The Practical Principles of Political Prudence

This is the third and final installment of the homily series leading up to the elections.

Click here to download or listen!  (24.5 min)
To download, right-click on the "6.0 MB" underneath the "Apple Lossless Audio" in the lower right corner of the link's page. To stream and listen, left-click that same "6.0 MB" link or the Play Arrow in the upper right corner.

The Catholic Church is not going to tell you for whom to vote.    Nor does the Church want one-issue voters. But because of the principles talked about in the two previous homilies—the end doesn't justify the means & the principle of double effect—people of a moral mindset can nourish and inform their consciences to vote for the best workable scenario for a common good.  

There are no perfect candidates, therefore all voting decisions come down to double effect, proportionality, and the principle of double effect.

Top: The Principle of Double Effect.
Bottom: Claim the End Justifies the Means

There is no such thing as voting for "the lesser of two evils". No, we're voting for humans (or really, for scenarios that are configurations of many humans), and so we're voting for "the best of several imperfect goods".

Are there times when some goods issues trump others?  You bet. Are there some issues that could balance out a candidate being "wrong on a big issue"? Maybe. For years people have pitted Cardinal Bernadin's "seamless garment" idea against the idea that some issues are more fundamental than others.  Neither idea is wrong, you just need Cardinal Ratzinger to break it down right. He nails it; he knows his rules of double effect. He is kind of smart, you know.  
[Update: I should certainly give credit for what is not entirely my own. An astute parishioner brought up the "seamless garment" topic after hearing the homily, and I thought it was a perfect item to emphasize not only what Cardinal Ratzinger wrote, but to show continuity—if distinction—in thought.]

This isn't just about the Presidency. Lots of times the key races are the "small races". Much hangs in the balance with governors and representatives, senators and regents.  Parties are as crucial as policies here, and it's all tied to together in the messy world of proportionality and prudence. 

Educate yourself; challenge yourself. The Church's thinking on this stuff is subtle and weighty and complex.  Don't let your thinking be anything less.


[Update] Here are the actual texts from the 2004 Ratzinger-to-McCarrick letter: #6 and its footnote, and #3.  Whole text available here.

6. When "these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible," and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, "the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it" (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts Declaration "Holy Communion and Divorced, Civilly Remarried Catholics" [2002], nos. 3-4). This decision, properly speaking, is not a sanction or a penalty. Nor is the minister of Holy Communion passing judgment on the person’s subjective guilt, but rather is reacting to the person’s public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion due to an objective situation of sin.
Nota Bene: A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons. (Emphasis added.)

3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

If You Loved Me, You'd Give Me A Tracheotomy

This is the second of a three-part homily series on public issues and the upcoming elections.  The first part was about how the end never justifies the means.  Now we move to the most essential and yet underrated of all moral principles: the Principle of Double Effect.

Click here to download or listen!  (24 minutes)
To download, right-click on the "5.8 MB" underneath the "Apple Lossless Audio" in the lower right corner of the link's page. To stream and listen, click that link or the Play Arrow in the upper right corner.

If you listen to some moral philosophers and theologians, you'd think that the Principle of Double Effect (PDE) is just a rare, weird concept we pull out to deal with exceptional cases like ectopic pregnancies or crazy situations like in the conclusion of the movie Armageddon.  It's not.

Ever had surgery?  Ever taken a medicine stronger than a vitamin supplement?  Know anybody who has had chemotherapy?  
How about self-defense?  Can you protect your family?  Can a soldier defend himself?  Should we have invaded Germany?  Better yet, can a soldier jump on a grenade to save his buddy?  Was Jesus on the cross a suicide?  
What about the death penalty?—what if we're in the Wild West and the killer's henchman will spring him?  Should Batman kill the Joker, since no prison can hold him?—if so, on what grounds does a civilian execute a criminal?  
If my apartment building is on fire, can I jump out the window, even if it's a seven-story fall?
Can I vote for a major candidate who will do much good, even though he or she isn't perfect, or must I chose a "flawless" 3rd party candidate who has no chance?

Without PDE, you have no good answer for these.  You either leave someone in dire straits or tell them to claim the end justifies the means and to go ahead and break the moral law.

Welcome to the Principle of Double Effect.

Top: The Principle of Double Effect.
Bottom: Claim the End Justifies the Means

Two Wrongs, a Right, & the Dark Knight

So...I've been away from posting homilies and other bloggery for a good long time. I apologize for the delay. I've also got several homilies backlogged from the summer I'll put up eventually.

This homily is actually from 2 weeks ago. It's part of a three-part series on the upcoming election. I'll post the next two homilies over the next couple of days.

Click here to listen or download! (16.5 minutes)
To download, right-click on the "4.0 MB" underneath the "Apple Lossless Audio" in the lower right corner of the link's page. To stream and listen, click that link or the Play Arrow in the upper right corner.

This first homily focuses on the most prickly principle of moral debate, drawing on pop culture references—especially movies—that ask the perennial question: "Does the end ever justify the means?" 

At the center of the discussion is "The Dark Knight", the second of the contemporary Batman movies, and especially the role the Joker plays in trying, not merely to inflict pain and fear, but to get others to join him in ditching moral principles and claiming that the end does justifies the means.

2007 Pius Seniors/Parents Mass

Every year in Lincoln, shortly before graduation, the Seniors of Pius X high school and their parents have a special Mass, followed by a fancy brunch downtown.  I think they're holding this year's Mass today even.  On May 14, 2007, I was asked to celebrate that Mass at St. John's and preach it. They were the first class I taught as a priest. It was also the first time I ever recorded a homily. Oh, and it was my 1,001st Mass.

Listen here:


Or download this recording (18 minutes)
(Right-click where it says "4.4 MB" in the lower right corner)

Hastings Baccalaureate/Mother's Day homily

Happy Mother's Day!  
Happy Graduation to the Class of 2012!  
Happy Don't-forget-love-is-sacrificial-and-hurts Day!

Listen here:


Or download the recording here — 15 minutes
(Right-click on the blue "3.6 MB" in the lower right corner)

Jesus' words about love and friends (+being Mother's Day) makes a good springboard to lead high school graduates to think about the "schools of love" they've been raised in since birth, and to challenge them to love one another as Christ loved them—"Greater love has no man than to lay down his life for his friends."

The Senior Promily

Saturday night was the "Prom Mass" at St. Cecilia's...but it was also the regular parish Mass for the 4th Sunday of Easter.  Hmm...how does one preach about both the Good Shepherd and Prom?  My approach: start off by going as far away from either topic as possible.  After that, everything else seems closer.  And more sanitary.

Click here to download or listen. (9 min.)
On the download page, click the "2.2 MB" in the lower right corner.


"For love or money" becomes the key to understanding not merely what Jesus does as the Shepherd, but what he calls the flocks to do. We know in our hearts the difference between someone acting out of love vs. acting out of gain.

PS: I recently realized I failed to post last Sunday's homily.  I'll try to do that very soon.

"The Quality Of Mercy Is Not Strained...."

Quick!  Before you go any further, you can get bonus points for knowing whence the quote in the title comes (without using the Internet!)

In my mercy, I will let you continue even if you don't know the quote, but if you want to see in in context, look below the break. The quote actually doesn't come up at all in the homily; as I said, it's bonus material.  



Today is the second Sunday of Easter and the feast of divine mercy.  They go together.  For hundreds of years Christians have read on the Sabbath after Easter the story of the ten apostles meeting Jesus on Easter Sunday night.  In the last thirty years they've celebrated Divine Mercy on this same day.  But God's infinite timeless plan saw both in the same outside-of-time moment, and that's why they line up.  Come hear why they connect.




Click here to listen or download  (10 minutes)
On the download page, click the "2.5 MB" in the lower right corner.








Ok.  So, the quote is from Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice.  When Portia, Antonio's brave and brilliant girlfriend, is trying to save him in court from getting a pound of his flesh excised by Shylock, she gives a beautiful description of mercy.  Antonio has just admitted that he made a deal with Shylock, by which he should have to give a pound of flesh if he didn't repay his loan by a set date.  I'll give their words then explain how perfect this is for any discussion of mercy.

PORTIA
Then must the Jew be merciful.

SHYLOCK
On what compulsion must I? tell me that.

PORTIA
The quality of mercy is not strained,
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath: it is twice blest;
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes:
'Tis mightiest in the mightiest: it becomes
The throned monarch better than his crown;
His sceptre shows the force of temporal power,
The attribute to awe and majesty,
Wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings;
But mercy is above this sceptred sway;
It is enthroned in the hearts of kings,
It is an attribute to God himself;
And earthly power doth then show likest God's
When mercy seasons justice. Therefore, Jew,
Though justice be thy plea, consider this,
That, in the course of justice, none of us
Should see salvation: we do pray for mercy;
And that same prayer doth teach us all to render
The deeds of mercy. 


(credit: MIT's Shakespeare bounty.  Thanks!)



Shylock asks a great question: Why should he forgive the debt of flesh?  By what compulsion can he be made to do so?  And Portia's response is that mercy is by its definition not the kind of thing that can be "compulsed".  It's, by its nature, a gift freely given.  Think of "strained" here not like stretched or stressed, but as the root of "constrained" or "restrained".  Nothing holds, forces, makes, compels, or requires any mercy.  That's its beauty.  


It reminds me of a story about an emperor touring a village near his capitol.  He meets a woman who comes up begging for the life of her son who is in jail and sentenced to die.  The emperor is confused by the pushy, weepy woman, but when an official explains who her son is, he straightens up and sternly says,"I'll do no such thing.  I know this case!  His crime was heinous! "  She replied, "Yes.  Please, lord.  Mercy."  He thundered at her: "Never!  His crimes demand retribution."  And she begged again, "Mercy, lord!  Lock him up, banish him, but don't kill him."  To which he replied, "Not on my life.  He deserves death."  And from the ground she cried out, "I know, I know.  That's why I beg your mercy."  The emperor cursed and spat, and he said to her coldly, "He doesn't deserve mercy."  But at this her demeanor changed: she straightened up, looked him full in the face, and said steadily as if correcting a mistaken child, "Lord, if he deserved it,it wouldn't be mercy."


Dear Jesus, help me remember that too.