My preaching for the 2nd Sunday of Easter (Jn 20, Acts 4).

We usually think of Thomas' doubt as a sin against Jesus, and perhaps it was, but more immediately, it's a failure to trust his brothers and sisters. He doesn't believe in the resurrection. But that's because he doesn't believe his brothers and sisters. He fails to rely on them.

The early believers' reliance on each other is the theme of today's first reading:

The community of believers was of one heart and mind,
and no one claimed that any of his possessions was his own,
but they had everything in common...
There was no needy person among them...

Total sharing of possessions? This is astonishing isn't it? Maybe even scandalous for those who put their faith in capitalism. In this age of bailouts and tea parties, as we recover from tax day and get ready for the special election in a few weeks -- yes, another election -- six budget-oriented propositions from the state legislature -- in the midst of all this, can this scripture passage and other church teaching help us find Jesus' call to us? When do we share, and when do we insist on holding on to what's ours? Is anything really ours?

In Pacem and Terris, Pope John XXIII wrote:

The right to private property...derives from the nature of humanity. This right is an effective means for safeguarding the dignity of the human person and for the exercise of responsibility in all fields; it strengthens and gives serenity to family life, thereby increasing the peace and prosperity of the state. However, it is opportune to point out that there is a social duty essentially inherent in the right of private property. (No. 21-22)

So the Church teaches that we have the right of private property but that, with this right, comes a responsibility to help others.

The United States bishops, in their landmark 1986 document Economic Justice For All, don't advocate exact equality of wealth:

Some degree of inequality not only is acceptable, but also may be considered desirable for economic and social reasons, such as the need for incentives and provision of greater rewards for greater risks. However, unequal distribution should be evaluated in terms of several moral principles we have enunciated: the priority of meeting the basic needs of the poor and the importance of increasing the level of participation by all members of society in the economic life of the nation...In view of these norms we find the disparities of income and wealth in the United States to be unacceptable. (No. 185)

Neither exact inequality nor great disparity, especially when there is poverty. The bishops even provide guidelines for a just taxation system as one way of reducing poverty:

First, the tax system should raise adequate revenues to pay for the public needs of society, especially to meet the basic needs of the poor. Secondly, the tax system should be structured according to the principle of progressivity, so that those with relatively greater financial resources pay a higher rate of taxation...Thirdly, families below the official poverty line should not be required to pay income taxes... (No. 202)

So a just system of taxation is first of all one that reduces poverty.

It's clear that our tradition emphasizes the common good and that private ownership is to be directed toward the common good, giving special consideration to the poor. It's probably not so clear, though, how that applies to the six propositions we'll be voting on in a few weeks. Will the first proposition's goal of a rainy day fund to prevent future budget panics and increased taxation harm the poor by taking away the legislature's latitude to care for the poor? Three other propositions redirect funds, at least temporarily, from spending on education, children's health and human services, and mental health, to the general fund. One of these, the lottery proposition, wants to use the revenues for the general fund instead of for education, paying for education by other means. This brings up the question that rarely gets raised: Is the lottery a regressive tax, a tax on the poor? Poor people play the lottery more than the rest of us. And the cost of a lottery ticket is a higher percentage of their income.

In addition to the official voter's guide, ballotpedia.org might be one of the best resources for information. The California Bishops are planning on putting on their website some references to relevant Church teaching. The League of Women voters shares the Church's commitment to the poor, and along with their typically thorough analysis, they've explained the "no" stance they're taking on the four measures I've just referred to. They don't take a stance on the other two.

Today's first reading isn't just talking about economics. The U.S. bishops, in Economic Justice For All, write that the phrase "all things in common" "suggests not only shared material possessions, but more fundamentally, friendship and mutual concern among all its members." (No. 185) We're called to rely on each other in all sorts of ways. That's essential to being human -- relying on one another.

Like Thomas, we haven't seen the resurrected Jesus. We have to rely on those who have gone before us in faith. We have to rely on each other. Or, maybe the deeper truth is that we get to rely on each other for our faith. Our faith is itself something communal. In a sense, our faith is in the community. It's a faith in Jesus' presence in the community.

In fact, in today's gospel story, Jesus entrusts the community with forgiveness of sins:

He breathed on them and said to them,
"Receive the Holy Spirit.
Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them,
and whose sins you retain are retained."

This 2nd Sunday of the Easter season is even called Divine Mercy Sunday.

May our commitment to one another in Christ, our divine link to one another, lead us to grow in our generous sharing of Christ's mercy, even if it means sharing our material goods. Of course, it's even scarier for most of us, yet even more life-giving, to share our hearts and our faith. May we rely on each other ever more deeply this Easter season, for it is in one another that we experience resurrected life.

Labels: 2009, budget, California, doubt, easter, Economic Justice For All, election, forgiveness, lottery, May 19, mercy, Pacem et Terris, private property, right, special, taxes, Thomas, U.S. Bishops

I got a flat tire yesterday but was rescued by a good Samaritan from the Auto Club. I asked him to tow me to my usual mechanic, but he warned that the big companies like to sell new tires even when they're not needed. He filled my tire and discovered that the problem was actually with the valve. He towed me to a local mechanic, who fixed the problem in ten minutes and charged me only ten dollars.

On the way to the mechanic, my good Samaritan brought up Tuesday's election. I asked him who he liked. He said, with neither venom nor apology, that he was going to vote for McCain because he's more American than Obama. And because Obama's black. I was astounded by this bald expression of racism. I asked him why he thought McCain was more American. He didn't know how to respond but said it didn't matter because there's no denying that Obama is black. I couldn't manage any further response to this Latino non-citizen, who knew I was Christian -- he'd picked me up at St. Agatha's Catholic Church and asked me if I was a priest. (At St. Agatha's, the more deeply rooted African Americans and the more recent Latino-American members seem to get along fine, although I'm reminded that black/Latino relations in Los Angeles are notoriously strained.)

Today's saint, Martin de Porres, was born of an African (and probably Latina) mother and a white father, who was embarrassed by Martin's African features and eventually deserted his son. Yet just as the outcast Samaritan brought healing to the man at the side of the road, the outcast Martin became a fantastically devoted minister to the poor in Lima.

Racist feelings are nothing to be ashamed of. Probably all of us, especially in the United States, carry this disease within us. But it's certainly our duty to recognize our racism and ask God to continue to free us from our twisted fears.

I'm also not suggesting that we don't take race into account when we vote. Why shouldn't someone vote for Obama (or black Green Party candidate Cynthia McKinney, who has a Latina running mate), at least partly because he's black? And perhaps it's even appropriate that "white" (and male) -- to the extent that "white" actually exists -- is, for some voters, one negative factor among other factors to be taken into consideration. That's not racist if it's the recognition of the benefits of diversity.

Writer Dominic DeLay, O.P. is the writer and director of the new election thriller Inside Darkness, about three presidential candidates -- a white evangelical woman, a black Catholic man, and a white agnostic man -- trapped in a dark cell.

Labels: agnostic, black, catholic, election, evangelical, Good Samaritan, Latino, Martin de Porres, McCain, McKinney, Obama, racism

"He looked for the crop of grapes, but what it yielded was wild grapes." (Isaiah 5:1-7)

"...they seized him, dragged him outside the vineyard, and killed him...For this reason, I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people that will yield a rich harvest." (Matthew 21:33-43)

How have we failed to properly cultivate the vineyard, and who have we killed along the way? This is the first of a probably two- or three-part series on the election. Next time, I'll focus on the California ballot, especially the statewide propositions.

What if the Christians among us consider scripture and the rest of Church teaching as the vineyard? To help us prepare to vote, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has published a pamphlet called "Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship." You can read it online at faithfulcitizenship.org. My suggestion is that you read it this week and put aside your ballots.

You'll have plenty of time to read what the bishops have to say if you abstain from most or all media coverage of the elections, especially your favorite biased election chatter show for junkies. I definitely recommend putting aside -- no, recycling -- all those partisan political mailings that are starting to pour in. And if you've come across a pamphlet called "Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics," you might want to respectfully recycle that as well. It's a well-meaning but unapproved and misleading guide put out by a private company called Catholic Answers.

When you read "Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship," you might jot down some of the teachings that are new to you or that you don't normally take into consideration. You might note as well the teachings you disagree with or are unsure about. Your notes can help you focus your further research and reflection. Here's an introduction to the bishops' pamphlet:

The pamphlet begins by reminding Catholics -- all people of faith, really -- of our responsibility to vote: "Our nation's tradition of pluralism is enhanced, not threatened, when religious groups and people of faith bring their convictions and concerns into public life" (#11). "As Catholics, we should be guided more by our moral convictions than by our attachment to a political party or interest group. When necessary, our participation should help transform the party to which we belong..." (#14). "...no party and too few candidates fully share the Church's comprehensive commitment to the life and dignity of every human being from conception to natural death" (#16).

"The Church is principled but not ideological. We cannot compromise basic principles or moral teaching. We are committed to clarity about our moral teaching and to civility. In public life, it is important to practice the virtues of justice and charity that are at the core of our Tradition. We should work with others in a variety of ways to advance our moral principles." (#60)

The bishops state that they're not instructing Catholics how to vote on specific candidates or measures. They remind us that the most basic moral teaching of the Church is that we are obliged to follow our conscience. (Catholic Catechism, #1778). Our conscience is not a mere feeling but a judgment of reason. And we are obliged to work throughout our lives to form our conscience through study of church teaching, close examination of facts about our choices, and prayerful reflection. (#17-18)

At the foundation of the Church's teaching is our recognition of the dignity of every person (#10). And the most immediate corollary is "the inviolable sanctity of human life from the moment of conception until natural death" (#20). Accordingly, "There are some things we must never do...A prime example is the intentional taking of innocent human life, as in abortion and euthanasia...direct threats to the sanctity and dignity of human life, such as human cloning and destructive research on human embryos, are also intrinsically evil...Other direct assaults on innocent human life and violations of human dignity, such as genocide, torture, racism, and the targeting of noncombatants in acts of terror or war, can never be justified." (#22-23) Are all of these ways in which we kill Christ, the vineyard owner's son?

While numbers are a concern to most of us, and probably should be, it's noteworthy that the bishops don't use number of deaths, explicitly anyway, to compare the relative importance of, say, abortion and unjust war. Also notable is that the bishops' lists, which vary, of those things that "we must never do," leave out the notion that, while some actions may not always be wrong, those actions in certain circumstances are always wrong. I think that at least this omission by the bishops is a mistake. For example, simply because the determination of whether a war is unjust requires a prudential judgment doesn't mean that that judgment, once made, can be ignored. We must never support unjust war.

"The direct and intentional destruction of innocent human life from the moment of conception until natural death is always wrong and is not just one issue among many" (#28). But the bishops warn against the "misuse of these necessary moral distinctions as a way of dismissing or ignoring other serious threats to human life and dignity" (#29). Similarly: "As Catholics we are not single-issue voters. A candidate's position on a single issue is not sufficient to guarantee a voter's support. Yet a candidate's position on a single issue that involves an intrinsic evil, such as support for legal abortion or the promotion of racism, may legitimately lead a voter to disqualify a candidate from receiving support." (#42) Still, "there may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate's unacceptable position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons..." (#35). And, "a voter should not use a candidate's opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity" (#34). The bishops aren't making it easy on us. They're making us think for ourselves.

Also, "sometimes morally flawed laws already exist. In this situation, the process of framing legislation to protect life is subject to prudential judgment and 'the art of the possible.' At times this process may restore justice only partially or gradually. (#32). "...decisions should take into account a candidate's commitments, character, integrity, and ability to influence a given issue..." (#37).

Related specifically to abortion, "we promote a culture of life by supporting laws and programs that encourage childbirth and adoption over abortion and by addressing poverty, providing health care, and offering other assistance to pregnant women, children, and families."

Among other issues, the bishops remind us of the option for the poor and vulnerable (#50) and discuss war: "...The Church has raised fundamental moral concerns about preventive use of military force" (#67) "...The United States has a responsibility to work to reverse the spread of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, and to reduce its own reliance on weapons of mass destruction by pursuing progressive nuclear disarmament. It also must end its use of anti-personnel landmines and reduce its predominant role in the global arms trade...We support a 'responsible transition' that ends the [Iraq] war in a way that recognizes the continuing threat of fanatical extremism and global terror, minimizes the loss of life, and addresses the humanitarian crisis in Iraq, the refugee crisis in the region, and the need to protect human rights, especially religious freedom. This transition should reallocate resources from war to the urgent needs of the poor." (#68) The bishops might have done well to mention our war in Afghanistan as well.

The bishops also remind us of Church teaching about our treatment of those convicted of murder and other crimes: "Society has a duty to defend life against violence and to reach out to victims of crime. Yet our nation's continued reliance on the death penalty cannot be justified. Because we have other ways to protect society that are more respectful of human life, the USCCB supports efforts to end the use of the death penalty and, in the meantime, to restrain its use through broader use of DNA evidence, access to effective counsel, and efforts to address unfairness and injustice related to application of the death penalty." (#69) "...An ethic of responsibility, rehabilitation, and restoration should be a foundation for the reform of our broken criminal justice system. A remedial, rather than a strictly punitive, approach to offenders should be developed." (85)

Finally, the bishops state 10 goals for our participation in public life, noting, though, that they address matters of different moral weight and urgency:

1. Address the preeminent requirement to protect the weakest in our midst -- innocent unborn children -- by restricting and bringing to an end the destruction of unborn children through abortion.

2. Keep our nation from turning to violence to address fundamental problems -- a million abortions each year to deal with unwanted pregnancies, euthanasia and assisted suicide to deal with the burdens of illness and disability, the destruction of human embryos in the name of research, the use of the death penalty to combat crime, and imprudent resort to war to address international disputes.

3. Define the central institution of marriage as a union between one man and one woman, and provide better support for family life morally, socially, and economically, so that our nation helps parents raise their children with respect for life, sound moral values, and an ethic of stewardship and responsibility.

4. Achieve comprehensive immigration reform that secures our borders, treats immigrant workers fairly, offers an earned path to citizenship, respects the rule of law, and addresses the factors that compel people to leave their own countries.

5. Help families and children overcome poverty: ensuring access to and choice in education, as well as decent work at fair, living wages and adequate assistance for the vulnerable in our nation, while also helping to overcome widespread hunger and poverty around the world, especially in the areas of development assistance, debt relief, and international trade.

6. Provide health care for the growing number of people without it, while respecting human life, human dignity, and religious freedom in our health care system.

7. Continue to oppose policies that reflect prejudice, hostility toward immigrants, religious bigotry, and other forms of discrimination.

8. Encourage families, community groups, economic structures, and government to work together to overcome poverty, pursue the common good, and care for creation, with full respect for religious groups and their right to address social needs in accord with their basic moral convictions.

9. Establish and comply with moral limits on the use of military force -- examining for what purposes it may be used, under what authority, and at what human cost -- and work for a "responsible transition" to end the war in Iraq.

10. Join with others around the world to pursue peace, protect human rights and religious liberty, and advance economic justice and care for creation.

We Catholics and other people of faith -- indeed, all Americans -- tend a rich vineyard. Let us be faithful to our task of thoughtfully, prayerfully tilling the soil of our conscience as we prepare to vote., marriage

Labels: abortion, bishops, catholic, death penalty, election, faithful citizenship, forming conscience, immigration reform, Iraq, nuclear disarmament, scripture, vote, war, weapons of mass destruction