November 3, 2026

                            29^th Sun Ord Time  SJU Chapel  Oct 18, 2026

 

The gospel of Matthew today touches on issues that our nation has always been debating, the relationship of our democratic government and the freedom, particularly religious freedom, of its citizens.  We are quite conscious of this relationship as we Christians get ready to vote in our secular state election just two weeks away.   

1.       First: about the gospel: the trap that the Pharisees set up for Jesus.

2.       Second: What do the words of Jesus suggest for us in our democracy?

3.        And third: A discerning vote is not our only duty in a democracy.

In this section of Matthew Jesus has several controversies with the Pharisees about the proper interpretation of different laws of the Torah, for example, one about Marriage, another about the greatest commandment.   Here the discussion is about the Temple tax.   This was a tax in the time of Jesus paid to those who administrate the Roman occupation of Israel.   There were apparently some Pharisees that tolerated the payment despite their rejection of a Roman entitlement to collect it and there were perhaps even other Pharisees who curried favor with the Romans and supported the tax.   In any case the Pharisees want Jesus to take a position.   He skirted the question using the Roman coin with the image of Caesar.  “Repay to Caesar what belongs to him.”   But he also said “repay to God what belongs to God.”  Here Jesus implies that everything else in creation belongs to God.  There is no comparison.   So both those opposed to paying the tax and those who tolerated its payment were encouraged to understand their far greater obligation to God.   To be sure, awareness of this great bounty of God’s gifts becomes, at the very least, an occasion of faithful gratitude.

2.     What does Jesus’s response suggest for us in our democracy?

Not so long ago the question of tax payments by citizens of the United States was an issue.  During the Vietnam War there were many taxpayers who judged that the War and its violence was undertaken without adequate reason and many refused to pay at least a portion of their taxes.   Nothing like that is happening now, though the avenue of war seems now to be a poor choice compared to other avenues of diplomacy and financial restraints.  But listening to Jesus, the question of actually paying taxes to our government is a small one.   It cannot compare to how we Christians and others who believe in the God-given gift of human dignity put that dignity to the test as we self-govern in a democracy.

Of course, there were no real democracies in the time of Jesus.   Yes there were those Greek city states that had some kind of parliamentary rule but only a limited number of well-to-do white males had any kind of vote.   There is no indication that Jesus favored one model of rule over another.  Even while he greatly criticized the ruling Temple authorities, his criticism was mostly about their hypocrisy and arrogance rather than about the models of leadership that gave them their positions.

Here, of course, in our nation with separation of church and state, the great majority of us citizens favor our democratic practices and every time we vote we support the stability and viability of our democratic government.   And when we Catholics vote, we give due consideration to the range of human dignity issues that our bishops have addressed: right to life, health care, immigration policy, various supports for the poor, racial equality, care of the earth and religious freedom among the principle issues.   How we measure the way candidates support individual human dignity; and also the common good in all these circumstances helps us determine our vote.  

3.      But a discerning vote is not the only thing that our democracy expects from us.

Let’s grant that it is not easy for our politicians in our seats of government to honor everyone’s dignity.   We who elect them should engage in actions that help them understand how to carry out the burdens of their office.   This assistance can and should be done by other means well beyond the ballot box.   Yes, the list of criticisms that we can make about the actions of politicians is often long and justified.   For each criticism, however, those who criticize must take on actions that instruct and provide models for the politician to better handle the burden.

So yes, many politicians, for example, deny the human dignity of the fetus and vote against making the act of abortion a crime.     Those of us who criticize them should also take on actions to support Sisters for Life and like organizations who provide the support that so many pregnant women need.   We need to foster right to life groups  sponsoring clinics of care.    Other politicians consider rounding up and deporting aliens from our nation as part of the way to handle the burden of identifying who should be a citizen.    Any of us who criticize them should take up addressing the issue in other ways.   We need to assist the immigration lawyers, we need to highlight aliens engaged here in the common good.  We need to assist in promoting methods to screen those who wish to enter the country.  Yes, when we who are critical of politicians also take on such helpful duties, we underline the integrity of our criticism.  And we voters are not relegated to mere observers after we have cast our votes.  

Yes, criticisms in other areas of life, in family and in any kind of work community, are best followed with helpful actions that can promote peace and make a contribution to the common good.     We Catholics, of course, while in a pluralistic society, don’t favor civil governments establishing a religion.  But, nevertheless, we do believe that following Catholic social teaching aids the promotion of peace in civil society.

In all this, finally, even as we pay the tax to our civil government, we give God the glory for all the rest of creation and thank Jesus for teaching us about mercy and the love that is his Father.