A Couple Paving Stones On The Road To Hell

This Throwback Thursday Post was first published on December 12th, 2014. Warning: contains content of a sexual nature.  

      There’s an old saying: “The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.”  It’s a little odd, when you think about it: shouldn’t our intentions be good?  The road to Heaven certainly isn’t paved with bad intentions, is it?  The answer, I think, is that the second half of the proposition is left out.  It's about good intentions that are not grounded in reality, or in wisdom, or in God’s law: they create more problems than they solve (if, indeed, they solve anything at all). 

“Is it OK if I take my pants off?”

     A classic example of the Road to Hell Principle is the thoroughly modern practice known as “Sex Education” (Sex Ed informally).  A concern, and I believe a sincere one in most cases, for the well-being of young people in an increasingly sexualized world has led to instructional programs in schools (and not just public schools) that, because they are disconnected from God’s law, and Natural Law, and plain common sense, promote the very harm they are intended to ameliorate.      One such program has been in the news recently: a class run by a Planned Parenthood chapter in California that was invited to teach a class on sexuality to 9th graders in the local public high school.  According to the Fox News story [full story here]:  

. . . some parents are irate that their children’s sex ed class at Acalanes High School in Lafayette is being taught by employees of Planned Parenthood without their prior knowledge. They are also fuming over the methods and materials being used, including a checklist that asks students if they are “ready for sex” and another worksheet that describes how to give and obtain consent, as well as a diagram that uses a "genderbread" person for lessons in gender identity. 

The Gingerbread Person is a cute little fellow who clearly was designed to appeal to children, much like the old Camel Cigarettes mascot “Joe Camel”; and like the much maligned cartoon camel, who was criticized for promoting an unhealthy product to children, Gingerbread Person offers reassurance to the very young that whatever they want to express or do sexually is not just all right, but good and desirable.  Things, perhaps, that had not even occurred to them before.  As for the class itself, many of the children “felt the sessions were pressuring them to have sex” or, as one parent put it, “Some of the kids were distracted because it was divergent from what they were taught at home.”  Indeed. For example:   

Included in the materials provided to students were documents and worksheets that included a checklist entitled, “Sex Check! Are You Ready For Sex?” in which the 13 and 14-year-old students are asked questions such as if they have water– based lubricants and condoms and if they could handle a possible infection or pregnancy. Another worksheet reads like a how-to on obtaining consent from a possible sexual partner and offers possible statements like “Do you want to go back to my place?” and “Is it OK if I take my pants off?”  

"You can go now."

There are more problems with school-based sex ed classes that I can get into here.  I will point out that the foregoing tends to support what many of us have been saying for a long time: that such classes not only debase sexuality and separate it from its appropriate place in a loving marital relationship, but actually encourage (or even “pressure”, as the students say above) early and promiscuous sexual activity. 

     Here’s another case, this time from the UK [full story here].  After a sex ed class, a thirteen year-old boy and girl   

. . . went to a secluded area where they discussed what they had just been taught about sexual intercourse. The boy said that he asked the girl if she wanted to "try sex." Although the young girl repeatedly said "No," the schoolboy proceeded to pin the girl down and rape her. Afterward he allegedly told the girl, "You can go now."  

     This is only one case to be sure, but we can see a clear connection between the instruction and the act.  And, as it turns out, many British students have misgivings similar to those expressed by their American counterparts above.  From the Life Site story:  

Earlier this year a poll of UK teenagers by the Institute of Public Policy Research (IPPR) [here]found that a large majority of both boys and girls complained that sex education often presents promiscuity as normal, putting additional pressure on them to become sexually active before they might otherwise do so. Many of the teens criticized the sex education lessons they had received at school for not doing enough to discourage them from becoming sexually active. One 18-year-old girl responded to the poll question about her sex-ed experience: "I always felt pressured by teachers, like, 'sex is normal, just be safe OK' when actually I wasn't interested in having sex at the time and was happy to wait for the right person.” "I don't think sex should be taught as 'the norm'. I think people should be made to feel comfortable and teachers should say, 'you should wait, the law states 16, don't be pressured'." 

The Definition Of Insanity

According to Dr. Philip Ney, a retired professor of psychiatry, there is plenty of research to show that the negative effects of sex ed programs are very real.  In an essay he wrote for Life Site News [full article here] he says: 

It is quite conclusive now, that the more sex education, the more sexual activity and all the problems that go with that.  The introduction of sex education is well correlated with the increase in abortion, STDs and boy-girl interpersonal problems. Good education gives people the desire to try it out or learn more experientially.  Paradoxically, in that respect, current forms of sex education are good education but have the wrong results . . . The earlier the sex education, the younger children explore sex and try various sexual techniques. Present evidence makes it possible to also conclude that the earlier the sex education, the earlier the sexual behavior. Thus sexual education is sexual titillation.  

     Despite all the evidence that these programs do the opposite of what they intend, the “experts” have nothing to offer but more of the same.  In response to the British case above, one such expert said that “in her opinion the solution to this type of misbehavior is more sex education, ‘and much earlier than 13, I would say.’”        This whole situation brings to mind an old saying: “Insanity is to keep doing the same thing, while expecting a different result”.  But what else can they do in the public schools, or in the secular world in general?  They have rejected a worldview in which healthy sexuality is nourished and supported.  They have torn down the social attitudes and institutions that protected people from the consequences of lust run amok. In a world where the most important thing is feelings (and isn’t that what the Genderbread Person is all about?), right and wrong are random abstractions.  That’s why even abstinence classes, while better than the Planned Parenthood inspired alternative, are still not enough.  Young people need to be taught not simply the (negative) practice of abstinence but the (positive) virtue of Chastity, and not just in a classroom: they need to see it as part of a coherent worldview, as something that not only works but can be lived out joyfully, especially by the example of the adults in their lives. 

         It has happened before. There are many reasons why Christianity spread as quickly as it did throughout the Roman Empire in the first few centuries after Christ.  I have heard that one of them was that pagan Romans saw the joy in the lives of their Christian neighbors, not the least part of which was the love and respect Christian men had for their wives.  In a culture that more and more encourages people to use each other for pleasure rather than embrace each other in love, we are again called to show a more excellent way.  We need to understand, and help our fellow Catholics see, that Church teachings on sexuality and marriage are not so much a series of prohibitions as they are a road map to happier, more productive, and holier lives.  We need to rebuild, one person, one family, at a time a culture in which Christ is King.

Is The Good The Enemy Of The Perfect?

An earlier version of this Worth Revisiting post was published under the title "The Forest and the Trees" on June 4th, 2014. To enjoy the work of other faithful Catholic bloggers see Worth Revisiting Wednesday, hosted by Elizabeth Reardon at theologyisaverb.com and Allison Gingras at reconciledtoyou.com.

     Like many of my fellow Catholics, I tend to focus on particular issues (for instance, life and family issues) as an expression of my faith and as a means of evangelizing.  But there is always the danger of losing sight of the Big Picture when we commit ourselves to specific causes which are necessarily finite and subordinate to Eternal Truths.  For example, one criticism of the “Abortion Myths” series that I have been posting is that we are in danger (or I am in danger) of reducing Catholicism to nothing more than an anti-abortion crusade.  One commenter suggested that we should instead simply preach the Gospel, and once we have converted the world the abortion problem will solve itself.

Leonard Porter, "Saint Paul Preaching on the Areopagus".

Admonish The Sinner

     There is a degree of truth in such criticism: there is always a possibility that we will be governed more by our own limited enthusiasms than by the will of God.  On the other hand, it is God’s will that we act against wrongs being committed in our own time and place.  This is stated over and over again in Holy Scripture, as in this Old Testament passage:

"So you, son of man, I have made a watchman for the house of Israel; whenever you hear a word from my mouth, you shall give them warning from me. If I say to the wicked, O wicked man, you shall surely die, and you do not speak to warn the wicked to turn from his way, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity, but his blood I will require at your hand.  But if you warn the wicked to turn from his way, and he does not turn from his way; he shall die in his iniquity, but you will have saved your life.  (Ezekial 33:7-9)

And here we see the same principle in the New Testament:

My brethren, if any one among you wanders from the truth and someone brings him back, let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins. (James 5:19-20)

     Saint Peter gives us some guidance on how we can address particular situations without neglecting the Full Gospel:

But even if you do suffer for righteousness’ sake, you will be blessed.  Have no fear of them, nor be troubled, but in your hearts reverence Christ as Lord.  Always be prepared to make a defense to anyone who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence; and keep your conscience clear, so that, when you are abused, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame. (1 Peter 3:14-16)

By exemplifying in our manner and mode of address respect for the dignity of our adversary, we are preaching by example the Gospel of Christ’s love.

Practice What You Preach

     We very often see wonderful examples of this approach in some of the Church’s teaching documents, and in a special way in those addressing a particular wrong.  These magisterial correctives take advantage of the interest generated by a particular “hot topic” as a teachable moment both to gently yet firmly invite back those who have strayed, and also to give a positive lesson on how the Church’s teaching in a particular area is grounded in the greater principle of God’s all-embracing love.

Pope Paul VI and Cardinal Ratzinger
(now Bl. Paul VI and Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI)

     One such document is Pope Paul VI’s 1968 Encyclical Humanae Vitae [here], to which I will be returning in the near future.  Another less well-known one is the 1984 Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith document called Instruction on Certain Aspects of the “Theology of Liberation” [here], signed by the CDF’s then prefect Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger.   The main purpose of the document is to correct errors in the Liberation Theology movement similar to those described above, specifically that it tends to give worldly “liberation” from material want and suffering precedence over the Liberation from Sin that is the true core of Christian belief, and also that it associates itself too closely with the anti-Christian political Philosophy of Marxism.  At the same time, the document acknowledges the areas where Liberation Theology is right, particularly its focus on very real problems of poverty, suffering and injustice in many parts of the world.  Finally, the document takes the opportunity to present a wonderfully concise mini-lesson in the Catholic understanding of poverty and our responsibility as Christians to work actively on behalf of the poor and oppressed.

     This document is but one of many examples of the fact that the Big Picture and finite issues are inextricably intertwined.  If our attempts to address and correct particular wrongs are not first grounded in Christ’s Love, then we are no better than “a noisy gong or clanging cymbal” (1 Corinthians 13:1), or worse than that if our lack of charity actually drives people away from the Gospel.  On the other hand, if we simply preach the Love of God without applying it to concrete situations, it becomes an insubstantial abstraction, and our Faith is as good as dead (see James, chapter 2).  Our role as Catholics is to be both/and, body and soul, and to witness to the Word made Flesh.  In no other way can we, as Saint Paul says (1 Timothy 6:12), “Fight the Good Fight”.

    

St. Equitius and The Church Militant

     The Catholic Church is like a spiritual treasure-house with many different rooms.  We have at our disposal whole storerooms, as it were, of sacred music, or art, or inspired Christian doctrine.  One of the more expansive rooms contains legions of Saints.  As I've ventured into that room more and more often over the last few years, I have found that while a relatively few Saints, such as St. Clare (whose feast is today) are well known (although not as familiar to Catholics as they once were), there are countless obscure Saints who have wonderful stories to tell.  

     One such little-known Saint, St. Equitius, has his feast day today as well. Here is his biographical entry on  Catholic Online:

Abbot and founder, never ordained, mentioned by Pope St. Gregory the Great. A native of  Abruzzi, Italy, he founded a monastery at Terni after converting and living as a hermit. When complaints were made concerning Equitius' standing, he was protected by the pope, who started an investigation by sending a priest named Julian to Equitius. The pope then sent word that he had had a vision concerning him. Equitius founded a number of monasteries in Valeria, an area near Rome. 

     I see the story of St. Equitius as something like a tableau of how the Catholic Church works in the world.  We have the individual believer, Equitius, who through his "reputation for sanctity" draws more people out of the world and into the Church, and strengthens the faith of those who already believe.  Here we see the mission of all Christians to sanctify the world.  He is a layman, however, and some people are afraid that he is straying into territory rightly reserved for ordained clergy.  The Pope, who embodies the clergy's threefold mission of sanctifying, governing, and teaching investigates; under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, he gives his blessing to St. Equitius' holy work.

     This is a nice illustration, I think, of a couple simple but important ideas.  First, we are all called to sanctity and to mission.  At the same time, we all have different roles, and we need to respect the individual missions God has entrusted to each of us.  There is a lot of confusion in recent years about the importance of preserving, and observing, these important distinctions.  Sometimes the laity's call to holiness is misunderstood to mean that lay people should be moving into the sanctuary and acting more like priests, who are in turn expected to behave more like the laity.  

     But that's not how it's supposed to work. I find it helpful to think about it in light of the Church Militant: the bishops and priests are the officers, who train us lay people and lead us into battle; we are the common soldiers who apply our  "training" to the fight on the front lines, i.e., in the world.  If instead we try to knock our general off his horse and hop up in his place, we are really fighting for the enemy.  

     Saint Equitius understood that his mission was to sanctify the world, but he did not seek the authority or status of the priesthood.  The Pope, having satisfied himself that Equitius was respecting the teaching and authority of the Church, gave his blessing. That's a good lesson for all of us.

"Sanctus" by Gregorio Allegri

Gregorio Allegri, who lived from 1582 to 1652, is most well known for his for magnificent 7-voice setting for Psalm 51, his “Miserere”. As it happens, that was just one many beautiful compositions.  His biographical entry on Wikipedia tells us: 

Among Allegri's musical compositions were two volumes of concerti for five voices published in 1618 and 1619; two volumes of motets for six voices published in 1621; an edition of a four-part sinfonia; five masses; two settings of the Lamentations of Jeremiah; and numerous motets which were not published in his lifetime. He was one of the earliest composers for stringed instruments, and Athanasius Kircher has given one specimen of this class of his works in his Musurgia. Most of Allegri's published music, especially the instrumental music, is in the progressive early Baroque concertato style. However, his work for the Sistine Chapel is descended from the Palestrina style, and in some cases strips even this refined, simple style of all ornament. He is credited with the earliest string quartet.

As the beautiful “Sanctus” above makes clear, Allegri has more than one jewel in his treasury.

Abortion Myths # 15

MYTH: "Pro-lifers are a bunch of religious fanatics trying to impose their faith on everyone else."

TRUTH:

-While it’s true that most pro-lifers are religious believers, so is the population as a whole, at least in the United States [see here].   Even if pro-lifers tend to be more observant than their fellow citizens, they adhere to a moral tradition that the vast majority shares.

-Also, the public arguments pro-lifers make against abortion are rooted in natural law and concrete scientific fact. The most fundamental pro-life argument is that science proves that unborn babies are both alive and human from the moment of conception, and so to destroy them is, by definition, the taking of a human life. The taking of innocent human life is always wrong in and of itself, and if we can declare some human lives expendable, then none of us has a clear right to exist.

-Since the pro-abortionists can’t produce any facts or scientific evidence that unborn babies are not living human beings, they need to create a philosophical definition such as “personhood” that is designed to exclude living humans who don’t meet certain subjective standards (brain activity, ability to feel pain, emotions, viability, etc.). Some also use quasi-theological arguments, such as that unborn babies do not yet have souls: I recall one “pro-choice” cleric, not a Catholic, who relied on the etymological connection in many languages between “breath” and “spirit” to argue that we don’t have souls until we are able to breathe (notice that the pro-life argument doesn’t use or need the concept of the soul). They also use emotional arguments to obscure the injustice done to aborted babies.

-Religious believers have the same right to try to persuade their fellow citizens as anyone else; if their fellow citizens don’t find their arguments persuasive, they don’t have to go along.  To paraphrase Saint John Paul II, we propose, we don’t impose.

-In the United States the purpose of the First Amendment to the Constitution is to protect religious believers from the state, not the other way around. Certain opinions are not prohibited simply because they have a religious basis.

-Just because a law corresponds to religious convictions does not make it an imposition of religion.  Murder, theft and all sorts of other crimes are condemned in the Bible and in Church teaching, but I don’t hear anyone calling for the revocation of those laws on that basis.

-The abolition of slavery, the civil rights movement, and many similar movements for social improvement were led by believing Christians; should we reject the laws that resulted from these as an “imposition of religious faith”?

-There are agnostics and atheists who nonetheless recognize the injustice of abortion, such as the atheist writer Nat Hentoff, or the abortionist and NARAL founder Bernard Nathanson, who was still an atheist when he changed to a pro-life position (only later did he embrace the Catholic Faith).

DON’T BUY THE LIE!

Essential Pro-Life Resources:

Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments (link)  

The Elliot Institute (link)  

National Right To Life Committee (link)  

Care-Net (link)

The Nurturing Network (link)


To See The Entire Abortion Myths Series Click HERE 

Psalm 127: A Blessing And Gift Of The Lord

One of the many benefits of praying the Liturgy of the Hours is that we become very familiar with the Psalms, which comprise the core of the Liturgy.  These ancient hymns of the Jewish Temple address many different aspects of our relationship with God: some are songs of  praise, others speak of our fears, or of God’s mercy, or thank him for his protection from our enemies.

     One Psalm that has always resonated with me is Psalm 127 (I also discuss it more briefly in my post on Daytime Prayer, here, and it provides the title for a recent post on poverty, here).  It is fairly short (four stanzas), but beautifully reminds us of our dependence on God and his providential care.  The psalm opens with the image of house construction: “If the Lord does not build the house, in vain do its builders labor”.  The psalmist then presents a series of images illustrating how useless our efforts are without God’s help:

If the Lord does not watch over the city, in vain does the watchman keep vigil. 

In vain is your earlier rising, your going later to rest, you who toil for the bread you eat, when he pours gifts on his beloved while they slumber. 

What an eloquent reminder that it is only through Grace that our efforts bear fruit!

     The focus shifts in the last half of Psalm 127:instead of building a house, here we are building our “house”, that is, our family, again only through the Grace of God: “Truly sons are a gift from the Lord, a blessing, the fruit of the womb”.  Here, too, God is the real author; and our children are Providence in tangible form: both gift and blessing, which is to say their source is God, and that’s a good thing. And not just good in some spiritual sense: 

Indeed the sons of youth are like arrows in the hand of a warrior. 

O the happiness of the man who has filled his quiver with these arrows! He will have no cause for shame when he disputes with his foes in the gateways.

You can’t ask for images more down-to-earth than these: are sons a like weapons, they’ll back us up when we face our enemies, and all through the generosity of the Lord.

     It will come as no surprise that the idea of our progeny as gift and blessing is not as common as it once was.  Thirty-five years ago, in his introduction to Pope John Paul I’s Illustrissimi, John Cardinal Wright wrote:

     The present almost pathological lack of joy shows up in every vocation and in every area of life.  There already exist among us people who rejoice as little in the coming of children as once used to do only some of our neo-pagan neighbors.  Among descendents of people who, only yesterday, of the coming of a baby as a “blessed event,” maternity  is no longer thought joyful. 

That train has gone much further down the track since 1979, so that now even the President of the United States can speak of a young women being “punished with a baby”. 

     We need to speak out, of course, against this anti-child attitude, the anti-family ethos and what Pope John Paul II called the Culture of Death.  I regularly do so in this space.  But we also need to remember, as Cardinal Wright points out, that our message is at root a message of Joy. Our children, and children in general (sadly, not all who wish it have their quivers filled in this way) are “a gift from the Lord, a blessing, the fruit of the womb”.  We need to say it often, and live it publicly, and always gives thanks to God for building up our house. 

Psalm 127

Unless the LORD build the house,

they labor in vain who build.

Unless the LORD guard the city,

in vain does the guard keep watch.

It is vain for you to rise early

and put off your rest at night,

To eat bread earned by hard toil—

all this God gives to his beloved in sleep.

Certainly sons are a gift from the LORD,

the fruit of the womb, a reward.

Like arrows in the hand of a warrior

are the sons born in one’s youth.

Blessed is the man who has filled his quiver with them.

He will never be shamed

for he will destroy his foes at the gate.

Be Vigilant At All Times

(This Throwback Thursday post was first published November 29th, 2014)

   I discovered a very curious thing yesterday.  As we were saying our family prayers, I noticed that the rosary that I have been carrying has only nine beads on its first decade, as you can see in the picture to the left.  It has wooden beads strung on a strong cord which has never broken, so it must have been that way since I bought it.

     The first thought that entered my mind (after I got over my initial surprise) was of the Muslim prayer rugs that have a few stiches the wrong color, or the great mosques where every row of columns has one that’s just slightly out of kilter.  The makers put these imperfections into their work intentionally, as an acknowledgement that only God can lay claim to perfection, which it is right and proper for us to acknowledge.

     These visible flaws don’t simply remind us that God is perfect, of course; their purpose is also to remind us that we ourselves are radically imperfect; not simply morally flawed, but incomplete without God.  So my flawed rosary, through the (unintentional, no doubt) mistake of its maker can represent the flawed nature of all of us. 

     There is also a reminder here, however, of my own particular imperfection: I have carried this rosary in my pocket for seven or eight years; I don't use it every day (when I pray the rosary in the car, as I often do, I usually forgo the beads and use my fingers, in the interests of automotive safety), but I use it frequently enough that I ought to have noticed that it is one “Hail Mary” short.  In fact, I really should have noticed when I first bought it at the local Catholic book store.  So, I have not only a symbol of human imperfection, but a very real, concrete reminder of my own broken nature, and in a very particular area.    

     Today, as it happens, is the last day of Ordinary Time [i.e., when the post was first published].  Here is the Gospel reading for the day:

Jesus said to his disciples: “Beware that your hearts do not become drowsy from carousing and drunkenness and the anxieties of daily life, and that day catch you by surprise like a trap. For that day will assault everyone who lives on the face of the earth. Be vigilant at all times and pray that you have the strength to escape the tribulations that are imminent and to stand before the Son of Man.”    (Luke 21:34-36)

As we are about to embark on the Season of Advent, in which we prepare for the coming of Jesus, not only at Christmas, but at his second coming, and also his coming for each one of us individually, we are enjoined to pay attention.  It looks like I have my work cut out for me; and every time I put my hand in my pocket, I have a tangible warning of how far I have to go.

Dressing For The Wedding Feast Of The Lamb

An earlier version of this Worth Revisiting post was first published on June 9th, 2014. To enjoy the work of other faithful Catholic bloggers see Worth Revisiting Wednesday, hosted by Elizabeth Reardon at theologyisaverb.com and Allison Gingras at reconciledtoyou.com.

   It’s hard to deny that the standard of dress for Mass attendance is significantly lower than it was a few decades ago.  I’m not talking about people who, due to work schedule or other external circumstances, need to attend Mass in other than their “Sunday Best”, but about the very large number of Catholics who could dress better but, for whatever reason, don’t.  And it’s not simply a matter of people being poorly dressed, but also many dressing immodestly, some to the point where they create a near occasion of sin for their fellow congregants.  Might it not be a good idea to bring back the concept of our “Sunday Best” for Mass, and encourage our fellow believers to do the same?

Dressed for the Wedding Feast: not a t-shirt or pair of shower clogs in sight

Maybe God does care what you're wearing . . .

Some people, of course, will say, “God doesn’t care what I’m wearing, as long as I’m there.”  I respectfully disagree; consider the following passage from the Gospel of Matthew, (a similar one appears in Luke):

But when the king came in to look at the guests, he saw there a man who had no wedding garment; and he said to him, “Friend, how did you get in here without a wedding garment? And he was speechless.  Then the king said to the attendants, “Bind him hand and foot, and cast him into the outer darkness; there men will weep and gnash their teeth.” (Matthew 22:11-13)

     Now, one might object that this is not intended as a literal instruction on proper Mass attendance, but is a figurative description of what our interior disposition should be.  That’s true, but we also believe that our internal disposition should be reflected externally: that’s the point of all the standing, kneeling, blessing ourselves with the Sign of the Cross, etc.; the word needs to become flesh.  We recognize this in the secular world: what does it tell my wife if I don’t acknowledge her birthday?  How many wives or husbands would be satisfied with “You know I love you, why should I bother with a card or flowers”?  Consider also that the wedding banquet in the passage above stands for the Kingdom of God, which is similarly represented in Revelation (Rev. 19:6-9) as the “Wedding Feast of the Lamb”; we also apply this term to the Mass, as before Communion when the Celebrant quotes Revelation : “Blessed are those who are called to the supper of the Lamb.”  Heaven, Wedding Feast, Mass, it all goes together. Figurative or not, I wouldn’t dismiss the fate of the poorly-clad wedding guest lightly.

Whose Glory is it, anyway?

     There are places in the Bible, of course, where we do receive explicit directions on liturgical dress, such as St. Paul’s First Letter to the Corinthians. Here the Apostle says that Men should not cover their heads, but that a woman should veil their heads during worship, since her hair is “her glory” which was given to her “as a covering” (Corinthians 11:15); this passage was taken literally and followed in the Catholic Church from St. Paul’s time through the Second Vatican Council, and mostly still is at Masses in the Extraordinary Form.  One hardly needs to imagine what St. Paul would say about women coming to Mass with legs bared up to mid-thigh, or other immodesties that I blush to mention.  In any case, we can see from Sacred Scripture itself that how we dress for worship has always been important.

     A more contemporary authority, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, published a very helpful document [here] in 2006 called “’Happy Are Those Who Are Called to His Supper’: On Preparing to Receive Christ Worthily in the Eucharist” (note yet again the connection of the Mass to the Wedding Feast).  This publication considers many aspects of the Mass, including a section called “How Can We Prepare To Receive Holy Communion More Worthily?” which begins by saying: 

The Mass is not simply a private encounter between an individual and Jesus Christ. In a mystical manner, the whole Church is present in every celebration of the Mass, including the angels and the martyrs and saints of all ages.

In more direct language, the Mass is not just about me, or you, and we don’t get to make up our own rules.  This section contains a brief section on “Appropriate Attire”:

We should also come to the sacred liturgy appropriately dressed. As Christians we should dress in a modest manner, wearing clothes that reflect our reverence for God and that manifest our respect for the dignity of the liturgy and for one another. 

Notice the three standards by which we should judge our own dress:  1) “reverence for God” – how would we dress to meet the President, or even a prospective employer?  Shouldn’t we dress at least as well to meet our Creator and the Lord of the Universe?  2) “respect for the dignity of the liturgy” – don’t we dress up for a Broadway show, or the opera?  How then should we dress for the Miracle of the Eucharist?  3) “respect for one another” – wouldn’t we dress up for friend’s wedding, or other special occasion?  And is it respectful to our fellow congregants to distract and even tempt them by dressing provocatively?

Don't conform: be transformed

     No doubt someone will point out that you can avoid the whole thing by attending Mass in the Extraordinary Form; that’s true up to a point, although I’ve seen the same problem creeping in there as well. The fact is that we live in a world that has lost a sense of boundaries, because we have lost sight of the idea that everything does not revolve around us and our desires.  And so even many of us Catholics have forgotten St. Paul’s admonition:

Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may prove what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect. (Romans 12:2)

     Instead we not only conform ourselves, but try to conform even the Church to this world by making it a place where we dress and talk like we do anywhere else, listen to music that sounds just like the music outside (or at least like it sounded, in some circles, in the 1970’s), and where we can’t criticize the secular orthodoxies that are current at the moment.  We have completely lost sight of that most important boundary, the dividing line between the sacred and the profane (used in its traditional sense, roughly synonymous with what we now mean by “secular”).  “Sacred” and its Germanic equivalent “Holy” literally mean “separate” or “set apart”: set apart for God, and therefore separate from the ordinary things in our lives.  Recognizing our need to express both internal and spiritual realities in external and physical ways, we were reminded that the interior of the Church was “Holy Ground” and set it apart by using a different language, singing a different kind of music, and wearing different clothes.  Even inside the Church the altar rail was a sign to us of our separateness from God, and only those specially commissioned could enter the Sanctuary (as only the High Priest could enter the Holy of Holies in the ancient Temple) to represent all of us to God.

          Today we like to intellectualize everything, because by simply dismissing anything we can’t ourselves figure out we maintain the illusion that we are the masters of reality.  But the intellect only touches the surface of our consciousness: to really understand reality on a deep level we need signs, symbols, and images, we need to experience it, and not simply understand it.  What are we saying about the reality of the Mass, the significance of Christ present in the Eucharist, if we feel free to show up in shorts and shower clogs, or skimpy clothes that draw attention away from the Divine Presence and toward our own bodies?

Lex Gerendi, Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi?

     So, what to do?  I suspect that many people don't really know any better, and are just doing what they see everyone else doing.  I propose that we try to lead by example, and emphasize that how we dress is not only a reflection of our devotion, but can actually be an expression of our devotion, a physical form of prayer.  Perhaps if we make a point of talking, in a positive way, about reverent dress, and come up with a catchy slogan ("Offer The Lord Your Sunday Best"? "Bring Out Your Best Every Sunday"?  Any suggestions out there?) we can start to see an improvement in our local parishes. 

     I firmly believe that when we take our worship more seriously we take our faith more seriously: lex orandi, lex credendi, "the law of praying is the law of believing" (how many times have I used that quote?).  Whether it's the improved translation, better liturgical music, or a manner of dress that shows more respect for God, the liturgy, and our fellow-worshippers, anything that brings more reverence to the Mass will have a beneficial effect in other areas as well.  I invite everyone to join me in a campaign to encourage attire worthy of the Wedding Feast of the Lamb.

  

William Byrd: Credo (From Mass For Four Voices)

     William Byrd, the composer of the "Credo" performed by the Tallis Scholars in the clip below, was an unusually interesting character.  One of the leading Anglican composers during the early part of English Queen Elizabeth I's reign, he converted to Catholicism in the 1570's, at a time when it was becoming increasingly dangerous to be a practicing Catholic in England.  He persevered in the Catholic faith in the face of some serious disincentives: for the last five decades of his life he was forced to pay a heavy recusancy tax for failure to attend Church of England services, and often faced other difficulties as well.  Some of his Catholic associates were put to death because of their Catholicism.  Byrd's emphasis on Biblical texts involving themes such as the Babylonian Captivity has long been taken as a musical commentary on the plight of Catholics in Elizabethan England.

     I suppose I should mention that he wrote some incredibly beautiful music.  The excerpt below, for instance, taken from his Mass for Four Voices, one of a large number of Catholic liturgical pieces Byrd composed in the 1590's and 1600's for use in illegal (and quite hazardous) Masses at the home of his patron, Sir John Petre.  Interestingly, he continued to compose music for the Anglican Church as well, some of which continued in use for a century or more after his death.

     One final, intriguing note on this most intriguing of Catholic composers: he, along with fellow composers (but not fellow Catholics) John Merbecke and Thomas Tallis, claims November 21st as his feast day on the liturgical calendar of the U.S. Episcopal Church (a member church of the Anglican Communion).  

Christ or Anti-Christ? Art And The Power Of Imagination

Who do you see in the picture?

     The Incarnation remains among the most astounding of Catholic doctrines.  It's not easy to believe that the Second Person of the Trinity, the Eternal Word,

 . . . though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross. (Phillipians 2:6-8)

The Infinite God, St. Paul tells us, willingly took on finite humanity in the Incarnation.  Because we believe this, Catholics have always understood that humble and material things can serve as channels for greater, immaterial things.  The chief examples, aside from the God-Man Jesus Christ Himself, are the Sacraments, which are created things that serve as vehicles of God’s Grace, but we also find the same principle at work, albeit on a less exalted level, in art, music, and other works of the imagination.

    In recent posts about Star Trek [here] and about biblical films such as Noah [here] I have discussed the power of images and other works that appeal to the imagination to mislead and confuse. Such things can also enlighten us, of course, if they are done properly, and deepen our understanding (which is why the Catholic faith has always had such a large audio-visual component).  I recently came across an interesting example of an imaginative work being used in a more positive manner.  Two imaginative works, actually, because it involves a renaissance fresco appearing in a modern work of fiction.

    The book is michael O’Brien’s apocalyptic novel Father Elijah.  I’m thinking in particular of a scene in which Fr. Elijah himself and a friend are looking at a wall painting in the Cathedral of Orvieto:

Elijah went over to another mural.

His eyes were drawn to the central figure of the image, a figure of Christ.  How strange, he thought, to see a representation of the Lord with the figure of Satan whispering in His ear,and his arm penetrating His robes.  Is that Christ’s hand or the devil’s that emerges from the folds of cloth?

It was not a literal representation of a scriptural scene, he concluded; although it might be the artist’s imaginative rendering of the temptation in the desert?  But there was something out of character in the way Christ leaned into Satan’s embrace and listened with such attention.

He stared at it for a long time.  Suddenly, the meaning of the mural became clear, like a scene viewed through lenses revolving into focus.  The blurred shapes of reality drew together into a sharp, piercing landscape of moral disaster.

The figure held in the devil’s embrace was not Christ but the Antichrist.

Elijah understood why Don Matteo had wanted him to see it.  Now he knew why the old friar would not tell him the reason for his request.  Matteo had wanted Elijah to discover the secret of the mural himself, and in the process, to observe the mechanics of perception.

     I immediately knew the painting by it's description, because I had used a picture of it to illustrate a blog post last winter (called, appropriately enough, "'Choice' And The Father Of Lies", here).  The painting creates a vivid picture of Satan's usual modus operandi: evil working in the guise of good.  The striking image gets the message across much more memorably than a simple explanation (hence the old saying, "a picture is worth a thousand words").

     But there's more to it than that.  Notice that the characters looking at the mural above don't at first realize what they're seeing; neither did I, only it took me a lot longer to figure it out than it does Fr. Elijah.  But that's part of what makes the painting so effective: we think we're seeing Jesus, only to realize that we're actually looking at his opposite.  We are not merely seeing a depiction of deception, we are in fact deceived by the artist's work: we experience deception itself, "in the flesh" as it were.  That's a powerful lesson.  That's why, in O'Brien's novel, Don Matteo wanted Fr. Elijah to experience it first-hand.

     Very often our faith is hindered by emotional barriers: those of us who are believers sometimes give in to doubt, even though we've experienced God's presence;  unbelievers often are incapable of accepting any evidence at all because of such barriers.  A well-crafted work of visual or imaginative art can often weaken those barriers by creating a new emotional experience, and so lead to a new or deeper understanding, while bad or disordered art can lead us further into darkness.  What we see, hear, or read can make all the difference.