32nd Sunday in Ordinary Time 2011

November 6, 2011
Homily by Fr. John De Celles
St. Raymond of Peñafort, Springfield, Va.

In the way the Church counts time, November is the last month of the year,
and the Church.s new year begins with Advent.
And as we come to the end of the year, we consider the end of our time on earth,
in particular we consider the “Last Things”:
death, judgment, heaven and hell.
So we began the month of November with All Saints. Day,
remembering all those who have died and gone to heaven.
And then the next day we celebrated All Souls. Day,
remembering all those who have died and are purgatory.

But both of these days also call us to look at ourselves,
and ask the questions:
am I ready to die?
have I prepared to be judged by Christ?
have I prepared myself for heaven…or for hell?

This theme continues throughout this month
and so today the gospel focuses us on preparing for the end, or death.
Think about these 5 wise and 5 foolish virgins.
Jesus tells us:
“The foolish ones, when taking their lamps,
brought no oil with them,
but the wise brought flasks of oil with their lamps.”

In other words, both had their lamps filled with oil,
but the wise brought extra oil, preparing for the worst
—in case the bridegroom arrived late.
They looked not at just the short-term,
but also at the long-term effects of burning their lamps.
They were planning ahead, taking care of the now, but with eyes on the future.
But the foolish virgins were not thinking ahead, but focused on the short-term.
And so when the bridegroom came and they weren.t prepared,
he locked the door and said to them:
“Amen… I do not know you.”

This reminds us that we all need to be prepared, looking to the future
and not just being concerned with problems that will soon pass away.
Now, some of you might say, “but Father, Jesus also tells us:
„do not be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will be anxious for itself…”
But actually this makes my point.
Because in that passage Jesus is telling his disciples
not to worry about material goods…
“what you are to wear,” or “what you are to eat…”
“Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth…
but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven….”
He makes the point, as he so often does,
that we must be morally and spiritually prepared for God.s judgment,
when the time comes for each of us.

So how do we prepare for judgment?
First of all, you begin by learning about God,
by reading the Scriptures, the Catechism, and other good Catholic books.
And then you add prayer,
talking with and listening to God.
And then we have the sacraments,
especially confession and the Eucharist, fonts of grace.
All this brings you close to God and strengthens your friendship with Him,
so that you can always resist sin and be prepared for heaven.

And that leads us to the final way to prepare:
we must avoid sin and live the righteous life Jesus calls us to.
Remember the rich young man asked Jesus
“what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
And Jesus responded without hesitation: “Keep the Commandments.”

All these—learning, prayer, grace, and righteous living—
prepare us for the final judgment
—they are the oil in our lamps when the bridegroom comes.

But sometimes we have a hard time seeing the importance of all this preparation,
usually because we tend, like the foolish virgins,
to focus on the short-term, rather than the long-term.
We think praying or reading a holy book is a good idea,
but we.ll do it later;
right now we.d rather watch TV, or play a game, or make some money.
Short-term thinking, so often dominated by our passions
like fear, greed, envy or lust,
doesn.t prepare us for the long-term “problem” of judgment.

On the other hand, sometimes,
we do recognize the long-term “problem” of God.s judgment,
but we think we.ll have time between now and then to straighten up,
to pray and read more, and to repent sin.
But there are a couple of problems with that.

First of all, today.s parable says:
“Since the bridegroom was long delayed,
they all became drowsy and fell asleep.”
We.ve lived for 20 or 50 or 80 years and we haven.t died yet,
so we start to think it will be another 20 or 50 or 80 years before we do die.
Like the foolish virgins, we.ve been lulled to sleep.
But then one day we.ll wake up from this foolish dream and—surprise!:
“Behold, the bridegroom! Come out to meet him!”

The second problem with thinking we can deal with long-term problems later
is that by ignoring them today they can get worse as time goes on.

For example, a new husband knows marriage must be based on mutual trust,
but early on he discovers that telling little lies
can save him a lot of troubles with his wife.
After awhile, though, big lies become even more handy than little lies,
and soon the wife loses all trust in him,
and their marriage falls apart altogether.
Focusing on the short-term problems,
can often make the long-term problems into long-term disasters.

I could go on and on with examples of this.
But there.s one very important example I.d like to focus on now,
something coming up this week.
That is this Tuesday.s elections of our state and local leaders.

A recent poll tells us that when Americans were asked
what the most important problem facing the country today is,
first on the list, at 57%, was the “economy and jobs”1,
1 CBS News Poll. Oct. 19-24, 2011. N=1,650 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3. http://www.pollingreport.com/prioriti.htm; http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/09/17/us/politics/20110917_poll_results.html?ref=publicopinion

while second on the list,
but with only 5% saying it was most important,
was the budget deficit and national debt.
Now, without being political here, isn.t it interesting
that the immediate fears about the economy
so completely overshadow the long-term problem of the national debt
—57 to 5%?

I think we can all agree it is an extremely bad idea
to vote based strictly on short-term problems
while ignoring long-term problems,
—especially when they might eventually be much more devastating.

But that.s exactly what we tend to do.
At the moment, Americans seem to be focused
on short-term economic problems.
Some are driven by envy, some by greed.
But most are driven by fear,
fear of economic hardship and job losses,
of losing life savings, or retirement funds.

With all those passions in play,
is it any wonder folks can.t see the forest for the trees
—can.t see long-term catastrophes for the short-term problems in the way.

Unfortunately, this maxim seems to apply particularly
with regard to 2 other huge problems facing our country
that didn.t even make it to 1% in the poll:
the problems of abortion and same-sex marriage.

Folks tend to see abortion and same-sex marriage as long-term problems.
In the case of abortion, for example, they think,
“we.ve been making slow but steady progress for 40 years,
but it.s going to take years more to change hearts, minds and laws….
So right now let.s take care of the economy and deal with abortion later.”

But we can.t afford this kind of thinking.

Because for one thing, it.s driven by our passions, not logic.
How can a society based on fear, greed, and envy,
much less lust, hatred and laziness,
ever survive?

For another thing, it ignores the fact
that what we see as merely long-term problems
actually include real and important short-term problems.

For example, some look at abortion and see a long-term problem
that may take years to solve.
But it.s estimated that 1 to 1.4 million unborn babies
will be aborted this year alone:
that is real and terrible short-term problem.
Think about it: what would we do if terrorists threatened
to explode a nuclear bomb killing a million Americans?
Would we say, “well the War on Terrorism is a long drawn out process,
but the economy—that.s today.s problem?”
I don.t think so.
We.d drop everything else
and focus on protecting the lives of those million Americans?

But beyond that,
this kind of thinking focusing on the short-term and ignoring the long term,
ignores the fact that if we don.t address the long-term problem right now
it will only become worse…in the long-term.
Part of our problem here is we don.t see what terrible long-term consequences
that abortion and same-sex marriage will have for our society.
We see the short-term problem and think this is as bad as it gets.

But that.s not how it works.
The 40 years of waiting to end abortion
have seen some progress in changing hearts and minds,
but in the meantime
it has also fostered a growing basic disrespect for human life
throughout our society.
We see this as the creation of human life is reduced
to manufacturing an embryo in a Petri-dish as if it were a commodity,
and then we treat it like a commodity
by freezing “it” or using “it” in medical experiments.
And we see it in the way women are treated as objects,
especially in the rise in pornography, rape and abuse.
And we see it in a rise in human trafficking, drug use, suicide, and euthanasia.

The same can be said for same-sex marriage.
After decades of compromising in the name of tolerance
somehow we.ve moved from tolerance of same-sex attraction
to forced acceptance
to mandatory approval—even of “gay marriage.”
Not to mention the ostracizing of traditional Christians as “bigots.”
This is where focusing on the short-term and ignoring the long-term has led us:
where will it lead us in the even longer term?

What are the long-term effects of saying marriage is whatever you want it to be?
Even now we see movements pushing to legitimize polygamy, incest, bestiality,
and even pedophilia.
And if the government can completely redefine what marriage is,
they can completely redefine what parenting is, and the rights of parents.
15 years ago people called me crazy when I warned them
same sex marriage was on its way.
Where will we be 15 years from now?

All this because we ignored the long-term
in favor of focusing on short-term.

But there.s an even greater problem with this wrong notion
short-term vs. long-term.
The ultimate long-term problem is… our death, and God.s judgment.

You may think it.s okay to take care of the economy today,
and worry about abortion and marriage tomorrow.
But God doesn.t think so.
It.s really very simple.
Remember Jesus tells the rich young that “to inherit eternal life”
he must, “keep the Commandments.”
And when the rich man says, “which [ones]” Jesus immediately responds:
“You shall not kill, You shall not commit adultery…”
Without these 2 basic rules about respecting life and marriage-and-family,
what other rules make any sense?
And so as Pope Benedict wrote in 2007:
“…respect for human life…from conception to natural death,
[and] the family built upon marriage between a man and a woman…
These values are not negotiable.”

And as our own Bishop Loverde wrote last week, with the bishop of Richmond
“protecting life …should be our highest consideration when we vote.
…the fundamental right to life, … outweighs other matters.”

Because of this, it is almost never morally acceptable to vote for or support
a candidate who is not clearly pro-life and pro-tradition marriage,
when there is a viable pro-life and pro-marriage alternative candidate.

Now I say “almost,” because there might be a case someday,
where, for example, some pro-life candidate comes out in favor of
unprovoked nuclear war….
Maybe that would be the exception.
But there.s nothing remotely like that in this election.

Unfortunately, sometimes it.s hard to figure out
who the pro-life/pro-marriage candidates are.
So if you need help, I suggest you go to the website of
the Virginia Catholic Conference where there.s lots of information
— the address in today.s bulletin insert,
and there.s a link on the parish website.

I.d like to be more directly helpful in this regard,
but I.m pretty restricted by IRS rules and diocesan policies.
But let me say this:
according to their party platforms,
the Virginia Democrat party,
is officially supportive
of both abortion and “gay marriage.”
while the Virginia Republican party
is officially pro-life and pro-traditional marriage.
And, according to the information on the Virginia Catholic Conference website
the Republican and Democrat candidates
for senator and delegate
in the districts within our parish boundaries,
all seem to support their own party’s positions
on abortion and marriage.
I have neither endorsed, nor rejected any candidate.

In this month of November, the Church calls us to think about our lives,
and to think about our deaths.
Are we ready for the final judgment, that can come at any time for any of us?
If we are prepared, we have nothing to fear
as the Lord Jesus will welcome us with joy
into the perfect happiness of heaven.
But if we are not prepared,
if we.ve gotten all caught up in the passions of here and now,
and lost sight of the important long term problems we must face…
Well, then, we should change.
Lest we become like the fools
who stand outside the locked door of heaven crying:
‘Lord, Lord, open the door for us!’
While the Lord says to us in reply: “Amen, I say to you, I do not know you.”

All Saints Day 2011

After this I had a vision of a great multitude, which no one could count, from every nation, race, people, and tongue. They stood before the throne and before the Lamb, wearing white robes and holding palm branches in their hands.

Today is the Solemn Feast of All Saints, on which day the Church praises God by honoring all the saints in Heaven, that “great multitude, which “no one could count, from every nation, race, people, and tongue,” who have achieved their life’s goal, the beatitude of seeing God in the Kingdom of Heaven, the goal Jesus speaks about in today’s Gospel on the Beatitudes. Throughout the liturgical year, the Church honors her exemplary saints, canonized for our admiration and imitation so that we can make our way to Heaven with their assistance.

However, today the Church enlarges our vision so that we focus on “the great multitude” marked with the seal of God, holding their palms of victory and wearing their white robes of holiness, all the saints in His Kingdom. This great feast of All Saints is established to stir up our admiration of this great communion of saints, and to kindle our hope to one day be among their number. At times the great saints we honor throughout the year, the virgins and martyrs, the confessors and others marked by great sanctity already in this world, may seem too elevated for us to hope to be like them. But today the Church holds up all the saints, those who we may see as more like us in their weaknesses and failings. We gain hope when we confess that these ordinary human beings like ourselves clung to God, received his Grace, and struggled against their weakness and failures and at last won though by God’s mercy and grace to become glorious members of that great body that prostrates themselves before God and cry our eternally, “Blessing and glory, wisdom
and thanksgiving, honor, power, and might be to our God forever and ever. Amen.”

Is that not, objectively, life’s goal for every child of God, reborn by Baptism, to be among that Heavenly Communion of Saints and enjoy God forever and ever? But is that goal also subjectively my personal goal? Is that my true goal in life, your true goal in life, or are we too caught up in, or distracted by the world and its goods to truly have Heaven as our life’s goal?

Perhaps many can identify at times with those now famous words from William Wordsworth’s Sonnet:
The world is too much with us; late and soon, Getting and spending, we lay waste our powers; Little we see in Nature that is ours; We have given our hearts away, a sordid boon!

Of course, Wordsworth was not just a Romanticist who was caught up in the love of nature; he knew that the divine beauty was to be discovered in nature by the sensitive soul. He is quite insightful in saying that “getting and spending” lays waste our powers of seeing in nature what is ours in terms of its own grandeur and beauty. But as a Christian, he knows that the damage is far worse, for not only do we lose our capacity to see the glory of God in nature, but more importantly we lose our desire to see the infinitely greater glory of the God in Christ, who created nature and whose beauty is only dimly reflected in the great beauty of the natural world. The worldly Christian might change that third verse to “Little we see in God that is ours!” And that is why we do not set our life’s goal in the Kingdom of Heaven. Oh truly, as Wordsworth concludes “We have given our hearts away, a sordid boon!”

The saints in heaven, all the saints, from the greatest to the least, definitely at some point in their lives made heaven’s glory, the vision of God, their life’s quest. It may not have been in a dramatic moment of conversion as we see in the lives of certain saints, but there had to be a turning toward God that was reflected in the practical way they lived in this world. Thus there are markers that at least we should be able to note in ourselves as to whether our life’s goal is to be among the Communion of Saints or something less, a sordid boon, as Wordsworth puts it.

Today we should ask ourselves this question, what does God see in me as my goal of my life, what does my life reveal to God, if not to me about the true nature of my goal in life? Does God see me taking aim at heaven, or does he see me living primarily for this world, that is, that the world is too much with me to give God much more than lip service?

How many Catholics today, for instance, see skipping Mass on Sunday and holydays as a minor issue, as if the worship of God is less important than some earthly business, like sleep, or Golf, or a picnic, or whatever. Can a person with this attitude honestly believe that his or her life’s goal is truly Heaven, that God and God’s Kingdom is first in his or her life? Objectively, we are already a member of the Communion of Saints, and the heavenly Saints join with us in every act of worship, especially the Mass. They pray for us and we pray to them. How could we say that Heaven is our true goal, if we ignore the company of Heaven here on earth?

Or then there is the matter of confession. If a person is willing to live in serious sin for months or years, because confession would mean having to change one’s life, what does that say about the person’s ultimate goal in life?

Or if I rarely pray but spend countless hours on sports and other forms of entertainment, what does that say about my purpose in life? Do I think Heaven is just another form of entertainment and God is the one who is to entertain me? And so on.

But sooner or later, hopefully, we are jolted into seeing that life is more than eating and drinking, entertainment, the pursuit of wealth, whatever, and that jolt is often some form of suffering. Indeed, some people are telling pollsters that the economic problems of our nation has had at least one good result in their lives; it made them rethink what life is really all about, what really counts for happiness, what is really worth pursing as the goal of life.
You and I have been made God’s children by our Baptism. We are already, as John says in today’s second reading, children of God, who hope to be with God and with the Heavenly saints forever. Any other goal but seeing God one day face to face is unworthy of a true child of God. In heaven, our victory song will be eternal and it will be based upon the fact that we have “survived [the test] the time of great distress; have washed .. [our] robes and made them white in the Blood of the Lamb.” And so even now, here on earth we should do today, on All Saints Day, as Jesus commands, “Rejoice and be glad…!” And why should we rejoice? “For your reward will be great in heaven.” That is our true hope, to be among the heavenly saints and to sing forever the words we heard tonight from the Book of Revelation: Blessing and glory, wisdom and thanksgiving, honor, power, and might be to our God forever and ever. Amen.”

31st Sunday of Ordinary Time 2011

There has never been a greater denunciation of all forms of mere externalism in religion than the words of Jesus in today’s Gospel. What do I mean by externalism? It is that approach to religion where words are bold but deeds are few, where one proclaims to others a heavy duty before God, and then find a way around that duty for oneself. Where religious office and authority and practices are used to gain public attention (for instance the exaggerated outward dress of certain pharisees) or public acclaim and human respect (places of honor at public functions), titles of adulation (in this case the formal title rabbi or father). Jesus did not condemn the Jewish forms of religious dress as such, but He condemned wearing these things just for show, like the leaders who wore huge ornaments that could not help but make them stand out in a crowd. Jesus did not condemn the use of the title Rabbi or father as such, but rather the desire for this title just to gain prominence and status, that is for the same reason that his enemies sought the first places at banquets and in the synagogues, personal vanity and social ambition.

Thus religion itself, even the true religion revealed by God, could be deformed, manipulated into a means of self-glorification, pride and ambition for public honors. There will always be a temptation to abuse true religion, to use religion for unworthy purposes, and to use the external elements of religion for these purposes while having no interior religious devotion to God.

The result of all this causes scandal, and it leads some people to suggest that there is something wrong in itself with religious authority and the externals of religion, in themselves. It is suggested by some that all religious authority corrupts just like political power, and that pure religion has to do away with authority. Religious purists would suggest that religion must do away with all external elements and become a pure interior worship of God. This may even have it’s appeal to us at times when we see the abuse of religion, but there are two huge problems; first such a religion in the end is inhuman, and secondly, such a religion has nothing to do with Jesus Christ, that is it is anti-Christian plain and simple.

That it has nothing to do with Jesus is clear even from today’s Gospel. Jesus in no way suggest there is not to be a religious authority. Indeed he shocks us perhaps by stating point blank that the authority of the Pharisees is both legitimate and from God. He says that ins spite of their vanity and pride, they are to be obeyed when they speak as the successors of Moses. Moses had received his authority from God, and they inheited it from Moses, just as Jesus’ apostles and their successors will receive their authority from Him by ordination. Thus Jesus says that the Scribes and Pharisees, in spite of their personal shortcomings, are to be obeyed when that are proclaiming the law of Moses, that is, when they are acting simply as the faithful custodians of the Mosaic law. He himself
obeyed this law and the legitimate traditions of his people procliamed by the Scribes and Pharisees: he went up for the feast at Jerusalem, he sent persons he cured to the temple priests to make the prescribed offering, he paid the temple tax, he attended the Synagogue, etc.

Nor does Jesus ever attack the external forms of religion as such. He criticizes the abuse of the temple by money-changers, but not the external sacrifices as such. Jesus Himself uses external rituals in some his miracles. He subjects himself to severe fasts, 40 days in the desert. He celebrates the passover meal in which he institutes the Eucharist. He institutes other sacraments which are outward signs, external rituals. It is just nonsense to see in the Jesus of the Gospels a revolutionary who rejects either religious authority as such or external elements of religion as such.

What Jesus rejects is the divorce of these external signs from the interior attitudes and devotion they are meant to express in a wonderfully human way, and he condemns even more so the degrading of these sacred elements by using them for purposes which are the opposite of religious devotion, for the kinds of base purposes he condemns in today’s Gospel.

But this attempt to purify religion of authority and external ritual is not only anti-Christian, it is anti-human. Such a pure religion may be suitable to angels, but not to creatures of flesh and blood. Man needs to express the interior movements of his mind and heart externally, especially when it comes to love. How long does love last between married couples when all the external signs of love disappear? How secure would children be of their parents love if their parents never gave them a kiss or hug? Men are not angels, pure spirits. We use signs, words, actions to express what we think, what we desire, what we love. Jesus became a man to show us God’s love in his every wors and action, because we needed these external expressions of divine love. Religion without external expression is not Christian, not even human.

The great Cardinal Newman said this about such a purely interior or spiritual religion: There is no such thing as abstract religion. When persons attempt to worship in, what they call, a more spiritual manner, they end, in fact, in not worshiping at all. The religion of Jesus Christ is no such abstract, purely spiritual worship of the Father. He did not take flesh in order to reject the body when it came to worship of the Father. What he did was purify human ritual of ritualism, the tendency to cut ritual off from its roots in the soul of man, as if external ritual could be true worship of God without being an expression of the interior of man.

Indeed, Jesus brought religious ritual to its perfection by giving it its absolutely perfect content. The Mass He instituted expresses and actually realizes the deepest interior act of human worship, the perfect obedience of Christ in his act of self-sacrifice on the Cross, and at the same time His resurrection which perfectly glorifies God whose power raises man to life.

Jesus is the one High Priest who offers the perfect sacrifice in every Mass.

Thus, the Christian ritual of the Mass is the fulfillment of all other religious acts of worship. Likewise, Jesus alone is truly Rabbi, the teacher, because His word is absolute truth, fuflilling every other word of truth. And His Father alone is Father in the ultimate religious meaning of that word, because He alone is the origin of everything. All others can be called by these names opr exercise these roles only in a secondary and purely subordinate way. Our roles are always the roles simply of servants; God alone is the Master, Rabbi, Father of us all. That belief is what keeps us humble before God and man, and holds out promise that one day we will be exalted with Jesus Our Lord.

30th Sunday of Ordinary Time 2011

This is the greatest and the first commandment. The second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.

Next to the commandment to love of God above all things, there stands the commandment to love one’s neighbor as we love our very self. God takes this second commandment very seriously, as we can see from the first reading today. The commandment to love God entails the obligation to love our neighbor, to love our neighbor as our self, and that love in the concrete sense requires, at the very least, that I do no evil to my neighbor, but also, beyond that, to do good when my neighbor is in need.

In the first reading from Exodus, we see how seriously God takes the obligation to love our neighbor when God warns His chosen people that his wrath will flare up against those who do wrong to widows, orphans, and even aliens, My wrath will flare up, and I will kill you with the sword. Pretty serious stuff, but the language is meant to be shocking to indicate God’s seriousness behind the commandment to love one’s neighbor. Moreover, the text chooses the most vulnerable neighbors as examples, the widow and the orphan who are so dependent on the good will of others, and the alien who is often without rights and subject to exploitation because he is not part of the clan, the tribe, or the country.

We see the same kind of serious condemnations in the great prophets and the minor prophets like Amos who rails against the social injustices in the land of Israel in his day. Amos warns of God’s anger at his people for tolerating such evils in their midst. God warns again and again that the measure of repentance is willingness to undo the wrongs done to one’s neighbor.

Moreover, we see in the Gospels that the way we treat our neighbor, especially the most vulnerable, is going to be part of our final judgment, and we learn that it will be a fearful judgment for those would sin against the obligation to love their neighbor as themselves. Jesus, in the account of the final judgment in St. Matthews gospel, warns us that we will be judged not only in terms of our relationship and obligations to God, but also in accordance with the way we treated our neighbor, the way we treated the hungry, the naked, those oppressed and in prison, who are our neighbors regardless of the fact that they may not be our immediate neighbors or companions. In short, in the eyes of God it is not sufficient that we ourselves do not commit evils against our neighbor, but we are required to do good for our neighbor, and especially for those who are most in need and within the scope of our help. And when we cannot personally bring about their relief, at the very least we must not tolerate it and must do all that we can to remove such evils from our society.

Certainly charity begins at home, and without love and compassion toward those closest to us, our family, our immediate neighbors, we will hardly be likely to care about those who are our neighbors at a distance and who are suffering injustice and neglect.

For instance, an immediate example I think of from past history of our country would be the plight of the slaves in our country. Surely it was not sufficient to fulfill the law of love that a Christian refused to have slaves. Would not the law of love have required Christians without slaves to at least try to extend help to those slaves who were suffering from sickness, from the lack of the necessities of life, and from other forms of extreme hardship? But beyond that, even if we could do little to alleviate their suffering because of the constraints of a slave society, would not Christians be bound by the law of love and by a sense of justice to have done everything they could to overturn that institution by unflagging moral opposition and by whatever legal means were available within the parameters of peace and justice.

And of course the same thing is true today. Does not the law of love require that we strive to overcome whatever is gravely unjust in our society? We cannot remove all injustices, even the smallest, simply by good example and the rule of law. But surely we have an obligation to do what we reasonably can by our personal charity to alleviate the misery of our immediate neighbors, and as many of our more remote neighbors in our country and in the world at large, as is reasonably possible.

But beyond our direct charity, the law of love also requires that we also do what we can to change the laws and the social prejudices that make this injustice possible in the first place. This requires first of all a moral opposition to try to change the hearts of legislators, and those who support them, who are behind the legalization of such injustices. Again it’s not enough that we simply bear witness to our immediate neighbors, our co-workers who support injustice to the weak and vulnerable. We have a right and a duty to do what we can, as peaceful citizens, to change the law that supports such grave injustices. Slavery was eradicated not only by moral opposition, but, unfortunately, by a terrible war costing hundreds of thousands of lives. We cannot take that path again, but we must use our power as citizens to fight another kind of war, a peaceful and unflagging struggle to guarantee the most basic human rights to all. That struggle is not optional for those who truly love their neighbor, who truly desire the most basic human goods for all their neighbors.

So, the question then becomes, who is my neighbor? You remember the parable of the Good Samaritan where that question is raised when Jesus insists that love of God must include love of neighbor. For Jesus, my neighbor ultimately is every man, but our duty towards our neighbors begins especially with those whom we have some power to help. We cannot help everyone, at least materially. For instance, we cannot take care of all the needs of the world’s poor by ourselves. We can provide some assistance, but we cannot by ourselves solve the serious problems that underlie these injustices. We have no power to change the laws or the legislators in other countries where injustice toward the poor is often endemic to that society and its political, social and legal institutions. We can pray for them and do what we can to alleviate the material suffering which is immense. But beyond these things we can do little.

But in our own society, we can and must do a lot more. We should not be shirking our personal involvement and expect the government alone to solve these problems. The government is often part of the problem, especially when its laws are making these social evils possible. We have the right and duty to try to change those institutions that support grave evils. We must also try to change the attitudes of society that support such grave evils, by our moral opposition and willingness to dialogue with anyone who is seeking the truth. We must help people to recognize, for instance, that the unborn child is truly our neighbor. Beyond that, we can and must use our political influence and rights to overturn laws that support such grave injustice.

Love your neighbor as your self does not mean simply wishing our victimized neighbors well. It means first of all supporting them in their immediate needs. It also means defending the basic human rights, above all the right to life, especially of the weak and powerless by using all the peaceful and just means at our disposal to change the attitudes of our neighbors who support these immoral laws, and over time by changing the laws themselves.

We all love this country, and as true patriots we must come to see that the very future of our country depends upon the restoration of the social, political and legal institutions that support human life and dignity in all their grandeur, as a gift from God. This effort to love the least of our brethren by the support of our charity and justice will bear witness that we truly love our neighbors as ourselves.

Feast of Christ the King 2011

When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne… Then the King will say to those at his right hand…

What are we to make of the declaration in today’s Gospel that Jesus is the King who will one day return to earth with his legions of angels, take his seat upon a royal throne and pass judgement on the whole human race. Does not much of this strike the modern mind as weird, impossible to believe, fantasy from a long past age. Have we not gone beyond these kinds of beliefs in our modern world?

And yet, the Church continues to proclaim this Gospel today as the final truth about this world and human history, as she did 2000 years ago, without a flinch, without blushing or apologizing in any way. Why? It’s simple. Because she believes that Jesus Christ is truly God, God made man, and so she trusts his word absolutely.

These are the facts that our Gospel declares. There is a God, and there will be a final judgement, and Jesus will be the judge of every man and woman. He will be our judge because He is the Universal King, and the true King is always the ultimate judge of his subjects. Jesus is the King of the universe by divine right, because He is God and because He is God made man.

We Americans don’t have much sympathy with such notions of an absolute ruler, a king by divine right; indeed our nation after all was born from a rebellion against a kind of absolute monarch. Kings in this world tend to be absolute in ways that free men and women no longer will tolerate.

Nonetheless, Jesus Himself claimed to be a king before Pontius Pilate, when He was forced under oath to answer Pilate’s question whether or not he was a king. And then he makes a startling reply, I am. And then he quickly qualifies his answer, but my kingdom is not of this world. The two parts of this reply are most mysterious, and their meaning is the key to our understanding of Jesus as King and Judge, and the basis of our hope in relation to that final determination of our own destiny.

First, Jesus is truly a king, in fact He is the only king who is King by his very nature. He did not become King by war or inheritance, but He was born a King. The gift of gold made by the Magi at his birth along with their prostration before his crib honored his kingship. It was custom in ancient times to prostrate oneself before a king, and gold was a traditional gift made to a king. But Jesus’ Kingship was not the usual earthly kingship, as he informed Pilate, but something much greater in terms of its authority – it was universal – and its purpose – it was spiritual.

Today’s Gospel focuses on these two aspects of His kingship, that it is universal and that it spiritual. The final act of His kingship will be to judge all men, and that judgement will determine the final destiny of each and every person, some rewarded with the blessedness of heaven and others condemned to the punishments of hell. There will be no appeal from this final judgement, because it will be based simply upon the truth and justice, either we have served and obeyed God in our life, and likewise served our neighbor, especially the poor, as Christ’s images, or we have not.

However, there is another aspect of his kingship that can offer comfort. He is not a harsh ruler whose yoke is heavy. His commandments are impossible to fulfill. For Jesus is a most unusual kind of King in that he is a king who acts like a Shepherd more than a king. Isaiah speaks about this in today’s first reading I myself will be the shepherd of my sheep, and I will make them lie down, says the Lord GOD. I will seek the lost, and I will bring back the strayed, and I will bind up the crippled, and I will strengthen the weak, and the fat and the strong I will watch over; I will feed them in justice.

While Jesus truly is a king, He is a king who while earth never sought anything for himself, but sought everything for the least of his brethren. He wore no purple garments, and his throne ended up being the Cross, and he did it all that he might give everyone a share in his Kingship. And Jesus promises us nothing less than sharing His kingship and glory, if only we imitate his obedience to the Father, and His style of kingship in caring for the least of his brethren, his little ones, as he did when He walked this earth.

Surely that is what the Gospel is pointing to today when it speaks about the last judgement. We will certainly be judged according to the way we live our lives, as his subjects obeying his laws, shaping our conscience by His word, etc. In all that we have reason to be concerned, for we know our frailty and God’s holy justice.

So today the scriptures gives us a clue as to how we can also look forward to his mercy in that judgement, simply by imitating his own manner of kingship, by the way we take care of the least of his brethren. He himself strengthens us with the Eucharist to do just that: and I will strengthen the weak, and the fat and the strong I will watch over; I will feed them in justice. And He also has mercy on us already in this world when we fail to do His will, as he binds up our wounds in the Sacrament of Confession. His Sacred Heart is the great symbol of His boundless love and mercy, just as His kingship is the reminder of his role as the just judge who will determine our fate forever.

That is our great hope as Christians. It is not presumption on our part to believe that we can stand fast before his judgement, so long as we take advantage of the heavenly food and the divine mercy he constantly extends to us in this world as the Shepherd of our souls, and then we in turn honor Him by imitating his kingship in the care of the least of his brethren. The wise Christian is the one who honors Christ as King by submitting to His word and honors Christ’s Sacred Heart as Shepherd, by showing His mercy to others. If we follow Him, cling to him, imitate His Mercy, we will not be lost, for he will always find us close to his little ones, and he will carry us home on his shoulders, and let us one day hear those glorious words, Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. Glorious Lord, we honor you today and every day as our King, and we do so by serving your little ones and by entrusting our souls to your Most Sacred Heart.


29th Sunday in Ordinary Time 2011

October 16, 2011
Homily by Fr. John De Celles
St. Raymond of Peñafort, Springfield, Va.

“Render to Caesar what belongs to Caesar,
and to God what belongs to God.”
As many times as we’ve heard this text,
perhaps its never been more apropos than today,
as we approach state elections in just 3 weeks away,
and as next years national elections are the topic of daily headlines.
Some try to use this text to tell the Church to mind it’s own business
and keep its nose out of public debate, especially out of elections
Others, however, use it to defend the Church’s involvement in politics.
So what is the meaning of the dichotomy between Caesar and God
that Christ lays out?

Like anything in the word of God, like God himself,
this text has multiple layers and multiple facets.
First, Jesus is talking about relationship between the Church and the state.
Historically, the Old Testament reveals that in the case of Israel
God intended there to be no real distinction.
When God established Israel as a great nation
he made Moses it’s absolute ruler, as well as prophet and priest:
a true theocracy.
And it would continue as a theocracy for 700 years
until Israel was conquered and ruled for another 700 years
by a series of foreign pagan kings.

Which brings us to today’s Gospel.
Here we see 2 groups who were deeply involved
in the political struggles of Israel.
The Herodians who were the “pro-Caesar” Jews
and had no interest at all in a return to a religious monarchy
And the Pharisees, devout Jews who longed for the coming of the Messiah
who would reestablishing the Jewish religious state.
And into their midst walks Jesus, who seems to be the messiah,
which is why the Herodians feared him.
But he’s not the kind of messiah the Pharisees were hoping for,
which is why they feared him.

And so they joined forces to force Jesus to take sides,
so that one or the other can have him arrested and executed.

But he does not take sides.
He simply says:
“Render to Caesar what belongs to Caesar,
and to God what belongs to God.”

He’s is not terribly concerned about the state or creating an earthly kingdom,
but about the conversion of individual hearts and lives.
So in this short and pithy saying he rejects both
the wall of separation
and the religious monarchy.

But he also means something more.
Remember what he says later to Pontius Pilate:
“You would have no power over me
unless it had been given you from above.”
Or what St. Paul’s writes 20 years:
“there is no authority except from God
…Therefore he who resists the authorities
resists what God has appointed.”
And then remember the words from today’s 1st reading from Isaiah,
as God says to Cyrus the Persian,
one of the foreign pagan king who ruled over Israel:
“For the sake ….of Israel…
I have called you by your name, giving you a title,
though you knew me not.”
But then he adds: “I am the LORD and there is no other.”

Now we see more clearly what Jesus meant:
civil authorities have their own proper authority,
but in the end that and all legitimate authority comes from God.

Now, some people today might say that teaching is un-American.
But to me it seems to echo in the words of our nation’s founding document:
“We hold these Truths to be self-evident,
that all Men ….are endowed by their Creator
with certain unalienable rights…
That to secure these Rights,
Governments are instituted among Men.”

Here the founder’s base our nation’s whole existence on God—the Creator—
and hold that our government exists only
to protect what God has given to man.
This seems to be very close to what Jesus told the Herodians.

Now, it is true that over the centuries the Church has often
become more involved in secular government than Christ
would seem to have preferred:
after the first 300 years of the state persecuting the Church,
we began to see various levels of blurring of the lines
between Church and state
—on the part of both the Church and the state.
In it’s defense we can say, truthfully, that the Church’s efforts
were often well intentioned.
Still, we have to admit that many of the motives of some Churchmen
were not so pure, nor were the results always happy.
And we also see that the more closely the church directly involved itself
with the state or in grasping secular power as it’s own,
the more likely it was to be involved in calamities.

Eventually people rejected the interweaving of the state and religion.
And this rejection came most radically
in the form of 2 great 18th century revolutions.

In one of these revolutions—the French Revolution—
the revolutionaries tried to eradicate the Church altogether,
killing or exiling 10’s of 1000’s of Frenchmen
who simply wanted to practice their Catholic faith.
In the end this was not a separation of Church and state
but merely a new example of the old problem:
a new state persecuting the Church.

But the other revolution was very different.
That was the American revolution.
It did not seek to banish God or Christ, or Christians or Churches
from it’s shores.
In fact the founding fathers saw religion
not only as a fundament human right,
but also as essential to the success of the American experiment.
They believed that the only way America could have
a moral and just government was if it had a moral and just people.
And they believed that religion was essential for this to happen.
As George Washington himself wrote in his Farewell Address:
“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity,
religion and morality are indispensable supports….”
And he flatly rejected the idea that
“Morality can be maintained without religion.”

And here we come back to Jesus’ teaching about Caesar and God.
Yes, the government has a legitimate autonomy from the Church.
But no government can ever usurp God’s authority,
whether by suppressing the rights God has given to the people,
or by redefining good as evil, or truth and lies.

Granted, Churchmen have sometimes failed to recognize
the legitimate authority of the secular governments,
and so many times had to hang their heads in shame.
But when Churchmen have simply stuck
to teaching the justice and morality passed on to us by Christ
–of reminding Caesar exactly what it is that belongs to God–
they have fulfilled their God-given mission
and advanced the good of all mankind.

Of course, some today continue to vehemently disagree
even with this limited form of “interference” by the Church.
They say if religious people follow their Churches’
moral teaching when they vote
then Churches will wind up controlling the state.
And they ask, how can there be religious freedom
if we impose one denomination’s morals on the whole society?

The thing is, some basic moral principles transcend denominational teaching
—they are not merely the teaching of “the Church” but
part of what philosophers call the “Natural Law,”
or what the Declaration of Independence calls
“the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.”
These are moral principles that are so basic that any rational human being
should figure them out all on their own
without a priest or minister teaching them.
For example, any rational thinking person can figure out
that it’s wrong to rape or to intentionally kill innocent people.

Unfortunately, though, all to often we don’t think rationally
—we let our passions, like hatred or greed, lead us in our actions.
And sometimes we just don’t have time to sit and think things through,
as if we were all professional philosophers.
So it’s important for someone—like the Church–to call us to task,
to think,
and to obey “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God”—the Natural Law.

Because without that
governments will inevitably enact laws
that are contrary to both human reason
and the good that our creator intended:
all we will have is codified injustice.
For example, they might enact and enforce laws
that deny the natural God-given
right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”;
or the God-given freedom of religion or speech.
Clearly, no merely “Human Law” can be “good” or just or even binding
if it contravenes “Natural Law.”

And so we see a 2nd facet of Christ’s saying today:
we must obey Caesar only as long as
Caesar is consistent with the truth that God imprints
in the hearts and reason of all men, religious or not.
Even if man needs to be reminded of these truths
through the efforts of the Catholic Church,
or amateur philosophers like the founders of our great nation.

But how do we apply Christ’s teaching about Caesar and God in 2011?
In today’s Gospel the Herodians come to Jesus with flattering words:
“we know that you are a truthful man
and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth.
And you are not concerned with anyone’s opinion.”
But Jesus does not respond so sweetly.
Instead he calls them what they are: “hypocrites,”
they don’t really want the truth from Jesus;
and they don’t really want him to “teach” them “the way of God”;
and while they call themselves “Jews”
they have chosen to render to Caesar
what belongs to God alone.

Today millions of Catholics do the same thing.
For 38 years Human Law has established a false right to kill unborn babies.
And for 38 years Catholics have gone to the polls and voted for candidates
who defend, support and encourage this abomination.

Like the Herodians 2000 years ago, these so called “Catholics”
choose opinion over truth.
They know the Church teaches infallibly that
abortion is always a grave moral evil.
And they know that the popes have made it clear
that unlike any other issue today,
except same-sex marriage,
abortion is non-negotiable in the political realm.
But even give all that, millions of Catholics still give more credit
to public opinion polls, or to the opinion of the media or a political party,
than to the truth taught by the Church.
They say “I know the Church teaches abortion is wrong…But I think ….”
They can think what ever they want, but they can’t say “I’m a good Catholic”
if they reject Catholic teaching.
A person who does that is called, like the Herodians, a hypocrite.

But it’s not just the teaching of the Church that condemns abortion
—it’s the Natural Law itself.
Every rational human being should know that
there is absolutely no principle more fundamental in the Natural Law
than the absolute right to life of the innocent.
What good is a right to health insurance or economic security or anything else
if there is no right to life?
Any candidate who says he stands for justice
but then refuses to protect this most foundational right
that candidate, like the Herodians,
has given Caesar authority over the things of God
and, like them, is nothing less than a hypocrite.

And, frankly, a Catholic who supports or votes for that candidate
is an even worse hypocrite.
Because while Jesus calls the Herodians “hypocrites” once in today’s Gospel,
in the very next chapter of Matthew Christ turns on the Pharisees
and calls them hypocrites 6 times.
They’re worse than the Herodians
because they should know better than to play games with God’s law.
Catholics who support pro-abortion politicians should also know better.
And they should listen to the warning Christ reserves for Pharisees:
“”Woe to you, …Pharisees, hypocrites!
…You serpents, you brood of vipers,
how are you to escape being sentenced to hell?”

Finally, some say,
“Father, I understand all that…but with the economy the way it is….
I have to vote for a candidate who will fix things.”
I am very sympathetic to the pain, confusion and fear
the economy is causing people.
But remember, in today’s Gospel,
what does Jesus have in his hand that he says belongs to Caesar?
A Roman coin: money.
This reveals a 3rd facet of this text:
Jesus doesn’t care a whole lot about money
—it’s part of the world, not part of God.

Who was it that gave you all you have
—the money and the skills and the breaks to have it all?
Was it Caesar, or was it God?
Try as it might, can the government Caesar stop stock market crashes?
It can’t even balance its own books,
how can we expect it to really “fix” all of our economic problems?
And at night is it Caesar you pray to
or do you pray to God
to bring us back from the precipice?
Remember what Jesus says elsewhere:
“Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow nor reap
…Therefore do not be anxious, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’
….But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness,
and all these things shall be yours as well.”

In the coming days, weeks and months, we face some very important decisions.
But when you make those decisions, ask yourself:
when the day of judgment comes
what will you say to Christ, the true king of the world?
Will you have to explain why you joined the other bad Catholics
who were willing to render unto Caesar what really belonged to God;
who were more concerned with Human Laws, personal opinions,
parties ideology, or even their bank accounts,
than with the most simple and fundament demands of justice?
What will you say to Christ?
And what will Christ say to you?
Let us pray that it will not be those 2 terrible words
he once spoke to the Herodians and Pharisee’s:
“you hypocrite.”

29th Sunday of Ordinary Time 2011

Then repay to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God.” Mt. 22:21

Even the enemies of Jesus were forced at times to recognize His personal integrity, the combination of His intelligence, personal dignity and steadfast will. We see the recognition of his integrity in today’s Gospel where the flattery which introduces the question which is meant to trap Jesus, has to be based upon a commonly recognized truth to be effective. Clearly everyone knew that Jesus was not the kind of man who adapted his teaching in accordance with peoples views of him, that he was “not concerned with anyone’s opinion,” and that he did “not regard a person’s status” when responding to a question. His interest was not in pleasing and winning favor, but simply in the truth of the matter at hand.

At the same time, we see the crowds delight at the quickness of his mind and his wit, the way he could easily silence his enemies when they were trying to trap him. In this case, his enemies wanted to force him to reply to a question in such a way that he would either alienate the people who resented the taxes levied by the Romans, some people even to the point of rebellion, or he would place himself in direct conflict with the political power represented by the Herodians who would quickly report any such treason to their Roman masters. In either case, Jesus would be out of the way, either losing the loyalty of the Jewish people who followed him, or possibly losing his freedom or even his life at the hands of the political power of Rome.

Jesus immediately reveals the duplicity of his interrogators; they are hypocrites, and at least on three levels. Their question is not sincere; they themselves pay the tax, and they do not give to God what they pretend to give, the glory due His name.

Jesus’ reply is stunning in its simplicity and its power. “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and give to God what is God’s. The currency with which taxes are paid belongs to Caesar, and those who use this currency for their economic well-being, and this includes virtually every one in this Roman occupied territory, are simply giving back to Caesar what belongs to him. Taxes are not free will offerings, and even the currency with which they are paid belongs to the authority that created that means of exchange.

But it is the second part of the answer which is so devastating to his enemies, and, given the full context of his teaching, they could not possibly miss the point he was making. He called them hypocrites mainly because although they made a show of giving back to God what belongs to God, in fact they did nothing of the sort. They were more than willing to give to Caesar what was Caesar’s, even though they detested Caesar privately, but they were not willing to give to God what was God’s, and they proved it again and again, by their unremitting hostility to the prophets, to John the Baptist, and finally to Jesus himself. They claim to give to God what is God’s and they claim to love God, but in truth their actions betrayed their words, for they would not give to God the glory that was His due, and the culmination of this refusal was the refusal to believe in Jesus Christ, the son of God.

The same drama plays itself out in every age. Men are only too quick to give to Caesar not only what belongs to Caesar but even what belongs to God. In our day, people are quick to give to the state powers which belong only to God; the power to dissolve marriages in civil courts; the power to kill the child in the womb, the power to kill the aged in their beds, the power to tamper with the sources of life in an effort to completely control and freely change human nature itself through an unbridled technology. All these powers are usurped by the state that claims that it has the right to displace God in the exercise of his absolute dominion over life and death, and citizens around the globe are quite willing to give to this new Caesar what belongs to God, without any hesitation.

On the other hand, people today are very resistant to give to God what belongs to God, and not just the authority over life and death in the kinds of issues I just mentioned, but so many people in our society refuse to give to God even the fundamental thing that all human beings owe to God – the worship and glory due to the creator and end of every creature. Even to suggest that mankind individually and collectively owes worship to God is seen by many to be an affront to human dignity.

This refusal to worship God in Spirit and Truth is the final proof that the true crisis of the modern world, at least in the West, is a crisis of faith, and no longer simply a crisis of belief in Jesus Christ but a crisis of belief in God, in the God who is the creator and final end of the whole universe. Like the enemies of Jesus in today’s Gospel, there are high percentages of people today in this country who claim to love God, but they reveal the hypocrisy underlying such claims when they refuse to see the worship of God as a duty, as a commandment grounded on the very relationship of a rational creature to its creator, as a part of the natural law even before it’s a part of the law of Christ.

Of course there is perhaps a lot of ignorance behind this shallow religiosity, for most men no longer understand the central meaning of divine worship. Such an understanding has to begin from the very words of Jesus, “give to God what is God’s.” But what is it that man owes to God? The answer is simple, everything, our existence, our life, our intelligence, freedom, and hope. What then must man offer to God? The answer seems obvious again, everything. Caesar cannot demand that we give him everything, nor anything that contradicts our human dignity and human life. But to God we owe everything, our whole being, and if we are to attain our final purpose our true and only happiness as creatures made in the image and likeness of the one who created us, then we must return everything to God, so that God in turn can complete the gift he made in the moment of our creation.

St. Augustine spoke of this gift that we make to God in divine worship and that God makes to us from the beginning of our creation to its perfection in Him. Divine worship always entails a sacrifice, the rendering of something holy to God, for the praise of God, and for the perfection and happiness of man. In primitive religions this sacrifice was always something external to man, that in one way or another was blessed and then offered to God. This was true even in the Old Testament, but through revelation its true meaning was revealed through the prophets. The sacrifices of the temple were meant to symbolize the interior gift of the person united to God via the covenant. In the prophets we learn that God’s people is to be holy because God is holy, and the ritual washings of the priests, and the rituals surrounding the blessing of the victims, was meant to indicate that what God wanted in sacrifice was the pure heart, the love of his people, which was only being symbolized by the external offerings.

Finally, symbol and reality as related to sacrifice come together in the sacrifice of Jesus. There we see the perfect offering, the reasonable and perfect worship of God, where Jesus gives back everything to the Father, and where the external rite and the internal offering, or self-oblation are perfectly one. The body and blood of Jesus are not mere signs, but they are part of the sacrifice of the whole victim being offered by the high priest of humanity to the Father and creator of the universe. St. Augustine spoke of this in the 10th book of the city of God. Thus man himself, consecrated in the name of God, and vowed to God, is a sacrifice in so far as he dies to the world that he may live to God. Jesus is the perfect man because he is the perfect sacrifice, the perfect offering of himself in the world back to its creator.

Next, Augustine appeals to Paul who teaches us how we are part of that sacrifice offered by Christ, how our body and our soul, our works of mercy and other good works all become part of that great sacrifice offered by Christ once and for all on Calvary, and then renewed perpetually on our altars. It is here on the altar of the new covenant, of the Eucharistic sacrifice, that we become part of that sacrifice offered once and for all on Calvary, perpetually on our altars and eternally in heaven. The Eucharist is what Paul calls our own “reasonable Service,” which is “the true sacrifice of ourselves.” But this offering, in order to be a true sacrifice, must at the same time be whole, a holy sacrifice, and that is why it can only take place within the sacrifice of Christ being perpetually renewed on our altars. Only In Christ, through Him, and with Him – the words that conclude the Eucharistic prayer – can we offer a truly holy sacrifice which includes our whole self, our works, our sufferings, our mercy. In spite of all the imperfections that are part of our daily lives and our persons, in Christ there is nothing but holiness being offered back to God.

Finally, St. Augustine pulls all this teaching together in his vision of the universal sacrifice of the church made in and through Christ:
It follows that the whole redeemed city, that is to say, the congregation or community of the saints, is offered to God as our sacrifice through the great High Priest.
This is the sacrifice of Christians: we, being many, are one body in Christ. And this also is the sacrifice which the Church continually celebrates in the sacrament of the altar, known to the faithful, in which she teaches that she herself is offered in the offering she makes to God.

When we read these words of St. Augustine, what more is there to say about this marvelous conjunction of sign and reality, Christ and the church, heaven and earth. In the Eucharist, at last, man can truly give back to God what is God’s, the goodness and holiness of creation hidden here beneath the humble signs of bread and wine. It is the sacrifice of the Lord of creation offered back to the Father, the Origin of everything, deep calling out to deep, and we too are caught up in this great hymn of endless glory rendered to our God.


28th Sunday of Ordinary Time 2011

“The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who gave a marriage feast for his son…” Matt 22:2 There is nothing perhaps more universal in human societies than the celebration a marriage banquet with its great meal, entertainment and the great company of relatives and friends. Wedding banquets are enjoyed by virtually everyone in every culture. How interesting then that Jesus says the Kingdom of Heaven is like a great wedding banquet given by a King for His Son. So that is what Heaven is, a great wedding feast provided by God for His Son, Jesus. Great wedding banquets in this world are joyful and exhilarating, great food, great company, music, conversation, happiness. What, then, must that eternal wedding feast be like that constitutes the life of the Angels and Saints. It can’t be less joyful or less exhilarating, or less happy than the greatest earthly wedding feast. It has to be joy, happiness exhilaration raised to the nth degree, an experience we can only begin to imagine here on earth, assuming we have known the joy, happiness and exhilaration of such a feast here in earth. St. Paul describes this unparalleled joy and happiness of the Heavenly wedding banquet this way: “hat no eye has seen, what no ear has heard, and what no human mind has conceive the things God has prepared for those.

Well, then, who are the main players in this eternal feast? The Father, of course, and then the Son who is the eternal bridegroom. But who is the Bride? We are, that is the Church is, the Church is the Bride of Christ, and in Heaven, the Church will consist only of the saints who have proven faithful to the Bridegroom here on earth. In a real sense there are no guests at this wedding feast, but only the Bride and Groom. But, there are countless persons present since the Bride is constituted by all the faithful who are judged worthy of the Bridegroom and His Kingdom.

Human Marriage was, from the beginning, intended by God to be a sign of this eternal union between God and man in the person of Jesus Christ and then in the union between Christ and His Church. That’s why Jesus made Christian marriage a true sacrament of grace, because all grace comes to this world from the union between Christ and His Church. Moreover, Genesis says that by virtue of marriage man and woman become one flesh. And that mystery reaches unheard of depths when Jesus becomes one flesh with the Church when she becomes His Bride through the gift of the Holy Spirit.

That mystery of the union between Christ and His Church, the mystery and choice wines, juicy, rich food and pure, choice wines.” [25:6] Moreover, this great banquet will not be limited to Israel, for Isaiah adds that On this mountain the LORD of hosts will provide [this feast] for all peoples. But what is this eternal rich food and choice wine that will be given on the Mountain? Surely this food and wine are something spiritual, for Paul says in his Letter to the Romans (14:17) “For the kingdom of God is not food and drink but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.”

And that fact brings us back to earth. For there is already a sacrificial banquet of the Church that is deeply spiritual in nature, providing the rich food of Christ’s body and the choicest wine of Christ’s blood. The Eucharist we celebrate, then, is in fact the beginning of the Eternal wedding feast of Heaven, and thus the Heavenly eternal wedding feast we have been looking at begins already here on earth and then reaches its fullness only in Heaven. There it will be unending, eternal, endless joy and happiness; no going back into the world. Here it is only beginning, a foretaste, a promise of what is to come, so long as we remain part of the feast here on earth.

The Church, then, with here Eucharistic banquet is not only the Bride of Christ but the new Zion, the new mountain of God from which and Eucharist is indeed the beginning of the great Heavenly banquet, offering to God and to man the richest food and wine which is the sacred body and blood of Jesus the Bridegroom.

Once you believe in this great work of God and live this truth at the banquet of the Eucharist, you begin to understand why for Paul nothing is really necessary for his happiness except Christ. Sure we need food and clothing because we are not spirits without bodies, but even these things are nothing in comparison to the blessing we have already received in Christ, nothing compared to our faith which enables us to receive Christ in our hearts, and in our very bodies through the Eucharist.

The only thing that we need fear is that we might grow bored by the banquet of the Eucharist, lose our interest in the Bread of Life and end up rejecting the invitation of the Father because our business or our leisure or our rest seems more important than the wedding feast . How many Catholics have done just that today, abandoned the Eucharist, then abandoned the Church which is the Bride of Christ?

We must not grow careless and allow ourselves to grow cold, to be lax and find ourselves unprepared to join the Heavenly banquet due to our care ­servants are late for the banquet and find themselves locked out. When I hear that parable I always think of how it might apply to people who are frequently careless about getting to Church on time. What does it say about their love for the Bridegroom when they show up late or leave early week after week – that it’s not out of love but just a sense of duty that they come at all, like attending a funeral or wedding of someone we don’t particularly care about, but feel a duty to go anyway. Is this the way we will show up at that final Heavenly banquet? Does not such carelessness eventually destroy one’s love for the Bridegroom and the Bride?

Nor must be become presumptuous like the man at the end of the parable who shows up, but is not dressed rightly for the banquet. Some Fathers interpreted this wedding garment, correctly I think, as the Baptismal grace which is symbolized by the white garment placed over the newly Baptized. One cannot even enter the Heavenly banquet without this Baptismal garment of grace, and it is presumptuous to think we can enter the eternal wedding feast without Grace. It is an insult to the King.

There is no greater privilege that we receive in this life than our ability to participate in the Holy Eucharist, not simply as a guest, but as part of the Bride, part of the Church. We should be doing this with great love and purity, and not simply out of a sense of duty, which it is of course. But love is the real power of the wedding feast of Jesus. Nothing is more important each week for our salvation than this Mass. It is truly a feast of love, and a feast of joy, at least for those who truly believe in the One who calls us and makes us his children, and His Church.

27th Sunday in Ordinary Time 2011: “Respect Life Sunday”

October 2, 2011
Homily by Fr. John De Celles
St. Raymond of Peñafort, Springfield, Va.

The first Sunday of October, has, for years,
been designated by the Catholic Bishops in America
as “Respect Life Sunday.”
So, as I have for the last 16 years,
today I will preach on the topic of respecting life:
specifically on the evil of abortion.

But I gotta tell you, part of me wonders: Why? What good does it do?
After all these years of 1000’s of priests, bishops and Popes,
proclaiming the Gospel of Life
so many Catholics still don’t understand
that abortion is destroying not only
the lives of millions of unborn babies, and their mothers,
but also mankind’s fundamental respect for all aspects human life.

Sometimes I feel a bit like those servants we read about in today’s Gospel:
“he sent his servants to the tenants ….
But … one they beat,
another they killed,
and a third they stoned.
Again he sent other servants….but they treated them in the same way.”

Now, it’s true, no one has stoned or killed me
or any other priest I know for preaching pro-life.
True: but they’ve done worse:
they continue to either support or to vote for those who support
the killing of the most innocent human beings in abortion.

Why don’t Catholics get it?
The last few years one particular reason seems to stand out.
It seems that sometimes we allow the term “pro-life” or “respect-life”
to have a mixed or ambiguous meaning
that winds up confusing Catholics
regarding the fundamental issues and priorities involved.

So let’s clarify something: what does it mean to “respect life”?

Now, as Christians, we are called to respect the life of all human beings
because each is created in the image of God,
and shares a unique dignity and life given by God himself.
But it doesn’t take a Christian or even a religious person to see this:
every rational human being should understand
that the life of every human being demands respect.

But how far do the demands of respect go?
Does respect for human life demand that if someone attacks me,
I can’t defend myself,
even if they’re trying to kill me?
What about if they’re trying to kill my children?

Does it mean countries can’t go to war for a grave reason,
even if their attacked or fight to liberate the oppressed?
Does it mean that we can never punish a criminal,
or deny immigration to an alien?
Going even further, does it mean you can’t provide for yourself or your family
before you provide for a stranger?

“Respect” is a big word, and respect for human life is very demanding.
But there are limitations.
Common sense, and the Church, teach us that there is
a certain hierarchy and order in human life, and so in the ways of respect.
For example:
we place duty to family ahead of duty to strangers,
we respect individual responsibility and free will,
and we recognize that some human choices don’t deserve respect
because they are contrary to human dignity.

Now, it can be very confusing to figure out all the various duties and demands
of respecting human life.
But to begin to do this we need to keep in mind the fundamentals
—the most basic and important principles
set the priority and order of everything that follows.

So what is the most fundamental demand of respecting human life?
It’s not to hard to figure out on our own, but again God helps us by commanding:
“thou shall not kill.”
If we look carefully at Scripture
we discover that this has pretty basic common sense meaning:
one can never ever intentionally and directly
kill an innocent human being.
This is the most fundamental principle of respecting human life.
And so it is absolute and without exception.

And as we sort of move away from situations
where this fundamental principle directly applies
we see that all the other demands of respect for life
come from it and relate back to it,
even as they become more subtle,
allowing for different non-absolute responses.

So, for example, the first step away might be the case of self-defense.
If someone is trying to kill you he is not innocent,
so the principle in it’s most absolute form does not apply.
You still have to respect the person’s non-innocent life,
but not at the cost of your own innocent life:
you can fight back, even taking his life to save yours.

Or take another step.
You’re driving at a normal speed
and suddenly someone rushes into the road and you hit him.
Respect for life requires you to try not to hit him
—but if it’s unavoidable,
if you unintentionally hit him, you have not failed to respect his life.

Walk way down that road now.
Say a man comes to you demanding money for food.
You know he’s healthy and employable, but he’s lazy and chosen not to work.
If you refuse his request for help do you fail to respect life?
He was not innocent, and you did not intend for him to starve.
So respect for his life did not require that you help him.
In fact, you could reasonably argue that respect required you to scold him,
to have more respect for himself: “go get a job.”
As St. Paul says elsewhere: “If any one will not work, let him not eat.”

The point is: we begin with the fundamental rule and that orders all the rest.
And the flipside of this is equally important:
if we don’t observe the fundamental rule,
none of the rest have any order or make any sense.

Elsewhere in Scripture Jesus talks about:
“a foolish man who built his house upon the sand;
the rain fell, and the floods came, and …that house, …fell.”
And in today’s Gospel Jesus reminds us:
“The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone.”
The cornerstone of respecting human life
is the absolute right to life of innocent human beings.
Pull that cornerstone out, and like a house built on sand in a flood,
the whole house will fall.

If we don’t understand that duty to protect innocent human life,
what would make us think we’re required us to feed the hungry,
even when they truly cannot help themselves?
How do we know that one nation may not attack another without a just cause?
All of our high-minded ideals of justice and duty and respect
are nonsense, if not grounded in the most simple, basic and fundamental
principle of respect for innocent life.

And so we come to abortion, which is unarguably the killing of
the most innocent and defenseless of human beings.
And talk about abortion obviously has public and even political ramifications,
especially just one month before state elections,
and we get deeper into next year’s national elections.

Some people argue that there are more important issues at stake than abortion.
But what can be more important than the systematic promotion
of the abuse of most fundamental moral principle,
attacking the most fundamentally innocent?
1.4 million abortions a year, more than 50 million in 38 years,
and millions more to come?

Or they say that even if abortion is the most important single issue,
lots of other smaller issues combine to outweigh it.
Some people say they show their respect for life by working for
the end of the death penalty,
health care for the uninsured,
prosperity for the poor and middle classes,
and for the rights of immigrants.
Let’s set aside the fact that good people—even Good Catholics—
can disagree about each of these issues and others like them;
for example, the Church teaches that sometimes
the death penalty is allowed and even necessary.
But what sense do these lesser issues make
and how can we understand the right way to approach them,
if our understanding of them is not founded upon the issue:
absolute respect for the right to life of innocent human beings?
And how can we trust someone to promote and value these subsidiary issues,
when he rejects the cornerstone issue ?
It’s like putting up the windows or the doors of a house
before you lay the foundation
—they’ll either blow away in the wind
or some dishonest person will come and walk off with them.

For example, how can we trust a politician
with making the right decision about health care rights
—a decision that embodies a true respect for life—
when the politician can’t understand that a baby’s right to health care
exists only when it has life,
that health without life is literally meaningless.

Some argue that we need to fix our immigration policy:
some say we need to crack down and seal the borders,
others say we need to open the borders and end alleged discrimination.
Good Catholics can disagree with on this issue,
and question each other’s judgments,
but why would we think politicians
who enthusiastically embrace unquestionably unjust attacks
on the most defenseless and innocent members
of our own society—the unborn—
would avoid unjustly harming immigrants in the future?
It’s like voting for a member of the Klan
because he claims to support minority voting rights.

Some even argue that the current economic crisis requires us
to ignore abortion in order to fix our fiscal house
–and I agree that our fiscal problems are hugely important.
But how do you begin to count the cost of millions of aborted innocents?
How do you weigh on a scale
10’s of millions of babies against trillions of dollars of debt?
Would you take a trillion dollars to kill your neighbor’s child?
Sounds a bit like Judas accepting 30 pieces of silver
For betraying the perfectly innocent one.
“What does it profit a man, to gain the whole world and forfeit his life?”

And in a certain sense, it doesn’t matter if it’s 1.4 million babies or only 1 baby:
anyone who’s moral system,
whose sense of respecting human life,
promotes and defends the death of even one innocent human life
in order to achieve some perceived good of many others
is a fool and a reprobate.
This logic is nothing new:
Caiaphas, the high priest who condemned Jesus to death, once said:
“it is better that one man should die for the people,
than the whole nation perish.”
One wonders if Caiaphas was in the group of “chief priests”
that Jesus was talking to in today’s Gospel.

Speaking of priests,
some of you may be tired of priests preaching about abortion.
Friends, frankly, I agree with you.
But remember how Jesus chastised the Jewish priests for their failures:
for rejecting the prophets—and him!
So as long as human life is so fundamentally disrespected by so many Catholics
that they fail to rise up with all other like-minded pro-life Americans,
and crush the plague of abortion in this country,
God himself will continue to send his servants, his priests,
and they must do their best to try to collect what is due Him:
respect for the truth, and respect for human life.

But priests are not the only servants he sends.
Each of you is also his servant.
So act like it, and go out into the world you live in
and proclaim the Gospel of Life.
Demand, with charity and clarity,
that human life be respected, especially in the most fundamental way:
respect for the life of the innocent and defenseless unborn.
And make that demand known wherever God sends you
—at home, at work, at school, at play,
and in the voting booth.

Friends, Christ is the cornerstone of our faith and of our life itself.
And he has taught us to recognize that common sense dictates
we must respect every human being
as having a unique dignity and life given by God himself.
And he has taught us that the cornerstone of that respect for life
is respect for the right to life of the most innocent and defenseless among us.
If we would not reject Christ the cornerstone,
let us not reject this cornerstone of respect for human life.

27th Sunday of Ordinary Time 2011: Respect Life Sunday

Today, the First Sunday in October, is the Catholic Church’s Respect Life Sunday in our Country. In Catholic teaching, there is the strongest connection between our obligation to defend and promote the value of human life and the way we esteem the dignity of each and every human person. Pope Benedict XVI summarized this connection in his encyclical Caritas in Veritate, (n. 15), citing Pope John Paul II: The Church forcefully maintains this link between life ethics and social ethics, fully aware that “a society lacks solid foundations when, on the one hand, it asserts values such as the dignity of the person, justice and peace, but then, on the other hand, radically acts to the contrary by allowing or tolerating a variety of ways in which human life is devalued and violated, especially where it is weak or marginalized.” ( from Evangelium Vitae n. 101)

The dignity of the human person is a capital value for Christians and it should be a capital value for all mankind. John Paul II made this point in his great encyclical The Gospel of Life: He said, “The Gospel of life is not for believers alone: it is for everyone …Although faith provides special light and strength, this question arises in every human conscience which seeks the truth and which cares about the future of humanity. Life certainly has a sacred and religious value, but in no way is that value a concern only of believers. The value at stake is one which every human being can grasp by the light of reason; thus it necessarily concerns everyone.”

What is at stake, then, in defending human life is the future of humanity, the value of each and every person’s life, and while faith strengthens our understanding of the value of life, the truth about man’s great dignity, nonetheless, the fact of this value can be grasped by the light of reason when anyone’s conscience seeks the truth and cares about mankind’s future.

We know that respect for life is a far reaching respect and embraces all the social and political issues that touch the value of human life, either denigrating or enhancing a society’s valuing of human life and dignity. Respect for life defends the young and the old who are weak or defenseless, the handicapped, the poverty stricken, the sick, the victims of violence, etc. Respect for Life tries to remedy whatever denies the value of human life and undercuts the dignity of the human person. All that is true, but the most basic value of all that undergirds all the rest of our rights is the right to life itself. Again John Paul II summarizes this hierarchy of value and human rights most clearly: “When the Church declares that unconditional respect for the right to life of every innocent person-from conception to natural death-is one of the pillars on which every civil society stands, she ‘wants simply to promote a human State, a state which recognizes the defense of the fundamental rights of the human person, especially of the weakest, as its primary duty.'”

Many Catholics today will accept the position that respect for life has to be far reaching and not simply refer to the right to life of the unborn, and that is true, as the Pope affirms. But too many Catholics do not go far enough and recognize the truth that is enunciated here, that what underlies all the other rights that dignify the human person is the “unconditional respect for the right to life of every innocent person-from conception to natural death.” This unconditional right is one of the pillars which supports every civilized society. The truly human state is one that upholds the fundamental rights of the human person, above all the weakest members, and does so by enshrining the right to life as unconditional and the foundation of the other human rights.

One of the side effects of the long struggle the Church is engaged in by defending the right to life is the greater understanding she is promoting when it comes to the true dignity of the person, the incomparable value of every human life and the meaning of a truly human society and state. This same Pope once said, during a visit to this country, that the ultimate measure of the greatness of a country is the way it treats the most defenseless of its citizens. Mother Teresa often said the same thing, only she would say we are poor or rich in accord with the way treat the weakest brothers and sisters. What these two holy ones were telling us was that the future of our society, the future of our world ultimately depends on the respect for life itself.

Until they spoke, I did not understand a childhood experience of mine and what it was meant to teach me by God. I had a young cousin who was born with a terrible cancer that eventually left him both deaf and blind, but he was a very special and loving child for his loving parents. For me it was scary that a child could have this deadly disease and its terrible consequences. But his parents asked me to take Eddy for a ride and bicycle built for two, and again I was fearful – could he hang on, would I mess up and hurt him, would he even be able to enjoy it being blind and deaf? As we road and I got some confidence, I picked up speed and Eddy let out howls of joy at the wind and movement of the bike. And I began to understand his parents love.

He was a child of God, and truly an innocent due to his terrible handicaps which at the same time preserved his innocence, and he was able to enjoy that ride better than me. His parents were good Catholics and they saw him as a special gift because he was truly a loving child, much more than me, because he was not soiled by the normal self-centeredness that grows from sin even in childhood. He died when he was 13 and his parents were heart-broken just like all parents who lose a child. He was a child of God, with all the dignity of a child of God and more, because he was so innocent in life.

This is what the Church is trying to teach the world about man, that every person has such value because every person is made in the image and likeness of God, even the most severely handicapped. We see the outer man with all his wounds, but God sees the inner soul, and in this case, a soul that was beautiful since Baptism. The world is like that bicycle built for two, but it’s a bicycle built for billions, and those who can peddle need to defend those who can’t, those who can steer need to do so for those who can’t. That’s how we become, as Mother Teresa was so fond of saying, something beautiful for God, and that’s how we make a more human society.

I leave you with this wonderful insight of Pope John Paul at the end of The Gospel of Life:
To be actively pro-life is to contribute to the renewal of society through the promotion of the common good. It is impossible to further the common good without acknowledging and defending the right to life, upon which all the other inalienable rights of individuals are founded and from which they develop.

To be actively pro-life is to help renew society, to promote a more human society, to build a civilization of love where all are welcome at the table of life. You can be actively pro-life in many ways; you can start by voting for any party’s candidates who affirm an unconditional right to life of the innocent; by financially supporting the intermediary institutions that support life like Tepeyac Family Center here in Fairfax which gives medical support to women who want to bring their child to birth but lack the financial resources to get proper care; and above all by praying daily for the conversion of this country and its leaders, so we can renew our society by purifying the soul of America so tarnished by the moral blights of abortion and euthanasia. That’s true patriotism and will do more to save this country than anything else.

God Bless you.