Community in Mission

Whenever I write on liturgy, I get a lot of comments. Many people obviously care deeply about it.

Yet I also get comments that decry my “preoccupation” with liturgy, saying that it is of minor importance compared to the issues of poverty, abortion, etc. Some on the left will say, “Who cares if the Pope washes certain feet or doesn’t wear a fanon? Get out there and take care of the poor and show compassion. Frankly, your elaborate and expensive liturgies are an insult to the poor.” And perhaps some on the right will say, “Who cares if the Mass is in Latin or English? As long as you’ve got the true presence, why get all worked up about music, altars, and so forth?”

Count me in the camp of those to whom liturgy matters a great deal. A few years ago, there was a saying that summarized this view: “Save the liturgy, save the world.” To those who did not understand, the expression seemed excessive and fussy. But it actually summarizes well an ancient insight, one which Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger beautifully presented in his epic work The Spirit of the Liturgy.

Pope Benedict is currently overseeing the publication of his collected works. Interestingly, he directed that Volume XI (Theology of the Liturgy) be published first. And in the very opening of that volume is the essay from The Spirit of the Liturgy, in which he argues that the liturgy has a saving function for both man and culture.

I’d like to share some of his insights and admonitions here in bold, black italics, along with a few comments of my own in plain red text.

Pope Benedict (as Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger) wrote,

Man becomes glory for God … when he lives by looking toward God. … Law and ethics do not hold together when they are not anchored in the liturgical center and inspired by it. … It is only when man’s relationship with God is right that all his other relationships … can be in good order. Worship, that is, the right kind of cult, of relationship with God is essential for the right kind of existence in the world. It is so precisely because it reaches beyond everyday life. Worship gives us a share in heaven’s mode of existence … and allows light to fall from that divine world to ours [Joseph Ratzinger, Collected Works: Theology of the Liturgy, pp. 7 & 8].

This describes well the fool’s errand of our modern culture, which thinks it can kick God to the curb and stand a chance of surviving. We are engaged in a strange little experiment to see whether we can we have a culture without a shared “cultus.”

Perhaps you noticed the word “cult” within “culture.” In English, cult has taken on a negative meaning, but its original and root meaning is the worship of God or the reverence due to God. Cultures cannot really explain or unite themselves. They must look to something higher and outside themselves in order to exist and hold together. Unless we all look there and substantially agree that God is the source of truth, law, and morality, we simply break down into the tyranny of relativism. It is tyranny because it is not reason or revealed truth that wins the day. Rather, the one who wins the day is the one with the most money or power.

Our little experiment is a failure. We cannot have a culture without a shared cultus.

To be sure, there was always a kind of religious pluralism in America. But in spite of that, there was also always a fundamental agreement on the basics, as articulated in the Judeo-Christian vision. And most Americans agreed that the God of the Bible was to be worshipped and obeyed. Now, that has been swept aside and we have undertaken a fool’s errand that seeks to demonstrate that we can have a culture without a basic and fundamentally shared cultus.

How’s that working out for us? At best, we’re in big trouble. At worst, we’ve become an “anti-culture,” which tears down but has nothing to offer, which smashes the icons of truth but offers nothing but to revel while the city, the culture, and the country burns.

This need not be absolutized to mean that only a theocracy will do. But certain basic agreements about God (that he is due worship and obedience)  and how to worship Him properly are essential for a culture to exist at all.

And thus Pope Benedict rightly reminds us that we cannot have good order without right worship. Yes, save the liturgy, save the world.

And so … Man himself cannot simply “make” worship. … Real liturgy implies that God responds and reveals how we can worship him. [Liturgy] cannot spring from imagination, our own creativity–then it would remain just a cry in the dark or mere self-affirmation. … The liturgy is not a matter of “what you please” [Ibid, p. 11].

Now this is just not the notion that most people have of liturgy today. Too many Catholics think that they have some sort of divine birthright to say what the Mass should be, or that the liturgy should simply bow to every modern notion, convenience, and trend. This is misguided.

God spelled out what he expects rather clearly on Mt. Sinai. And while some of the norms given there were fulfilled in the New Testament (e.g., we don’t kill lambs since Jesus is the Lamb of God), most of the norms laid out on Sinai are still operative and were also seen by St. John in the vision of the heavenly liturgy.

Liturgy is revealed by God; it is not a human invention. Some adaptation to language and culture may be needed, but in terms of the fundamentals, we have no right to tell God how He is to be honored and worshipped.

The worship of God  is the point of the liturgy, before any human goals such as edification or instruction.  Hence words like “relevant,” “meaningful,” and “welcoming,” while not completely without merit, are subordinate to what God has revealed, no matter how we “feel” about it. 

Nowhere is this more dramatically evident than in the narrative of the golden calf. … The people cannot cope with the invisible, remote and mysterious God. They want to bring him down into their own world, into what they can see and understand. Worship is no longer going up to God, but drawing God down … He must be the kind of God that is needed. Man is using God. … Worship becomes a feast that the community gives itself, a festival of self-affirmation. Instead of being the worship of God, it becomes a circle, closed in on itself. The dance around the golden calf … is a kind of banal self-gratification … a warning about any kind of self-initiated, self-seeking worship. Ultimately it is concerned no longer with God but with giving oneself a nice little alternative world, manufactured from one’s own resources … pointless, just fooling around.

This is practically a laundry list of what is wrong and abundantly visible in most Catholic parishes today.

There is little evidence at all of God as mysterious. If anything, God has been “rendered harmless.” Even biblical references to God expecting to be taken seriously as Judge and Lord of All are usually ignored or watered down by homilists and in hymns that are top-heavy with anthropomorphic imagery.

Physically, many of our churches are now circular, or at least fan-shaped. The Eucharistic prayer is conducted facing the people and the image described by Pope Benedict as a “circle, closed in on itself” seems all too apparent. Surely, the Liturgy of the Word is properly directed to the people. But at the moment of supreme worship, all should turn outward and upward to God.

Banal self-gratification is also too much in evidence, with the frequent announcements congratulating the choir, the children, or a visiting dignitary, etc. This behavior seems expected today of the pastor, and for him to refuse to do so is taken as “insensitive.” Hence the premise seems to be that the liturgy is all about us, our needs, our accomplishments, and oh, by the way, God is invited, too.

The nice little world spoken of by the Pope Emeritus is also emblematic of the parish Church as a clubhouse rather than a lighthouse or God’s house.

Here, too, we ought to avoid blanket condemnations of all attempts to include the faithful in the liturgy or to  make accommodations to assist people in reverent worship. Speaking of the liturgy and the sacraments as mysteries does not mean that they must be arcane. Good liturgical and theological formation (not a dumbing-down) are essential to proper worship. God’s people are not an afterthought.

But our goal is to incite deeper and more reverent worship of God, to help (by proper liturgy) draw people up to God, not to drag God down to us (as if we could).

Yes, save the liturgy, save the world. Part of the reason we in the West are in this mess we are in, is that God is not being worshipped. At the widest level, he has been rejected outright by atheists and secularists. But even in the Church, we have adopted dubious premises and notions of the liturgy that all too often render it neither compelling nor beautiful.

It is doubtful at best, and realistically unlikely, that our culture will ever recover unless the Sacred Liturgy recovers. We have allowed modern culture to influence the liturgy profoundly at the very time when in fact we need the liturgy to influence the faithful and the culture profoundly!

There will be legitimate debates about some of the details (Latin or the vernacular or a combination, musical forms, etc.), but an essential place to begin is to return to the scriptural norms laid out so carefully in Exodus, Deuteronomy, and Revelation. Church buildings and liturgical norms, until quite recently, used to conform quite well to these. (My own church, built in the 1930s, is modeled on both the norms of Sinai and Revelation.) Lately, we have strayed into practices and designs that bespeak anthropocentrism, secularism, and  excessive notions of comfort, accessibility, relevance (in the most ephemeral sense), and brevity. God is marginalized.

To be realistic, simply hoping to set the clock back to 1962 or earlier may not be workable. Pope Benedict himself did not see that as the way forward. Rather, he hoped  for a kind of cross-pollination, wherein legitimate aspects of the liturgical movement (begun around 1900) would hold. However, he also hoped that wider use of the Traditional Latin Mass would help to  address the excesses and unbalanced notions that swept in, creating a rupture with tradition and introducing the ailments of modern liturgy that sadly reflect modern culture more than serve as a medicine for it.

The recent addition of the beautiful Anglican Use (see photo, upper-right) may also serve as a model: vernacular, linked to the new lectionary, but eastward-facing and beautifully traditional.

Let’s keep the discussion going. As well-known blogger and liturgist Fr. Z. says, “brick by brick … “

Here’s a video that shows what liturgy can do.

I write to you in the midst of a semi-“religious” event: the Super Bowl. People have donned their sacred attire and are shouting praises. I enjoy football, but see it a lot less than most since I’m a priest and tend to be busy on Sundays! Yet I remain quite fascinated at how passionate and dedicated many Americans are to their team and to the game.

Would that more Catholics had the same dedication to the Mass and the Church that true football fans have to the game. (Fan is short for fanatic.) Would, too, that all priests and religious had the same sacrificial dedication that football players have.

Consider for a moment the players. They spend years coming up through a system of high school, college, and professional levels. Priest and religious do as well. Football players give their all to the game; their whole life is centered on it. Exhausting, year-round practice, weightlifting, and punishing games. They risk injury and suffer many pains, all for the game. Do priests and religious show the same dedication? Are they willing to make the same kind of sacrifices for Jesus? Will they risk injury and attack? I pray we will and do, but I wonder. True, we are not paid millions, but we don’t do it for the money. Are we as dedicated and sacrificial?

And what of the faithful? So many Catholics are dedicated to the game of football. They even come to Church wearing the jersey of their team, often sporting someone else’s name on their back! Let’s compare and contrast some of the aspects of football and see if the same thrill and dedication are exhibited for our Lord, the Mass, and the Church.

Disclaimer – I write a lot of this “tongue in cheek.” I am not brooding over this, just observing. I am also using a technique known as hyperbole. Hyperbole uses exaggeration to make a point. For example the phrase, “There must have been a million people there” is an exaggeration that is not literally true but does convey the idea that a lot of people were present. Please take these comparisons in the light-hearted manner in which they are intended.

That said, the point remains a serious one: we often exhibit unusual priorities when it comes to worldly vs. spiritual matters. We do well to look at ourselves with humor in order to ask God for greater passion for what matters most. Football is about a bag full of air going up and down a field. Faith is about our eternal destiny.

Consider the following Super Bowl behaviors and contrast them to Mass and the faith:

• Super Bowl – Many fans prepare for the game for weeks. They follow the playoffs, review stats, and listen to commentaries and predictions. They make sure they are “up on” the game.” At a bare minimum, they know who is playing, and usually a great deal more. They often plan parties and invite others to join them. They discuss with fellow fans their wishes and the likely outcome of the game. They often boast of their team and loudly proclaim their intent to watch the game and see their team emerge victorious! They anticipate the game and look forward to it joyfully.
• Mass – Little preparation is evident on the part of most who go to Mass. Generally, they do not review the readings or spiritually prepare by frequent confession. Fasting has disappeared from the Catholic landscape. In fact, ¾ of Catholics don’t go to Mass at all. And even of those who do, many don’t anticipate it joyfully. Many even dread going; they try to “fit it in” at the most convenient time and hope for the shortest possible Mass. This is true even on the great feasts like Christmas, Easter, and Holy Week. Most Catholics do not talk to others about going to Mass or invite them to join them.
• Super Bowl – Many fans wear special clothes for the occasion, even at regular-season football games. They wear jerseys, hats with insignias, and other “sacred” apparel. Some even paint their faces and bodies.
• Mass – Sacred apparel for Mass is all but gone. There isn’t much special attire and little care is given to display one’s faith through clothing or other marks of faith. Sunday clothes were once special. Women wore hats and veils; men wore suits and ties and would never dream of wearing a hat into Church. But all that is gone. “Come as you are” seems to be the only rule.
• Super Bowl – People who go to football games often spend hundreds of dollars for tickets. Those who are fortunate enough to go to the Super Bowl spend thousands, gladly. Those who stay home often spend a lot of time and money on parties.
• Mass – Most Catholics give on average 5-7 dollars per week in the collection plate. Many are resentful when the priest speaks of money.
• Super Bowl – Most fans arrive early for the game, and do so eagerly. At regular-season games, many have tailgate parties. Fans at home joyfully anticipate the kick off and spend time in preparatory rites such as parties and beer. Even ordinary games find the fans watching pre-game shows and gathering well before the kickoff.
• Mass – Many Catholics time their arrival for just before the Mass begins. Many—as high as 50%—arrive late. Arriving early to pray or to greet fellow worshippers is generally not something that is planned for.
• Super Bowl – People LOVE the game. They are enthusiastic; they shout, cheer, and are focused and interested in each play. They are passionate, alive, and celebratory. They also care a great deal, exhibiting joy at good plays, and sorrow at bad ones. They are alive, exhilarated, and expressive.  They care passionately about what is happening on the field.
• Mass – Many look bored at Mass. In many ways, the expressions on people’s faces remind one more of a funeral than of a resurrected Lord. Rather than a sea of joyful faces, it looks like everyone just sucked a lemon: bored believers, distracted disciples, frozen chosen. One finds exceptions in many Black parishes, at charismatic Masses, and in some Latino parishes. But overall, little joy or even interest is evident. It is true that many would not think of loud cheers as appropriate in Church, but even a little joy and interest would be a vast improvement.
• Super Bowl – Many fans sing team songs. Here in Washington we sing, “Hail to the Redskins, Hail victory! Braves on the warpath! Fight for ol’ D.C.!”
• Mass – Most Catholics don’t sing.
• Super Bowl – Even a normal football game lasts four hours including the pre- and post-game shows. Toward the end of each half, the game is often intentionally slowed down; incomplete passes stop the clock, etc. Fans gladly accept this slowdown and are even happy and excited if the game goes into overtime.
• Mass – Frustration and even anger are evident in many of the faithful  if Mass begins to extend beyond 45 minutes. Some people even begin to walk out. Many leave right after Communion even if the Mass is “on time.”
• Super Bowl – Fans understand and accept the place of rules and expect them to be followed. Often they are angry when they are broken or when penalties are not called. They respect the role of the referee and the line judges and, even if they are unhappy, accept the finality of their judgments. They seem to understand that a recognized and final authority is necessary for the existence of the game.
• Mass – Some Catholics resent rules and routinely break them or support those who do. They also resent Church authorities who might “throw a flag” or assess a penalty of any sort. Often they do not respect bishops or the authority of the Church. Many refuse to accept that recognized and final authority is necessary for the existence of the Church. Many Catholics resent pointed sermons at Mass in which the priest speaks clearly on moral topics. Praise God, many Catholics are faithful and respect Church authority. Sadly, though, others do not.
• Super Bowl – Many who go to a football game endure rather uncomfortable conditions for the privilege: hard seats, freezing cold, pouring rain. Often the game is hard to see and the sound system is full of echoes. Still the stadium is full and few fans complain.
• Mass – Many complain readily at any inconvenience or discomfort. It’s too hot; it’s too cold; the Mass times aren’t perfectly to my liking. Why aren’t the pews cushioned? (They’re harder to keep clean, that’s why.) Why wasn’t the walk to my usual door shoveled clear of snow? When will the sound system be better? Why do they ask me to move to the front in an empty Church?

OK, that’s enough. Remember, I use hyperbole here and intend this in a lighthearted manner. We humans are funny, and what we get excited about is often humorous. The truth is, people love their football. But this one point is serious: would that we who believe were as passionate as football fans. We need to work at this on two levels.

Clergy and Church leaders need to work very hard to ensure that the liturgy of the Church is all that it should be. High-quality, sacred music, good preaching, and devout and pious celebration are essential. Perfunctory, hurried liturgy with little attention to detail does not inspire.

The faithful, too, must realize more essentially what the Mass really is and then ask God to anoint them with a powerful and pious awareness of the presence and ministry of Jesus Christ. They must ask for a joy and zeal that will be manifest on their faces, in their deeds, and in their dedication.

Enjoy this video by Fr. Robert Barron, who also uses a sports analogy.

There are four aspects of powerful preaching displayed by Jesus in this passage. Jesus is not just a powerful preacher Himself, but also models what it means to be a powerful and effective preacher.

In using the word “preacher” here we ought to be careful not to reduce preaching merely to what takes place in a church. For surely the clergy have churches in which to preach. But all Catholic parents ought also to learn from Jesus here, for they have the church of their home in which to preach, and the pulpit of the dining room table, the living room couch, or even the family car. Therefore we must all learn from Jesus’ model of powerful preaching and teaching. Note, then, four basic qualities of Jesus as a preacher and teacher:

I. PERSONAL – The text says, Then they came to Capernaum, and on the Sabbath Jesus entered the synagogue and taught. The people were astonished at his teaching, for he taught them as one having authority and not as the scribes.

(The picture at the upper right is one of me and fellow parishioners standing in the ruins of the synagogue mentioned in this passage. It is a very moving thing to stand atop the foundational ruins of the synagogue where Jesus preached both this sermon and the Bread of Life discourse. Some of the ruins are later than Jesus’ era, but the foundations are clearly from that time. It’s amazing.)

Note that the text says that Jesus spoke “with authority.” The Greek word translated here as “authority” is ἐξουσίαν (exousian), meaning, at its root, “to (speak) out of one’s being or substance.” In other words, one speaks of what he knows by experience. He is not simply quoting what others say, nor is he merely quoting slogans and common sayings.

Jesus is distinguished from the scribes, who were famous for quoting each other and reputable, safe sources only. Of itself, this is good. But if it merely stops there, what makes preaching different from staying home and reading a book?

Too many Christians, including Catholic preachers, are content to live and preach by inference rather than experience. Too many are content to repeat what others have said rather than to speak out of what they personally know, have seen, and have experienced.

To preach with authority (exousia) means to be able to proclaim the Word of God with personal knowledge and experience. It means to be able to say, “What the Lord and the Church have always proclaimed, I know personally. For I have tested and experienced the Word of God in the laboratory of my own life, and found it to be true. And now I speak to you, not merely of what others have said, but what I know and experience to be true. Out of the substance of my own being (exousia) I announce this truth to you.”

This is what it means to preach personally and with authority (exousia).  Jesus did not simply quote what others said. He said what He personally knew.

What of you and me? Are you able to speak with authority? Well, do you know what the Lord is doing in your life? Have you personally experienced the truth of what the Scriptures and the Church have always announced? Or are you just quoting slogans, passages, and what others have said? Of course the Scriptures and the authoritative teachings of the Church are the essential beginning and foundation of what we know. But do you personally know it is true? How? Do you speak to your children of what you know or do you merely say, “the Church says … “?  Clearly you are to say what the Church says, but to teach with authority means that you know and have experienced that what the Church says is true, and that you can personally attest to it. This is the basis of preaching and teaching with authority.

II. PROVOCATIVE – To say that something is “provocative” is to say that it elicits a response. When Jesus preached, His words did not leave His listeners unmoved. It called forth a response, whether mad, sad, or glad.

The text has already pointed out that many were glad. But there is one man who is mad. The text describes his reaction: In their synagogue was a man with an unclean spirit; he cried out, “What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are–the Holy One of God!”

Every experienced and authentic preacher knows that if he preaches effectively, a response will be forthcoming. And while it is natural to want a positive response, every preacher must also be willing to accept that his word may also bring forth anger or ridicule. The Church announces good news but she is also a sign of contradiction to a sinful world. Thus every preacher faithful to the Gospel must expect some degree of negativity, and even persecution, ridicule, and anger.

Jesus’ Word angers a demon-possessed man in the congregation and he confronts Jesus, blaming Him with being hateful and causing hurt, and saying that Jesus wants to destroy him. (So, too, many today react with anger and call the Church hateful, bigoted, intolerant, and hurtful even unto destroying lives.) But, as we shall see, Jesus does not back down.

The problem in the synagogue is not the Word that Jesus proclaims; it is the man’s inner condition. And thus, when the authentic Gospel is proclaimed, the wrath that sometimes follows does not bespeak a problem with God’s Word but with the listener’s inner condition. Note that the man is demon-possessed. That is, his heart and mind are under the influence of Satan and the sin he inspires. The greatest obstacle to our being able to appreciate and understand the Word of God is our sin. And the greatest help in appreciating and understanding God’s Word is a docile and humble spirit, granted by the grace of God.

A powerful preacher, whether a priest or a parent, preaches in order to provoke a response, whether of joy and consolation or of repentance and godly sorrow. And to be sure, while no authentic preacher intends or desires a fight or a hostile response, he must be willing to accept such a reaction. For when someone is accustomed to the darkness, he finds the light harsh, and calls it such. Anyone who preaches the Gospel authentically will both comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable; he will both console and confront (where necessary); he will reassure but also awaken the need for healing. He will speak the truth in love.

Good preaching provokes a response, and one who hears the Gospel preached with authority cannot come away unchanged.

III.  PRODUCING – Powerful and effective preaching brings results. As Jesus preaches, a man is set free. The text says, Jesus rebuked him and said, “Quiet! Come out of him!” The unclean spirit convulsed him and with a loud cry came out of him. All were amazed and asked one another, “What is this? A new teaching with authority. He commands even the unclean spirits and they obey him.” His fame spread everywhere throughout the whole region of Galilee.

The aim or point of the Word of God is not merely to inform but to transform. It’s not enough for the Word of God to be attractive, informative, or entertaining. It’s full purpose is to, in power, drive out demons and bring God’s grace. Good preaching works to drive out demons of ignorance, sorrow, rebellion, and sin. It works to give godly sorrow, joy, hope, confidence, knowledge, courage, and conviction. Good preaching changes people’s lives.

IV. PERSEVERING – Note that Jesus did not immediately back down in the face of opposition. He persevered with the opposing man and, by his Word, drove out the demons that were afflicting him. We see the man go through three stages.

1. He is mad, for he confronts Jesus.
2. He is sad, for he struggles and convulses as Jesus works to free him by His Word.
3. He is glad, for he is set free and able to rejoice with the others.

And thus every preacher, every parent, and every prophet must not give up easily. For it is often the case that people must go through these stages.

In my own life, I can say that there was a time when, afflicted by the demons of ignorance and youthful rebellion, I would cross my arms and listen angrily to the priest. I was mad. I would often scoff at the “silly priest” who was “trying to tell me what to do.” But after some years of hearing the preaching of the Church, I gradually understood that I had to change. But change does not come easily, and thus came the stage of sad and a time of struggle, learning new virtues, and forsaking old vices. And now I can say I am glad, for the Lord has brought me a mighty long way. His preached Word is powerful. When effectively preached, it has the power to transform. And I have experienced transformation.

I am glad that the Church persevered, that my parents persevered, and that good priests and religious persevered in preaching to me and teaching me. I am glad that my parishioners continue to persevere in witnessing to me and preaching by their lives.

A preached and lived Word is powerful indeed. Jesus shows the way and it is for us to follow His example.

Here is a video that shows how a preached and sung Word  reaches sinners and draws them to conversion. “Shug” is a preacher’s daughter who in anger (mad) left the Church. Now she weeps for her sins (as her father weeps for his) (sad),  and then she gets glad. She looks like the woman at the well leading the Samaritans to Christ. There are five conversion stories going on in this scene from The Color Purple all at once, if you are familiar with the movie. This song says, “God is Trying to Tell You Something!”

Here is Jesus preaching in the synagogue in Capernaum on another occasion.

We have more than ever. Not just more things, but more options, more capacity, and more ability. Several hundred years ago a young peasant living in Europe seldom ventured more than a few miles from where he was born; longer journeys were rare and for serious reasons only. Much of a person’s life was “decided” by the place he was born. Even the person whom he married was decided by others, or at least limited to a very few candidates in his little village or section of town. The life of the average peasant was very circumscribed and he had limited knowledge of what was even a hundred miles away, let alone across the ocean.

Today, most people, even those of moderate means, can get on a plane and by the end of the day be thousands of miles from where they woke up that morning. Most do not live where they were born and most have virtual access to the entire world via the Internet. It is quite reasonable to know people from all over the world, or at least to know those who have been all over the world. Most people travel frequently to distant cities and sometimes to other countries and continents. Our options, though not limitless, are practically so, since most of us could never exhaust all the possibilities that modernity offers.

Are we happier? Probably not. I would argue that we are less happy. One thing is certain: wealth and modernity have brought comfort and variety but also stress and disappointment. Disappointment is increased because expectations are higher. Indeed, expectations are often premeditated resentments.

Our faster pace also makes us prone to boredom. Slowing down to the actual pace of human life and not having noise freaks us out. So if it is not stress that gets us, it is boredom, depression, and resentment. Welcome to the world of psychotropic medications in order to stay sane, or self-medication that leads to addiction.

Well, you get the point. Modern life is more diverse, comfortable, and affluent, but also stressful and ultimately discouraging because it promises what it cannot deliver: happiness. Happiness is ultimately an inside job and those who find it often do not have a lot or even need a lot. Most who discover happiness find that less is more, that simpler and slower win the day over glitzy and mesmerizing.

Something in this video sparked these thoughts of mine. I dunno, see what you think. But for all the biggie-wow ways this guy has available to him, in the end it is the simpler, slower, low-tech mode that wins the day. Modernity has its place, but also its price. Have a plan B for when all the techie stuff fails.

A couple of weeks ago I wrote a cautionary article aimed at my traditionally-minded brethren saying, among other things, that we ought to be careful in identifying the Ordinary Form of the Mass (1970 Missal and beyond) as the “Mass of Vatican II.”  I will not reproduce that whole article here. I will only recall three points:

1. The Mass was already undergoing significant changes, beginning in the 1940s and picking up speed through the 1950s. More changes were planned by the Vatican before the Second Vatican Council was called.

2. The Second Vatican Council considered many issues, of which the liturgy was only one. The liturgical norms issued by the council were of a general nature and contained proposals that were far more modest than the substantial changes that happened in 1970 and beyond.

3. The Missal published in 1965 (of which I have a copy) incorporated many, if not most, of the insights from the council. The changes included in the 1965 Missal are more truly to be seen as those envisioned by the council than the far more sweeping changes incorporated in the Missal of 1970, a Missal that was designed by a smaller consilium of liturgists and actually surprised many of the bishops who attended the council.

Hence we do well to distinguish our concerns about the current form of the Mass. It is a poor stance to oppose an entire Ecumenical Council. Our concerns with the liturgy should stay in that arena, and we should work to correct abuses and encourage a reconsideration of the more modest reforms, even as we enjoy the privilege of celebrating the Mass using the Missal of 1962.

So let’s look at the 1965 Missal, the one that was actually published in the wake of the council and had its reforms in mind. Three introductory points will help:

1. There ARE changes in the Liturgy. The most significant is a wider (but not exclusive) use of the vernacular. Also significant is that the “Liturgy of the Word” was to be conducted facing the people and could be a task shared with qualified ministers. There was also some shortening of the prayers at the foot of the altar and the omission of the Last Gospel.

2. Otherwise, the general Mass remains unchanged. I don’t think a person from the year 1900, or even 1700, walking into Mass in 1966 would have been all that shocked. He would notice differences and hear less Latin, but the Mass would still be recognizable.

3. As for the Mass being celebrated “facing the people,” that seems to have proceeded on a track of its own. There is nothing in the rubrics or Ritus Servandus (Order of Celebration) of the 1965 Mass requiring the Eucharistic Prayer to be said facing the people. Even today, the rubrics presume that the priest is facing the altar and therefore must turn to face the people at certain points. My own memory is that Mass facing the people was introduced widely beginning in about 1967. It seems to have happened quickly throughout the country, but not in every parish or diocese all at once. I do not recall a big rebellion over it, and frankly a lot of people thought it was “neat” at first. As most of you know, I am not a fan of the Eucharistic Prayer being said facing the people. But the point here is to emphasize that the question of orientation proceeded on a track of its own and should not simply be associated with the Second Vatican Council (which merely permitted a practice that was already spreading) or with the Missal of a particular year. The current Missal still permits ad orientem, even though it is not widely practiced.

So, back to the 1965 Missal. Permit me now to give a more detailed description. For the sake of simplicity, I am going to look mainly at the “low” Mass rather than trying to include all the norms for a solemn or pontifical Mass. I will note the differences, but also what is unchanged.

Prayers at the Foot of the Altar 

The Mass began with the prayers at the foot of the altar. Neither the 1965 nor the 1962 or prior Missals ever called this part of the Mass “the prayers at the foot of the altar,” but that was their traditional description. Technically, they occurred before Mass had formally begun. Mass formally began when the celebrant ascended the altar, made the sign of the cross, and recited the Introit (Entrance Antiphon). Nevertheless, these prayers at the foot of the altar continued to be conducted in the 1965 Missal. There were a few changes, but overall they were minor. Here is a brief description:

1. The celebrant would bow or genuflect, as required, make the sign of the cross, and recite (in the vernacular or in Latin), “I will go to the altar of God.” The server or others responded “to God who gives joy to my youth.” Here, however, the full Psalm 42 was not recited, only the antiphon, much as had been the practice in the Requiem Mass.

2. The celebrant then bowed deeply and recited the Confiteor (in the vernacular or in Latin). The text used was still the traditional one, which mentioned Saints Michael, John the Baptist, Peter, and Paul.

3. The servers recited the Misereatur (in the vernacular or in Latin) and then recited their own Confiteor. This was followed by the celebrant’s recitation of the Misereatur and then the Indulgentium (omitted today) along with the sign of the cross.

4. Going up to the altar and reverencing it, the celebrant said the Aufer a nobis and the Oramus te in a low voice (and only in Latin).

Thus we see that the main difference in the “prayers at the foot of the Altar” was the omission of the fuller verses of Psalm 42 and the provision that the texts could be conducted in the vernacular (with the exception of the private prayers of the priest which remained only in Latin).

The Mass continues (actually, formally begins)

1. The celebrant made the sign of the cross, read the Introit (Entrance Antiphon), and then recited the nine-fold Kyrie with the servers. However, if a schola (choir) sang the Introit and Kyrie, the celebrant would sing it along with them rather than reciting it privately. Latin or vernacular could be used.

This is significant because in the Missals of 1962 and before, the singing of the schola did not really “count.” The celebrant still had to say any texts that were sung. The 1962 Missal made provision for the celebrant not to recite the epistle and Gospel, but only if they were chanted by a cleric. But since the other texts were not ordinarily sung by clerics, the celebrant usually had to recite them quietly. This made the singing by choirs a kind of “window dressing” that had lost the ancient concept of different ministerial functions assisting the celebrant in the proclamation of the sacred texts. The 1965 Missal restored this ministerial function and did not require texts that were sung by choirs or readings that were recited by appropriate ministers, to be said again privately and officially by the celebrant.

The rubrics did not speak of going to the epistle (right) side of the altar, but neither did the 1962 Missal. Nevertheless, traditionally, these prayers were said to the right side of the altar.

Though silent on this point, the rubrics presumed the celebrant was at the altar. However, through the late sixties it would seem that these rites after the prayers at the foot of the altar and after the reverencing of the altar moved to the sedilia (chair). The 1965 missal, however, made no mention of this as an option.

2. If the Gloria was to be recited the celebrant was directed to go to the middle of the altar and begin the prayer there. Again, if it was sung, he was not to recite it privately but was encouraged to sing it with others. Latin or vernacular could be used.

3. The Collect – Turning toward the people, the celebrant said, “The Lord be with you,” and they responded, “And with your spirit.” Here, too, this could be said either in Latin or the vernacular (using the proper translation). He then said, “Let us pray” and said or sang the Collect (opening prayer). The 1965 Missal provided approved English translations of the Collects of the 1962 Missal that were quite accurate. And the prayer could be recited either in Latin or the vernacular.

The Liturgy of the Word – The new lectionary did not exist, and thus the 1965 Missal made use of the readings contained in the 1962 and prior Missals. The main difference was that approved vernacular versions of the readings were now available and could be used. The readings were conducted as follows:

1. Epistle – The Ritus Servandus states regarding the epistle (I translate here from the Latin), “In Masses that are sung or recited with the people participating, it is desirable that the readings be sung or said by a lector or suitable minister, in the ambo or in the chancel, with the celebrant seated and listening.”

2. The Chants (Gradual and Alleluia) that followed were sung either by a schola, or by the people, or they were read by the lector or minister in the same place (however, at the end, he did not come to the celebrant for a blessing).

3. The Gospel could be sung or said by a deacon or by another priest. “If however the celebrant reads, sings, or says the Gospel, he … ascends to the footspace of the altar and, profoundly bowing, says the Munda cor and the Dominus sit. He then proceeds to the ambo or chancel and sings or says the Gospel … in the end kissing the book and saying the per evangelica dicta … “

4. The Homily was given and the Creed could be said by the celebrant either at the altar (in the traditional way) or at the chair. He recited the Creed with the people.

5. The Prayers of the Faithful were restored as an option. They could be led in the ambo, at the chair, or at the altar. The celebrant said, “The Lord be with you,” and the people responded, “And with your spirit.” The celebrant said, “Let us pray.” And then, if there were prayers of the faithful, they were read, otherwise the celebrant moved on to read the offertory antiphon.

The Liturgy of the Eucharist – From this point on, the Mass was largely unchanged. Briefly, here are some highlights, with special reference to the few changes that were made:

1. The traditional offertory prayers were still said, and only in Latin (Suscipe Sancte Pater, Offerimus tibi). So, too, were the other prayers unaltered, again only in Latin (Deus qui humanae at the mixing of water and wine). Just prior to the washing of the hands, the In spiritu humilitatis was said. The Veni sanctificator was not yet dropped.

2. For the washing of the hands, the traditional prayer Lavabo inter innocentes was still said in its entirety (Psalm 25) and the Suscipe sancta Trintitas had not yet been dropped. All these prayers were said in Latin.

3. Pray brethren – Kissing the altar and turning to the people, the priest said the orate fratres but could do so in the vernacular.

4. Prayer over the Gifts – Turning back, the celebrant said the prayer over the gifts, which could be either said or sung in the vernacular or in Latin.

5. The preface (and there were some new ones in the 1965 Missal) could also be said or sung either in the vernacular or in Latin.

6. The Sanctus could also be said or sung in the vernacular or in Latin.

7. The Canon of the Mass was still at this time only the Roman Canon, and it was prayed entirely in Latin.  Most of the gestures and postures remained unchanged with the exception of the multiple signs of the cross at the Per Ipsum (Through Him and with Him and in Him … ).

8. The Our Father could be said using Latin or the vernacular. So, too, the “embolism” (Deliver us O Lord), Pax Domini (but the people did not exchange the peace). The Agnus Dei could be said or sung in English, but the private prayers of the priest remained in Latin and were unchanged.

9. Lord I am not Worthy – After receiving his own communion, the priest led the people in their own “Lord I am not worthy” and it was still said three times.

10. Communion – The longer formula once said by the priest for each communicant (Corpus Domini Nostri … ) was shortened to “The Body of Christ.”

11. The Prayer after Communion could be read in the vernacular.

12 The Ite Missa est could also be said in the vernacular.

13. The Final Blessing was given in Latin or the vernacular.

14. The Last Gospel was omitted.

Briefly then, here is the 1965 Missal. To lovers of the 1962 Missal, it probably still represents too much change (for example, read HERE). But it was far from the more radical changes that came later, changes that removed so much more and added so many new elements such as multiple Eucharistic Prayers, etc.

While it is hard to argue that the new lectionary  is problematic, I remain open to the criticism that the 1970 Missal introduced a “hermeneutic of discontinuity” and that it also flowed from that sort of rupture that the 1960s brought. We do well to see the 1965 Missal as a bridge back to the more modest changes envisioned by the council and as a template for the kind of cross-pollination that Pope Benedict wished for when he spoke of the two forms influencing each other.

This video provides a look back at 1967 in a crazy Elvis movie. But it depicts a kind of estuary where there were still signs of Tradition but also of the radical changes under way in that era. The 1965 Missal barely saw the light of day before the liturgists were at it again, ending with all sorts of additional changes. They were wild and crazy times and I remember them well. Sadly, at the time, with radical changes everywhere, very few of us woke up to the damage that was being done until it was largely done.

A bill has been introduced in the Washington D.C. City Council to legalize assisted suicide. And thus yet another battle is before us in the cultural meltdown of our land. Unpleasant though it is, dear reader, consider with me the proposed legislation and why we, as both Christians and those dedicated to Natural Law and the common good, must vigorously oppose it.

As a tool for reflection, I am using an article published recently on the website DCist.com. I present here some excerpts from the article. The full article is here: Cheh Introduces ‘Death With Dignity’ Assisted Suicide Bill. As usual, excerpts from the original article appear in bold, black italics, and my comments are in plain, red text.

Currently, assisted suicide is legal in only four states, but D.C. could soon join that list. (Why am I not surprised? This same city has been among the jurisdictions “leading” the way to legalizing same-sex unions, pot smoking, and now assisted suicide.) Earlier this week, Councilmember Mary Cheh (D-Ward 3) introduced a bill that would allow terminally ill patients with only months left to live the choice to end their life on their own terms.

One thing must be said to fellow Christians: Don’t you ever end life “on your own terms.” That is not for you to say. Your life is not your own. God gave you that life and you are a steward of it, not its owner. Scripture says, You are not your own. For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body (1 Cor 6:19-20).

Saying that you can take life “on your own terms” is another way of saying, “Jesus is NOT Lord.” That is a terrible renunciation of our faith. Jesus teaches us clearly of the Cross in our life and its value to us who believe. Any Christian who says that people should be able to end life on their own terms is denying the Cross, denying our faith, and denying that Jesus is Lord and has sovereignty over life. Don’t do it.

And do not be deceived by sugar-coated arguments that seek to represent the philosophy of assisted suicide as anything less than a denial of these central truths of our faith.

Don’t even think of going to the judgment seat of Christ and saying, “I did it my way.” Ponder the callousness of standing before our Lord, who was tortured to death for us, and saying to Him, “I deserved to die with dignity.”

Please consider the thinking behind this euthanasia movement and how unfit it is for any Christian to think this way or even to be supportive of others who do.

Suicide for those who are despondent is tragic. But what is being proposed here is a prideful philosophy by those who are well and of sound mind to coldly and with calculation end their life, or be “supportive” of others who do so.

The preceding appeal is to those who say they have faith. Another approach is given below to appeal to non-believers or “lip service” believers. 

Under the proposed “Death with Dignity Act of 2015,” a mentally competent patient suffering from a terminal illness that’s “likely to result in death within six months” can request medication that would allow them to choose the time, place, and circumstances of his/her death.” … [He or she] can coordinate with his or her attending doctor and a consulting physician about the possibility of assisted suicide. Once both doctors verify the patient’s terminal diagnosis and determine his or her mental competency, the patient can request a lethal dose of medication they can use when they’re ready. …

Asking a doctor to help you kill yourself is like asking a priest to help you sin. It is wrong and an abuse of the purpose of the medical profession. I hope large numbers of doctors will note this and speak up against it. Doctors and nurses are supposed to bring healing and comfort. Causing death is not in not their job description.

Thankfully, increasing numbers of doctors and nurses are speaking out against this abuse of their profession and I hope none of them will allow themselves to be used in this way. Sadly (as with abortion), there will always be those willing to do it, either for money or  because they have wrongfully accepted the premise that helping people commit suicide is “good medicine.”

Rigorous provisions have been included in this bill to protect patients from undue influence or coercion and to ensure that vulnerable populations are protected. 

Sorry, but “rigorous” protections aren’t going to help. Sanctioning the suicide of the sick and dying is going to put pressure on all the sick and dying to “check out” and stop consuming “valuable resources.”

All your rigorous protections are not going to stop a souring of the understanding that those who are suffering and dying are worthy of our care. It doesn’t take a trained sociologist to see how these things will play out. It’s simple: 1. Erode the sacredness of human life as wholly belonging to God, 2. Put such decisions in human hands, 3. Add a little economic pressure and pepper it with insurance limits and long-term care clocks that run out, and  4. Voila! Now that Grandma can decide to kill herself, perhaps she ought to decide to do so. “Really, it’s for the best, given the shortage of resources.”

Sorry Ms. Cheh and all proponents of “death with dignity,” but in the end all we end up with is death, and dignity itself is put to death.

And by the way, don’t you dare suggest that my father, who died after a long illness, did not “die with dignity.” Your little slogan is disrespectful to all who suffer but refuse to take your poison pill or ingest your philosophy.

Some will say that “dignity” is merely a reference to our freedom to choose. But where will this dignity go when the pressure to “end it all” grows and the “choice” becomes an expectation?

Asked if she’s discussed the bill with any other Councilmembers yet and has support on it, Cheh says that she “[hasn’t] really tried to take their temperature” on it, and would rather “let it percolate around the building” than trying to rush it through to Bowser’s desk.

Regardless of what may happen with the bill, Cheh said she’s relieved to have finally introduced it. “I felt a great sense of happiness about it,” she said. “I really think it’s something people should be entitled to have … if somebody is capable of making this decision and wants to do it, they should have that choice.”

Notice that in her reasoning there seems to be no sense whatsoever of the common good. It’s all about personal rights and entitlements. She says that people should be able to take their own lives (if they meet all her rigorous “criteria”), but there is not a word about what impact this might have on others.

Why does any government need to sanction this form of suicide at all?  For those who really want to kill themselves, there is little that can be done to stop them. We’re certainly not going to prosecute them after they’re dead. It’s also unlikely that we’re going to be able to track down the people who slipped them the means to do it.

Why should the government facilitate such behavior by granting it legal status? Why do so many people demand that government sanction their behavior?

The likely answer to this is that we are dealing with something more than concern for the dying here. We are dealing with advocacy for a movement with its own agenda. This is a movement that has existed for a long time in this country. It wants legal standing so as to grow, gain status, become more well-funded,  and draw others to its strange view that suicide is in fact a good thing rather than the awful thing we have always thought it to be. It is a branch of another movement generally called secularism and is another result of moving God to the periphery and man to the center.

Rooted in secularism and, I would argue, pride, the demand to legalize suicide is but another facet of a stone hurled by those who reject the “limits” that faith proposes. They seek to further the notion that man is the master of all things and that there should be no limits placed on our actions by God, organized religion, or religious tradition. Whether this is conscious or not on the part of everyone who advocates this view, I cannot say. But the premises of secularism and anthropocentrism are essential to such an argument winning the day.

To advocates of this sort of secular pride that rejects the authority of God or faith, we can only advance an argument that appeals to the common good:

I cannot prevent you from killing yourself, but please do not ask me to approve of it, or ask our government to fund, regulate, or sanction your death-directed drives. You do not have my support to take what does not belong to you.

In terms of natural law, you ought to consider how your selfish desires will endanger everyone. Cease and desist from your demand that we sanction your view and carefully consider the harm you will bring to the dying, the chronically ill, and the handicapped, whether you intend it or not.

What you claim to offer as optional will soon enough become expected. I don’t know if that is your intention, but it is sure to be the result. Stand down from this misguided notion. Even if you don’t believe in God and even if you think that you actually own your life, please consider that you endanger my life and the lives of others by sanctioning an ultimately self-indulgent notion of suicide.

Think about it! Consider that your insistence on some newly crafted individual right harms the common good in a way that is both unnecessary and unjustified. 

 Here’s a song that once had an innocent ring to it. Now it is more frighteningly real. The song asks, “Will you still need me, will you still feed me, when I’m 64?” … or 84, or dying, or chronically ill …

There is a marvelous chapter in the Book of Proverbs that ought to be studied by every young person who must live in this lustful world. It sets forth plainly the stance that any son or daughter of God should have regarding the lust so often celebrated by this age.

Many preachers and teachers wince at the Book of Proverbs on this topic since it tends to portray seduction and lust as coming from women.

However it must be recalled that Proverbs features a father speaking to his son. So the context is that of a young man experiencing seduction from a certain class of women (not all women).

The silence of this chapter of Proverbs on the problem of men seducing women should not be taken as a denial of this problem; it is simply not the context of the discussion. Any woman ought to be able to take the advice given here and translate it for her own sake as well.

With that in mind let’s look at this masterful advice from the Wisdom of God. The alliterations (on the letter “D”) are based on a talk by Rev. Adrian Rogers that I heard many years ago. While the alliterations are his, the content of this article is wholly mine.

I. The Discretion we should follow – 1 My son, be attentive to my wisdom, incline your ear to my understanding; 2 that you may keep discretion, and your lips may guard knowledge.

As we have seen, the Book of Proverbs takes up the form of a father advising his son. One of the most critical roles a father or parent has is to teach and hand on the preserved and tested wisdom that comes to us from God and from experience. Hence a father should teach his children at length regarding all matters of life, including sexuality. He should also insist that his children both listen (incline their ears) and apply (attend to) the wisdom that comes from God.

With the modern breakdown of the family on a wide scale, this basic function of fathers, specifically, and parents and elders, in general, is poorly executed in many cases. Children today are often without critical moral instruction, at least of a healthy sort.

Add to this problem the concept of the “generation gap” that emerged in the cultural revolution of the 1960s. During that time, young people widely believed that “old people” were out-of-touch, repressed, and without any real wisdom to offer. While this is a somewhat typical tendency in adolescence, it was powerfully affirmed in the popular music of the time, which reveled in rebellion against authority, the use of drugs, and the celebration of “free love.” Young people were encouraged to break away from the repression and outdated notions of their elders. Rebellion (almost for its own sake) was the key to ushering in a new reality.

But without respect there can be no teaching. Thus many foolish and destructive tendencies (such as the abandonment of self-control and personal responsibly) were ushered in, ones that more functioning cultures learned long ago were dead ends.

The opening verse encourages the son to hearken to the wisdom of the elders so that he may keep discretion. In this case discretion refers to the ability to exercise good judgment and to having cautious reserve. Discretion is the ability to make responsible decisions. Sound teaching is meant to assist sound decisions.

The son is also encouraged to hearken to wisdom so that his own lips may preserve knowledge. In other words, one day he will need to teach others. What comes from his mouth ought to be the tested wisdom of God, not the passing and often foolish slogans of the world.

Sadly, when one generation largely fails to teach wisdom, the next generation is not only poorly instructed, it is ill-equipped to teach, and this allows the problems multiply quickly.  What was once common sense isn’t very common anymore. It does not take long for the whole culture to start crumbling if good sense cannot be restored.

Hence there is a discretion, a received wisdom that ensures sound judgment that we must receive, keep, preserve, and pass on.

II. The Deception we should avoid – 3 For the lips of a loose woman drip honey, and her speech is smoother than oil; 4 but in the end she is bitter as wormwood, sharp as a two-edged sword. 5 Her feet go down to death; her steps follow the path to Sheol; 6 she does not take heed to the path of life; her ways wander, and she does not know it.

Here then is the description of “Lady Lust” by way of personification. Surely she is the antithesis of Lady Wisdom! Again let us recall that the personification, though feminine, does not mean that lust and seduction are unique to women (any more than wisdom is unique to women). Men, too, can seduce and surely can be lustful and draw others to lust. However, as a general rule, men are more immediately susceptible to lust, and even if you wish to debate that, recall that this book is a collection of teachings of a father to his son.

Note the description of sweet lips and smooth talking. Lust always plies her wares by emphasizing her sweet delights, never mentioning the cost. The bill comes later! And her smooth talk assures that this will all be OK, that those who object are sexually repressed, judgmental, and just don’t “understand.” She assures that “experts” have found “healthy” societies where free love is practiced. She cites statistics that almost everyone fornicates and thinks it is OK. And, after all, can the majority of people be so wrong? Yes, she’s a smooth talker all right.

But then comes the bill and the results are bitter as wormwood. Lust cuts like a sharp but jagged knife and in her deathly ways she drags souls to hell.

And yet as the text says, Lady Lust has lost sight of her own lies. She has even convinced herself of her lies and deceptions. This occurs because of the way that sins, especially sins of the flesh, cloud the intellect. St. Thomas notes that the sins of the flesh (lust and gluttony) are not usually the most serious (sins of the Spirit such as pride are more serious), but they are the most disgraceful because of the way that they darken our mind. St. Paul says the same in Romans when he says that those who suppress the truth claim to be wise, but are fools and their senseless minds are darkened (cf Rom 1:17ff).

Thus, Lady Lust cannot even see for herself how foolish her own notions are. She believes her own lies and so do those who fall into her trap. Even middle school students can see how unhealthy promiscuity is. They can observe that homosexual acts violate the very design of the body and that the “parts don’t fit.” But this is because their hearts have not yet been blinded by lust, nor their minds darkened by it.

But Lady Lust and her followers soon become blind and fail to see even the most obvious facts before them; their minds are darkened. Jesus says, Can a blind man lead a blind man? Will they not both fall into a pit? (Lk 6:39) And so it is for Lady Lust: she is blinded by her lust.

III. The Distance we should keep – 7 And now, O sons, listen to me, and do not depart from the words of my mouth. 8 Keep your way far from her, and do not go near the door of her house;

Yes, stay away. How many have been snared by her for merely coming too close! Today addiction to Internet porn has reached shocking levels. Many young men think it impossible to break free. Worse still, the addiction descends into ever darker and even unnatural places. What begins as sinfully looking at “ordinary” nudity soon descends to viewing depictions of some of the vilest sexual practices. Children today can find displayed before them practices that normal adults would not have even imagined just 50 years ago. Deeper and darker, many today descend into lust’s worst effects. Even animals do not do the things routinely pined for by those addicted to lust. There is a great debasement described in the literature and by experts who try to help those lost in lust. Even if they can break free, their minds may be sullied for years, even for life.

Hence, scripture says here to stay far away, to venture not even near the door of “Lady Lust.” Elsewhere, St. Paul writes, Flee Fornication! (1  Cor 6:18) There is to be no dabbling with her, no risk-taking, no testing of the limits, no teasing, no occasional looks at risky websites to satisfy curiosity. One must soberly, carefully, and prudently avoid any and all commerce with Lady Lust. Otherwise, she too easily gets her hooks in. And once that happens, for too many it is goodbye to innocence and healthy notions of human sexuality.

Keep a safe distance. Install web filters. Engage in prudent dating practices. There is a distance that we must maintain. If we do not, the damage that will come is powerfully described in the verses to follow.

IV. The Damage we will suffer – Many damages are described! 9 lest you give your honor to others and your years to the merciless; 10 lest strangers take their fill of your strength, and your labors go to the house of an alien; 11 and at the end of your life you groan, when your flesh and body are consumed, 12 and you say, “How I hated discipline, and my heart despised reproof! 13 I did not listen to the voice of my teachers or incline my ear to my instructors. 14 I was at the point of utter ruin in the assembled congregation.” 15 Drink water from your own cistern, flowing water from your own well. 16 Should your springs be scattered abroad, streams of water in the streets? 17 Let them be for yourself alone, and not for strangers with you … 21 For a man’s ways are before the eyes of the LORD, and he watches all his paths. 22 The iniquities of the wicked ensnare him, and he is caught in the toils of his sin. 23 He dies for lack of discipline, and because of his great folly he is lost.

The following damages can be listed:

A. Dissipation – 9 lest you give your honor to others and your years to the merciless; 10 lest strangers take their fill of your strength, and your labors go to the house of an alien … 15 Drink water from your own cistern, flowing water from your own well. 16 Should your springs be scattered abroad, streams of water in the streets? 17 Let them be for yourself alone, and not for strangers with you …

Practically speaking, many fornicators and adulterers find their income reduced by alimony, child support, etc. Those who flee these responsibilities are often pursued by the government and have their wages garnished. They must pay numerous fees and penalties for their lack of compliance. They assume the financial costs but without the benefits of a loving wife and children, a common home, and the shared joys that God intended to go with the challenges of marriage and family.

Hence the text speaks of the honors, strengths, and fruits of labor of the fornicator and adulterer going to strangers, to homes where he does not live or enjoy the warmth and love thereof.

Why should this be, O lover of lust, that your wealth and resources be scattered?  Resist lust now or you will find your resources scattered to alien homes.

And this is the first damage that Lady Lust exacts: dissipation.

B. Disease 11 and at the end of your life you groan, when your flesh and body are consumed,

Practically speaking, the text points to sexually transmitted diseases (from herpes to AIDS).

More spiritually and emotionally, the text can also refer to the emotional and spiritual damage that comes from giving your body over to strangers and to lust. There is the anger and depression of being used and discarded. Intimacy cannot be exchanged in a merely physical way; humans are just not made that way. Our soul and psyche are deeply connected to our body, especially in matters of profound physical intimacy. And to be joined in this way can never be as casual as the lustful say it is. There is a connection that sets up and is hard to break. There is a whole subset of deliverance ministry that is devoted to helping people break their “soul ties” to past sexual “partners.”

Add to this list of ailments the awful sorrow and gnawing guilt associated with post-abortion syndrome.

Many groan under the physical, spiritual, psychological, and emotional weight of their sins. And even for believers who know somehow that God has forgiven them, it is often harder for them to forgive themselves. It is a weight of guilt, embarrassment, and shame that for many is hard to shake. Lady Lust does not like those who have discovered her lies, and she taunts them with guilt and shame.

The verse also points to the end of life. And though at the end of our life we are meant to be surrounded by loving children and grandchildren, many who served Lady Lust will die far more alone than they should.

C. Disappointment – 12 and you say, “How I hated discipline, and my heart despised reproof! 13 I did not listen to the voice of my teachers or incline my ear to my instructors … ”

At some point, if the sinner ever wakes up, his disappointment with himself is often colossal. He feels foolish and regrets that he pridefully rejected instruction and regarded it as stupid or old-fashioned. I meet people like this all the time who “wish they had it all to do over again.”

It is so easy to scoff at instruction when we are young, and even when we are not so young. And in a culture fixated on adolescent rebellion, a culture that thinks it knows better than Mother Church, there are still some who finally grow up and realize what a mess they have made of their own life and that of others.

The promises that sexual and other sinful pleasures make are cast on the rocky shore of disappointment and betrayal.

D. Disgrace – 14 I was at the point of utter ruin in the assembled congregation.

Our private sins have a way of going public. The Internet porn addict discovers that his browsing habits are known by search engines, the FBI, and  even prospective employers who do background checks. Security clearances are threatened. The adulterer is found out. The boyfriend running from his duties to the pregnant girlfriend is summoned to answer for himself. The sinful priest is turned in, arrested, and loses his parish and ministry. The sexually abusive stepfather is arrested. The public school teacher has her escapades with the teen boy displayed on the nightly news.

At some point it would seem that even Lady Lust and Satan himself tire of the sinner and like to see him suffer before Hell comes. Though Satan risks having the person repent and ultimately be saved, it would seem he can’t quite resist making an early “snack” of some of his followers.

And thus what is done in the darkness will be brought to the light.

Even a world that says sexual sin is “no big deal” turns on its own at some point. The sinner cannot escape the special shame and scorn that goes with sins of the flesh like sex, drinking, and gluttony.

On account of envy, many fellow sinners delight in pointing to someone in worse shape than they are. Somehow they think that this will make them feel better. Maybe, but only for a moment; envy is the sin that keeps on taking.

E. Domination – 22 The iniquities of the wicked enslave him, and he is caught in the toils of his sin.

There is an addictive quality to lust and especially to Internet pornography. Many reach a point where they feel enslaved. They want to stop, but feel incapable. And though their habit is costing them dearly in all the ways already described, even this cannot motivate them to stop. They are enslaved and dominated by Lady Lust.

F. Death – 23 He dies for lack of discipline, and because of his great folly he is lost.

The death described here is surely a spiritual death. However there are those, not few in number, who have physically died from syphilis, gonorrhea, and AIDS.

St. Paul says, For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord (Rom 6:23). We were made to be alive in the Lord and free, but sin (in this case indulged lust) drags us to death and Hell.

Jesus also warns, but He advances a solution as well: Therefore I say to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins” (John 8:24). Only the grace of God, working through our faith and God’s mercy, can cancel the death that will ultimately come upon the unrepentant slave of lust (or of any of her nasty sisters, cousins, and aunts). Scripture says, The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God … Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap  For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life … (Gal 5: 19-21; 6:7-8).

The text says that this death comes upon one who lacks discipline. The word discipline is rooted in the Latin word discere (to learn). In English, the word discipline also speaks to applying what one has learned as a way forward. And thus one can be said to engage in the discipline of learning or the discipline of science. To lack discipline is to reject sound teaching or to refuse to apply it.

The text adds that it is a great “folly” to do so. Folly is related to the word “fool.” Who is the fool? The one who refuses received and taught wisdom.

Make no mistake then, to refuse or reject God’s wisdom, handed on through the Church, is foolish, shows a lack of discipline, and brings death.

V. The Design that we should follow – 18 Let your fountain be blessed, and rejoice in the wife of your youth, 19 A loving doe, a graceful fawn–let her breasts always satisfy you; be lost in her love forever. 20 Why should you be infatuated, my son, with a loose woman and embrace the bosom of an adventuress?

Yes, here is God’s design: that a man should leave his father and mother, seek for a wife, and having found her, cling wholly to her in an embrace of growing and fruitful love. This plan has its difficulties and requires sacrifice, mercy, and mutual forgiveness. But, unlike lust, God’s plan gives life. Fruitful, faithful, and lasting matrimony is God’s answer to a lustful world.

Lady Lust is no lady. And as another proverb says, Charm is deceitful and beauty is vain, But a woman who fears the LORD, she shall be praised … An excellent wife, who can find? For her worth is far above jewels. The heart of her husband trusts in her, And he will have no lack of gain (Prov 31:30, 10-11).