with him to the circus, a circus far more glorious than he could ever have imagined. In dying to his battery life, he has gone to real and eternal life.

But Father, but Father, robots don’t have life! I know, it’s just a story. But like many stories, it’s really about you and me. For now, we are like servants, depending on battery life. We learn what it means to be more fully human from one another, and by gazing at the light of God’s glory. But to become fully alive requires that one day our battery finally die. And then a new and more glorious life awaits us, if we faithfully serve in the house of mother Church, in the house of God’s kingdom. In losing our life for the Lord and His kingdom, we gain it back more richly. From battery life to real life.

Patriarchs Are People Too – A Reflection on the Fact That the Bible Speaks Frankly About the Faults of Our Heroes

PatriarchOver the years, I have written a number of articles on the men of the Bible: many of the patriarchs of the Old Testament such as Abraham, Moses, David, Eli, and most recently, Lot and Jacob. Likewise, I’ve written on Peter and Paul, and on John the Baptist.

I find the biblical portraits of these men (and also many women as well) fascinating and often brutally honest. The Scriptures seldom feature biblical heroes without flaws. Even if these epic figures eventually got their halos on straight, it certainly wasn’t that way from the start. With the possible exception of Joseph the patriarch, these men often struggled mightily to hear, comprehend, and heed the voice of God. And God often needed to purify them greatly for the tasks that He had for them.

And when I write of the struggles and imperfections of these biblical figures, I find that some of my readers take offense at my often frank discussion of their shortcomings. There is an old Latin expression Offensiva pii aurium, which means “offensive to pious ears.”

To illustrate, some years ago I wrote an article that described Solomon’s fall from grace. He who had begun in great wisdom declined to such an extent that he had over a thousand wives when he died, and his policy of increased taxes (multiplying gold) and a large military draft (multiplying horses) so oppressed his people that during the reign of his son, the Kingdom divided in two. Scripture said of him,

Now King Solomon loved many foreign women, along with the daughter of Pharaoh: Moabite, Ammonite, Edomite, Sidonian, and Hittite women, from the nations concerning which the Lord had said to the people of Israel, “You shall not enter into marriage with them, neither shall they with you, for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods.” Solomon clung to these in love. He had 700 wives, who were princesses, and 300 concubines. And his wives turned away his heart. For when Solomon was old his wives turned away his heart after other gods, and his heart was not wholly true to the Lord his God, as was the heart of David his father. For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, and after Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites. So Solomon did what was evil in the sight of the Lord and did not wholly follow the Lord, as David his father had done. Then Solomon built a high place for Chemosh the abomination of Moab, and for Molech the abomination of the Ammonites, on the mountain east of Jerusalem. And so he did for all his foreign wives, who made offerings and sacrificed to their gods. And the Lord was angry with Solomon (1 Kings 11:1-9).

Despite some pretty basic facts and Scriptures attesting to Solomon’s errors, some objected when I wrote of Solomon’s failings, saying that the Orthodox refer to him as “Saint Solomon” and posting icons in the comment section. Others took offense when I suggested that Solomon died less holy and wise than he began.

More recently, some readers bristled when I suggested that Lot suffered from sloth, and that his pitching of his tent toward Sodom was problematic and indicative of sinful attraction. The Bible says, “Flee fornication” (1 Cor 6:18) not “pitch your tent toward it.”

Some would prefer to interpret the meaning of the texts differently or at least to place a different emphasis. But Lot, who I would argue was not even one of the patriarchs, certainly lived a life filled with ambiguities deserving of scrutiny, and in his story is an admonition for us.

But despite objections that I should not besmirch the patriarchs by recalling their pasts, let me be clear that I mean no offense, either to the biblical figures or to readers. I do take the stories at face value, and I think that they are told in all their gory detail so that we can learn and understand that the patriarchs (and matriarchs, too) found their way to God often through great struggle and sin. Yet through it all, God did not give up on them, but rather kept calling, purifying, preparing, and finally perfecting them. Perhaps, then, there is hope for us!

The honest truth about the patriarchs is that they didn’t “have it all together” from the start. Abraham did heed God’s call to go to the Holy Land, but then he went to Egypt when famine struck, thinking that God could not take care of him. He ran to Pharaoh and put his wife into Pharaoh’s harem! He strayed with Hagar and even laughed at God’s promises on one occasion. Eventually Abraham came to the strong faith that we praise him for, being willing to offer his son Isaac back to God.

Moses committed murder and needed forty years of purification in the desert before God could use him. David both murdered and committed adultery. These were men who struggled. They were not perfect and were often capital sinners. But God still loved them and worked with them.

In this sense, these are beautiful stories. It is exciting and thrilling for us to see how God will not be overcome, and can write straight with crooked lines (even though He shouldn’t have to).

Here then, dear reader, is my apologia for my depiction of the patriarchs. Soon enough I will enter into an even worse fray, where political correctness is even more demanded: I will begin to feature the women of the Bible! Sorry y’all, but they weren’t perfect either. But here, too, is hope for us all. God does not call the qualified; He qualifies the called. He does not summon the perfected; He perfects the summoned.

It’s fine if you wish to disagree with my understanding of the text. But don’t presume impiety when the biblical text itself supplies a sordid past. And always remember, a saint is just a sinner who fell but got back up again. A saint is someone who stayed in the conversation.

Onward with the frank discussion of biblical figures, some of whom are now saints, but not from day one to be sure!

Join the Movement – Help Us Oppose Physician-Assisted Suicide

No DC Suicide

No DC SuicideHere in Washington D.C., the City Council has before it a bill modeled after Oregon’s physician-assisted suicide law. Listed as the “Death with Dignity Act of 2015,” a public hearing will take place this Friday, July 10th at 11:00 AM in the District building.

Experience thus far with legalized assisted suicide should alarm anyone who looks seriously into how it has played out. The “safeguards” of the Oregon law, so highly praised by its supporters, seem to be mere window dressings than actual safeguards. In Oregon, people are getting lethal drugs who live much longer than six months, and with the only data coming from the doctors who prescribe the lethal dose and no governing body charged with investigative oversight, the information coming from Oregon is suspect at best. The 2014 Oregon Assisted Suicide Report indicates a dramatic 44% increase in assisted suicide. It also indicates that only three of the dead had received a psychiatric evaluation.

Thankfully, a rather significant coalition of disabilities advocates, medical professionals, pro-life organizations and faith communities opposes this so-called “right-to-die” legislation. The American Medical Association (AMA) also opposes it, stating, “Physician-assisted suicide is fundamentally incompatible with the physician’s role as healer, would be difficult or impossible to control, and would pose serious societal risks.”

Why should we as Catholics oppose assisted suicide  legislation?  There are many reasons. Some of them are informed by our faith, others are more rooted in natural law or reason, while others flow from the consequences that will ultimately result from legalizing this form of suicide.

Let’s consider first what the Catechism teaches about assisted suicide, or euthanasia:

Those whose lives are diminished or weakened deserve special respect. Sick or handicapped persons should be helped to lead lives as normal as possible. Whatever its motives and means, direct euthanasia [or assisted suicide] consists in putting an end to the lives of handicapped, sick, or dying persons. It is morally unacceptable. Thus an act or omission which, of itself or by intention, causes death in order to eliminate suffering constitutes a murder gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person and to the respect due to the living God, his Creator. The error of judgment into which one can fall in good faith does not change the nature of this murderous act, which must always be forbidden and excluded.

Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal of “over-zealous” treatment. Here one does not will to cause death; one’s inability to impede it is merely accepted. The decisions should be made by the patient if he is competent and able or, if not, by those legally entitled to act for the patient, whose reasonable will and legitimate interests must always be respected.

Even if death is thought imminent, the ordinary care owed to a sick person cannot be legitimately interrupted (CCC 2277-2279).

Thus the Catechism defines euthanasia as the intentional killing of a patient, usually by direct means such as injection with deadly drugs, and sometimes indirectly by refusing to provide food and/or water. Assisted suicide includes similar means (lethal prescription, etc.) and shares the same end as euthanasia (an act intending to cause death to eliminate suffering); the distinction lies in who initiates the act – self or other. This distinction can often become blurred when one looks at the rising incidences of elder abuse, coercion and isolation experienced by many of our seniors, whether dealing with illness or not.

One cannot emphasize enough that allowing a person to die by refusing or withdrawing burdensome treatments, or by not providing machines such as ventilators that are unlikely to be therapeutic, does not qualify as assisted suicide. Church teaching does not require that one pursue every treatment possible. The patient must discern carefully with information supplied by his medical team along with an assessment of his personal resources – spiritual, psychological, emotional, familial and financial – whether or not a particular treatment is excessively burdensome. However, even for an imminently dying person, basic care (which usually includes nutrition and hydration, even if administered through a tube) must be provided.

Pain management for those with terminal illnesses, degenerative diseases, and the dying is allowed and encouraged, even if the pain medicine has the unintended side effect of shortening life. Arguments that dying is too painful and therefore a patient should be euthanized are not valid, since it is very rare today that pain cannot be managed reasonably through the advancements of the growing specialty of palliative care.

Let’s consider some other reasons, both religious and natural, that we should oppose assisted suicide. I’ll begin with the natural reasons that should concern us all, including those of different or no faith tradition. Then I’ll move to the religious reasons that should influence us who believe.

  1. Legalized assisted suicide grants, by government decree, certain citizens, i.e. medical professionals, death-dealing authority; this in turn results in irreparable damage to the doctor-patient relationship. Introducing death as a medical treatment option that can be offered by health care professionals transforms a trusted profession that has been solely dedicated to healing for millennia. It is because of this dedication to healing that doctors have enjoyed such respect and trust from their patients and society as a whole. The idea that government can give death-dealing power to certain individuals means that they can also enforce and regulate it. With an already broken healthcare system plagued with a spending problem, it is not difficult to imagine that assisted suicide will be an easy “fix” to our spending problem and legitimate treatment options will be refused.

    In an attempt to limit who “qualifies” for assisted suicide, the legislation states that an individual must have been given a prognosis of 6 months or less left to live. All doctors who deal with terminal illnesses on a regular basis will tell you that these prognoses are an educated “guess” at best. Upon receiving such a prognosis when a patient is justifiably vulnerable and disoriented, it is dangerous and irresponsible to allow patients to make lethal decisions based upon “a guess.”
  1. Legalized assisted suicide will likely lead to poorer healthcare and increased pressure on the sick, the elderly, the disabled or those who have suffered traumatic injury. Those who advocate for the physically and mentally disabled have good reason to fear that pressure will be applied to euthanize the disabled and those who have been in traumatic accidents. As the concept of “a life not worth living” grows, and the idea gains traction that disability (even milder forms) is a fate worse than death, those who struggle with disability may well be easy targets for those who advise suicide. Others may feel pressured to no longer be a “burden.” Many will have the sense of their dignity being lessened. More can be read here:Disability and Euthanasia – History and Concerns.Granting individuals the right to end their life ultimately threatens us all because it implicitly denies the dignity of the dying. Failing to understand this dignity will lead to poorer care and will increase pressure on the elderly and dying to end their lives prematurely so that they are no longer a burden.
  1. In other words, the “right to die” too easily becomes the “duty to die.” And what begins sociologically through pressure not to be a burden, soon enough becomes economically necessary since insurance benefits may vanish. Neither can eventual legal pressure be excluded. The experience with euthanasia in the Netherlands is sobering. More can be read on that here: Euthanasia Law in the Netherlands.

There are many more reasons to oppose assisted suicide purely on rational grounds. You can find more of these here: www.noDCSuicide.org.  I would like to move on to those reasons that originate from our faith in Jesus Christ.

One of my privileges as a priest is to have accompanied many people on their final journey toward death. I’ve also accompanied their family members. And in making these journeys, I have discovered that some of God’s greatest and most necessary work takes place in and during the process of natural death.

  1. Natural death is an important part of life that should be respected and accepted, not rejectedSome very important things happen for us on our death bed that assist us spiritually, psychologically, and emotionally. And these things happen not only to us, but to our loved ones as well.

    I have seen pride melt away; I have seen powerful contrition for past sins emerge. I have seen gratitude intensify, both in the one who is dying and in the love ones who surround him or her. I have heard beautiful words like, “I love you,” “I am proud of you,” “I will miss you.” I have seen people let go and let God take over. I have seen forgiveness, tenderness, appreciation, and love being shared as never before. There is also the beautiful gift of listening and waiting, along with lessons learned that will never be forgotten.

    I do not say that there is not grief and emotional pain; there is. But that is not all there is; there is beauty and love, too. And these are important and necessary. Perhaps some of the most necessary and profound things take place on our deathbed and at the deathbed of others.

    Supporters of the legalization of assisted suicide might argue that these beautifully human and transformative moments also occur when one takes death into his own hands. I have no doubt that many tearful goodbye’s are shared and some reconciliation among family members occurs as well; but there is a very different quality and transparent authenticity within these moments when one has surrendered his/her life and control over to God.

  1. The dying process helps us to receive the Kingdom of God like a little child, and God says this is necessary for us. As God directs Samuel: Do not look at his appearance or at his physical stature … For the Lord does not see as man sees; for man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart (1 Sam 16:7). Yes, even in the painful sight of once-strong individuals reduced to weakness, there is a kind of strange beauty and we must ask the Lord to give us the “eyes to see” (cf. Mt 13:16). In the nursing homes of this land are people who once ran businesses, raised families, and led communities. Now many have returned to a kind of childhood, even infancy. Some cannot walk, some have to be fed, some can no longer talk, some clutch dolls, and some must wear diapers. All this seems so horrible to many, but important things are happening. These are not conditions that any one of us would willingly choose or wish upon another; however not one of these losses, even the significant loss of intellectual capacity in such diseases as Alzheimer’s, diminishes my worth and dignity. I do not want to minimize the pain that accompanies these losses – and the pain is not limited to the patient alone. Often family members and caregivers undergo significant stress and experience the pain of our Blessed Mother at the foot of the cross.

    Again, something important is happening here.

    Are those in nursing homes really so different from you and me?  Maybe death and dying are the “place” where all worldly status, all privilege, all inequalities are leveled and we simply become who we are. Are we not all little children to God? Does He not have to provide for every one of us in our need? Does He not have to feed us, clothe us, and enable us to speak? Perhaps it is just that with the elderly and dying the illusion of self-sufficiency has been shed. The Lord says, Unless you change and become like little children you will not inherit the kingdom of God (Mat 18:3).

  1. As Catholics, we can never affirm the claim of the world that “My body is my own and I can do with it as I please.For a believer, this is simply not true. Scripture says,You are not your own. For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body (1 Cor 6:19). We are the steward, not the owner, of our body; we belong to God. Rather, as disciples, we seek to imitate Christ as He surrendered to His own impending death and gave us His Body at the Last Supper: This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me (Lk 22:19).

As Christians, we must once again reaffirm our acceptance of the Cross. No one likes the Cross – it is a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles (1 Cor 1:22), but we have been taught by Christ that the Cross is both necessary and saving. And we must insist, at least among our own number, upon the belief expressed by St. Paul: So we do not lose heart. Though our body is wasting away, our inner self is being renewed day by day. For this momentary affliction is producing for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison, as we look not to the things that are seen but to the things that are unseen. For the things that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are eternal (2 Cor 4:16-18).

Think carefully before you support assisted suicide through some sort of limited notion of compassion. The truest compassion is to want for someone what he truly needs in order to be saved. Only God can ultimately say what this is. We do not have dignity because we can control our own lives; we have dignity because our life is in God’s hands. 

States across the country have been rejecting efforts to legalize assisted suicide. Please take a moment to join the groundswell of opposition to this bill.