 |
| Public Domain |
Homily for the Fourth of July
St. Patrick Cathedral, Fort Worth
July 4, 2012
Dear Brothers and Sisters,
Welcome to St. Patrick's on this July 4th, Independence Day. Although this day is not a "Liturgical Feast Day," the Church's Liturgy, nonetheless, has special prayers for this Mass, and even offers the possibility of a prayer by Archbishop John Carroll, the first Bishop of Baltimore in the United States, to be part of the general intercessions. The Mass which may be celebrated could be a Mass for “Public Needs" or a Mass for "Peace and Justice."
The second possibility fits especially well with the first reading for today, from the Prophet Amos, who was called to preach the Word of God to the society of his day, and especially to call for conversion, to seek always good, and not evil, and then justice will prevail. As we give thanks for the many blessings of our country today, we also need to be very mindful of two realities.
The first is how our nation came about, and later on what came to be enshrined in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution - how this drew so many immigrant families to this land seeking a better way of life, and the free practice of the Faith. We are all children of immigrant families at one point in time. All of our forebears came to this country for these reasons. This is still what draws so many people to our country. We can never lose sight of that. Yet, from time to time in our history, the specter of Nativism or prejudice rears its ugly head. Catholics have been subject to that in our history, and in a perhaps more sophisticated form, the prejudice of Nativism is visible again. That cannot be a part of our lives nor our faith.
This is also the last day of the Fortnight for Freedom. We, as a people of Faith, must be free to pursue and live what Amos spoke about. No one, no exterior force, can ever tell us who we are or what we can do. Over the past years in this country, the definitions in law have changed which say that freedom of religion only means freedom of worship, and that we can only serve and hire our own. This must continue to be challenged and cannot stand. And especially, we can never cooperate with, or supply anything such as pharmaceuticals and other items that are anti-life and intrinsically evil.
I would like to close with the words of Archbishop William Lori of Baltimore, the successor of
Archbishop Carroll, from the July 2012 Issue of the Columbia entitled True and False Freedom, for us to consider today:
TWO VISIONS OF FREEDOM
For many cultural pundits, freedom is simply the ability to do what one wants, to enhance one's life as one sees fit. The only limitation is that one must not obstruct the rights of others to make the same choices. This very secular version of freedom is detached from the moral law – from what is true and good - and from God, the author and giver of freedom. It goes beyond saying that our fundamental freedoms are inscribed in our hearts by our Creator. Rather, the secular notion of freedom says that we create our own version of what is true and good and choose accordingly, so long as we do not violate another's right to choose similarly. In this view, freedom is not only highly individualistic but it is also relativistic, since it does not acknowledge a fundamental law protecting the good and the true by which all human beings are bound. When this notion of freedom prevails, it is the strong - those who have money, power and influence - who end up imposing their views on others.
According to the perspective of the administration and editorialists, the Church's freedom extends only to worship, preaching and teaching. It does not extend to putting its teachings into practice through its own institutions when they hire or serve people of other faiths. But when freedom is reduced to individuals choosing whatever they want, so long as it's a choice condoned by the government, religious liberty is severely limited. Any notion of freedom that links an individual's choices with a moral law is seen as "bogus" or "phony" because it is not consistent with the secular notion of freedom. And the Church's assertion that it is free to run its own institutions according to its own values, even when these are countercultural, is roundly rejected by pundits and power brokers.
Dominican Father Servais Pinkaers (1925-2008) made the distinction between "freedom of indifference" and "freedom for excellence." The former is the exercise of free will without regard for moral truth. Freedom for excellence, on the other hand, is the use of free will in a way that looks toward what is true and good; it is the freedom to choose what one ought to choose. If we want to preserve the Church's freedom to fulfill its God-given mission and our own freedom to choose what is true and good, then we must hold and convey to others a true notion of freedom.
St. Paul wrote: "Whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is lovely, whatever is gracious, if there is any excellence and if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things" (Phil 4:8). We do well to take this advice as we celebrate the birthday of our nation.
 |
The Constitution of the United States
From Wikipedia, Public Domain
|