Ascension (Sunday) 2004
Year C—Gospel:
Luke 24:46-53
St. Thomas Aquinas, Camas, WA
Fr. Derek Lappe
May 23, 2004
Most of you have seen, I am sure, over the past few weeks, stories
in the newspaper and on the TV about some of the Bishops who are talking
about denying communion to Catholic Politicians who publicly dissent
from Church teaching—Not trusting the media to get it straight
I would like to try to explain a little about what is going on.
As I begin I would like to point out that the Church has no interest
in supporting political parties or particular candidates. Tax laws in
fact mandate that the Church not promote either of these. This is, in
fact, a great good, because it frees us from the mire of political debate
so that we might use our voice to support the common good of
all members of society through the various important issues which come
before the American people, legislatures and judiciaries.
It was interesting to get the perspective of my brother Jay, who is
a Captain in the Marine Corp, and teaches in a school where they train
new officers to be leaders. He compared the bishops situation to that
of officers during a war. When Jay was in Iraq he was part of a “Battalion
Command Group” which worked in an Amtrak near the battle line.
This group’s job was to coordinate artillery and air support for
the soldiers up front—they all had to be in the vehicle together
to make sure everything was coordinated. You probably saw many pictures
of Amtraks during the war: just a big metal box on wheels. And you can
probably imagine how hot and miserable it must get in there, filled
with marines and diesel fumes. In fact all they ever wanted to do was
get out of this vehicle. They would always whine and complain to their
Colonel, asking to separate and work out of humvees, but all he ever
said was, “get in the track, we have to stay together so we can
communicate with one another.”
Because of his position of teaching leadership Jay was given a report
of another battalion during the war, with the same situation. But in
this case the Colonel, in the face of their constant whining and complaining,
and probably from a desire to be well liked and popular didn’t
say no. He let them separate, so that when the call came in requesting
an air-strike on what were believed to be Iraqis, the operations officer
wasn’t sitting right there to correct the mistake, as a result
ten Marines were killed by friendly fire. Men died because their leaders
took the easy way out, they didn’t want to do or say the unpopular
thing.
When we transfer this story over into the Spiritual life, it becomes
even more important than life and death, because in the spiritual life
it is a matter of eternal life and death, in the Church souls are lost
for eternity due to a lack of strong leadership willing to teach the
truth, even when it is hard.
Our first reading today relates a somewhat funny scene immediately
after the Ascension of our Lord. The Apostles are all standing there
looking up into the sky, maybe they thought that was what they were
supposed to be doing, just standing there waiting for the Lord to return
in Glory—until two angels appear to them and tell them to quit
looking up in the sky and get to work. Jesus had entrusted a mission
to those disciples, “You will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, throughout
Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the Earth.” The Mission
of the Apostles and of all the Church is to be a witness to Jesus Christ:
living a life faithful to him, and teaching the Truths which he taught
all the way to the end of the world.
For the past couple of years many have been wondering if the successors
of the Apostles had been just staring up in the sky, neglecting to protect
and defend their flock from predators, failing to teach with the necessary
clarity and conviction. It seems now that they are beginning to get
to work.
As they do, I think that the first objection many will raise is, “What
moral authority do they have, what possible moral high ground after
their past failings?”
Well, their moral authority comes from Christ and from being successors
of the Apostles, but many of them certainly don’t have any moral
high ground. This might actually be the point however—where we
find a strong link between the problem of Episcopal inaction in the
face of the sexual abuse of children and the stand they are taking on
dissident Catholic Politicians.
Maybe, justly humiliated by their inaction at defending young people
from predator priests, they are trying to avoid the same type of scandal
that comes from silence and failing to confront those who are complicit
in the slaughter of innocent pre-born children. The principles involved
are the same: Catholic politicians, for better or worse, have the role
of being lay leaders in the Church, they have their picture taken at
Mass, shaking hands with bishops, and when it is convenient they wear
their Catholicism on their sleeve. Thus, when they publicly dissent—and
publicly vote for laws which continue and support the scourge of abortion,
or on other essential matters of faith and morals they cause grave
scandal for Christians.
They weaken and undercut of the moral voice of the Church due to their
well-known and scandalous dissent. Every time the Church tries to proclaim
her belief in the dignity of every human life the media raises the issue
of division and debate within the Church by pointing to these politicians
who vote against the Gospel of life, which is truly at the heart of
Jesus’ message.
This scandal is not mitigated by those politicians who use
the tired old defense that they are “personally opposed, but must
not impose their beliefs and morality on others.” It is a nonsensical
phrase. Maybe they learned it from that great statesman Pontius Pilate—“personally
I’m opposed—but my constituency wants the Son of God dead.”
It is somewhat perplexing to me that the media lets them get away with
such an absurd apology. Could you imagine an elected official saying,
“personally I’m opposed to slavery, but every white man
needs to make his own judgment as to whether or not he should own slaves.”
Yet, the action of abortion involves an even greater infringement on
the rights of another—it takes away not just the right to liberty,
but the most fundamental right we possess as persons, the right to life.
Thus the bishops have begun to call to conversion those who would water
down their faith for the sake of personal gain. They are calling them
back to Jesus Christ and asking them to allow the Gospel to guide them
in their public life—and not to separate their faith from the
way they live in the world. This is integrity of belief and life is
central to the message of Jesus who says: “why do you say to me,
Lord, Lord, and not do what I tell you?” What respect would you
have for the Catholic businessman who goes to Mass on Sunday, and then
goes out and does not allow his faith to affect the way he runs his
business, cheating and stealing from his employees, being dishonest
and embezzling? Or a Catholic parent who refuses to allow their faith
to inform the way they raise their children?
“What about all the other issues, capital punishment,
welfare that make up the seamless garment approach?”
This is a good question but the Church would respond, unapologetically
that abortion is the issue. There is no more
terrible attack on innocent human life. With modern science and technology
the argument against the personhood of the pre-born child is meaningless
and absurd: from conception a unique human person, with their own absolutely
unique and unchanging DNA, comes into existence. That human being is
the most vulnerable and defenseless, and sadly, in the western world
the most in jeopardy. There is no person in greater danger in this country
than a child in its mother’s womb, as abortion kills nearly 4000
babies each and every day in the United States—a number greater
than the tragedy of September 11th.
It is the issue, because as Mother Theresa
put it so simply: “We must not be surprised when we hear of murders,
of killings of wars, of hatred. If a mother can kill her own child,
what is left but for us to kill each other.”
If a candidate does not understand that you cannot kill an innocent
person for the sake of some greater good—they have a fundamental
flaw. Any candidate who says abortion should be kept legal disqualifies
him/herself from public service. We need look no further; we need pay
no attention to what the candidate says on other issues. If there were
a candidate who supported terrorism—would you say, “Well,
I disagree with you on that issue, but where do you stand on Medicare
and minimum-wage.”
John Paul II, “Above all, the common outcry, which is justly
made on behalf of human rights—for example, the right to health,
to home, to work, to family, to culture—is false and illusory
if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition
for all other personal rights is not defended with the maximum determination.”
(Christifideles Laici #38)
The right to life is the most fundamental right that must be defended
because all other rights depend upon it. Issues of immigration, care
for the poor, health care, the economy, capital punishment are all important
issues, but “no amount of calculating can make them equal in gravity,”
with abortion. (Chaput, How to tell a duck from a fox. Column
April 14, 2004)
Abortion is an issue which admits of no circumstance or situation that
could justify its evil, thus it is called intrinsically evil, a term
which is also applied to direct procured euthanasia, the destruction
of embryos through the harvesting of stem cells, cloning, and same-sex
marriage.
“What about the separation between Church and State?”
The separation of Church and State does not mean that the teachings
of Jesus Christ, and the morality embraced by Christians for the last
two thousand years have no application in political life. The separation
of Church and State means that our government will not fund or seek
to set up some particular religious sect as a state religion. But we
as Roman Catholics certainly have the right to speak out and to influence,
and to vote according to the teachings of our Church, just as much as
the devout atheists and secular humanist seek to push forward their
vision of America. As the Bishops begin to find their voice many will
say that a Catholic legislator should be only answerable to his constituency—there
is a necessary separation between Church and State—a constituency
voted him/her into office and they have to represent that public.
In 1953 Three Catholics, a judge, a senator, and a politically powerful
woman made that exact claim in Louisiana. Then the issue was over school
segregation. Years before public schools desegregated, the Catholic
Bishop of New Orleans, Joseph Rummel, was integrating his schools. He
was vilified and opposed by these Catholic leaders who were acting with
the support of their constituency. But, we do not look back with pride
on the courage of those Catholics who so conscientiously represented
a bigoted society and racist community. In fact I take great pride as
a Catholic that, after warning them of their grave spiritual danger
due to rejecting Church teaching, Archbishop Rummel excommunicated those
so-called Catholic politicians.
What it boils down to simply is a call for basic integrity from people
to admit that if you are not in communion with the Church, don’t
receive communion. Don’t continue to give this awful and scandalous
witness that it is somehow okay to be a pro-abortion or pro-choice Catholic,
or that there is such a thing.
As Archbishop John Myers of Newark has pointed out,
“Catholics who publicly dissent from the Church’s teaching
on the right to life of all unborn children should recognize that
they have freely chosen by their own actions to separate themselves
from what the Church believes and teaches. They have also separated
themselves in a significant way from the Catholic community. The Church
cannot force such people to change their position; but she can and
does ask them honestly to admit in the public forum that they are
not in full union with the Church.
This is not a new teaching of the Church. From the earliest years,
it has been pointed out that one cannot claim to be a Christian and
yet believe other than what the Church teaches. In the second century
St. Justin Martyr described the Eucharist in this way: “No one
may share the Eucharist with us unless he believes that what we teach
is true, unless he is washed in the regenerating waters of baptism
for the remission of his sins, and unless he lives in accordance with
the principles given us by Christ.” (A Time for Honesty”
May 5, 2004)
Fr. Richard McBrien has said that for the Church and her bishops to
take this stand, “will backfire into the most spectacular thing.”
With all due respect to Fr. McBrien, I think he bases his opinion on
a great deception which has plagued many in the Church. It is the lie
that we will be able to have one foot in the world, and one foot in
heaven, and that we will be able to be faithful to the Gospel and yet
loved by the world. Jesus promises us: “If the world hates you,
know that it has hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world,
the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world,
but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.”
If there is a backlash because we preach the truth about the dignity
of the human person and about the Eucharist it is all the better for
the Roman Catholic Church. The time is long past since we can bother
ourselves with trying to curry the favor of the world—only fidelity
to Jesus Christ, who founded this Church, matters.
Most of those disciples who looked up to heaven at the Ascension, and
who were sent out to proclaim the Gospel, preached and witnessed most
convincingly by the shedding of their blood.
Return to top
