I am hoping that many of you recognize where the title of this reflection comes from. Jack Nicholson barks it out to Tom Cruise from the confines of a witness box in “A Few Good Men”. He is being questioned for the assumed order he gave to have a fellow marine under his command murdered. It is probably one of the most remembered and quoted lines in movie history. And likely a line that Jesus would have used in today’s Gospel, that is, if A Few Good Men were produced 2,000 years ago.
To understand where this is going, we need to have an understanding of the “scene” from the reading in Mark. Jesus and his disciples had just finished taking a short cut from the Mount of Olives, across the Kidron Valley to Jerusalem. A route that took them thru the temple area. And what did he find there? A collection of merchants selling their wares in the temple courtyard. Activities that angered Jesus and caused him to turn over the tables and whip the money changers out of the temple grounds.
This behavior, of course, threatened the Pharisees, scribes and elders in that Jesus was threatening their authority. Who was He that He could take it upon Himself to dictate who can do business in and around the temple. After all, that was their position. So they attempted to put Jesus in check without first looking ahead a few moves to see what strategies Jesus had at His disposal for dealing with their question. The question being, “By who’s authority do you do these things?” They figured that if He said heaven’s authority then they had Him for blasphemy. If He said His own authority then he would look like a fool. You could almost see them in the background rubbing their hands together in glee.
But of course they once again underestimated Jesus. He answers a question with a question. He will answer their question if they can tell Him whether John the Baptist’s own baptism was from God or from man knowing that either answer would condemn them. If they said God then they lent legitimacy to John and also Jesus since John foretold Jesus as the Messiah. If they said it was from man, then the crowds would have turned on them since they saw John as a holy man.
Now it is obvious that they already knew that Jesus claimed His authority came from heaven since Jesus had said so on multiple occasions. They were not asking Jesus to speak the truth. Their answer had to be politically expedient so that they could score points. Their deliberation was not based on hoping to hear the truth from Jesus. They were more concerned with an answer that would protect their positions of power. You could almost hear Colonel Jessup staring them down and saying “You can’t handle the truth!!”
So they respond with a meek, “We don’t know”. And the response that Jesus gave had always troubled me until doing research for this reflection. I had always thought back to my childhood playing basketball in the neighborhood. Well if you don’t let me play then I am taking my ball and going home. I had always pictured Jesus sticking His tongue out at the Pharisees as He told them, “Neither shall I tell you by what authority I do these things.”
But His answer followed right along with what Jack Nicholson was trying to communicate to Tom Cruise in that courtroom. You don’t really want the truth. In fact, you couldn’t recognize the truth if it came up from behind you and bit you in the patootie. And THAT is the point of this Gospel. Do you really seek the truth? Is knowing the truth the most important thing REGARDLESS of the consequences. Or do you couch your question and reaction to the response of truth so as to maximize your personal or institutional gain? To hear the truth you need to always be seeking the truth above all else.
In trying to come up with an example of this what came to mind was the situation regarding giving the Holy Eucharist to individuals who are unworthy.
“Whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many among you are ill and infirm, and a considerable number are dying.” (I Cor. 11:27-30)
Seems pretty obvious what Paul’s, and the Church’s, position is on this matter. Now for most people seeking to receive the eucharist, only themselves and God know whether or not they are worthy. It is not for public display. However, the situation takes on a different perspective when it comes to politicians whose stances and actions are on public display. And this is no more grave than when discussing abortion. Politicians who profess support for abortion and encourage the passage of laws making abortion more likely are directly turning away from the position of the Church and of Jesus’ commandments. They are in a state of mortal sin and should not be seeking communion.
The debate is whether bishops should refuse to administer communion to these individuals. Pope Benedict made this answer crystal clear when as a Cardinal he wrote a letter to US Bishops telling them, in no uncertain terms, that they were obligated to not offer communion in these situations. More recently, Archbishop Samuel Aquilla of Denver restated Benedict’s, and the Church’s, position on the matter.
So, why is it that some Bishops object to this stance? Politics. The concern is that taking a hard line stance may cause division within the Church and may provide fodder for the media and others to criticize the Church. In a sense they are like the scribes and Pharisees, and like Lt. Daniel Kaffee (Tom Cruise’s character in A Few Good Men). They can’t handle the truth. Rather than looking at the truth, and speaking it, regardless of the outcome, they look at the political implications and respond in a way that shows more weakness than leadership. The truth is clear to those who truly seek it. But to those that don’t? Well, let’s just say that they are thinking with their patootie!
Oh…for those of you who do not know the definition of a patootie…”a person’s or animal’s buttocks.”
