November 6, 2016 - Thirty-Second Sunday in Ordinary Time

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.