14th Sunday—C
Isaiah 66:10-14
Galatians 6:14-18
Luke 10:1-12, 17-20
This past week we
prepared for a wonderful annual celebration—our Nation’s Independence. Events:
reunions, parades, fireworks. A remembrance of those who preceded us—their
sacrifices for future generations: for liberties, for freedoms, for
self-determination—all in accord with the self-evident truths about the human
person noted by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence. Also, for
many of us, we observed the second Fortnight for Freedom, which reminds us of
our first liberty: the free exercise of our faith. We celebrate these and other
issues—AND we reflect on the tribulations and triumphs that have made us and
our country. Our nation’s story is a story of suffering and success;
coincidentally, this is the story that Isaiah relates. The end of Isaiah’s
prophecy proclaims that God’s People are once again in right relation with him
and one another—hence prosperity abounds. God has blessed them abundantly. But
that was not so, for many of the people had removed themselves from God.
This is the context
surrounding the conclusion of Isaiah’s prophecy. Even though God’s people had,
on their own accord, drifted from God—even apostatizing—God forgives and
welcomes back home to Jerusalem the leadership of His people who had been abducted
to a distant and foreign land.
Think of the ancient
Hebrew slaves and the domination of Egypt over them. This is an important theme
upon which Isaiah dwells—Jerusalem was ransacked and its leadership abducted.
BUT, peace and prosperity were restored; God’s people and their leadership were
restored to live and to prosper once they recognized and repented their turning
against God and what He asked of His people.
Some other important
points need to be considered regarding their story. When they remained in right
relation with God, and one another, God blessed them in this independence. They
exercised their freedom wisely. But, when they sought to do their own thing—cut
themselves off from God and from one another, they did not prosper. They faced
disaster in the kind of independence—from God—that made them focus only on what
they wanted for themselves. They did not see the plight of others. They did not
see God nor did they understand their vital relation with him!
So, what is
independence; what is self-determination for us? How do we best understand it
in the terms of who we are, people of a great Nation, and people of God? It is
God who helps us understand better what our authentic human nature is, and what
it means to be independent.
Saint Luke’s Gospel
provides another forum for considering this.
Here are the
seventy-two who are being sent off to evangelize after receiving their
commission. They are told that there is much work and so few to engage in
it—the harvest is bountiful, but the laborers are few. Through our baptism, we
follow these seventy-two. We have also been charged with the duties associated
with proclaiming the good news in a variety of ways. We encounter people and a
culture that is not always receptive to God’s ways—something that often gets
prominence whenever certain elements of society pursue a wrong course of
action.
By way of example:
the full page advertisement of Freedom from Religion Foundation in the July 4th
issue of the NYT. These folks celebrated the “Godless Constitution”—and relied
on the slogan “in reason we trust.” This is misguided; this is wrong. Washington,
Adams, and Madison, on whom they rely in the advertisement were men of faith.
Even Jefferson, who is also quoted, insisted that religion be taught at the
University of Virginia, which he founded. Another element to consider is this:
the American Constitution Society of (the ACS for short) a few years ago
published a booklet containing three founding documents of our nation: the
Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Gettysburg Address (150th
anniversary of the Battle of Gettysburg was commemorated this past week).
For Lincoln’s
address the ACS left out the phrase “under God.” Why? It took people like
Professor Robbie George of Princeton University to notice that something
important to Lincoln was missing from the ACS publication of the Gettysburg
Address. Perhaps the ACS, like the Freedom from Religion Foundation, also think
and assert that the nation and its fundamental law are Godless. For starters,
they ought to reread Jefferson’s Declaration very carefully wherein he,
Jefferson, refers to our Creator who gave us inalienable rights which are
components of the self-evident truths also mentioned by Jefferson.
In this context, the
new encyclical, Lumen Fidei has
something quite relevant to the theme of today’s scripture readings. In N. 26,
Pope Francis (with assistance from Pope Benedict XVI) asks an important
question: “Can Christian faith provide a service to the common good with regard
to the right way of understanding Truth?” Of course, ours is a faith of
reason—a reason that is objective, unlike that of the American Constitution
Society or the Freedom From Religion Foundation. So what is there to do, if
anything, by us, God’s present day laborers? Fidelity in God’s truth—that is
what there is to do, and, as in the time of Jesus, more laborers are needed.
But we might be a good starting group!
Nevertheless, we
must be mindful that there has been and will continue to be opposition to the
truth of God. Those who remained faithful to God’s ways in the past experienced
PRESSURE. How about our time? Will those of today, who also remain faithful,
experience the same pressure? It seems that we are constantly reminded by the
skeptical that religion might be tolerated, but only if religion remains a
private matter and out of the public square. But this is not what God’s people
are called to do: i.e., to be faithful only in private but not in public. Be
assured, my friends, that God doesn’t abandon us in our times of need when we
strive to remain faithful and serve him in our daily lives; so, let us be bold
by seeking, proclaiming, and living the truth of God in the light of our faith
even though there is pressure to do otherwise. That is a part of what Francis
has asked of us because that is what God has asked and continues to ask of
those who freely respond to be his laborers in the present age.
These thoughts give
us an opportunity to reflect on how we can take up our call with the
seventy-two. Sometimes in great ways, but most of the time in small ways, God,
through the Son, asks us to go out amongst the wolves of our time. We are asked
to encounter a culture, a people who have gone astray, BUT to remind them that
the kingdom of God is at hand—the kingdom in which every person reflects the
greatness of God through the joyful gift of life that can only be bestowed by
God.
But how do we do
this? How do we know what it is that God asks of you or me? Jesus—filled with
God’s wisdom— shows us God’s ways of greatness that lead us to that authentic human
destiny that makes us FREE from and INDEPENDENT of the Shackles of the Slavery
of our misdirected ways—ways that make us want things that remove us from the
nobleness of God that can also be a part of our human nature.
Jesus—wants to place
a yoke on us. Not a yoke of slavery, but a way of life that binds us to one another
and to God. This yoke is not heavy, the burdens it generates are bearable—they
are easily maintained because, as Matthew indicates, Jesus is there to help us
support whatever burden may be produced. YES, we are independent in many ways,
ways that make us the agents of the gift of free will given to us by our
Creator. But in the exercise of this great gift, we must also see how we ARE
INTER-DEPENDT on one another and with God—for this too is part of our authentic
human nature and our part of our heritage as patriotic Americans. But when
temptations lure us away from this nature, prayer is needed.
May our prayer for
one another and for ourselves be that we are open to God’s revelation that the
meek and humble—not the superficially powerful—see and adopt in their lives.
For, filled with the Peace of Christ and the Wisdom of God, we are truly
independent because we rely on our interdependence with HIM who saves and whose
divine image we bear.
With this as our
guide, let us join the seventy-two in their, and our, search for God’s peace to
those places where God’s harvest is abundant but where He needs more workers—more
disciples! God has given us the benefit of discipleship in our baptism; may we
not respond to one who is so generous to us?
And with this as our
proper attitude, we can see that the few in number will continue to grow, and
with this it will be possible to ensure that God’s harvest will be all the
greater. My dear sisters and brothers, are we free for this commission? Our
presence here at the Eucharist suggests that we are, so may we continue to be
mindful that there is no greater independence than to follow the Lord!
Amen.
Friday, July 5, 2013
As Fr. Araujo says, there is much to ponder in Pope Francis' encylical, including a few passages that relate directly to our project. I'll quote one such passage but before that I note that the word "gaze," which appears 13 times in the letter, stood out to me. For example, "Christians learn to share in the same gaze of Jesus" and "The gaze of science thus benefits from faith: faith encourages the scientist to remain constantly open to reality in all its inexhaustible richness."
Here is a passage from paragraph 55:
If we remove faith in God from our cities, mutual trust would
be weakened, we would remain united only by fear and our stability would be
threatened. In the Letter to the Hebrews we read that “God is not ashamed to be
called their God; indeed, he has prepared a city for them” (Heb 11:16). Here
the expression “is not ashamed” is associated with public acknowledgment. The
intention is to say that God, by his concrete actions, makes a public avowal
that he is present in our midst and that he desires to solidify every human
relationship. Could it be the case, instead, that we are the ones who are
ashamed to call God our God? That we are the ones who fail to confess him as
such in our public life, who fail to propose the grandeur of the life in common
which he makes possible? Faith illumines life and society. If it possesses a
creative light for each new moment of history, it is because it sets every
event in relationship to the origin and destiny of all things in the Father.
The final draft of my
review of Steve Monsma's
Pluralism and Freedom: Faith-Based Organizations in a Democratic Society, has just been published by the Journal of Church and State. I recommend the book for those interested in the institutional questions that have lately come to prominence in law and religion scholarship and doctrine.
Pope Francis's first encyclical, The Light of Faith, (with the assistance of Pope Benedict XVI) has just been released. Here is the link: Lumen Fidei .
One of the most striking elements is the Holy Father's acknowledgment that the light of faith has been dimming in some sectors of the Church. For those of us interested in and involved with the project of Catholic legal theory, we need to reflect upon what else can be done to intensify the light of truth which God, through Jesus, has given us.
Pope Francis also reminds us that we must be like and be not like Peter: to avoid the temptation to deny our responsibility, and to embrace our duty to present the faith boldly through the efforts of our helping others distinguish clearly between right and wrong, good and evil, virtue and vice. As Blessed John Paul II often did, Pope Francis concludes with a prayer to Mary, our Mother.
There is much more to be pondered in this encyclical, and perhaps others will join me in offering thoughts about it in the coming days.
RJA sj
Thursday, July 4, 2013
I've posted a few thoughts over here about the possible legal effect that delay in enforcement of the mandate that employers with over 50 employees provide health insurance for those employees might have on the contraception mandate. Those thoughts concern the effect on ripeness dismissals and the compelling interest standard under RFRA. The Becket Fund yesterday issued a statement that seems consistent with my ripeness discussion; given the finality of the rule, one would have to have an indication that the government were reconsidering that finality in order for ripeness considerations to be reactivated. But I am not certain about the title of the Becket Fund statement: "Abortion-drug Mandate Not Affected by Administration's Delay of Parts of Health Care Law." Might there be some effects, even if those effects do not relate to ripeness? Are there arguments about the contraceptives mandate that are affected by the decision to delay on the employer insurance mandate?
It would be useful to have some informed and thoughtful comment about the legal ramifications, if any, on the specific issue of the government's decision to delay enforcement of the "big" mandate on the pending cases involving the "little" mandate, either in response to my thoughts over at CLR Forum or otherwise. I hasten to add that I am not sure at all that there are any such effects; the provisions at issue are distinct. Just wondering.
UPDATE: Over in the comments at Volokh, Professor Jonathan Adler said this:
The problem is that the "big mandate" and the "little mandate" are based in different provisions of the law. One provision requires employers to provide qualifying health insurance or pay a penalty. A separate provision requires employer-provided plans to cover preventative services. The contraception mandate is based on the latter, and the penalties under this provision are far higher. The only way this decision can effect the contraception mandate is that it gives employers the option of avoiding the penalty by dropping their insurance coverage altogether, but they arguably have this option now in states with federal exchanges. The Administration's decision in no way insulates employers from the substantial penalties for failing to include contraception in their plans. In other words, this decision does not ease or delay the burden placed on any of the current plaintiffs.
And I said this in response:
Thanks, Jonathan. I suppose that's right. But might an argument like this work: by delaying the "big" mandate, the Administration is also saying something about the "little" mandate that might be relevant to the compelling state interest inquiry. That is because by delaying implementation of the big mandate, employers benefited by that delay will not need to comply with the little mandate as well. They will not need to provide contraceptive coverage to their employees during the delay. Employees of such employers will not get the benefit of the little mandate right now; the government's interest in getting them access to the benefits of contraception are yielding to the interests of the employers in cost, administration, etc.
So the argument from the point of view of the present plaintiffs might be: if the government's interest in the little mandate really were "compelling" (as that term is used in RFRA), the government would not be taking the steps that it is with respect to delay of the big mandate. It would be moving ahead at full speed to enforce that big mandate, in part to achieve the benefits of the little mandate for all of the employees out there that stand to gain. Instead, the government has chosen to selectively enforce the little mandate only as to those employers who already have a health plan in place. But if the government's interests in the little mandate truly were compelling (in the RFRA sense), then it would enforce that interest uniformly. It would not pick and choose when to enforce it. And it certainly would not permit the economic interests of employers interfere with its compelling interest.
I am not endorsing this argument. Just wondering whether it is a plausible one, even though the provisions are, as you say, different.
Prof. Adler is an astute observer of the constitutional scene and he has a firm grasp of the various provisions of the health care law, so he's probably right on this one. Still, any thoughts on this set issues would be welcome.
Tuesday, July 2, 2013
Some MOJ readers may be interested in this paper, which I just posted to SSRN (here). The abstract:
In a
paper I posted to SSRN last month — “The Morality of Human Rights” (June
2013) — I explained that as the
concept “human right” is understood both in the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights and in all the various international human rights treaties
that have followed in the Universal Declaration’s wake, a right is a
human right if the rationale for establishing and protecting the right —
for example, as a treaty-based right — is, in part, that conduct that
violates the right violates the imperative, articulated in Article 1 of
the Universal Declaration, to “act towards all human beings in a spirit
of brotherhood”. Each of the human rights articulated in the Universal
Declaration and/or in one or more international human rights treaties —
for example, the right, articulated in Article 5 of the Universal
Declaration and elsewhere, not to be subjected to “cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment”—is a specification of what, in
conjunction with other considerations, the imperative — which functions
in the morality of human rights as the normative ground of human rights —
is thought to forbid (or to require).
A particular specification
is controversial if and to the extent the supporting claim — a claim to
the effect that the “act towards all human beings in a spirit of
brotherhood” imperative forbids (or requires) X — is controversial. My
aim in this essay is to elaborate and defend a particular specification:
the right, internationally recognized as a human right, to freedom of
conscience — to freedom, that is, to live one’s life in accord with the
deliverances of one’s conscience.
A more focused name for the
right is the right to religious and moral freedom. Jocelyn Maclure and
Charles Taylor begin their book Secularism and Freedom of Conscience
(2011) by stating that “[o]ne of the most important challenges facing
contemporary societies is how to manage moral and religious diversity.”
One indispensable strategy for managing religious and moral diversity
is, as I explain in this essay, the right to religious and moral freedom
— to freedom to live one’s life in accord with one’s religious and/or
moral convictions and commitments.
In the final part of the
essay, I explain why we are warranted in concluding that the
internationally recognized human right to freedom of conscience — to
religious and moral freedom — is part of, is entrenched in, the
constitutional law of the United States.
Monday, July 1, 2013
St. Gregory's University, the oldest higher education institution in the state of Oklahoma and the only Catholic university in Oklahoma, will become the only Catholic university in the nation with shared institutional ownership between a religious order (Benedictine) and diocesan hierarchy (the Archdiocese of Oklahoma City and the Diocese of Tulsa).” Archbishop Coakley said. “It’s my hope that this new form of governance will allow the university to play an even more central role in advancing the church’s mission of Catholic education in our state.”
This is great news for the university, the church in Oklahoma, and the state. In the interest of full disclosure, I should mention that I am Vice Chair of the University's Board.
