While visiting with my in-laws outside of Erie I attend their parish for Sunday mass. I have noticed something there that I’ve noticed at other parishes, and it drives me nuts: slovenly attire worn by those attending mass, in particular those serving at the altar.

How can people serve at the altar in the Divine Presence wearing blue jeans and sneakers? How can parents allow their children to dress so poorly for such a high office? More importantly, I wonder how priests can allow children to serve like that? I’ve even seen it at weddings!

I’ve heard arguments about God wanting us to “come as we are” and that it’s good that parents bring their children to church at all. Granted, it is better to be there than to not be there, and some people cannot afford fancy “Sunday go to meetin’” clothes, but I’m certain these suburban folks, working class though they are, would dress themselves and their children better if the Mayor, the President, Dad’s or Mom’s boss, or the Pope came to dinner. Why can’t they dress appropriately for the King of Kings as we celebrate the Paschal Meal?

I’ve also heard that priests couldn’t just turn kids away for dressing thusly. Why not? Servers are not mandatory. Serving is a privilege, not a right. Poorly dressed, poorly trained, and sometimes poorly behaved children should not be permitted to serve at mass. They set a bad example for the rest of the congregation and are poisonous to the catechizing aspects of the liturgy. I am reminded of Archbishop Fulton Sheen who said, “If you don’t behave as you believe, you will end by believing as you behave.” The Church was more explicit about this 500 years ago.

“It is fitting that He Whose abode has been established in peace should be worshipped in peace and with due reverence. Churches, then, should be entered humbly and devoutly; behaviour inside should be calm, pleasing to God, bringing peace to the beholders, a source not only of instruction but of mental refreshment. Those who assemble in church should extol with an act of special reverence that Name which is above every Name, than which no other under Heaven has been given to people, in which believers must be saved, the Name, that is, of Jesus Christ, Who will save His people from their sins. Each should fulfil in himself that which is written for all, that at the Name of Jesus every knee should bow; whenever that glorious Name is recalled, especially during the sacred Mysteries of the Mass, everyone should bow the knees of his heart, which he can do even by a bow of his head. In churches the sacred solemnities should possess the whole heart and mind; the whole attention should be given to prayer.” – Second Council of Lyons, A.D. 1274

As a kid growing up in the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, I saw a decline in the decorum and dignity of the office of acolyte. Venturing beyond the orthodox confines of my home parish in Pittsburgh, I am seeing the same sad trend in the Roman Catholic Church.

Is this, or has it been, a problem in your parish? Was it or will it be rectified? What did/will you do? Here’s an interesting site about liturgical attire and ettiquette that I mostly agree with. What are your thoughts on it?

More »

I’m as wowed by Susan Boyle as anyone, and I wish her continued success in the talent competition, but I’ve been bothered by thoughts similar to those that prompted Dennis Palumbo to ask, “What if Susan Boyle Couldn’t Sing?“

“The unspoken message of this whole episode is that, since Susan Boyle has a wonderful talent, we were wrong to judge her based on her looks and demeanor. Meaning what? That if she couldn’t sing so well, we were correct to judge her on that basis? That demeaning someone whose looks don’t match our impossible, media-reinforced standards of beauty is perfectly okay, unless some mitigating circumstance makes us re-think our opinion?”

Mr. Palumbo makes most of the points I would have made, and probably better than I would have made them. What I’d add is that one of the warped philosophies that support such prejudice is utilitarianism. Utilitarianism regards people as valuable insofar as they can produce and good or service useful to others. That includes entertainment.

Had Susan Boyle not sung well, the judges and audience would have continued to think poorly of her. Her “inner beauty” would be irrelevant because she would have failed to establish her worth. Unmarried, unemployed, unattractive, and untalented, she’d be of no use to them.

In truth, a person’s dignity is not derived from our social standing, our achievements, our wealth, our talents, or any other way society might consider us useful. Rather, it is not derived at all; it is inherent. Religious or not, few would argue against the Golden Rule, “Do to others as you would have them do to you” or “Do not so to others what you would not have them do to you”. Necessary prerequisites for this rule to work, however, are that we must regard other human beings first and foremost as persons with intrinsic dignity and never as objects to be used or means to ends.

If our societies have forgotten or rejected these foundational principles, God help us all, for some day we – or perhaps our progeny – may cease to be sufficiently useful to society. Then what?

More »

At the Easter vigil, I realized something. While I believe what we wear to church matters and reflects the dignity and solemnity of the liturgy, my dress clothes aren’t the most important things I wear to worship. It’s not the nice shirt, pressed pants, or tie that completes my ensemble.

It’s baby drool. Nothing else quite as well expresses my identity as a husband and father trying to work out my salvation with fear and trembling and help my family serve the Lord.

Real men wear baby drool in church.

More »