Homily for Wednesday of 33rd Week, 11/20/13

Today I preached from the first reading, 2 Mac 7:1, 20-31.

Almost every religion of the world believes in some sort of afterlife.  Most people are willing to believe in the possibility that the soul survives the death of the body.  But what makes Judaism and Christianity unique on this point is that we believe, not just in a life for the soul after our death, but that the body also has an eternal destiny. 

In this first reading, we see the core of the Jewish belief.  This is one of the key places in the Old Testament, where the idea of a bodily resurrection is revealed, especially in the words of the devout mother, "Therefore... the Creator of the universe ... in his mercy, will give you back both breath and life..."  The breath is the soul, and the life is the body, which in some mysterious way not yet understood, also continues after death.  Both are raised and saved by God.  This belief prepared for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, not only in His divinity and His human soul, but also in His human body - as we see, for example, when He shows Himself to the Apostle Thomas, with the wounds of the Passion still marked in His flesh.  It is the same body!  The same flesh that He carried in His earthly life was the flesh of His Resurrection.  This is not without change - as St. Paul says, our flesh will be changed "from corruption to incorruption," so that in Heaven our bodies, like Christ's, will no longer be subject to weakness, injury, age, and so on.  But it remains the same body.

This is part of the promise of our faith in Jesus Christ, in His Resurrection.  Mary is one of the very few for whom this has already been fulfilled.  Before Mass, we prayed the Glorious Mysteries, including the mystery of the Assumption: Mary is already taken up into Heaven in her body, and glorified in her body.  This is by way of promise to all of us, that God wants this as part of His eternal gift to us.  And so we say this in the Creed: "I believe in the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting." 

[For the sake of time, I skipped this transition, which I hope was understood: namely, that this belief in the resurrection of the body necessitates the understanding that the person is not the soul, wearing the body in some temporary fashion, and discarding it at death, but rather the person is the union of soul and body.  This also means, of course, certain things about life beginning at conception, and the redemptive possibilities in suffering, and so on.]  There are a number of things that flow from this belief, but here let me just mention two.

First, since the body is destined for its resurrection, what we do to or with the body in this life really does matter.  Most especially, there is no way to reconcile this belief with abortion or euthanasia.  It is simply a contradiction to say on the one hand that the body is meant for Heaven, and that the person is the union of the body and the soul; and to say on the other hand that we can treat people or their bodies as disposable.  There simply is no way that these evil practices can be made compatible with our Catholic faith.  [One could obviously say much more here about pro-abortion politicians trying to claim the pro-life label, or about how the "personally opposed, but..." arguments all fail, and so on; but, desiring a shorter homily, I demurred.]

Second, we are invited to pray for the dead.  The general resurrection hasn't happened yet.  Apart from Jesus and Mary [and Elijah], all the dead are still waiting to be reunited with their restored bodies.  And so our prayers for them now can still be effective.  We can and do hope and pray that our own beloved dead, and all the dead, when they are reunited with the flesh, will also be glorified with Jesus Christ, and be eternally saved.  Especially in this month of November, we are reminded in a special way to pray for the dead, for forgiveness of sins and their eternal blessedness, body and soul in Heaven.

On the President's First Amendment "Compromise" Falsely so-called - Updates (2/13 and 2/14)

As everyone has no doubt seen by now, President Obama held a press conference today (2/10) to announce his wonderful "compromise" on the unjust (and illegal) HHS mandate:

Today, President Obama will announce that his Administration will implement a policy that accommodates religious liberty while protecting the health of women. Today, nearly 99 percent of all women have used contraception at some point in their lives, but more than half of all women between the ages of 18-34 struggle to afford it.

Under the new policy to be announced today, women will have free preventive care that includes contraceptive services no matter where she works. The policy also ensures that if a woman works for a religious employer with objections to providing contraceptive services as part of its health plan, the religious employer will not be required to provide, pay for or refer for contraception coverage, but her insurance company will be required to directly offer her contraceptive care free of charge.

This is a distinction without a difference. Clearly, the question of whether the conscientious objector pays directly, or indirectly by paying a third party to pay for the immoral services, is quite irrelevant to either the wedge issue of contraction (including sterilization and abortifacients), or to the deeper issue of religious liberty. In either case, the one who tries not to be complicit in moral evil is still compelled to be complicit in moral evil.

The best response I've seen is by Bishop Slattery of the Diocese of Tulsa, OK:

We are grateful that the President has begun to listen to the voices raised in opposition to this intrusion on our first amendment rights, and we are encouraged that he understands the urgency of this matter. However, we are dismayed that he does not understand the root issues which are involved here.

There will be a time, there must be a time, when Americans of good will and strong conscience discuss these points in a rational and non-idealogical conversation.
• First, no one is asking why it is that the Catholic Church is opposed to
artificial birth control, direct sterilization and abortifacients. For two thousand
years, the Church has understood that all of these methods that prevent life
damage marriages and thereby weaken the fabric of society.
• Secondly, in describing artificial birth control, direct sterilization and
abortifacients as “Preventive care” it is apparent that the ideology which
underlies this governmental intrusion is that pregnancy is a disease and that
the conception of life should be prevented.
• Thirdly, the question of who ultimately pays for this immoral coverage has
remained unanswered by the President. Free coverage is never free;
someone will have to pay for this coverage in their premium.

He also notes that the religious liberty issue is not limited to church institutions, but also affects individuals, either purchasers of insurace or employers providing it, and even insurance companies themselves. Spot on, Bishop Slattery.

I think there is now another issue here, also. As we heard from Abp (Cardinal-elect) Dolan, President Obama promised him, in an interview in the White House in November, that he respected the Church's stand on the contraception issue[s], and wanted to protect religious liberty etc. etc. But as he proved in allowing the Sebelius mandate to remain unchanged in January, he lied. By making today's announcement of a change (even though the change is not one of substance), he's tacitly admitting that he lied before, and also tacitly admitting that he approved a policy that violated the First Amendment (!!). (If it did not, why would he capitulate, even only in appearance, to the rising demands on behalf of religious freedom?) And now he's trying to change the subject with a "cheap accounting gimmick."

The Anchoress has more round up of responses, many of them also very good. The Beckett Fund's response is particularly pointed. And Bishop Nickless gave a very clear and precise response for tonight's evening news.

Update (2/13): Abp. Chaput, among others, has an excellent response to Friday's "insulting and dangerous" retrenchment by the Obama administration. The USCCB offered its more definitive response very late Friday evening.

Update II (2/13): Lydia McGrew gives a clear and compelling rebuttal of that "98% of Catholic women use contraception" lie that figured so prominently, if irrelevantly, in the logic (for whatever that's worth) of the HHS mandate. (I found this linked via Tom Hoopes at CatholicVote.org.)

Update III (2/14): Pope Benedict gave his third speech to American bishops making their ad limina visit yesterday (see here, but it's not posted there yet). Msgr. Pope gives his thoughts on the address most compellingly. Thomas Peters draws the obvious conclusion that where no compromise is (repeatedly) offered, none is possible, and sets his sights firmly on the electoral defeat of Obama and his oppressive ilk. And the Anchoress shares another little example of that animus, in this otherwise unremarked rule change. Last but not least, the USCCB lists six more things everyone should know about the HHS mandate.

More March for Life footage

This 1-minute time-lapse of the March passing by a certain intersection is great!



Maniple wave to American Papist.

March for Life footage

A wave of the maniple to Dcn. Greg at the Bench: