Faithful Citizenship

Faithful Citizenship

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has once again put out  Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship: A Call to Political Responsibility from the Catholic Bishops of the United States. http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/faithful-citizenship/index.cfm  This is a publication that is meant to be a guide for Catholics facing choices in this year's election. In the introduction the Bishops state: "In the Catholic Tradition, responsible citizenship is a virtue, and participation in political life is a moral obligation." (#13) Further they state: "The Church's teaching is clear that a good end does not justify an immoral means. As we all seek to advance the common good - by defending the inviolable sanctity of human life from the moment of conception until natural death, by promoting religious freedom, by defending marriage, by feeding the hungry and housing the homeless, by welcoming the immigrant and protecting the environment." (#19).

The bishops break their presentation of Church teaching that are meant to guide us into the four Principles of Catholic Social Teaching: The Dignity of the Human Person, The Common Good, Subsidiarity, and Solidarity.

Under the Dignity of the Human Person, once finds the foundational teaching against abortion. The intentional killing of innocent life is never morally acceptable. Also included this principle are denunciations against euthanasia, assisted suicide, human cloning, in vitro fertilization, and the destruction of human embryos for research.  We are also called to oppose among other things, torture, unjust war, attacks against non-combatants, racism, as well as overcoming poverty and suffering. The bishops also repeat the pleas of Pope Francis for the United States to ban the death penalty.

Subsidiarity reminds us that we are social people and that larger institutions should not interfere with smaller, more local groups, including the family. When a local group is not sufficient enough to protect human dignity and the common good it is only then that we turn to larger institutions.

The Common Good reminds us that every human person has a right to such things as food and shelter, education, employment, health care, and freedom of religion. The Common Good calls us to protect the rights of workers and their right to form associations. Finally the bishops, under the Common Good reiterate the Pope's call to care for our creation, especially as it regards pollution and climate change.

Solidarity reminds us that we are all in this together. Regardless of our race, nationality, religion or ideological differences. It is under the principle of Solidarity that the bishops call us to "welcome the stranger", including immigrants. Solidarity is also where the Church's Preferential Option for the Poor finds it basis.

It can be seen in reading through the publication that no one ideology, no one political party and no one candidate fits into all the teachings of the Church. Neither the "left" nor the "right", neither Republicans nor Democrats can claim to hold true to all that these principles of Catholic Social Teaching call us to. Indeed, the bishops state that: "When necessary, our participation should help transform the party to which we belong; we should not let the party transform us in such a way that we neglect or deny fundamental moral truths.." (#13) If we fit too well into one ideology or one political party, if we find we reject Church Teaching because it does not conform to what my party of candidate endorses, that we have made our ideology more important than our call to discipleship. We have made our membership in our political party more important than our membership in the Catholic Church. 

I urge all Catholics to vote this year and I urge all Catholics to read the entire publication. Please go to the USCCB web site and get a copy of Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship: A Call to Political Responsibility from the Catholic Bishops of the United State.  

The link is: http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/faithful-citizenship/index.cfm

I RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE

I RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE

One of the things that really distresses me about our political process is how nasty it has become. Democracy depends upon the ability to discuss, debate, and argue over issues as family and friends. It used to be twe recognized that those we disagreed with politically were good Americans who wanted the best for our country. It was how to get there that we disagreed with. This is no longer true in our current political culture. While this election cycle is particularly nasty, the trend has been moving this way for the past couple of decades. Those who disagree with us politically and ideologically are no longer fellow Americans who want the best for our country but they are idiots because they disagree with me.  They are traitors because they think I'm wrong. They are evil and criminal because their ideas are not mine. This dysfunction of our democracy is exasperated by social media. Friends of mine who are very pleasant in person can be very vicious on Facebook, calling people names they would never utter in person.

I enjoy a good argument. When my wife and I were first married, her family still gathered together on Sunday afternoons for a family meal, often with family members from out of town. We would often get into political discussion that sometimes got heated. My wife did not enjoy these discussions but I did. The main reason I enjoyed them was because no one belittled anyone else. No one got nasty and insulting. We disagreed and at the end of the discussion my father-in-law would hold up his glass of wine and say "salute", the Italian version, and we would toast each others' health.

If we cannot discuss politics without becoming nasty and insulting than our democracy is in serious trouble. Calling each other names is childish. Don't do it. Insulting each other's intelligence is counterproductive and also childish. Someone who disagrees with you is not evil or anti-American. Good people can and do disagree. I have many friends that I disagree with on political and ideological issues. Yet I am glad to see them and enjoy their company. Adults should be able to disagree and argue with getting nasty.

 Let's debate as adults!

Deacon Ed

THE RESURRECTION

THE RESURRECTION

As we continue our Easter celebration, I thought it might be a good
time to revisit the Resurrection as an event.  How do we know it
happened?  What is the evidence we look for, and what are theologians
saying about it?

Over the past few years I have read many articles and books on the
Resurrection of Jesus.  Some simply state the Resurrection as fact and
talk about its significance.  Others question the historical reality
of the Resurrection.  Was it just an expression of the faith of the
apostles?  Would anyone else have been able to see Jesus?  Did it
really happen?

St. Paul tells us in his letter to the Corinthians: "And if Christ has
not been raised, our preaching is void and your faith is empty, too.
Indeed, we should then be exposed as false witnesses of God, for we
have borne witness before him that he raised up Christ; but he
certainly did not raise him up if the dead are not raised.  Why?
Because if the dead are not raised , then Christ was not raised; and
if Christ was not raised, your faith is worthless.  You are still in
your sins, and those who have fallen asleep in Christ are the deadest
of the dead.  If our hopes in Christ are limited to this life only, we
are the most pitiable of all men."  (I Cor. 15:14-19)

So the Resurrection is a fact.  But what was Jesus like after the
Resurrection?  Was he just a ghost or did he have bodily form?

To answer some of these questions let's look at the evidence.  First
is the empty tomb.  The fact that the tomb of Jesus was empty does not
in itself prove anything.  There can be other explanations for the
empty tomb.  One is that the disciples of Jesus came in the night a
stole his body.  This is what the Sanhedrin feared would happen and
why they insisted that Pilot place guards at the tomb.  What the empty
tomb can tell us is that the Resurrection, if it happened, was a
bodily Resurrection.  In other words, Jesus was risen in his body.
His body no longer lays in the tomb but is resurrected.  He was not a
ghost when he appeared to his disciples.

The fact that Jesus first appeared to women is another piece of the
evidentiary puzzle.  Women, at the time of Christ, had no real
rights.  Their testimony could not be used as evidence in court.  If
the Resurrection was a faith experience, or a fabrication by the
apostles, they would not have had him appear first to the women at the
tomb.  In fact, the apostles themselves did not believe the testimony
of the women.  Why should they expect anyone else to?  The women were
the first to see Jesus and, therefore, the first to proclaim the
Resurrection.  A thing that was simply not part of the cultural
experience of the times.

It is the post Resurrection appearances that give us the most data
about the historical reality of the event and what the nature of the
resurrected Jesus was.  Recall that when Jesus first appeared to the
disciples that first Easter night, they thought they were seeing a
ghost.  Jesus assured them, using the evidence of his hands and feet,
that it was he and that he was not a ghost.  He upbraided them for not
believing the women.  He would appear to them at least two more times,
as well as appearing to others.

The nature of these appearances and the activity Jesus is involved in
during them shed some light on his own resurrected nature.  Jesus eats
with the disciples.  He allows them to touch his wounds.  He cooks for
them.  All this indicate that Jesus rose in bodily form.  It was the
same body he had before the resurrection.  But is was also very
different.  Jesus was no longer confined by space and time.  He could
appear suddenly through locked doors.  He could disappear just as
suddenly as he did with the disciples in Emmaus.  Clearly he was not
bound by the human condition they way we still are and the way he was
before his resurrection.  Jesus still had the same body he had before
but his body was now glorified.  His is a resurrected body, not simply
a resuscitated one.  His body was now free from all human defect and
was no longer bound by natural law.  But it still was a physical body
that could be seen by the doubting disciples and could still perform
such human activities as eating and touching.

As the CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH states: "Given all these
testimonies, Christ's Resurrection can not be interpreted as something
outside the physical order, and it is impossible not to acknowledge it
as an historical fact."  CCC#643

Jesus rose from the dead, body and soul, a  physical event that can be
verified empirically. The apostles saw him and retold the stories of
his presence among them after his Resurrection.  His body, the same
one he had before his Resurrection was no longer bound the laws of
nature but still retained his wounds of crucifixion.  As Christians,
the historical accuracy of the Resurrection is central to our
belief.

As St. Paul says, "If Christ has not been raised, then your faith is
worthless."