Homily for
November 6, 2016
Thirty-Second
Sunday in Ordinary Time
Choose Our King
Carefully
Today’s
first reading picks up in the middle of a much larger story, one that sheds a
great deal of light on our own situation as a nation. The book of Maccabees tells
the story of what happened in the Holy Land around the year 160BC. The Jewish
people had been living in their own land for four centuries, but always under
some other nation’s rule. First it was the Persians, who were pretty tolerant
of the Jewish customs and way of life. But the Persians were soon conquered by
the Greeks under Alexander the Great. When Alexander died, his empire was
divided up, and the area of the Holy Land fell under the wicked ruler King
Antiochus Epiphanes.
Antiochus
had the goal of Hellenizing the entire world (in other words, make it all
Greek). He wanted to unite the known world under one language, with one
religion, one set of customs. While this was a good ideal, he enforced this
unity through bloodshed and oppression. When he came to the Jewish people, he
forced them to sacrifice to pagan gods, he demolished the Temple and set up a
false idol in its place, and he put to death anyone who observed the ancient
Jewish traditions.
Today’s
first reading details the deaths of seven brothers, all of whom were killed
because of their faithfulness to God’s law. They kept their faith despite
political and social pressure to cave in, and paid for it with their lives. In
the end, there was a major Jewish revolt which eventually overthrew the power
of Antiochus Epiphanes, cleansed the Temple, and restored freedom of worship –
but not before many, many Jews died as religious martyrs.
Our
first reading demonstrates some of the painful consequences of living under an
evil ruler. We are blessed, in America, that we have the duty to elect our
rulers – but that also lays a heavy burden and challenge upon us.
We
stand, as a nation, at a crossroads. In two short days, we will have the duty
to choose our next President. But this election is about more than just two
people. In a sense, it’s about the soul of a nation – who are we, and who do we
choose to become?
I’ve
seen a lot of debate over the past few months about whether or not America is a
Christian nation. Interestingly enough, the Supreme Court already solved that
question – in 1892, in the court case Church of the Holy Trinity vs. US, the
Supreme Court unanimously declared, “this is a Christian nation.” In an earlier
1844 Supreme Court ruling in the Vidal vs. Gerard’s Executors case, the Supreme
Court unanimously declared that it is beneficial for the public schools to
“both read and be taught as divine revelation” the Bible. Moving to Congress,
the Senate Judiciary Committee report in 1853 declared, “We are a Christian
people…not because the law demands it, not to gain exclusive benefits, but from
choice and education. And in a land thus universally Christian, what is to be
expected, what desired, but that we pay due regard to Christianity?” Even our
Founding Fathers agreed – Washington once said, “It is the duty of all nations
to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful
for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor.”
One
might argue, then, that times have changed. Perhaps they have – we are far more
pluralistic of a society now than before. But have they changed for the better?
As we have lost our Christianity, have we as a society and a nation become more
just, more kind, more loving, more upright, more hard-working? I would hazard
that we have lost much of our virtue that made us great. America is only the
best nation on earth if its citizens are virtuous – without virtue, there is no
greatness. And it is very difficult to be truly virtuous apart from Christ.
And thus
we come to the crisis that is this upcoming election. I don’t think we’ve ever
had a perfect candidate, but this election proves to be a difficult choice
because both candidates are profoundly flawed individuals.
Yet some
flaws are more grievous than others. There are certain non-negotiable issues
that we, as believers in God, must agree with. Some things are grave moral
evils that cannot be tolerated or advocated for. Prime among these are
abortion, the redefinition of marriage, and the erosion of religious freedom.
This is
not to say that the other issues are unimportant. They certainly are – but people
of good will may have different ways of tackling the issues. For example, all
candidates want to eliminate poverty – no one in their right mind would
advocate for increasing poverty! But we can disagree about how to do that – do
we increase welfare? Provide better jobs? Encourage small businesses through
tax breaks? Increase tax breaks for families that stay together? We are allowed
to disagree about how to fix these
problems in society. Or, for another example, there is an issue with the need
to balance immigration with national security – here, too, we can disagree on
how best to welcome newcomers while still enforcing the laws of our nation.
Both must be held in balance, but there can be different plans on how to do
that.
With the
grave moral evils, however, there cannot be any compromise. People of good will
cannot be in favor of abortion – it
is an “intrinsic evil,” which means
that there is no possible reason why that could be a good thing, no matter what
positive consequences might result, because it is a taking of a human life.
Please don’t misunderstand me –
God is immensely merciful, and if there is any woman here who has suffered the
trauma of abortion, the Lord is always ready and willing to forgive. There are
many reasons why women go through with an abortion – fear, pressure, lack of
knowledge – and the Lord knows your regret, and comes to heal you. But abortion
itself is something that a society ought never to allow.
Unfortunately, we have many
candidates for public office who support such intrinsic evils like abortion –
and when a candidate supports the right to murder an unborn child for all nine
months of pregnancy, can they be trusted with our nation? If a candidate had
come out in support of the Holocaust, we would have dismissed them immediately
as unfit for office. But many candidates support an even greater holocaust –
the holocaust of abortion, which has claimed the lives of over fifty million
children – five times more than the Nazi Holocaust!
We might
say, “well yes, but they have other good qualities.” Can any amount of good
qualities wash blood off the hands of those who support such a barbaric
practice? What good qualities can there be that can answer for the death of the
innocent?
In moral
theology, we make a distinction between material
and formal cooperation in evil.
Material cooperation in evil means that we do not intend the evil that is
committed – for example, a kitchenware salesman may sell someone a knife, and
that person may end up committing murder with it. But the kitchen salesman is
not guilty for participating in the crime – he is only “materially cooperating” with evil. On the other side we have formal cooperation, which means that we intend
the evil action as well – like the person who drives the getaway car in a bank
robbery is still guilty of participating in the crime. In the middle, however,
we have proximate material cooperation
– that is, we cooperate with evil by assisting it, even if we don’t intend it.
For example, if the kitchenware salesman knew with certainty that the man
buying the knife was planning to murder someone, then he has the moral
obligation not to sell the man the knife.
I
apologize if that distinction is confusing, but it is critically important. We
are faced with the choice of voting for a candidate who supports intrinsic
moral evils such as abortion and the redefinition of marriage. To vote for them
would be considered proximate material
cooperation – in other words, even if we ourselves are pro-life, to vote
for a certain pro-choice candidate would be cooperating in their evil – it
would be enabling someone who has already publicly and consistently proclaimed
that they would do everything in their power to allow the merciless destruction
of human life. In such a case, we ourselves would be morally guilty for
participating in their deaths. To put it far more bluntly – if a person thinks
they have a good reason for voting for a pro-choice candidate, I hope they are
able to explain that reason to all of the babies who will suffer because of our
choice!
This has
been a particularly contentious election – and it is necessary to choose our
leaders carefully. Those candidates who do not respect the dignity of human
life, who try to eliminate religious freedom, and who support intrinsic moral
evils cannot be voted for. This election is about the soul of our nation – we
must pray and fast, that we may be under good leaders, leaders who have the
heart of God. Let us return to our Christian roots – let us develop virtue once
again as a nation – let us raise up good and holy leaders to lead us in the
path of peace.
