Let them Eat Cake (but not Gay Wedding Cake)

A sermon/homily by Tom Reese, S.J--a very beloved Jesuit Priest
A Fellow at the Woodstock Theological Center, and a former Editor of Americas Jesuit Magazine,
(who gets in trouble with Rome now and again for being so smart).

On the subject of the
Gospel: Matthew 22:15-21

The relationship between religion and politics has always been controversial. In many ancient countries like Egypt and Mexico, the kings were treated as gods. The Jewish religion, especially through the prophets, took political leaders off their pedestals and opened them to criticism.

In the time of Jesus, Israel was a colony of the Roman Empire and some argued that paying taxes to the empire was traitorous, even blasphemous. In the temple, the Pharisees set a trap for Jesus because if he said he favored paying the Roman tax, then he was a traitor. If he opposed the tax, then he was a revolutionary. It was a classic gotcha question.

Jesus was too smart for them. He asks them for the coin that was used to pay the tax. They showed him a coin and he points to the image of Caesar on the coin, and since it was against the law to bring a graven image into the temple, he showed them up as violators of the law. He then tells them that if you benefit from the reign of Caesar, then pay the tax. Oliver Wendell Holmes said something similar when he said that "Taxes are the price we pay for civilization."

As we approach Election Day, we can be happy that the Catholic Church in the United States does not endorse political parties or candidates.

Many centuries of entanglement of the church and political elites in Europe damaged both the church and the state. Evangelical churches are making the same mistake that the Catholic Church made in Europe for centuries.

At the same time, like the prophets of old, the church has the right and duty to preach justice and peace. To speak on behalf of the poor, the unborn, the homeless, immigrants and refugees is not interfering in politics, it is continuing a prophetic tradition that reminds the powerful that they are not gods--they have obligations and responsibilities and will be judged by God.
We will all be judged by how we treat the least among us.

Some have implied that Catholics should be single issue voters and that the bishops have endorsed a particular candidate. This is not true. In their document, Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, the bishops explicitly say, “As Catholics we are not single-issue voters.”

They also state, “Church’s leaders are to avoid endorsing or opposing candidates or telling people how to vote.” Rather, voter “should take into account a candidate’s commitments, character, integrity, and ability to influence a given issue. In the end, this is a decision to be made by each Catholic guided by a conscience formed by Catholic moral teaching.”

As we continue our Eucharist, we pray to the Lord of history that both voters and political leaders in our country realize their responsibility to work for justice and peace. We also pray that our church leaders realize their responsibilities to promote justice while staying out of partisan politics.

EDITORIAL NOTE:
By: Cynthia L. Butler
An Attorney in Washington, DC

There have been the wildest forms of character assassination levelled against people who do not firmly tote the Republican rhetorical line and inscription of some church leaders to do the condemning at the highest levels, including directly or inferentially calling them unchristian, against or anti- Families, even Baby Killers or conspirators with evil for supporting Democratic politicians all of whom are lumped together in the perception of abortion opponents within the planned parenthood abortion mill infantocidal rubric.

As Obama stated at the last debate "No One Is For Abortion" (whom have you asked lately whether they prefer infant life to death and they said "death.")- it is a question of what policy approach you believe is more effective in terms of eliminating the evils of abortion and creating a society where life can flourish and is chosen and encouraged over the destructive path. Which policy path is going to work better to do the same desired outcome; which is to eliminate the abortion plague on the country.

If you ask Nancy Pelosi or any democrat if they are more for live births or more for abortions of course they are going to state the apple pie response that everyone loves babies, everyone hates abortion and no one thinks it is anything other than a social "evil", a "tragedy" and even a "crime against humanity."

So how do you stop crime? How do you legislate effectively against crimes against humanity and who is responsible for them? The person who caused it? The person who suffers from it? The man who had zero respect for a woman and even less sexual responsibility in a sexual con scam? The woman who tragically was dumped by an abusive lover? Who do you punish to stop the crime against humanity? And is what happens to the woman part of the crime?

Is it more effective to take a legislative approach such as has been forwarded by Republicans previously or the one that appreciates the socio-economic realities of women's psychological make-up, hormonal upsets, stresses in
bearing and raising children, including paying attention to issues of housing, heath care, addictions, homelessness, sub-prime mortgage meltdown, economic crisis and issues of abuse against women. Who has a handle on and pays attention to the issues and factors that feature strongly into positive life decisions? Who is going to do more for women so that they can make the better choice? Who understands that some abortions are done to women who have already children who need them mentally functional and physically present. Who understands better that abusive men who "love them and leave them" have to be accountable in equal degree to the woman left with the agonizing reality that she is unable to support alone a child?

Women know that women really do have authority over their bodies whether it is legislatively given to them or not. A woman who does not want to be pregnant will devise a way-legal or not-to not be pregnant. There are ways that no one would even necessarily know, and there are ways that would do serious permanent injury to her. So who has the better understanding of how to stop a woman from doing that to herself and her offspring? If you just lock her up after the fact is that going to stop her? If you threaten her in advance will that stop her? What will cause her to create the environment necessary in her womb for a healthy pregnancy to develop and sustain for nine months?

Abortions existed at the time of Christ. People were taking poisons and toxic concoctions to expel foetuses well before Christ's advent on the earth. Yet, there is not one mention about it in scripture. What there is multi fold mention of is how much Jesus departed from tradition in elevating women to a place of non-condemning love and respect theretofore alien. The First Evangelist is a woman- the woman at Jacob's well whom Jesus told all her family secrets to and she ran to tell the whole town that there was a prophet who told her all about herself.

Jesus appeared first to a woman at the Tomb who witnessed to his resurrection-Mary Magdalene- who became the first to tell of his Resurrection to Peter and others. Jesus saved a Mary from seven demons. He saved a woman being stoned for adultery. He scolded others when a woman dumped expensive perfume on him, kissed him and washed him with her hair.

Jesus loves and respects women. He especially loves his Mother.

He never condemned any of them. For anything. Most of the condemning he did was against the "Scribes and Pharisees"- guys who put burdens too heavy to bear on people and love to parade about in fine robes and be saluted in the marketplaces and seated at the head table at banquets- Those guys- the full of their self-righteous selves guys-

Those guys he ripped a new one.
Women he just loved.

Jesus never took a poll on the hillside before distributing loaves and fishes to 5,000 people concerning their political views on abortion before feeding them. He never asked their political views before healing them.

When the woman with the hemorrhage touched his cloak and he felt the power exude from him to heal her instantaneously he didn't say "did you have an abortion and thus deserve to bleed to death?" He never put a qualifier on his healing.

So is it more humane and effective to create a social environment wherein women want to choose life, or is it more humane and effective to legislate coercive penalty structures ? It is more humane to heal a heart or legislate a penalty?

What is more effective to save life. Which side is going to make women more cognizant and appreciative of the fact that whenever she makes a "choice" about a pregnancy there is someone else's well being she is dealing with? Which side is going to Love not Condemn women, elevate their dignity in work, elevate their stature and respect, and provide the nurturing environment wherein they can choose Life with willing eagerness and Joy?

These are the questions that we should be asking.

And regardless of what side you come down on- the sort of strident judgmental character assassination levelled at people who have differing views or strategies for promoting Life should find no place in this election or anywhere in the civil political dialogue.