Category Archives: Praying

Merry Christmas All

Posted on by
Reply

Last August I wrote that each week I’m writing a homily based on the current readings in the Catholic lectionary. It’s been both rewarding and difficult. I’ve gotten a tremendous amount of positive feedback but I do confess that writing a homily while working a 40 hour week has, at times, been time consuming.

Today is Christmas and I’m posting the homily I wrote. You can find the readings here.

Brief synopsis of the readings: There are four masses for Christmas: Vigil, Midnight, Dawn, and During the Day. I’ve chosen to preach on the readings for the Mass at Midnight, for no other reason that they are my favorite. The first reading from Isaiah uses imagery of light out of darkness. He also speaks of a child being born who will be Wonder-Counselor, God-Hero, Father-Forever, Prince of Peace. The Gospel is from Luke and it is one of the most evocative images. If you’ve ever watched The Charlie Brown Christmas, this is the account Linus gives when on stage.

And now it’s finally arrived: we’ve made it through Black Friday, doorbusters, endless traffic jams at the malls, competition for the hot new gift, and, and, and, the Season of Advent. The Messiah whose coming we have been awaiting is now here. But how can we tell? This newborn baby looks like the rest of us, born in a barn, and with uncertain parentage. Is this Jesus really the Messiah? Wonder Counselor? God Hero? Father Forever? Prince of Peace? I have to tell you, this is a little disappointment. Is this really how God meant to bring his Son into the world? Me, I’d make a bigger entrance.

Well, that’s probably another good reason that I’m not God. It’s been kind of a theme for me, but when we talk about Salvation through Jesus Christ it’s much more than we can imagine. The Jews of Jesus’ time were, frankly, looking for a military leader who would defeat the Romans occupiers.

But God had bigger plans for us. He sent us a Messiah who is much more than a military leader, he sent us Jesus who was both God and Human, both Divine and Corporeal. He sent us a Messiah who could not only bring us the Truth of Salvation, he could also experience and celebrate our own experience.

We can look on this helpless baby, this bundle who cannot walk or talk, as something small and inconsequential. Or we can look at this baby through God’s eyes: as someone who will become the One who conquered death. OK, let’s face it: we all love babies. We love them not for what they can do, but for who they are. We love babies because we love the fact that we can care for those who are helpless and we know they will grow with the potential to do great things. We know that this bundle of joy may one day be an Albert Einstein or a Martin Luther King or a Nelson Mandela. And even if this bundle doesn’t do that, he or she will become a person we will continue to love. He or she will grow up and be a husband or wife, a mother or father, a coworker or entrepreneur. A good friend and neighbor, a confident and good listener. A great bowling partner or copilot. The man or woman who teaches history or soccer, the person who throws the incredible curve or finds a way to finally explain trigonometry.

When I look at Jesus as an infant, I like to think that we get a glimpse of how we all look to God. Only God knows our potential, and let’s face it: we don’t know our own potential, let alone that of others. We are not given that gift.

But we are given the gift to do what this infant in the manger does: we can see hints of the gifts of others. Just as Jesus was able to look at lepers and strangers and the outcast and say “You are just as wonderful as anyone and you belong with us” we can do the same.

When Pope Francis chose to celebrate his 77th birthday with the homeless, I think he understood exactly what Jesus had in mind when He decided to redeem the world. We may look on them as homeless, as those who are there because of their own bad choices, but Pope Francis chose to look on them as exactly the people Jesus did.

When I look on Jesus as an infant, I’m struck by how he needed those around him. Not only Joseph and Mary, who gave him the nutrition and love every human needs, but even the farm animals who gave up their feeding trough so he would have a place to sleep. I look at the shepherds who were consoled by the angel. These were not great men: they were looked down upon because the violated the Sabbath by watching over their flocks by night. They didn’t provide anything physical to Jesus but in their prayers they recognized that much like their lambs, this baby would grow into something they needed. Their humility game them the eyes to see the Truth.

And now, over two thousand years later, we still need to be in that manger scene. We often fool ourselves into thinking that we are self sufficient and that what we have is a result of what we’ve done. We may have done great things, but this night we celebrate that they pale in comparison to what was done long ago and far away. We need to understand again that the thin, reedy voice of an infant blows into our world the very breath of Heaven.

You can read all of the homilies I’ve written for 2013 here. If you wish, I can also email my weekly homily to you. Just drop me an email.

In the meantime let us continue to pray for each other and for peace on earty.

Pope Francis: He's My Person of the Year Too!

Posted on by
Reply

We got word today that Pope Francis has been named Time Magazine’s Person of the Year.

For many of us liberal Catholics, it’s a recognition of the joy we’ve been experiencing since his election on March 13th. I’ve said this before, but we knew things were changing in the Vatican when, after his election, he waved off his limo, got on the bus with the rest of the cardinals and paid his hotel bill.

He hasn’t changed any doctrines and unfortunately affirmed Church teaching on male only priesthood and gay marriage. Those changes will probably have to be made by Francis’ successor.

His dramatic change has come in the public face of the Vatican. After the last two papacies (John Paul II and Benedict XVI) this shift has been dramatic; John Paul and Benedict often acted as if the Church were under siege and must remain pure, even if that led to a Church that was smaller and more out of touch.

Francis has continued the papacy of Blessed John XXIII where the windows have been thrown open and fresh air has blown in. Francis refused to move into the luxurious papal apartment and lives in modest surroundings.

He has repeatedly said we need to shift our focus away from issues of homosexuality, abortion, and birth control and toward how we care for the poor. His pragmatism is refreshing: let us work on things we can change and leave alone those things we can’t, and let us not alienate those who disagree. As one who dissents from church teaching on homosexuality and birth control, I find this refreshing and respectful.

In July he was flying back from Brazil to Rome and was asked about homosexuality. This was his response: “If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?” He told a group of diplomats that in looking for who to promote to bishop they should look for priests who are “gentle, patient and merciful, animated by inner poverty, the freedom of the Lord and also by outward simplicity and austerity of life.”

My only concern is that he is 76 years old. He needs to start appointing Cardinals who will elect his successor. I pray he keep doing what he’s doing.

The Justice Chronicles Volume 13: Nelson Mandela (1918-2013)

Posted on by
Reply

His death was supposed to be a footnote. It was supposed to be a local story, buried in the inside pages of the paper: Imprisoned Terrorist Nelson Mandela dies in Prison.

It didn’t happen that way. In the days since his death he has made worldwide headlines. Frankly, it was time. He was 95 years old and had been in critical condition since developing a lung infection nearly 6 months ago. He was home but his home was transformed into an intensive care unit.

Mr. Mandela’s life story is largely public and known. After becoming a lawyer in apartheid South Africa he joined the African National Congress. He first embraced the idea of nonviolence in battling apartheid, but later abandoned that and co founded a militant wing called Spear of the Nation. Because of his actions he needed to go underground, but was found and arrested in 1962. Tried and convicted of trying to overthrow the government, he expected to be sentenced to death but instead was sentenced to life in prison.

For the next 27 years he languished in prison. By the 1970s and 1980s he became the public face of the injustice of apartheid, even though there were no pictures taken of him since 1963. His release from prison in 1990 seemed a miracle.

But for me, his release wasn’t the miracle. It’s what happened to him while in prison and how he sculpted post apartheid South Africa. While nobody knew in 1990 how he would spend the rest of his life, many feared he would take the opportunity to exact revenge on those who harmed him. They feared he would respond to injustice with injustice of his own.

He didn’t. After his election as President of South Africa in 1994 he founded the Truth and Reconciliation Committee. He knew that truth must come before reconciliation, and that reconciliation is the only path to true peace. As I think about this, I can’t help but remember Archbishop Tutu’s belief about forgiveness:

Forgiving is not forgetting; its actually remembering–remembering and not using your right to hit back. Its a second chance for a new beginning. And the remembering part is particularly important. Especially if you don’t want to repeat what happened.

His time in prison changed him from someone who advocated violent resistance to someone who saw that revenge only continues the cycle of violence. He loved his nation and that love healed him of his anger toward his captors.

We are all better for it. Much like Gandhi and Martin Luther King before him, he taught us the ferocious power of love and forgiveness. I’m grateful that Mr. Mandela is the only one of the three to not die violently.

For those of us who live on, our mandate is clear: we are called not only to stop tolerating injustice, we are called to forgive those who benefited from it. Once those who create or benefit from injustice are defeated, we must not exact revenge on them. Their sin must be called out, but they must be forgiven. Only then will there be peace.

Now It's the Navy Yard: Here We Go Again

Posted on by
Reply

On September 16th Aaron Alexis, a civilian contractor working for the Navy, came onto the campus of the Navy Yard in Washington D.C. Unbeknownst to anyone he was carry a Remington 870 shotgun that he legally purchased at Sharp Shooters gun store and firing range. This shotgun is often called a “riot gun” because it has a short barrel and can carry 6 to 10 shells at a time; this makes it particularly useful for law enforcement in riots and other crowd control.

Unfortunately we’ve also learned it’s an effective weapon for a lone shooter to kill lots of people in a short time. By the time law enforcement shot and killed Mr. Alexis, 12 other people lay dead, and several more were wounded.

It feels a little local to me. I grew up in Woodbridge, Va. (about 20 miles south of Washington D.C.). My father was a government employee for his career and my sister is currently a civilian employee of the Army. The gun store that sold the shotgun is 10 miles from my childhood home and Kathleen Gaarde (who was one of the people killed) lived 3 miles from my high school.

I’m struck by how routine these events have become. The National Rifle Organization continues its undefeated run of blaming everyone but themselves and making clear that any politician who strays from their message will be targeted for reelection.

Mr. Alexis came to September 16th with a long history of mental illness, but also an honorable discharge from the Navy and the ability to get a job as a contractor. It’s frighteningly easy to look at his mental illness, proclaim that “those people shouldn’t have guns,” and pretend there is nothing else to do.

There is much else to do and somewhere we need to find the moral courage begin the job of keeping us safer. I confess I’m weary of politicians who dare not speak the truth out of a fear of losing their jobs. While there is no good reason for cowardice, keeping your job at the expense of human lives is particularly bankrupt. These riot shotguns are not meant for hunting game: they are designed to kill people and they are very good at that. It makes sense for the military or law enforcement to have access to these guns but there is no good rationale for civilian ownership.

I’m not one on those “anti-gun nuts.” I understand that people own guns for a variety of reasons: some are collectors, some are hunters, and some are protecting home and family. I don’t collect guns, I don’t hunt, and I don’t own anything I would kill to keep. But I do respect the rights of those who do collect, hunt, or protect.

OK, now what do we do with gun ownership among the mentally ill? It that really as easy as that? No, it’s not. The term “mentally ill” is simply vague, and current legislation is all over the map. The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) has a web page that lists (state by state) laws that prevent the mentally ill from owning guns. According to this, the federal government prevents giving a gun to anyone who “has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution.” Most state laws follow the same requirement: you can’t own a gun if you’ve been institutionalized or been found by a court to be mentally ill.

Mr. Alexis had several run ins with the law, but in none of them was his mental capacity examined. To that extent, the gun shop in Lorton did nothing wrong in selling him the shotgun.

So how do we prevent people who are mentally ill from getting guns? I think we should keep looking at this issue, but recognize that there’s never going to be a bright line. Mr. Alexis showed signs that indicate he may have been suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. In his delusional mind he thought he was he was being controlled by low frequency electromagnetic waves.

The world of mental illness is much broader than that. Mental illness also covers people who suffer from depression, bipolar disorder, and many other illnesses. Our brothers and sisters who live with these diseases often don’t seek help because of prejudices and the fear of being labeled “crazy.” They have learned that seeking help can often cost them jobs, friends, and social standing. In the ongoing attempt to protect their profits, the NRA wants to throw this group under the bus, and it works against those of us who want to take the fear out of seeking treatment for mental illness.

We can all agree that people who think they are being controlled by low frequency waves shouldn’t own a gun. But what about someone who seeks treatment for depression who knows that his quest will put him on a list that makes him too crazy for gun ownership? What if he comes from a family of deer hunters? If he seeks treatment, his entire family will know about it because he won’t be able to hide the reason he can’t buy a gun. Will it make him afraid to seek treatment, and turn managed depression into uncontrolled depression?

Certainly we need to keep guns out of the hands of people who are dangerous. But this needs to be paired with reasonable gun control. If the next shooter has access only to guns that require frequent reloading, this would save lives. It wouldn’t in any sense impair people who want guns for collecting, hunting, or protecting. We don’t need guns whose only purpose is to kill large numbers of people in a short time.

Be assured I’ll reference this article the next time there is a mass shooting.

Tom's New Free Homily Service

Posted on by
1

As some of you know I’ve been writing this personal blog for almost 10 years now. It’s been fun, but lately I’ve been wanting to branch out into another area.

I left the world of Catholic priesthood 16 years ago, and there’s much I don’t miss, but I do miss preaching. Good preaching is hard work, but when it’s done well it’s a joy. Frankly I’ve lately been getting bored with what I’m hearing and I often found myself sitting in the pew thinking I could do better.

Challenge accepted. Last month I opened a blog post here; you can also access it by clicking on the link on the left titled “Tom’s Homilies.” I’d like to get a wider readership and that’s why I’m posting this. If you wish (and only if you wish) I can send you a copy of what I’ve written each week.

If this is something you’re interested in, please let me know. You can email me at thomas.allain@icloud.com and I’ll anonymously include you in this list.

Just a few things about this:

• This is just for my own creative need to get something out. I’m not pointing fingers at anyone and there’s no hidden agenda. Mostly I want to get back into a world I miss.
• If you don’t want to receive it, you honestly won’t hurt my feelings. Just delete this email and I promise I won’t be keeping score.
• I try to do this a week in advance. A friend of mine suggested this because people who belong to a bible study or small church community may want to use this material in their discussions.
• I follow the Catholic lectionary; I understand that other Christian faiths follow much the same calendar. If you wonder why I’m choosing the readings I choose, it’s because I’m not the one who chose.
• If you are writing a homily, please understand that none of this is copyrighted. Feel free to use what you read (though it would be nice to credit me).
• Catholic Sunday homilies generally run about 8 to 10 minutes and that translates for me to be about 1500 words. The homilies I’ve done so far are shorter than that as I retrain my “homily muscles.” I expect to get up to the 1500 word range.
• Finally, as I’ve gone through my list I’ve thought of a number of people for whom I don’t have email addresses. If you think of someone who might be interested, by all means forward this email. A preacher preaches to everyone who shows up, and I have no desire to control my audience.

Rest in Peace Paul

Posted on by
Reply

I received word a few days ago that my friend and ordination classmate Paul Reynolds died suddenly of a heart attack. You can read his obituary here.

Paul was a rare person. He wasn’t flashy and never called attention to himself and was often so quiet you could forget he was there. But what you didn’t know is that Paul always knew you were there. He had an uncanny ability to evaluate a situation and know what needed to be done, and he did it. We were in seminary together from 1990 to 1993 and things didn’t always go smoothly. There were about 25 of us and we were all trying to figure this priesthood thing out. There were conflicts, friendships that developed and ended, hellos and goodbyes, and painful decisions made. All through it while the rest of us were raging against this belief or that comment, Paul would stay in the background watching and listening. Later, he would quietly make sure that the kind word or reassuring affirmation happened where it needed to happen.

The last time we saw him was May of 2012 in Boston. He was navigating his work at MIT and priesthood and the difficulty of that balance clearly weighed on him, but you would never know it to talk with him. His heart was always so kind and generous, it’s no wonder that’s what eventually gave out. Rest well Paul, and enjoy the banquet feast of Heaven.

Can a Christian Celebrate Ramadan?

Posted on by
Reply

In the Muslim world this is the holy month of Ramadan where they celebrate gift of the Quran from Allah to the Prophet (Mohammed). As part of the celebration they fast from all food and drink from sunrise to sunset.

Our friend Lynn helped set up dinners where Christians like us share a meal with a Muslim couple. Last night after sunset we gathered at the home of a local Muslim couple (joined by another couple) and broke the fast.

On one level it was an ordinary dinner party. We talked about family and work, we were entertained by their daughters, and we ate terrific food. But on another level, it was extraordinary. I was thinking last night about all the people I wish were there: people who send me anti Muslim screeds, whose knowledge is dependent on exactly not sharing this meal. Whose “truth” is based on what they refuse to hear.

By being there we learned about how they came to the United States and want only to make a better life for themselves and their children (and grandchildren, and so on). We all benefit from them being here.

It was a good night and I’ll continue to pray for Ali, Emel, Ahmet, and Nur (and for Ali and Emel’s children who entertained us and officiated as food tasters).

The Justice Chronicles Volume 12: Marriage Gets More Inclusive

Posted on by
Reply

Last month the Supreme Court handed down decisions on United States v. Windsor (DOMA) and Hollingsworth v. Perry (Proposition 8). They covered different issues and made different claims, but both opened up marriage to gay couples.

This shouldn’t surprise readers of my writing, but I was disappointed with much of the news coverage. Most of what I saw from the major networks held up the decisions to “who won, who lost” and missed the reasoning behind the decisions. I was interested in this and also which justices landed on which side.

The DOMA case was 5-4; Justice Kennedy wrote the opinion and was joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. Justices Roberts, Scalia, and Alito wrote dissents; Justice Thomas joined the dissents of Justices Scalia and Alito.

DOMA (the Defense of Marriage Act) was passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton in 1996. Basically it mandated that the federal government not recognize gay marriage even if the marriage is legal where it was performed. That meant gay couples who legally married were not eligible for such things as joint filing of income taxes, survivor benefits for Social Security, etc. The lawsuit was brought by the widow of a lesbian marriage; because their marriage was not recognized by the federal government the surviving member owed $363,053 in probate taxes. If not for DOMA she would not have owed anything (you automatically get all your spouse’s assets tax free when he or she dies). She claimed that the federal government must recognize all valid marriages, not just heterosexual ones. She was also able to show that DOMA caused her harm to the tune of $363,053.

The majority of the court (led by Justice Kennedy) argued that since states issue marriage licenses the federal government can’t decide which marriages are valid and which aren’t. Different states have different rules about who can marry (e.g. minimum age) and the federal government recognizes any marriage the state recognizes. DOMA puts homosexual marriages in a different case for no good reason

The dissents argue a few points. Justice Scalia argues that the court should never have taken the case (it’s a fairly technical point that he makes well). Most of the rest are what we’ve come to expect: that traditional (opposite sex) marriages are the norm because only they can produce children. They also decry the demonization they have suffered: opponents of same sex marriage are right only because they are demonized as homophobes and bigots.

In a sense they have a point: they are homophobes and bigots. The justices who dissented argue several points that make no sense and weak arguments: “this decision refutes the will of the majority,” “this decision goes beyond what everyone used to assume about marriage,” “this decision allows people to love one another in a way that offends me,” etc.

Simply put, this allows adults to marry each other. Granted, homosexual marriages cannot produce children but neither can marriages of heterosexual couples where the woman is post-menopausal or where one (or both) have been sterilized. We, who are heterosexual, cannot ban marriages that we find gross and icky. Marriages in the this country haven’t been homosexual, but in many states marriages weren’t biracial until 1967 (Loving v. Virginia).

The Proposition 8 case was more interesting in the lineup. The 5 person majority consisted of Justice Roberts (who wrote the opinion) and was joined by Justices Scalia, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan. Justice Kennedy wrote the dissent and was joined by Justices Thomas, Alito, and Sotomayer.

The Court ruled that they weren’t going to rule on the merits of the Prop 8 case because the defendants had no standing (they had no right to bring the case). The case originated with several gay couples who wanted to marry but were prevented by Prop 8; they filed suit against the state of California. In the first round the court ruled for the plaintiffs, and the state of California decided not to appeal. Supporters of Prop 8 stepped in as defendants, claiming that they had standing because they were the ones who collected the signatures for the ballot initiative. The Court ruled that they may have had standing during the process of putting the measure on the ballot, but once it passed, only the state of California could defend the proposition.

This was a mixed result for supporters of gay marriage. While this will allow gay marriages in California once again, it does not affect laws in other states. Many of us wanted the Court to go further and rule that Prop 8 is unconstitutional because the states don’t have the right to ban gay marriage. They wanted a gay version of Loving v. Virginia.

What next? Proponents of gay marriage have 2 routes: they can bring suit in a state that currently bans gay marriage, or they can start working on the state legislature level to pass laws that allow gay marriage. I’m guessing that groups will try both, and I suspect that the days of homophobia in marriage are numbered.

The Justice Chronicles Volume 11: Thoughts on Edward Snowden, The NSA, and the 4th Amendment

Posted on by
Reply

Earlier this month Edward Snowden, an employee of Booz Allen Hamilton leaked information that the National Security Agency has been collecting phone records of US citizens. It’s been a huge story and awakened a debate on privacy, security, and the 4th Amendment.

Unfortunately any story that hits the 24 hour news cycle loses all nuance and much its accuracy; we should begin with a few of the facts of the case. Here is what I’ve gleaned:

The NSA (National Security Agency) is tasked with protecting our nation and citizens from people and organizations who wish to harm us. They are secret by nature and work in the shadows; most of us don’t know what they do. The information age, global connectedness, and the internet has led to an explosion in both the ability to harm us and the ability of the agency to find out what they are doing. The NSA has worked hard to collect information, not only by people who mean us harm, but information that we might need later.

Earlier this month Edward Snowden leaked to the media the fact that the NSA is collecting phone records of nearly every call made here. If you think about all the calls you’ve made in the last month, multiplied by the 314,000,000 people who live here, it’s a large number. To be clear, they haven’t been listening in on every (or any) conversation. They’ve been collecting the data on the calls that we’ve made: not what we’ve said but who we’ve called and how long we’ve talked. They can’t access any of this information without a warrant from something called the “Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court” (FISA).

Edward Snowden is in legal trouble because the Obama administration claims that by leaking this information he has committed espionage, normally defined as giving aid and comfort to the enemy. In other words, by telling us that the NSA is collecting this information we are “tipping our hand” and allowing our enemies to find other ways to harm us. This is the part I’m finding troubling.

I have to confess a bias here: I look at the 4th Amendment the way the NRA looks at the 2nd Amendment. The 4th Amendment says this:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

When this amendment was written there was a limited ability to search and seize. That ability has dramatically changed with technology. For example, in the 19th Century the invention of the telegraph and telephone allowed for private communications to travel from one place to another. The courts could have easily found that the 4th Amendment applied only to the physical limits of houses, papers, and effects, but it didn’t. Law enforcement still needs a search warrant to tap telephone calls.

But what about now? What limits do we have on tracking our cell phone calls, emails, or social media platforms? Are we in the 19th Century where your telephone is part of your house or the 21st Century where even your trip to 7 Eleven is videotaped?

In my role as a hospice chaplain I am in public view a good part of the day. My 2006 Toyota Prius has an “event data recorder” that records (among other things) my speed, steering, and whether or not I’m wearing my seatbelt. Since I have a GPS my location is also recorded. Several of my patients live in gated communities or other places that have video surveillance. Most of the places where I stop for lunch or a soda also videotape. Anytime I get cash out of at ATM or use my credit card, that is recorded. During all this time I’m either alone or with people who don’t know me, and I carry with me the presumption of privacy.

But is that presumption is false? The government has the ability (though the court system) to look at all of this information. If all this tracking comes under the same eyes, my life would not be far off from Winston Smith in 1984 by George Orwell.

I think we can all agree that there needs to be limits on what can be revealed on us, but conversations about these limits needs to be public.

This is the point where I find myself in agreement with Mr. Snowden. We cannot have a dialogue about the limits of the 4th Amendment if we don’t know what the rules are. President Obama wants to prosecute him, claiming that revealing this information tips off our enemies about what kind of information they gather.

This type of argument is not new. When the Bush administration was trying to convince us that we needed to go to war against Iraq, they claimed we knew the location and existence of weapons of mass destruction. How did the administration know this? They couldn’t tell us because that information would tip the hand. Later, when we all learned that these weapons didn’t exist, many of us believed that they didn’t show us the evidence because they simply didn’t have it. Had we known the evidence either didn’t exist, or was unreliable, we would not have favored going to war.

Most people don’t feel as strongly about the 4th Amendment as I do. There is often the presumption that if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear, and government surveillance in the interest of catching bad guys is always allowed. I disagree, and I believe the framers of the Constitution did too. They knew this amendment would make prosecution of criminals more difficult (as do jury trials and the prohibition to compel someone to testify against himself), but they thought it was worth it. So do I.

Boston Strong and Proud

Posted on by
Reply

A few weeks ago I went to see one of my hospice patients. It was an ordinary visit, and the fact that she had the TV on wasn’t much of an issue: she often mutes the TV when I see her. That day the mute TV caught our attention. I hadn’t paid much attention to the fact that the Boston Marathon and Patriot’s Day was April 15th.

Now I’ll never forget it. On that day, in that place, two men decided to strike a blow. Tamerian and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev planted two bombs that exploded about 3:00 PM at Copley Place, the finish line of the marathon. The bombs were intended to kill as many people as possible and were scheduled when the largest number of runners were crossing the finish line. On one level it worked: the bombs killed Martin Richard, Krystle Campbell, and Lingzi Lu. A few days later Sean Collier died in the line of duty during their capture.

No doubt the brothers thought this would bring Boston to its knees. Clearly they didn’t fully understand Boston. It’s a tough city: it was here that the Sons of Liberty started. They survived the Boston Massacre and the closing of Boston Harbor after the Tea Party.

I lived in Watertown in the early 1980s and I can tell you that no attack can do what they intended to do. The people of Boston are more resilient than anyone can imagine; they are stronger than anyone can imagine; they are more stubborn than anyone can imagine.

Of the two suspects, one is dead and the other is in custody. We are going to understand what happened and why, and we are going to judge the remaining suspect. We are going to move forward.

Boston will go on. Terrorism will not.