Thursday, April 27, 2017

Thursday of the Second Week of Easter

(Acts 5:27-33; John 3:31-36)

A couple of years ago a florist in Seattle was sued by a patron when she wouldn’t provide flowers for his “marriage” to another man.  The florist, a woman, did not harbor personal dislike for the client.  Rather she believes that homosexual marriage violates God’s law and that her providing flowers would comprise sinful complexity in evil.  In a letter to the Seattle Times the florist wrote: “Rob (the patron) was asking me to choose between my affection for him and my commitment to Christ.  As deeply fond as I am of Rob, my relationship with Jesus is everything to me.”  The florist expresses the same sentiment as the apostles in today’s first reading.

The Jewish authorities have told the apostles that they are not to preach the name of Jesus.  But they cannot not do it.  They have been commissioned by Jesus and charged by the Holy Spirit to witness to him as the world’s salvation.  Obeying the authorities would be defying God’s will.

We need to ask ourselves whether our relationship with Jesus is the most important element of our lives.  Do we love him above all because of what he has done for us?  He created us, shared our struggles, and then died to free us from sin’s claws.  More than anyone or anything, he is worth our allegiance.

Thursday, December 31, 2015

Seventh Day within the Octave of the Nativity of the Lord

(I John 2:18-21; John 1:1-18)

It is a good day to take stock.  We want to ask ourselves, “What were the most significant events of 2015?”  And, “How did I fare this past year?  Am I a better person now than a year ago?”

The year 2015 may be especially remembered for a Supreme Court edict.  Nine judges by a five-to-four vote required every jurisdiction in the country to grant marriage licenses to homosexual couples.  In doing so, the non-elected body not only obliterated the duly-established laws of most of the states but defied what has been recognized as natural law from time immemorial. 

Today’s gospel should provide some consolation to those of us who were saddened by the decision.  We look to Jesus as the light of the world.  He shines in the darkness of this world’s folly as the source of life.  If we can say that we have drawn closer to him during this past year, then 2015 was a positive experience despite the caprices of the demigods on the courts.  If we cannot say that, then let us pray we might do so a year from now.

Thursday, May 1, 2014

Thursday of the Second Week of Easter

(Acts 5:27-33; John 3:31-36)

Political correctness requires that everyone accepts “homosexual marriage.”  Proponents of the issue claim that it will facilitate social inclusion for a group which has been ostracized or belittled throughout history.  They pass over the reality that “homosexual marriage” distorts the perennial understanding of the term marriage and will likely result in a number of negative consequences.  Among these are the devaluation of the institution of marriage, the reduction of births and resultant diminution of culture, and manifold social pathologies.  In the first reading today the apostles are admonished for refusing to conform to a similar demand of political correctness.

Jewish leadership would not mind the disciples of Jesus praying to their Lord silently.  What bothers them is the open proclamation of Jesus’ name because they executed him.  Intimidating them has not succeeded. Now, according to the text, the Jewish leaders want to kill the disciples.  As we will hear tomorrow, a wise man in their midst will convince the leaders not to act rashly.

Followers of Christ need to develop a sensor for political correctness.  We should be wary of those who would forsake the truth out of a desire for power.  But we should also remember that following Christ we speak the truth in love.  Proponents of causes such as “homosexual marriage” often are well-intentioned and possessive of wisdom.  To benefit all concerned we must engage them in intelligent and respectful dialogue.

Homilette for Tuesday, September 9, 2008

Memorial of St. Peter Claver, priest

(I Corinthians 6:1-11)

Paul’s list of wrongdoers in the first reading today is revealing. Most of the sinners transgress the boundaries of passion. Talk of the “sexual revolution” almost makes it seem that sexual sins were invented toward the end of the last century. The New Testament, however, underscores the prevalence of sins of the flesh down through the ages. In fact, we should note how Jesus as well as Paul emphasizes the power of God to spare humans the dismal consequences of illicit sexual gratification.

We might also take note of how Paul writes of “sodomites,” not “homosexuals.” The two are not co-terminus as not every homosexual engages in sexual activity. The necessary distinction reminds us that being homosexual is not immoral and that homosexuals deserve the same respect as any other person. In fact, in the present age of sexual license homosexual adults living chastely may deserve admiration.

Most noteworthy about the passage, however, is the primacy of communal conflict on Paul’s list of vices. Christians are not to fight publicly with one another since open conflict undermines the reputation of the Church as well as its unity. Disagreements will erupt in any human organization, but they are to be resolved amicably. Paul’s emphasis on unity indicates the social nature of sin. When Christians sin, they not only offend God but also one another. The Church has a mission to be a light to the world. Sin dims that light so that non-Christians may not know Christ.

Reflection for Friday, January 19, 2007

In December I preached at the Mass in honor of Our Lady of Guadalupe in St. Helena, California. I tried to encourage the people present to value their families in fidelity to the Virgin Mother. I mentioned that family values do not include abortion or homosexual marriage.

Yesterday someone handed me the local newspaper which covered the event. The reporter had approached me after Mass to ask about the feast. I explained its significance and mentioned what I said in the homily. Unfortunately his article misstated my point. He had written that I urged the people to oppose homosexuality, not homosexual marriage. Perhaps he heard the second as the first. Anyway, the difference is crucial.

How can Catholics oppose homosexuality? It is like saying one opposes a bipolar condition. Although choice may have a role in one’s sexual orientation, it seems to be multi-faceted with some genetic input. Homosexuality cannot be called a moral evil. What may be considered morally evil are homosexual acts which, the Church teaches, are wrong since they violate the purpose of sexual relations.

Homosexual marriage does society a tremendous disservice as it attempts to institutionalize wrongful sexual relationships. It may have catastrophic social effects as birth rates may plummet with escalating numbers of these so-called marriages. More personally, it may encourage many maturing young men and women to make mistaken conclusions about their lives thus depriving them of the truly wonderful experiences of child-bearing and child-rearing.