All Life is Sacred

Brittany Maynard's decision was wrong, but not for the reasons you think.

What I'm seeing on the inter-webs is that many Christians feel that the only reason to be disappointed in Brittany Maynard's decision to end her life is if you group it in as a suicide. Suicide is wrong, therefore she was wrong. At this, I shake my head.

Technically speaking, yes, suicide is the term for what happened to Brittany Maynard. However, to pretend that the underlying cause of her actions is comparable to that of a more stereotypical suicide (for lack of a better term) is about as mature a position as young earth creationism. Suicide is a different issue (and is itself a vastly complicated one). Many progressive bloggers have keyed in on this distinction and concluded that maybe she wasn't wrong to end her life, some going so far as to say Brittany Maynard didn't commit suicide.

Coming at it from that point of view is a red herring. Suicide is not what we should be talking about. What is disappointing about Brittany Maynard's decision in particular and society at large is that so many believe that human dignity is rooted in quality of life. Life is only worth living if it can be lived under ideal conditions. That is simply untrue. Human life is by nature dignified, even if it's imperfect.

I readily admit that it would have been very difficult for Brittany Maynard to continue living - clearly her prognosis was dire. However, pain, suffering, and the loss of faculties do not empty life of its dignity.

The notion that quality of life is the measure of the dignity of life is related to the horrendous fact that in the United States, 92% of children with trisomy 21 (Down syndrome) are aborted. Reflect on that for a moment. What might cause parents to make that choice? The child is atypical? It will be more challenging for the parents? It's not what the parents imagined life or parenting to be like? Maybe it's something else besides, but whatever the cause, it's terribly sad. It betrays a survival-of-the-fittest mentality when it comes to human dignity. The only people who should live are those who's lives are worth living.

Here the reader will begin to write off the comparison, because I'm using Brittany Maynard's sad case as an opportunity to make a point about abortion. But to be pro-life is not just a question of abortion stance. The Christian is called to recognize that all human life is sacred: the child in the womb, the terminally ill patient, and yes even the convicted criminal. I am saddened that Brittany Maynard could not see the beauty of her life in spite of suffering, just as I am saddened that so many parents can't see the beauty in a disabled child and that so many Christians insist that criminals deserve death. None of us is in a position to point at a given human life and say, "end it," just as none of us is in a position to walk through the Louvre, point at a particular work of art and say, "destroy it."

Then there's this:
I've also seen people say that the reason Brittany Maynard was wrong is because it is God's decision when we die, not our own. I think that is an awful thing to say. The book of Wisdom teaches us, "God did not make death, nor does he rejoice in the destruction of the living." (Wisdom 1:13) We are not on this earth to patiently await the time God has chosen to kill us. We are on this earth to be filled to brimming with the love of God, and then let that love be poured out of us into the world until such time as we are spent. "If you love until it hurts, there can be no more hurt, only more love." (Bl. Mother Teresa)

Very plainly, the reason Brittany Maynard's decision was misguided is that her life still had value, even if she could not see it. Broken as she was, and as we all are, Brittany Maynard never ceased to be God's beautiful creation. It would have been heroic for her to go on living, and sometimes, heroism is precisely what God calls us to.

Still, though I've said her actions were wrong, I do still hope to see her in the Kingdom. If God in his goodness would deign to forgive my great sins, surely he can forgive someone who unfortunately did not recognize the Divine Image in her own heart. In the build up to her decision, I wished for all the world to have some way of communicating that truth to her, but, as Thomas Merton said, "There is no way of telling people that they are all walking around shining like the sun."

This is November, the month of praying for the dead:

Eternal rest grant unto her, O Lord, 

and let perpetual light shine upon her.

May her soul and the souls of the faithful departed 

through the mercy of God, rest in peace. Amen.

All Saints' Day Homily

I don't ever post homilies, but since this one will only be delivered once (tomorrow is All Souls' Day, so the homily will be quite different), I figured I'd make it a bit more accessible. (And yes, I did steal a line from Louis CK.)

John makes a rather peculiar assumption in this evening's second reading: "The reason the world does not know us is that it did not know him [Jesus]."

"The reason the world does not know us..."

"The world does not know us."

Really? The world does not know us? Is that true? Let's give a face to "the world," and ask the question, "does that guy know me?" I wonder if we're really all that estranged from a personification of "the world."

The world is greed.

He is the desire for more, and more, and more. The world is wanting to have the newest thing, searching for happiness in money and power. The world is having desires fulfilled as soon as possible. He despises patience and loves next day air. The world is greed. Does the world know you?

The world is envy.

The world is always thinking about what other people have, despising the blessings God has given to him. The world looks in the other person's bowl, not to check that they have enough, but to see how unfair it is that they have and he does not. The world is envy. Is he your friend?

St. John assumes that the world does not know us...

The world is gluttony.

The world is perpetually bored, consuming food and drink and entertainment, because, well, what else is there to do? The world stays up all night binge watching TV shows. The world wastes hours on the internet and playing video games. The world is gluttony. Are you a stranger to the world?

The world is lust.

The world pretends to love the sexual act, but actually hates it, using it in all the wrong ways. The world is addicted to pornography, and that doesn't bother him, because everyone uses it, right? The world sees other humans as objects not subjects. The world constantly makes sexist jokes and sexist policies. The world is captivated by someone else's spouse, or a live in girlfriend or boyfriend. The world is lust. Does the world know you?

The world is sloth.

The world is lazy and listless. The world insists that no one encroach on his time. The world sits on the couch and takes for granted those he loves and who love him. He always keeps his options open. The world knows what the right thing to do is, but hesitates to do it, sits on his hands, and it goes undone. The world is sloth. Does the world know you?

The world is anger.

The world knows just what's wrong with people today, what's wrong with everybody else. The world will admit a vague sense that he know's he's not perfect...but do you know what that other guy did? Did you hear? ... The world is a gossip. The world curses uncontrollably, especially when he's driving or watching football. The world is angry with his wife more often than he finds himself enjoying being with her. The world never compromises. The world is anger. How familiar is the world with you?

The world is pride.

The world doesn't listen. The world wants things his way. He's frustrated that people just don't get it. The world rolls his eyes at his superiors, usually behind their back. He's really good at imagining what he should have said to that person. The world is self-absorbed, but at the same time, hates himself, because he knows deep down that he's not as good as he tells everyone else...definitely not as good as the facade he presents on Facebook. The world is pride. Are you a stranger to the world?

Again, St. John takes it for granted that we are strangers to the world, for the saints are. That's why holy people stick out so easily and draw so much criticism. To the extent that they are captivated by heavenly things, their relationship with the world is neglected more and more.

Most saints started out as close friends with the world. They were old drinking buddies. But growing in holiness is sort of like what happens when a person settles down, gets married, gets a job, has kids, matures, or otherwise no longer has time for his immature friends. He feels awkward around them. He doesn't care as much about the things they want to talk and joke about. He has to leave early to get back to his life. Eventually he becomes estranged from them. He says hello every now and then, but his life has changed.

That process of leaving our old "friends" behind is precisely what conversion means. We grow further and further apart from our old drinking buddy, (but we might not even notice it as it's happening). We begin to care about other things and neglect our old friendship with the world.

But here is the question. Here is what determines whether we're on the path to sanctity, that great quality of being a saint:

Who is it that we're growing apart from? Can I more truthfully say:

"I am neglecting my relationship with the world."

or

"I am neglecting my relationship with God."

The Body of the Deceased

Concerning preparations for funerals and plans for burial or cremation (both for loved ones and one's self), there is a common theme I hear with regard to the body of the deceased: "That's not Mom." "It's just a shell." "Of course, Dad's not here [in the casket]." It's not universal. Not everyone talks that way, but many do.

As All Souls' Day approaches, I just want to remind people (Catholics in particular) that the human body is sacred. True, the dead body is dead, and it is no longer informed by the soul. It will indeed return to dust, as we are reminded on Ash Wednesday. However, it is still the beautiful creation of God, even if it will soon decay. This is part of why the Church for such a long time banned the practice of cremation (though the main part was its cultural ties to paganism and a rejection of the belief in the resurrection of the dead). The human body is to be honored as something good and holy, for it is God's creation. That's why a person's remains are sprinkled with holy water, covered with a pall, and incensed, not to mention the Bible and crucifix placed upon the casket. These are outward signs as we remember and pray for the person's soul, yes, but they are also geared towards our reverence for the body.

The human person is composed of both body and soul. A little known implication of that reality is this: human beings are incomplete in heaven. (Wait, what?) No, I don't mean that humans are not completely fulfilled by the beatific vision of God.  Souls are perfectly happy in the presence of God. Rather, I mean that God created us as bodily creatures, so to exist without a body leaves us incomplete in God's plan for us. That's why we have that line in the Nicene Creed that you might not have contemplated before: "I look forward to the resurrection of the dead." The dead will be raised at the end of time, not because God wants to engineer some kind of awesome or macabre spectacle. The dead will be raised because Jesus Christ was raised, and we who have died with him will also rise with him.

For this reason, cemeteries are considered holy places! They aren't unholy or unclean. They aren't scary or evil. Horror movies and popular Halloween traditions might tell us otherwise, but I assure you, graveyards are good and holy places.

So when you think of what you want done when you've passed away, or as you prepare for a loved one's death, keep these beliefs in mind. The human body is sacred, and it will one day be reunited with the soul.

[In case you're wondering, cremation is now an acceptable practice in the Church, and there is even a rite of burial specific to it. It is allowable under two conditions: it's not a denial of the resurrection of the body, and the remains will be deposited in a fitting location, like a columbarium. Scattering ashes and placing them on the mantle are not acceptable in the Catholic Church.]

More Than You Can Handle

An old saying has really been getting put down lately, and not without reason.  I understand the point that people are making, and I kind of agree.  However, the Fathers of the Church are generally better at communicating the faith than we are, so let's take a look back.

The saying to which I refer is, "God will never give you anything you can't handle," or some variation on that.  The common deconstructionist retort these past few months has been that he most certainly will and does give you more than you can't handle.  Just Google the phrase and you'll quickly find at least a handful of bloggers devaluing the poor old truism.

But let's look at how St. Basil the Great words it:  "First, let me say that we have already received from God the ability to fulfill all his commands.  We have then no reason to resent them, as if something beyond our capacity were being asked of us.  We have no reason either to be angry, as if we had to pay back more than we had received."

Aha!  There's a bit of nuance here.  The old saying has it in terms of not being able to handle the things God gives us (things generally being understood as situations or problems), but the only things Basil talks about God giving us are commands.  God doesn't give us problems; he gives us commands.  Interesting.

The pesky bloggers have understood the saying to mean that God will not cause you to be in a situation where you will... "What?" they say, "not be able to handle it?  But of course he will!  He does all the time!"  And the bloggers go on to describe all the situations that they or those close to them have been unable to handle.

Basil's version is so much clearer.  The point is not for us to "handle" situations.  The point is not for us to maintain control all the time.  The point is for us to be faithful throughout.  Yes, we will be confronted by problems in life that are un-solvable.  We will lose our composure.  We will lose our money.  We will lose friends.  We will lose our calm.  Yet, Basil would tell us that all of that stuff is fair game.  It's totally alright to lose all of those things.  Tribulation will come.  The only goal we should have is our faithfulness to God's commands during that tribulation.

People emphatically cannot handle the death of their children.  They absolutely cannot handle witnessing genocide.  God never asks anyone to have all the answers.  He does not command us to "handle it," to "take it like a man," or to "deal with it."  He wants us to learn how to suffer well, for suffer we must.  We are called to suffer like Christ.

Christ's body (guess what) didn't handle it.  Christ was crushed, broken, killed.  Nobody's there telling Jesus to "deal with it."  Rather, he patiently suffers.  He trusts in his Father.  He is faithful to the end.  While the deconstructionist bloggers may have it technically right--God most certainly will give you more than you can handle--they're also missing the point.  It's not our place to stay in control, to "handle" situations.  Success is God's business; faithfulness is ours.

Funny thing is, I don't think I find myself in disagreement with the conclusions reached by most of those "pesky" bloggers, as I have named them.  I just disagree with their headlines and titles, designed thus to grab your attention.  They may grab your attention, but I think they're throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Conceived in Rape

Please watch the video.  I am not a woman and furthermore not a victim of rape, so, if my comments are off, please forgive me my ignorance.



A child conceived in rape is automatically seen as someone who shouldn't exist.  Even this woman admits that when she found out the truth, she felt her "value" had dropped.  Children should be conceived in love.  That is the way things are supposed to be.  But children of rape are conceived in hatred, anger, lust, fear, abuse, etc.  Because their beginning is so far from where children "should" come from, they are worth less in our eyes.  The already enormous pain suffered by a victim of rape shouldn't have to be augmented by the physical and emotional burden of carrying a child conceived in such a way.  That is what many believe (I think).

Two things against that:

First, even if the human beginnings of a child conceived in rape are evil, the inherent worth of that little person as a child of God is never lost.  Just as God is my Father more profoundly than my biological father and mother (who in my case, conceived me in love), so God is the Father of a child conceived in rape, regardless of the despicable acts of that child's earthly father.  The child is good and unrepeatable, an object of God's love and attention, every bit as much as you or I.

Second, we are not meant for ordinary lives.  The ordinary choice is to abort the child of rape.  That's what is expected, because such a child shouldn't exist.  The victim/mother has suffered enough.  It's too much for her to suffer the stigma of carrying that child, to bear the physical burden of child birth, or to endure the emotional turmoil that no doubt such a pregnancy would bring.  That's too much to ask someone who has already needlessly suffered an awful indignity.

But I say that we need to stop settling for what is ordinary, for merely what is needed to get by.  Each one of us, in our own way, can be a hero.  Heroism is what our world needs--the hidden heroism of a victim of rape who chooses not to abort.  We need to stop encouraging one another to just get through crises.  Instead, it's time we began helping one another rise above them.  

It breaks my heart (not to mention angers me) that so many prominent pro-lifers out there say that God intends for women to be raped or that it is their own fault or anything of that sort.  It is a horrible poverty of mind and heart to say that because God is the creator of all life, even the child of rape, he must have therefore "willed" that the rape take place.  No, no, no!  That is stupidity.  That is blasphemy.

God is so good and so powerful that he relentlessly brings good out of evil and places a light even in the darkest of situations.  How powerfully and beautifully did love overcome evil the day this woman's mother decided not to abort.  What a brilliant light shining for all to see.

A life taking choice does not undo the outrage of rape.  It does not take away the evil committed.  It does not expedite a return to normalcy for the victim.  

Let us give life, not take it.

Greed is the Opposite of Thanksgiving

You may say it's not greed to be frugal, much less to buy a gift for someone else.  Often, shoppers on Black Thursday/Friday are simply seeking the best deals on their gift purchases.  In general, I suppose there's a point to be made there, but given the particular context, I'm gonna have to call shenanigans.

Is our Thanksgiving expression of gratitude really sincere if the very next day (or even the same day), we go out and demand more stuff?  What are we telling the ones we love if we encourage them to be thankful, but still feel the need to shower them with the latest and greatest?

Thanksgiving is the only example of American culture per se that we can call praiseworthy, yet we have sullied it by juxtaposing it on the calendar with one of the worst examples of American culture, unrestrained greed.

In making plans for this coming week, please consider the following. Notice any similarities?

Time to Calm Down

It's pieces like this that annoy me into defending the pope.  It's not because I think the pope needs my help; it's because this stuff frustrates me to an extreme degree (and that is my own fault).

In the course of reading this particular phonebook of a post, I went through a bizarre emotional process which started with me keeping track of every single flaw in the presentation, peaked at an intense desire to author a reply with the full force of my mind grapes, only to come crashing down into a what's-the-point kind of apathy.

I need to stop letting people do this to me.

Maybe I should give it a rest.  I'm considering limiting all the Pope Francis related literature I read to only what he himself has said or written.  It will probably do wonders for my soul and my inner calm.

Same Old Same Old

In seminary, I put a name to a tendency I had noticed in the Church. It was everywhere, infesting our approaches to preaching, to youth ministry, to sacramental preparation, to catechesis, and even to the Church's varied forays into the media, old or new. I called it the "Same Old Same Old."

It was everywhere, but it annoyed me the most when it reared its ugly head in a homily. There are reasons for that. In seminary, you attend Mass everyday, which means you are confronted with a homily everyday. Who's preaching? It's the seminary faculty, a group of men who see what they are doing as immensely important--and they're not incorrect. They're forming men to the priesthood, and that task is a sacred one. They rightly take it very seriously and pour heroic effort into each homily they prepare. I heard many an eloquent and pious oration which really did spur me on to deeper conversion.

Yet, when your mind is daily assaulted by such homilies, each one prepared as though it is the most important thing the listener will ever hear, weariness is an expectable byproduct. Such weariness was compounded by the fact that, no matter how passionately delivered or well prepared, the vast majority of homilies were nothing but the Same Old Same Old.

What is the Same Old Same Old? Stagnation is too strong a word. The Same Old Same Old is taking exactly what one receives and passing it along without tainting it with one's own unworthy influence. It arises from a very healthy and orthodox notion: that our faith is apostolic. We believe what the Apostles believed and handed down to us via what we have come to call Tradition. Thus, what is old is good. What we believe, we have believed from the beginning.

The Same Old Same Old is a perversion of that very beautiful apostolic mark of the Church. It is the attempt (intentional or not) to preach only the exact things the Church has always taught without an ounce of creativity or vulnerability. This way, faithfulness to Church teaching is guaranteed, as well as the pure, unadulterated Gospel. Zero impurities are allowed through the Same Old Same Old filter. It is, in a word, "safe" to preach the Same Old Same Old. It is also easy.

But I'll tell you what it's not: helpful.

The Same Old Same Old insists that the way we've always done things, said things, taught things, sung about things: that is the only valid way. We're going to stick to it. Thus, we can be certain that we shall never deviate from the true faith. At what price this straight and narrow path? boring homilies, empty pews, a cold, uninviting church...but at least that church has rigidly correct doctrine! With two thousand years of tried and true methods and formulas, we are able to preserve without stain the faith of the Apostles, even if no one is around to actually profess it.

What's wrong with this picture? Well, a lot if things, obviously, but there's one thing that is the root of it all. The safe and easy Same Old Same Old is our human way of ensuring that "the gates of hell will not prevail against" the Church Christ founded on Peter. The problem is that it is not our job to ensure that. That's not how it's supposed to work.

What is it that makes the Church indefectible and infallible? Is it our efforts? Absolutely not! The only thing that keeps the Church one, holy, catholic, and apostolic is the Power of the Spirit, first sent upon the Church at its very birth at Pentecost. To embrace the Same Old Same Old as a method of preserving orthodoxy is a failure to trust in God's providential guidance of the Church. We are not the guarantors of infallibility; He is.

Now clearly, throughout the history of the Church and today, real effort on our part is required to learn, profess, and teach the Truth. I would not contest that. God doesn't magically keep our thoughts and words orthodox. However, if we only regurgitate the truth as expressed by previous generations, we are doing the Truth and its (potential) hearers a real disservice, not to mention selling ourselves short. We're obscuring the Truth by insisting that we ourselves have no part in the Truth. Are we not rational animals, stamped with the Divine Image, created with an innate desire for the Truth? Our hearts are made to beat in time with the Truth, our mouths to proclaim It, our minds to explore It, and our entire selves to be immersed in It.

Why then in our communication of the Truth to others do we hide ourselves by sticking only to the Same Old Same Old, merely trusting that the Spirit would guide the Apostles, but not us? The Apostles themselves didn't stick to the Same Old Same Old; it didn't exist yet. They were evangelizing the world by speaking off the cuff. (Sound familiar?)

I do not mean to imply that we should introduce new or heterodox elements to teaching. That's another problem. I'm saying we should introduce ourselves into the teaching. That's what I mean by the creativity and vulnerability that are stifled by the Same Old Same Old.

Now, all of this may sound good, and interesting, and relevant...but also terribly impractical and amorphous. How do we add creativity and vulnerability to our preaching (and teaching and youth ministry and sacramental preparation and forays into the media, old and new)? What does that even mean?

Up until now, I have not had an answer to that question. Up until now words to describe this problem have escaped me. Up until now I have only had this vague idea of what I do and do not want my ministry to be like. The Same Old Same Old was detectable only by discernment through gut feelings. That's why I've never written about it before (though some of my buddies from seminary may remember me talking about it). Up until now... Ah, but what has changed now?

We have Francis now. We have a living breathing antithesis to the Same Old Same Old, and he happens to also be the Vicar of Christ. I don't have a codified description of what to do or not to do to avoid the Same Old Same Old, but I do have a pope who is both creative and vulnerable. He is faithful to what the Church teaches, but he is unencumbered by a need to display that teaching in its entirety every time he opens his mouth. He teaches as Christ teaches, by giving us a model to follow. I look forward to hearing more from him, and I look forward to a Catholic Church that is more creative and more vulnerable. (and no less faithful to Tradition!)