Roe v. Wade: The Legacy of Margaret Sanger

January 22 marks the anniversary of the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision, which legalized abortion in our country. It is a stain on the history of American law. Not only did the High Court overreach by legislating from the bench on this highly controversial issue (a decision best left to the people and the states), but the five Justices who gave us this regrettable ruling made themselves stooges in the advancement of the reprehensible goals of one Margaret Sanger.

Who is Margaret Sanger, you ask?

She is the founder of the American Birth Control League, latter renamed Planned Parenthood, which is the largest provider of abortions in the United States, and a leader in the advancement of abortion rights worldwide. The group makes no apologies for its support of abortion-on-demand and its push for the expansion of a woman’s supposed “right to choose.” However they do not broadly publicize their historic connections to Margaret Sanger and her ideology...and with good reason when one considers her less than admirable motives.

Margaret Sanger was active in the reproductive rights movement in America around the same time the Nazis came to power in Germany with their dreams of building a master race by exterminating the Jews and other “undesirables.” While Sanger rejected the anti-Semitic nature of Nazism she did embrace her own version of eugenics, including the sterilization of those she considered unfit to reproduce and preventing the births of those she saw as a burden on society. She believed in building a superior human race through segregation and controlled breeding.

According to an article written by Sanger entitled "The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda," published in the October 1921 issue of the journal, Birth Control Review, “The campaign for birth control is not merely of eugenic value, but is practically identical with the final aims of eugenics.” Sanger envisioned birth control as her own “final solution” for the ills of society. "Eugenics is…the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems,” she states.

Sanger spread this propaganda in public speaking engagements across the country including a 1926 speech at a New Jersey branch of the Ku Klux Klan. And in 1939 her organization began what was called The Negro Project which promoted her style of family planning among blacks in the South. She recruited black ministers from the area whom she hoped would more effectively garner support among locals. In a letter to a fellow activist concerning this program Sanger wrote: “We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”

Planned Parenthood attempts to whitewash Margaret Sanger’s statements by claiming she was influenced by the culture of her time and that we must view her work within that context. But when one reads statements like, “Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race,” as she wrote in a 1922 work entitled Woman, Morality, and Birth Control, or “Eugenic sterilization is an urgent need...We must prevent multiplication of this bad stock,” as she wrote in the April 1933 issue of Birth Control Review, it is difficult to see past the obvious implications. Margaret Sanger founded her organization with the idea of ridding the world of the poor, the physically impaired, the uneducated lower class, and all those she deemed unworthy to breed.

Planned Parenthood is understandably ashamed of their late founder’s despicable agenda. But is their present mission any less despicable? Consider the fact that 78% of Planned Parenthood’s abortion clinics are located in minority communities. And while blacks make up only 13% of the United States’ population, they comprise almost 36% of all abortions. Sure the rhetoric has changed, but the results are the same. Minorities are suffering worse from the scourge of abortion.

Consider also this statement from Planned Parenthood’s website: “Public funds should be made available to subsidize the cost of abortion [and]…sterilization services for those who choose the procedure[s] but cannot afford [them].” In other words, they want us to pay for sterilizing and aborting the poor of our nation. Margaret Sanger would no doubt applaud this policy statement, as she would also be pleased to know that Planned Parenthood receives its own federal subsidies with nearly one third of its funding coming from government grants and contracts.

Margaret Sanger’s goal of a national policy of “eugenics” may not be written into law, but the reality of legalized abortion, its inherent cheapening of human life, and the taxpayer funding of organizations like Planned Parenthood give to her the next closest thing. Thanks to Roe v. Wade and the culture of death she inspired, an unborn child can be written off as an undesired nuisance and a burden on society.

Margaret Sanger would be proud.

Q&A: Why is Mass boring?

Question: Why is Mass so boring? Many Protestant services, especially among Evangelicals, are filled with upbeat music that is fun to listen to, dynamic sermons featuring slide-show/PowerPoint presentations and even skits acted out on stage. These services are more entertaining and engaging than the Mass. Why doesn’t the Catholic Church offer a more exuberant, lively service comparable to what is found among these other churches? It would seem that the Bible calls for this kind of cheerful, high-spirited worship in passages such as Psalm 66 where we read: “Sing the glory of his name; make his praise glorious!” – In light of passages like this, why does the Catholic Church’s Liturgy seem so subdued? Where is the “glorious” praise?

Answer:
Obviously the Catholic Church has an “image problem” on this issue. But I would begin by saying, that our public “image” is not really the motivation in presenting the Liturgy. We are not trying to “give the people what they want” or create an entertaining feast-for-the-eyes-and-ears. We are not engaged in a marketing campaign for Catholicism, trying to “sell” the church to the general public with the Mass as a promotional tool. Nor should we use the Mass merely as a “stage” for our best talent so that they can soak up the applause and the audience feels like they got their “money’s worth” as the collection basket is passed around.

We must remember that the congregation is not an audience watching performers do their tricks. Rather the Church is filled with worshipers (which includes the priest and the people, the choir and the ministers), ALL of us focused on GOD…not on one another and the talents we possess.

Now I would agree that Psalm 66 definitely has something to say about right worship of God. We should “Sing the glory of his name; make his praise glorious!” (Ps 66:2) And if there is any criticism I might have of Catholics it is that we don’t sing very enthusiastically – we could certainly try a little harder on that point, and perhaps some Evangelical converts would go a long way to boost our singing abilities. But I think singing alone is not the problem. There is a certain style and structure to the Mass that is not the same as an Evangelical service no matter how well Catholics might belt out their songs. We need to focus on the bigger picture of how music and ritual fit together and for that I would point to a later verse in Psalm 66…

“I will come to your temple with burnt offerings and fulfill my vows to you- vows my lips promised and my mouth spoke when I was in trouble. I will sacrifice fat animals to you and an offering of rams; I will offer bulls and goats.” (Psalm 66:13-15)

Keep in mind that the Psalms are a Jewish text, and while the Jews certainly believed that God should be praised with a “joyful noise,” they also had specific rituals they performed such as animal sacrifice, the burning of incense, ritual prayers, ceremonial washings, and so on. In Scripture God gave specific details on how the Jewish people were to carry out these rituals. He told them the proper way to sacrifice lambs or goats, and on which day and by whom these things should be done. He told them how to bake their ceremonial bread and how they should eat it. He told them the words they should say and who should speak them and when. The Jews followed God’s Law and it told them how to worship God as He wants to be worshipped. We should definitely bring our joy and enthusiasm, as the Psalm says, but God also expects certain things from us in the way we worship Him.

Now you may argue against this idea for Christians by saying that Jesus rejected this ritual form of prayer. You may point out that Jesus condemned the Pharisees for following all of these rules and for pushing the details of the Law onto the people. But notice what Jesus actually said about this:

“The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.” (Matthew 23:1-3)

Jesus was not opposed to laws and rituals in worship. (In fact He condemned the Pharisees for not following the law correctly – they were hypocrites who did not practice what they preached.) Remember too that Jesus Himself followed the rituals of Jewish worship: He went to Jerusalem for holy days and fulfilled His obligation to sacrifice as a Jew; He celebrated the Passover and other Jewish feasts; His parents presented Him at the Temple when He was a child just as the law required. Jesus accepted ritual and the laws that governed worship. He was not opposed to ritual and He submitted Himself to God’s Law even from His birth.

Jesus did not do away with the Law or ritual worship, but He did transform it and gave to it new meaning and purpose. We see this clearly in the Passover meal He celebrated with His disciples on the night before He died. He gave to the unleavened bread and the wine a new meaning and gave it a new ritual context. No longer would it refer back to the Exodus of Moses’ day, now it refers to His death and our exodus from sin. The lamb that is sacrificed and eaten is now His Flesh. The cup of blessing is now His Blood. And we are commanded to repeat the ritual. We are not instructed to invent our own formula or experiment with variations on what Jesus did. We must mimic Jesus’ own actions, and “Do this in memory of me.”

Still we must agree with Psalm 66, that we should enter into this Sacrifice of the Mass with joy and song. And Catholics do have beautiful songs (we could just work on the singing). But we cannot separate this idea of “glorious praise” from the “ritual sacrifice” that is mentioned later in the same Psalm. God has given us a wonderful gift in showing us how to praise and worship Him; we must not assume that we can invent our own forms when God’s way is so clearly laid out before us in the image of Christ.

Now more to the point, sometimes we go to Mass and just can’t seem to concentrate, it is boring, or maybe the singing is bad, or the sermon is not so great, or some other problem with the sloppiness of the service. And while all of these things can be important, they are not nearly as important as the Real Presence of Christ as we approach the altar to receive Communion. We should certainly bring with us joy and song, but we also have an obligation to perform the ritual that Jesus commanded us to do in His memory. Humans are imperfect and sometimes our singing is weak or we get lazy or we are just untalented. The Mass can be done poorly…but it is still the Mass. God still meets us there and comes down to us under the appearance of bread and wine if we follow what He commands us.

Protestant/Evangelical Christians may not understand how Catholics can attend a Mass that seems “boring” or “ritualistic” or just “un-fun.” They may not grasp why Catholics would keep going to a service that lacks the up-beat and exciting drama of Evangelical-style worship. The answer is that Catholics are seeking something other than an emotional high or the excitement of being entertained. The belief in the Real Presence is what makes the Mass a “glorious praise” to God. Sure we would like to have the best possible preacher, and music that is well performed and well sung. But I can do without those things (or put up with less) if I know that Jesus’ Body and Blood are there for me to worship and receive as food.

What did He say...?

I just read an interesting post about Biblical literalism at a site called The Catholic Thing. As the author, Brad Miner, points out, before the invention of the printing press, throughout the centuries scribes copied and recopied the ancient manuscripts that contain God's Word which we now call the Bible. And in that process these scribes may have altered the text in many places by leaving out or adding letters, or substituting words or phrases, or omitting whole passages. One such place is in Matthew 19:23-25. Jesus tells a rich man who wishes to follow Him that he must sell all that he owns and give the money to the poor, then he can follow Jesus. The man turns away, and then Jesus tells His disciples, "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God."

But did Jesus say "camel" or "rope"? As the article I mentioned tells us, their is good reason to believe that the scribes may have copied the text incorrectly...

"Now in Greek, the primary language of the Gospel, the word for camel is (depending on how it’s transliterated) kamilon. But Burgess argued (and he is one of many who have) that since the word for rope, kamiilon, is essentially a homophone, the passage actually makes more sense if Jesus is telling his fisherman followers, in whose former trade cords and nets played such a prominent role, to imagine trying to thread a thick, nautical rope through a needle’s eye.

"Others argue that the camel, the largest thing around, made for vivid imagery: big beast, tiny opening. Still others say there was once an actual gate in Jerusalem’s wall called Needle’s Eye. Other ancient cities had such narrow, low-lintel passageways designed to be the only ones left open late and requiring travelers to dismount, unburden their camels, and squeeze through. A security measure. But no archaeological evidence exists to indicate that Jerusalem ever had a Needle’s Eye. More than that, there’s support for the “rope” hypothesis in Aramaic, the language Jesus spoke most of the time, in which the words for camel and rope are the same: gml. (As in Hebrew, there are no written vowels in Aramaic.)"

In the end, the meaning of this particular passage remains relatively the same whether it was a camel or a rope. But there are other passages with similar variances that may altar the meaning of the text. And this creates an awkward problem for Christians who insist on LITERAL interpretations of God's Word. If we are unsure of the exact wording then literalism becomes difficult to achieve.

I am reminded here of those "red letter" editions of the KJV Bibles, with the words of Jesus written in red letters to stand out from the otherwise black text...as though Jesus spoke the "King's English." So what did Jesus say? Was it rope or camel? Maybe that word should be in black instead of red...

Also, the original Greek did not use punctuation, or paragraph indentations, or other devices that make reading our printed books so easy. In the original Greek it is difficult to tell sometimes where a sentence begins or ends, or what words are a direct "quote" and what is simply the author interjecting a idea. The quotes that appear so boldy in "red" as those spoken by Jesus, are editorial decisions made by scholars, centuries after the fact trying to sort out the details of correct grammar and punctuation for modern readers.

Thankfully, Catholics have the Church to turn to for assurance of the Truth. As the author ends the piece at the above mentioned website...

"Protestant literalist or sola scriptura fundamentalist might get exercised over this and many other problems in Scripture (the Book of Job alone has hundreds of words scholars are unsure about). But for a Catholic, such phenomena are a part of the historic interaction between God and man, even as we are sure that God has clearly revealed everything we need for salvation in Scripture and has guaranteed necessary interpretations via an infallible Magisterium."

Mary, Mother of God

December 25 began the Christmas Season, the time when we celebrate the nativity of God-made-flesh. During this festive period we mark the changing of the calendar, counting the number of years since the time of Jesus’ birth which happened roughly 2010 years ago. For this reason, January 1 ought to stand out in a very special way during the Christmas Season as it truly denotes the birth-day of Christ within the Church’s liturgy.

And as a matter of fact, New Year’s Day is a holy day of obligation for Catholics, a day when church attendance is required to show our profound gratitude for what God has done in giving us His only Son. So the Christian calendar does commemorate the January 1 birthday of Jesus with due reverence…but not under a “name” or “title” that refers to Jesus as one might expect. Rather it is “Mary, the Mother of God” who is especially remembered on New Year’s Day.

This might beg the question…Why not give Jesus His own birthday without placing such an emphasis on His human mother? Why not give the spotlight to Jesus since He is after all the incarnate God? Why so much focus on Mary?

But the Church’s wisdom in this matter is easily defended…

First it must be remembered that the Church celebrates many saints throughout the year, and most especially we celebrate Mary on several annual occasions as we recognize her unique place in God’s plan for our salvation. Any time we set aside these feast days and special memorials for Christian saints and martyrs, we are in reality celebrating God and Jesus…for it is GOD Who works through the saints and shows forth His grace in their lives. By elevating the saints on their special feast days, we are in fact elevating God, Who works marvelous deeds through them. So whenever we hold up Mary in this way (as we do on January 1) we are really holding up Jesus, whom we see reflected in her life.

But the best reason of all for focusing on Mary during this January 1 holiday is found when we contemplate the infant Jesus whom we find laying in a manger at Christmas. A newborn baby depends exclusively on his parents for his survival. In the Incarnation, God placed Himself in Mary’s care, first for the nine months of her pregnancy, and then throughout His infancy and childhood. He relied on Mary and Joseph for all of His earthly needs and wants as any human child would. Until Jesus reached manhood, Mary and Joseph stood as guardians and protectors of God’s Son.

As any parent knows, when a child is born the parents are flooded with visits from friends and relatives hoping to get a peak at your new bundle of joy. “Can I see him? Can I hold him?” they ask. “How much did he weigh? What color are his eyes? Does he sleep through the night? Does he cry a lot?” The child cannot answer for himself. So we get to know the newborn babe by going through his parents…At Christmas it is only right that we go to Jesus through Mary. We arrive at Christmas, after our journey through Advent and we go to His mother hoping to see Him cradled in her arms.

Catholics are often accused of overshadowing God by focusing too heavily on saints and especially on Mary. But God saw fit to bestow this gift on Mary and make her the His mother. We do well to honor Mary at Christmas and seek Christ where He chose to be found.

The Shepherd at Christmas

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him…” (John 1:1-3)

This passage forms the opening to the Gospel of John which tells of the second person of the Trinity, the Son of God Who shared in the creation of the world. These lines from John’s Gospel echo the opening words of Genesis, which tells us that “in the beginning” God created light, land, and water, and every kind of animal that moves upon the earth, and finally God created man in His own image. And God gave mankind dominion over the earth and over the animals and plants that grow there. Humans are responsible for tending to God’s creation.

Whatever our occupation or vocation in life, we participate in some way in nurturing God’s creation. Whether we build things with our hands or design things with our minds or move things from one place to another, we are answerable to God, and He will judge whether we make proper use of the created world He has bestowed upon us. Genesis tells us that we are the pinnacle of His creation. We are the greatest of His creatures. And so we have authority over the animals and plants of the earth because they are lesser creatures. We are responsible for their care. God has charged us with this task, but we can only succeed if we learn well our vocation and follow God’s Will.

Now, Joseph was a carpenter, and we assume that Jesus learned this trade in His youth. But as a vocation, as a life-calling, Jesus referred to Himself as “Shepherd.” This defined His task in the world. Certainly all shepherds care for the created world and have dominion over their flocks as God intended. But as the Good Shepherd, Jesus did not tend real sheep. Jesus’ flock is of the human race. Jesus came to have dominion over us who are created in His image. In this way, we who were charged with tending creation must ourselves be tended. As the Son of God, Jesus surpasses us who are merely created beings, and so He has the right to declare dominion over us.

In this way, the Son of God came down to fulfill that mission…

“The Word became flesh and dwelt among us.” (John 1:14)

As the Good Shepherd, Jesus indeed cares for His sheep in the same way that we would care for those under us. And He set about this task immediately: The infant Jesus was laid in a manger – a word that means “to chew” or “eat.” A manger is where food is placed for animals to eat. Just as we are charged with feeding and caring for the lesser creatures in our midst, so the Son of God cares for us who are infinitely less than His divine Being. Every shepherd must build a manger and stock his barns and set aside pastures and farmland, and thus they provide for their flocks. At Christmas we see the infant Son of God laid where lesser creatures gather for food, in a manger filled with straw. God has provided food for His flock. God comes down from heaven and feeds us who are lesser beings, like sheep in need of a Shepherd. The Good Shepherd lays Himself in the manger as food for His sheep.

When we read that “The Word became flesh…” we must recall too the later words of Jesus in John’s Gospel. The Good Shepherd assures us, “My flesh is real food.” (John 6:55) And so the Shepherd of mankind has provided food for His sheep. As His sheep we gather to partake of what God provides. Every Christmas should point us toward the Eucharistic feast that is God’s own flesh.

Link to a great article on subsidiarity

The current healthcare debate has been on my mind for some time now. Unfortunately I have not had the time (or more correctly, I have not taken the time) to sit down and write anything for this blog concerning my thoughts on this issue. And honestly, I prefer not to use this blog as a “current events” forum…even if that current event pertains directly to an important moral issue like healthcare and more broadly, social justice. I’m not interested here in picking apart specific pieces of legislation or commenting on the political winds that blow this way or that. This site is not specifically a “political” blog…although I do, from time to time, address political happenings.

When I do refer to politics or current events, I usually try to relate the issue to a broader theme and focus on that “theme” rather than an analysis of the particular event. With that in mind, I intend to write some posts on the larger issue of Social Justice, and when I do I will certainly take into account the political debate between conservatives and liberals on the role of government, the dignity of the human person, and other pertinent subjects.

Until that time, I wanted to post a link to an article I found at a website called Catholic Exchange, regarding the Social Justice concept subsidiarity and how it relates to the current healthcare “reform” legislation pending in Congress. As the article explains:

“In a nutshell, the principal of subsidiarity states that matters impacting the human person should be addressed by the smallest, least centralized, most localized, competent personal authority possible. The opposite situation is realized when personal affairs are managed by larger; more centralized and detached public authorities.”

Obviously this simple truth flies in the face of the “big government” bureaucratic solutions so often touted by liberal Catholics who argue that Social Justice demands a top-down solution to social ills. But as the article further states, official Catholic sources warn against such statist approaches to meeting people’s needs:

“Citizens, for their part, either individually or collectively, must be careful not to attribute excessive power to public authority, not to make exaggerated and untimely demands upon it in their own interests, lessening in this way the responsible role of persons, families and social groups.” (Gaudium et Spes - 75)

And as Pope John Paul II warned:

"Malfunctions and defects in the Social Assistance State are the result of an inadequate understanding of the tasks proper to the State. Here again the principle of subsidiarity must be respected: a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good." (Centesimus Annus - 48)

Obviously, much more could be said on this issue, and I intend to write more some time in the new year. For now, I recommend reading this entire article as it reflects my own understanding of this important topic.

Mass...interrupted

I ran across a funny, tongue-in-cheek commentary on what should be done if Mass is interrupted by a gunman. The piece was written by a priest at his own blog in response to the following question…

“I have a question for you. Suppose during a EF Mass, a gunman or threatening person enters the church, and opens fire. What can be done within the rubrics to protect the Blessed Sacrament, the priest, the servers, and the congregation? Please keep in mind that the congregation is made up of slow, aging men, who no offense to them, really can’t protect anyone.”

[Read the whole article here.]


The reply is quite funny and well worth the read (especially for any Catholic familiar with the rubrics), but in the end it does deal with a serious issue. Mass can be interrupted by any number of outbursts, verbal protests, natural disasters, sudden emergencies, or even a violent assault. Throughout the centuries priests have been martyred while standing at the altar offering the Sacrifice of the Mass. What better way to catch a Christian during times of persecution than in the very act of worshipping Christ in the Holy Eucharist. To find Christians gathered around the altar praising their God has always been a welcomed target for enemies of the Church.

During times of war, Mass has been disturbed by cannon and gunfire, troops storming a captured city, or bombs falling from above. Also during war, Mass has been celebrated near the frontlines as soldiers prepare for battle and partake in what may be their last reception of Christ’s Body here on earth. At any moment an enemy barrage or sudden attack could jeopardize that sacred moment.


Of course, these extreme examples are not typical in most of our ordinary parishes here in the United States or in most places in the Western World (although sadly there are places today where this sort of thing does still happen). For most of us, we do not go to Mass wondering if the church will be bombed while we worship or hoping that Father is not gunned down as he consecrates the bread and wine.


The final point from the article I cited above is that when Mass is suddenly interrupted by an act of great violence, if the people are directly attacked in some way or threatened with death, the rubrics do not spell out some pre-planned maneuver to counteract the menace. Generally in such circumstances the Mass is suspended and the threat is answered with whatever means are necessary…basically, common sense prevails, and the rubrics cannot replace common sense when faced with a life-or-death struggle. A gunman is not going to wait for the priest to cite some Cannon Law or turn to the correct page in his Sacramentary. Obviously the gunman is not “playing by the rules,” so consulting the “rule book” is a waste of precious time.


This is not to say that the rubrics tell us nothing about what to do when the Mass is interrupted in a more ordinary way, absent gunfire and explosives. Just as there are specific guidelines dictating how the Mass ought to be celebrated, there are also guidelines instructing us what to do when the Mass does not go as planned. The case of an armed gunman is extreme, but there are other unplanned emergencies that come up from time-to-time that do fall within the guidelines laid out in the rubrics. During these times, the Mass can usually continue while the emergency is handled by competent individuals in the congregation.


Coincidentally, a couple of days after reading the article mentioned above, the Mass I attended was interrupted by a man who apparently was having a stroke or some other sudden medical emergency. I say that the Mass was “interrupted,” but quite literally it was not interrupted. As the Mass continued on, I was completely unaware of the event as it unfolded on the other side of the church. The gentleman’s needs were handled quietly by those sitting nearby. A woman called 911 on her cell phone and others sat with him and his wife as they waited for the paramedics. I had no idea that any of this was going on until I heard a gurney unfolded and its wheels struck the floor with a thud.


However, our priest apparently had been alerted to the situation right away and had even sent an altar server to find out what had happened. I thought it odd at the time that a server would leave the sanctuary and I noticed upon his return that he whispered something in Father’s ear. But Mass continued, and so I focused again on the Liturgy while fellow parishioners did what was needed for the elderly gentleman.


On at least two other occasions I have witnessed similar situations, when someone has collapsed or fainted or suffered some sudden physical ailment during the Mass. And always the priest is called to perform his ministerial duties at the altar, while those in the pew attend to the needs of their fellow parishioners. The Mass must go on!

I am always struck by the wisdom of the Church in setting the guidelines for the celebration of the Mass. Every detail is planned for and every eventuality is considered. Even the gunman scenario described above is addressed indirectly in the rubrics by allowing for the suspension of the service when people’s lives are threatened. As the before-mentioned priest blogger duly noted in his conclusion:


32. If, while the priest is celebrating Mass, the church is violated before he has reached the Canon, the Mass is to be discontinued; if after the Canon, it is not to be discontinued. If there is fear of an attack by enemies, or of a flood or of the collapse of the building where the Mass is being celebrated, the Mass is to be discontinued if it is before the Consecration; if this fear arises after the Consecration, however, the priest may omit everything else and go on at once to the reception of the Sacrament. (From the old De defectibus)

In all of this it should be remembered that the Mass gives to us God Himself, physically present as food and drink. Knowing this, we ought not leave anything to chance.