Patriotic Duty

A "patriotic duty" is what former Vice President Joe Biden called wearing a face mask during last night's "Town Hall."  Some things - like the moral imperative to wear a mask - ought to be so obvious that they should not have to be said at all. It is a sign of our extremely distressed state as a national community that, instead of being obvious, the duty to wear a mask has become one more thing for us to argue about.

Recently, Dr. Robert Redfield, the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, told a Senate panel that face masks might prove to be our best protection against the virus, maybe even better than an elusive vaccine which we do not yet have. If everyone wore a mask for the next two to three months, he said, “We’d bring this pandemic under control.”

Imagine such a simple response to our present predicament! All we need to do is take this disease seriously and use the means at our disposal to limit the spread of infection. Nothing more heroic than that is being asked of us. 

Yet every day I encounter people in public without masks. What do they think they are doing? What motivates such behavior? 

Already more than 200,000 Americans have died of Covid-19. Undoubtedly, given the newness and the ferocity of this virus some of those losses might have been unavoidable. But we can see from the experience of other societies which have handled this better that we have lost many more than we might have had we taken this disease seriously from the beginning as if all of us together as a society had done the sorts of things we needed to do -  like wearing face masks in public.

The Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation has predicted that as many as 363,000 Americans may die of Covid-19 by the end of this year. As others have observed, that would be more Americans dying in less than one year from the virus than the entire number of combat deaths in four years in World War II. But that same institute’s model also suggests that, if 95% of Americans wore masks then as many as 100,000 lives might be saved between now and the end of the year.

Bad behavior, socially irresponsible behavior - like not wearing a mask whenever in public - is not inevitable. it is a choice, a bad choice, an immoral choice. It reflects the evil ideology of individualism and its false notion of freedom. But individualism, as Pope Francis has once again reminded us in his latest encyclical "does not make us more free." Nor does it make us "more equal, more fraternal" (Fratelli Tutti, 105). On the contrary, if we are to have any hope of arresting our social disintegration, we must together again become conscious of our responsibility to and for one another, without which there is no such thing as society, only suffering - that moral state of war which Thomas Hobbes long ago wrote about in which human life really is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." For too man of our fellow citizens, sadly, such is their life right now.

In this crisis, regarding masks and so much else, one's "patriotic duty" is increasingly obvious.

Fratelli Tutti

On Saturday, the vigil of the feast of Saint Francis, the Holy Father travelled to Assisi to celebrate Mass in the crypt where Saint Francis is buried and to sign there his latest encyclical letter Fratelli Tutti: On Fraternity and Social Friendship, which may be said to represent a kind of compendium of Pope Francis' social and political thought at this point in his pontificate and in this time of pandemic. It forms the third part of a programmatic trilogy consisting of his Apostollic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium, his environmental encyclical Laudato Si', and now Fratelli Tutti.

The encyclical is long, as such documents tend to be. It is wordy and full of quotations of previous papal pronouncements, a perennial problem which makes it unlikely that ordinary Catholics - let alone others - will take the time to read it all. Which is a great shame, of course, for the Pope has here given us a profound and purposeful response to the catastrophe of contemporary society and politics.

Like his earlier environmental encyclical, Laudato Si', this document derives its title from words attributed to Saint Francis, whose spirit animates this encyclical as it animated its predecessor. Indeed, the document begins by recalling Saint Francis' famous visit to Sultan Malik-el-Kamil at the time of the Crusades, demonstrating "the breadth and grandeur of his love, which sought to embrace everyone." In that spirit, just as in Laudato Si' the Pope paid special mention to Orthodox Partiarch Bartholomew, here he acknowledges Grand Immam Ahmad Al-Tayyeb, whom he met in Abu Dhabi in 2019 when the two issued a statement "on Human Fraternity and World Peace and Living Together." 

The Pope summarizes the purpose of this encyclical as his "hope that in the face of present-day attempts to eliminate or ignore others, we may prove capable of responding with a new vision of fraternity and social friendship that will not remain at the level of words." That contrast between fraternity and social friendship on the one hand and attempts to eliminate or ignore others on the other comes close to summing up the spirit and sense of the encyclical, the principle which animates the document's detailed discussions of particular political problems and economic and social situations characteristic of contemporary societies. 

The encyclical was begun before the pandemic. In light of the added dimension provided by the world's poor response to the pandemic, the Pope asserts: "Anyone who thinks that the only lesson to be learned was the need to improve what we were already doing, or to refine existing systems and regulations, is denying reality." He expresses a similar sentiment about the financial crisis of 2008, the response to which "did not include rethinking the outdated criteria which continue to rule the world."

Parts of the encyclical sound almost like direct responses to the current crisis of U.S. politics and to the recent dominance of neo-liberal economics, as well as an attempt tp articulate a meaningful middle ground between the excesses of globalization and universalism, on the one hand, and localism and "populism," on the other. Thus, for example:

"Political life no longer has to do with healthy debates about long-term plans to improve people's lives and to advance the common good, but only with slick marketing techniques primarily aimed at discrediting others."

"we no longer have common horizons that unite us"

"Things that until a few years ago could not be said by anyone without risking the loss of universal respect can now be said with impunity, and in the crudest of terms, even by some political figures."

"Individualism does not make us more free, more equal, more fraternal."

"We need to pay attention to the global so as to avoid narrowness and banality. Yet we also need to look to the local, which keeps our feet on the ground."

"There can be a false openness to the universal, born of the shallowness of those lacking insight into the genius of their native land or harboring unresolved resentment towards their own people."

"Lack of concern for the vulnerable can hide behind a populism that exploits them demagogically for its own purposes, or a liberalism that serves the economic interests of the powerful."

"The marketplace, by itself, cannot resolve every problem, however much we are asked to believe this dogma of neoliberal faith."

The Pope is particularly strong in his emphasis on the traditional Christian understanding of "the common destination of created goods," citing Saint John Chrysostom, Saint Gregory the Great, and Saint Paul VI, and also citing Laudato Si': "the Christian tradition has never recognized the right to private property as absolute or inviolable, and has stressed the social purpose of all forms of private property" and "if we make something our own, it is only to administer it for the good of all."

On immigration, he specifically cites the case of the United States, calling Latino culture "a ferment of values and possibilities that can greatly enrich the United States."

The Pope remains particularly committed to a culture of dialogue: "Authentic social dialogue involves the ability to respect the other's point of view and to admit that it may include legitimate convictions and concerns." How different the Pope's perspective from so many disputants in our contemporary culture wars, who unhesitatingly dismiss each other as malevolent and are completely incapable of recognizing the perspective which underlies the other's position on such sensitive issues! Francis notes: "A realistic and inclusive social covenant must also be a 'cultural covenant,' one that respects and acknowledges the different worldviews, cultures and lifestyles that coexist in society."

The Pope has some particularly insightful things to say about conflict about forgiveness. Unsurprisingly this leads into a more predictable discussion of war and the death penalty.  The latter issue has continued to be particularly salient in American politics. While recognizing legitimate public authority's right to punish crimes, the Pope develops a less familiar strain in the tradition, citing Lactantius, Pope Nicholas I, and Saint Augustine against capital punishment. Francis cites his own past words calling "for the abolition of the death penalty" and also opposing life imprisonment.

These are just some of the preeminent points the Pope makes throughout this lengthy and very detailed document, to which I am sure we will return with greater specificity in days to come.

The encyclical addresses many issues, some of which will undoubtedly appear contentious in the American context, where a certain strain of American Catholicism seems increasingly more aligned with the President than with the Pope. 

Francis concludes by invoking Blessed Charles de Foucauld's "journey of transformation towards feeling a brother to all." In a document focused on high-stakes issues of politics and economics and social and cultural policy, it seems a very fitting return - in the spirit of Saint Francis - to what is foundational for a full Christian life, exemplified in the modern era in "the universal brother," Blessed Charles de Foucauld.

Produce at the Proper Time

 

Our recent history has keenly focused our attention on the fragility of our national society and its institutions, both religious and secular.  Many of us here are surely old enough to remember a time when religion’s public place in American society seemed strong and secure, when Church attendance was higher than it had ever been, when seminaries and convents were bursting at the seams, and when it seemed as if things could go on like that forever. A similar assessment could be made in the secular world. Many of us are old enough to remember a time when manufacturing jobs were plentiful, labor unions were strong, a family could support itself on a single salary, prosperity (while not universal) was much more equally shared, and our country was a pioneer in public health. Recent years have witnessed widespread decline in most of those measures, and this year has been basically one calamity after another – a global pandemic, economic collapse, and racial and political conflicts that have wiped out any pretense of social harmony. As we survey the shambles of what once seemed so strong and sound, we may easily appreciate the Prophet Isaiah’s description of the vineyard that had so dramatically failed to produce its expected crop of grapes.  Just as we today instinctively seek explanations for the things that have gone wrong, likewise the Prophet Isaiah both sought and provided an explanation for the disasters that Israel was facing. In Israel’s case, of course, there was no ambiguity about why things were going so badly. The vineyard in Isaiah’s song represented God’s People who, in spite of all God had done for them, had failed in fidelity.

Centuries later, Jesus used the same image of the vineyard to challenge his hearers regarding their own response. Even though this particular parable does not begin with the typical introduction, “the kingdom of heaven is like,” it is pretty obvious, nonetheless, that we are intended to hear and interpret it in continuity with Isaiah’s vineyard song. In other words, we are intended to hear and interpret it from the standpoint of the landowner, who is obviously the parable’s stand-in for God.

Historically, of course, Jesus addressed this parable to the chief priests and elders of the people, with whom he was in conflict, because of their failure to recognize and accept him. Through them, however, he is now addressing this parable to all of us, for whom it should be even more obvious who is meant, when the landowner sends his son. Hence his question (What will the owner of the vineyard do to those tenants when he comes?) is addressed as much to us, as it was in the first instance, to the chief priests and elders of the people.  And, like them, we all know the obvious answer, even before we hear them say it.

This, of course, is what conversion, becoming a disciple, challenges us to do – to look at ourselves and at our relationship with God without excuses, from God’s point of view. When we do that, then we necessarily have to re-evaluate everything – just as the stone that the builders rejected was re-evaluated in order to become the cornerstone. And then we will become a new kind of tenant – a people that will produce fruit.

Now that’s actually meant to be good news. In other words, there is a solution to the basic human predicament. We can get right again with God (and with one another). Unfortunately for those in the parable’s original audience whose failure to respond positively to Jesus provided the historical basis for the parable, what’s meant to be good news for the world may have sounded like bad news for them. The challenge of the parable is to recognize the incredible opportunity God has given us in sending us his Son, a life-transforming opportunity - to adapt the words of a famous 19th-century hymn, to mend our foolish ways, r-clothe us in our rightful mind, In purer lives God’s service find, – in other words, to become better tenants in God’s vineyard, this world in which he has put us, and get on board as fully active citizens of God’s kingdom. 

Homily for the 27th Sunday in Ordinary Time, Immaculate Conception Church, Knoxville, TN, October 4, 2020.

A Disease That Cannot Be Wished or Imagined Away

The news that the President and Mrs. Trump have now contracted coronavirus is a powerful reminder to us all of the insidious reach of this disease and how important it is to wear a mask whenever around anyone else, to maintain appropriate distance, and to observe all recommended precautions. This disease cannot be wished away or imagined away. It targets people of every status, and penetrates every imaginary invulnerability.

We pray for the recovery of the President and his family and for all the sick and those who care for them and all whose lives and livelihoods have been disrupted by this terrible tragedy. We pray also for the 1 million dead worldwide and the 200,000+ Americans who have died. 

There are lessons to be learned from this calamity. Let us learn them, and let us work together to make this society safer and healthier for all, more just in its inspiration and equal in its practice.

"An Angel in Front of You"

Today the Church commemorates the Holy Guardian Angels. "And so the angels are here; they are at your side, they are with you, present on your behalf. They are here to protect you and to serve you. ... So let us be devoted and grateful to such great protectors; let us return their love and honor them as much as we can and should." (Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, Sermon 12).

This observance is a relative latecomer to the calendar. It apparently appeared first in Spain in the 16th century from where it spread to the wider Church until finally in 1670 it was inscribed in the universal calendar for this date.

The Church's belief in the assistance of our Guardian Angels is, of course, considerably older. In the Gospel, Jesus famously instructs his disciples not to despise these little ones, whose angels in heaven always look upon the face of my heavenly Father (Matthew 18:10), and in his Commentary on Matthew, Saint Jerome suggested that each soul has such an angel to guard it, a view reaffirmed by Saint Thomas Aquinas.

In popular piety, there may be an unfortunate tendency to treat this as a topic for children - a tendency exacerbated, perhaps, by the popular children's prayer, Angel of God, my Guardian dear. But, as is often the case, the liturgy provides a better guide to understanding this observance. It honors the Guardian Angels in the context of God's unfathomable providence. Fittingly, the proper 1st reading for today's Mass (Exodus 23:20-23) takes us back to the Israelites in the desert: I am going to send an angel in front of you, to guard you on the way and to bring you to the place that I have prepared. 

Coincidentally, tonight, our Jewish brothers and sisters begin the week-long festival of Sukkot, (what the New Testament typically calls the "Feast of Tabernacles" or "Feast of Booths").  Originally a fall harvest thanksgiving festival, it became a commemoration of the 40 years the people lived of Israel in tents in the desert. (One of three Old Testament "pilgrimage feasts," this was the festival Jesus for which went to Jerusalem in John 7. also coincidentally, it was earlier in also in Exodus 23 that God for the first time commanded his people to observe Sukkot: You shall observe the festival of ingathering at the end of the year, when you gather in from the field the fruit of your labor.)

These references remind us that, like the Jewish festival of Sukkot, the Church's faith in the Holy Guardian Angels is about something very fundamental, God's providential protection and care for his people in all places and at all times, in both the great and the small matters of life. Obviously, a renewed confidence in God's providential protection and care for each one of us is increasingly important in this dangerous and challenging time in which we currently find ourselves.

(Photo: the Angel at the top of the Baldacchino at the Paulist "Mother Church" of Saint Paul the Apostle, NY)