There was one solitary Catholic signatory to the Declaration
of Independence: Charles Carroll. He
arrived too late to Philadelphia to participate in the preparation of the
document, or to vote to ratify it; nonetheless he was permitted to contribute
his consent to the final product.
What a privilege! you might
think. Such a signal moment in the development of the new nation! One for the history books! You will dine out on this for the rest of
your life! Who would not jump at the
chance? As it turns out, the
Founding Fathers saw it with a bit more nuance.
They realized that in committing to signing the Declaration of
Independence, they were putting their names to a formal act of rebellion. Should the forces of King George III lay hold
of them, they would be liable for the proper penalty: death.
Because of that, one of the other members of that august
body complained that with a name as common as Charles Carroll’s, he was risking
nothing, since if circumstances turned against their endeavor, he might
disappear into the mists of a multitude.
Mr. Carroll wasted no time in clarifying his personal
commitment: he leapt up, took the pen a second time, and modified his signature
to read: Charles Carroll of Carrollton.
This removed all doubt as to his unique identity and responsibility.
Often on national holidays we recall the cost of our
freedom, paid in the lives sacrificed for her protection. However, at the same time we fail to call to
mind the risk that our nation
required, especially of those Founding Fathers and all who strove with them. Is it possible that her continuance require
risk of us who are her citizens?
As we in our nation move toward another vote, Charles
Carroll’s willingness to take a personal risk to obtain a political good draws
my attention. In these days when one can
obtain insurance for almost anything, what risks are we taking, not only
corporately as a nation, but also individually?
Do any of our prospective leaders demonstrate a willingness
to take personal risk, like Charles Carroll did? Or are they only offering “power” (or the
illusion of it) to the people who embrace them?
Do they assure their prospective supporters that all will be set right simply
by “taking back” what has been wrongly obtained by some anonymous, amorphous
someone “else” – the so-called “wealthy” or the ever-threatening
foreigner?
I am always nervous when someone promises to make the
“wealthy” pay what is needed for this or that.
This is the wealthiest nation in the history of the world. By historical standards, we are all the “wealthy;” almost nobody is
immune to that appellation. The only one
who seems to be exempt from having to pay is the one advocating the
program. Who, if anyone, bears the
burden of risk for their politics? Who,
if anyone, is risking more of himself personally than of the nation
corporately?
Into a conversation oversaturated with mutually opposed
assertions of rights, perhaps we need inject this question of risk. We all value our freedom, but has it become a
freedom from responsibility? Ask a
candidate for anything: by what measure do you claim to lead us? What, if anything, are you risking for the common good, for our good? Or will
you fade back into privileged security when time comes to pay the costs of your
failed endeavors?
To focus the mind of the delegates preparing the Declaration
of Independence, Benjamin Franklin reminded them, We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately. On this day when we are so grateful that they
did, we should be just as mindful that we must.
Monsignor
Smith
