Showing posts with label Theology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Theology. Show all posts

Saturday, October 04, 2008

No Matter How Small or "Horton Hears a Heartbeat"

The following essay is based upon the homily I preached for Respect Life Sunday 2008.  In case you might have missed it, that was this weekend, October 5.  Respect Life is to be distinguished from Pro-Life Sunday in that Respect Life Sunday touches upon all Life issues.  However, given the proximity of the election and the general misunderstanding of the Church's teaching concerning the Sanctity of Life, you will note a dominant note in the text.

For the last several weeks, I have been going to Oklahoma City for physical therapy.  Don't ask why; it's a long story going back to high school.  Suffice to say, I fell off a stage.  Yes, graceful to the last is this priest.  Pulling out of the 7-11 after stopping for a soda to bolster me for the trip back to the parish, I pulled behind a woman at the light.  It was a long light and so I had enough time to read the bumper stickers on her rear bumper.  After the one proclaiming her political allegiance, she had two more.  The first said "War is not the answer."  The second said, "Keep Abortion Legal."  When the light turned it took me a moment to pull forward because of the obvious contradiction of the two statements.  This is what gets me in trouble though.  Because I saw this in OKC, I had an entire hour to think about it.  If it had happened at the Love's just south of town I won't have remembered it.

Before you think me a bore, let me start by saying I can sympathize with the sentiment of the first sticker.  As Pope John Paul II reminded us, war always represents a failure.  War is a failure of reconciliation, can grow from a failure of justice, and generally is a failure of diplomacy.  The sad fact is that people die in war.  My father fought in WWII in the Pacific theater aboard the Ticonderoga.  He could very easily have died and you wouldn't be reading this essay.  When I think about war though I also recognize that war sometimes is necessary for the defense of others.  The First Gulf War as well as World War II are good examples of such actions.  Such a reality as defensive war led theologians of the Church to ponder when war may be engaged morally.

I don't know what exactly motivated this woman's placement of this sticker but I can make a reasonable guess.  She doesn't want us involved in a costly war, a war with a high price tag of lives and dollars.  She doesn't want America to act as a bully and try to build empires by imposing democracy on nations not ready for such a political system.  She doesn't want young men and women thrown down like so much assorted meat for the grinder.  All of this is a laudable goal.  I would suspect that in the end the reason she wants the war to end is because she wants the killing to end.  That is most laudable, indeed, if that is what she is after.

Move over to the next sticker and ask yourself why she might have that one on there.  We must speculate because I didn't get a chance to pull her over and ask.  But we know many of the stated reasons.  A woman has a right to control her body.  A woman should be free to choose whether or not this pregnancy comes to term.  Sadly, most women, based on my experience working with post-abortive women, are forced into the position of having to have an abortion by someone else, be they partner or parent.  Sometimes, women are violated and therefore, she should not have to carry this pregnancy to term.   So in the end, you should keep abortion legal.  Herein lies the contradiction that breaks the whole logic.

At the heart of both matters lies the value of human life.  In the case of war, we are told war is bad and therefore must be stopped because people die.  In the case of abortion, we are told abortion is necessary for social and personal freedom and therefore must be permitted, in spite of the fact that people die.  And before someone tries to say that we don't know that this embryo is a person, please permit me to take a quick poll.  Anyone who is alive today without being an embryo first, please raise your hand.  I don't see any hands.  Okay all you former embryos, are you persons?  Okay, I think we sorted that matter out.

As former embryos, we rightly find the sanction of abortion repugnant.  The foundation for a culture of life begins with protecting the child at its most defenseless.  It has no where to go and no where to hide.  But again, someone might ask, "But really the embryo is so small and it doesn't look like a person.  How can we know it matters?"  Fair question.  How small does something have to be in a person before it stops mattering?

Start with your limbs.  After all, the limbs aren't the whole of the person; they're just a small part.  Anyone who has broken an arm or a leg knows well how important that one limb is.  So that's not small enough.  How about a skin cell on my forearm?  Is that small enough?  Well, no.  A missing skin cell is a breach in the body's defenses and for some bacteria, that's all the invitation it needs to take over.  Please see the flesh eating bacteria for example.  So, the skin cell is not small enough.  Okay, how about the DNA in the cell; perhaps that's small enough.  The problem there is that the DNA is the drive for the cell.  That's the stuff that regulates cell growth and protein development and when something goes haywire there, the next stop is disease, usually cancer.  So, still not small enough.  Okay, how about the smallest known quantum particle, an electron?  Surely that's small enough not to matter.  If you think that then you can stop eating all that food with extra antioxidants in them.  An antioxidant compound is able to shed an electron without losing stability.  It can shed those electrons to unstable structure, say in your DNA, and restores its stability and cohesion.  Because the DNA is stable is less likely to go haywire and generate a cancerous growth.  These sorts of cancerous growths, generally starting from one rogue cell, can jeopardize the health of the whole person.  So you see, there is nothing too small when dealing with a person - from the very smallest stages of his development springs the full grown person you and I are.

Before you think I am blowing this out of proportion, I would remind you of my birthday.  I was born January 23, 1973.  I am the first survivor of a decimated generation.  On one side of the calendar, I was safe in my mother's womb; on the turn of an unfriendly calendar page, I was safe nowhere.  Some 4000 abortions are performed in the U.S. daily.  That averages out to about 167 abortions a hour each day.  Putting the effects of abortion into perspective is simple.  In the two towns where I serve as pastor, if the populations of each town were wiped out in the same fashion, assuming you started at midnight, every man, woman, and child would be dead in Meeker before dawn and in Prague by three in the afternoon.  Abortion is the violence of full grown people inflicted upon unborn people.

The truth be told is this.  If I don't defend life at its most vulnerable, I won't defend it anywhere else.  The person who claims that we as a society can denigrate the child in the womb through abortion and at the same time have a sensible policy related to war is living in a dream.  If I won't respect the child in the womb's right to existence what makes you think I am not going to treat the soldier on the battlefield like cannon fodder.

The notion of Respecting Life encompasses a wide swath of issues including but not restricted to abortion, embryonic stem cell research, proper education and health care, proper use of war as a political reality, the proper implementation of the death penalty, and the proper care and support to the elderly.  From cradle to grave, we must respect life, but the whole house rests on a foundation of defending the right to exist at all.

We come to this topic in a contentious time with a major election on the horizon.  As your pastor, it is my responsibility to remind you that regardless of parties we must stand on the principles of our faith when we approach our turn to vote.  Because we aren't going to find a perfect candidate we are called to begin by addressing those evils which strike against the greatest good.  In this case, we return to abortion and embryonic stem cell research.  Frankly put, if I don't make it out of the womb alive, the rest of that stuff simply won't and doesn't matter.  We must take a politician's stance on those two issues into consideration first.  Along with these issues, we must also address the question of same sex unions and euthanasia.  Before someone says, euthanasia won't happen in our time, I would ask them to visit Seattle and find out what Prop. I-1000 is.  It's a proposition on the ballot for the legalization of assisted suicide.  In Arizona, a heated battle is underway to add a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as a union between a man and woman.  That this has to be debated is a sign of our times for us. I can't tell you for whom to vote; I can only guide you on the principles that in good conscience must form that decision.  I teach these principles because they will remain valid for this election and every election to come.

In conclusion, I would like to quote from the noted theologian, Theodore Geisel.  His work is very subtle so you might not be familiar with it.  He's better known as Dr. Seuss.  In his work, "Horton Hears A Who," Horton discovers a tiny city packed with many people, hidden in a dandelion fluff.  It is so small it cannot be seen with the naked eye.  Only Horton heard the tiny voice crying out for help from the dandelion.  Everyone else in the forest harasses and torments Horton, trying to destroy Horton and the dandelion, simply because he won't let them have it.  But Horton had the right of it: "A person's a person no matter how small."

Saturday, September 27, 2008

Stealth

N.B. The link to the article in question is the title of the post. Click away.

Catholics of any stripe have complained for many years about how a bishop goes about the task of being bishop. A lot of those comments are based upon perceptions the person possesses that has little if anything to do with reality. Fundamentally, though, I think these expectations are a good thing and it's good that they tend to be set high because the bishop in his diocese serves as a successor to the Apostles and our life link to the Prince of the Apostles, the Pope. As I have served as a priest, I have seen more of the subtlety that parochial ministry requires. There are many times you have to bang a gong and get everyone's attention. More often, the pastor shapes a place slowly, gently applying pressure where a change of direction is needed. When thinking of parish ministry, think of ballroom dancing rather than Rambo. That brings me to the linked story.

Something of a whisper campaign popped up after emerged that the soon to be installed Bishop of Sacramento, Jaime Soto, would be in attendance at this group's conference. The group in question is the National Association of Catholic Diocesan Lesbian and Gay Ministries. They had asked the bishop to address the conference, I believe as the keynote. I don't know what they expected, but what Bishop Soto delivered did great credit to the office and role of Bishop.

He proclaimed to them a message of freedom to be found in Jesus Christ. He professed a profound truth to those who suffer from Same Sex Attraction Disorders and in doing so, he offered to them a new vision of themselves. He asked them to discover their personhood again in a society where sexuality is a part used to describe the whole. Before you think I am down only on the gay agenda, think again. Men and women of heterosexual orientation deal daily and painfully with the wreckage of our culture's so-called Sexual Liberation. The commonality to both groups is this: our culture doesn't really love sex; it just knows how to use it to get something else it wants.

The reason the culture doesn't get sex right is because they don't understand marriage. Even in the merely natural order, they don't marriage right very often. Even as realized as a natural act, marriage is an act of the conscience and a binding decision for the length of life. The sign of that bond? The children. The kids are just accidents or necessary by-products of intercourse. The child is the sign that the parents have given themselves completely to each other and only want to share that gift with each other. All of this is a NATURAL consequence of the vows of marriage, whatever the form they take. By the way, this is what sets us apart from the animals.

Ever thought about animal reproduction? I was pre-med, so I was forced to. Animals reproduce to preserve a species; it's a survival drive. This also explains why the vast majority of animals are not monogamous. Their drive to survival is wired to making the best baby, the most vivable offspring to insure another generation. Humans have this as part of our make-up. After all, we do have bodies and belong, biologically, to the order of animals. (This explains why lust has such power - it's playing a good card, natural instincts, against the card of reason.) What's different here though is monumental.

Humans aren't just preserving the species; they are preserving the essence of humanity. At its root, again from just a natural order, humanity is configured as a society. Beginning with the family, no one can survive or flourish without the intervention of others. We are configured to make this gift of self, and more importantly, to make this gift freely. That's where we are different from the animals. Every day, we make a choice to not engage in mating behaviors even though there are lots of interactions between men and women. The act of sexual intercourse speaks of and to the deepest drives of the human heart, but because those drives are to be regulated by the free and informed choice of the acting person, we recognize that for those drives to attain to their true grandeur (again, even on the natural level) they must be realized within a stable bond, freely made that cannot be broken except by death. If critics of the Church are right that divorce is no big deal then why do people who have never had an experience of religion immediately recognize a powerful presence when divorce happens?

All of this goes back to the Bishop's address. Needless to say, it did not go over well. Some people left and it was greeted with deafening silence. But the Bishop wasn't done. Then he listened to the participants and let them voice their views. That's pretty critical. Even when we disagree with someone, respect for that person does require hearing them out. It doesn't mean that we have to take verbal abuse from others, but that is an easy thing to address. The Bishop went to meet a portion of his flock and to speak a word that would give them. He did it by stealth and revealed so much more. I'll be watching Sacramento with interest.

Before getting to the weekend, and an essay on St. Wenceslaus, I had to share this money quote. After the Bishop's address, the organizer of the event apparently said to some in attendance, "On behalf of the board, I apologize. We had no idea Bishop Soto was going to say what he said." I am not certain who that is meant to indict. Did this person really expect some sort of wholesale embrace of the homosexual lifestyle from the Bishop? Another question comes to mind but it is too disturbing to write.

Remember your Bishop fondly in your prayers. Even if you don't like him, remember him fondly in your prayers. At every Mass, the Pope and the Bishop is named, and while we can't fight their battles for them, we can offer our support through prayer and encouragement. Have a merry weekend.