Monday 20 April 2015

Yesterday's Homily...

...pleased some and displeased others. That, I suppose, is par for the course. Here it is.

In today’s Gospel we see Our Lord and the writer of the Gospel going to great lengths to prove the reality of the Lord’s physical resurrection from the dead. Our Lord invites the Apostles to touch Him and even goes so far as to eat before them. It was clearly important to establish the reality of the Resurrection because it is core to forming our courage to leave behind the attractions of this world for the happiness of the world to come.

It amazes me that I hear such things as “We know the ancient N’s did this because of a manuscript found at... and which can be dated to...”. It amazes me because while we have four Gospels and a number of apostolic letters, some of those same people free to question the reliability of the Bible and our Faith. One wonders why, and I can only presume it is because if they accept the Truth of The Faith they will have to give up living by their own rules in order to live according to God’s rules. And today’s world does not like rules; it rejects “external ought’s and should’s”. But the resurrection and the establishing of the Catholic Church by Christ are facts of history that we ignore to our peril.

Note too that in both the first and second reading there is a common theme: sin and its forgiveness. The first reading reminds us we are to repent and turn to God that our sins might be forgiven. Some people want their sins forgiven without their tuning to God, but we cannot receive something from someone to whom we have our back turned; we must turn toward them. Forgiveness requires a turn-around of lifestyle. The second reading reminds us that we can know we are at one with God only by keeping his commandments. So turning toward God and keeping His commandments are needed for the forgiveness of sin; the Divine Mercy cannot be received if we turn our back on God or if we turn to Him without changing our ways.

Now we all sin, and all need forgiveness. Some people do not seek forgiveness because they think their sin is too big, too grievous to be forgiven. That is not the Catholic Faith: the Catholic Faith tells us that no sin is too big or too heinous to be forgiven, for no sin can be bigger than God (who is without end -how can one commit a sin bigger than a mercy which has no end?) So always encourage people who think their sin is too great to consider the infinite nature of God and of His forgiveness.

Other people do not seek forgiveness because they don’t accept that what they are doing is wrong; they simply don’t agree with all that the Church teaches. But then, what are such Catholics saying when they recite the Creed and say “I believe in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church”? The Church was told by Christ “He who hears you hears Me; he who rejects you rejects Me”, so if we disagree with the Church’s official doctrinal teaching we are disagreeing with God. When we receive converts into the Church they must recite the Creed and add “I believe all that the Holy Catholic Churches teaches and proclaims to be revealed by God”. If they say “I believe in a most of (or a lot of) what the Catholic Church teaches” I’d have to say “Well, we can go no further”. Yet it is common among cradle Catholics to hear that very thing: “I believe most of what the Church teaches, but I disagree with it on contraception, homosexuality, euthanasia (etc)”. In effect, such folk have lost their Catholic Faith because they have lost faith in the Church: if they cannot trust the Church in everything, how can they trust in her in anything –including her teaching on salvation? They may retain belief in a benevolent god, but it is not the God of the Bible or Tradition: not the God of Divine Revelation. 

Today, let us take seriously the reality of our Faith as testified to by the Apostles and handed on to us by the Church; let us turn to God no matter how heinous our sins, and encourage others to do the same. God wants all to turn to Him and be saved, and we should want it to. 

18 comments:

  1. Some people have experienced so many years of wishy washy homilies that when they receive an orthodox basic truth homily they find it difficult to accept.

    One of my friends stopped attending Mass completely just because the Priest talked about the existance of hell in his homily. She told me she was so shocked and she was a cradle Catholic!

    'Let us indeed take seriously the reality of our Faith' and hope that more Priests become courageous enough to produce similar homilies as your own.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think too many have picked up the image of the benevolent God which is not the God of Divine revelation. Why be afraid to acknowledge we are sinners who need to change? After all, as one priest said, "We don't need excuses; we have forgiveness".
      God Bless

      Delete
  2. How true & full Fr Gary. I have heard it said by priests that we should only confess the sin which gives us greatest concern & simply be sorry for the rest but (for me personally) the hardest part of going to Confession is that I have to vocalise my sins, put them into words which I can hear. If all I had to do was say to myself (& God of course) that I was sorry for my sins how easy life would be but it isn't about making life easy it is about being open & honest with God, face to face via the priest, & begging His forgiveness. Thank you Father

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We need only confess mortal sins (in kind and number) but for may folk it is so long between confessions that they forget that all the daily failings we struggle against that can be worked upon by grace if we bring them to Confession.
      God Bless

      Delete
  3. The Resurrection is the key. Without it, Christ was just one of many. With it he was the Resurrection and the Life. People, both Catholics and atheists know and yet try to avoid this. Accept it and it is life changing. This is also true of Sin.

    I am glad you brought this out in your sermon Father. I wish other priests would “preach” of this nature instead of just being “nice” to the audience before finishing and getting round for a coffee.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Indeed, the reality of the resurrection is absolutely core.
      I wish i could live as well as I can preach...
      God Bless

      Delete
  4. I'm surprised half the congregation didn't faint at the mention of contraception! I doubt they've EVER heard a priest mention this, so well done Father - you're a brave man. If only we had more priests like you.

    PT

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you.
      I think any mention of any moral issues these days is bound to offend a hefty few as they have accommodated the culture of death for so long, unchallenged by their pastors.
      God Bless

      Delete
  5. Excellent Father. Today especially sinners don't like to be told that they must repent. Did you get any "who am I to judge" resistance?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Thank you Fr.
    Sermons like this, even if I dont get to actually hear it strenghthen me in my struggles and temptations in my vocation as a wife and mother of 7. It makes me feel I am not alone and am reasonably sane after all! God Bless you.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Your parishioners should fall on their knees and thank God that they have a spiritual father who truly cares about the welfare of their souls. These days priests, and bishops do not preach about sin for fear of being and sounding judgmental. Usually, you can judge the spiritual health of a parish by the number of people who regularly go to confession. The Mass tells us that Jesus sacrifices himself for the forgiveness of our sins, that is why it is intimately connected to the sacrament of Penance and our ongoing conversion.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I am glad you mentioned contraception in your sermon. This sin is never mentioned in Churches of today (at least in my experience) and yet it is surely the most common sin of the majority of young married Catholics. It is a most wicked sin. Was not Onan struck dead by almighty God? Communion in the hand also reduces respect for almighty God and is related to the disrespect we have for His sacred gift of procreation.
    It is often through the use of contraception which is really Onanism that the devil gets in and destroys the Faith. Hence so many lapsed and divorced catholics. The clergy who keep silent on the issue are culpably complicit in the sin too.
    I think the liberalism of the New Evangelisation is soft on chastity hence it renders the celibate life more difficult and results in more homosexuality in some various parts of the church.
    And then we are saddled with the likes of Kasper. . . what a mess we are in !

    ReplyDelete
  9. Dear Father,

    Thank you for preaching so clearly on this very important theme.

    In over 20 years, we have heard but 6 sermons on these issues.

    3 of these were on pro-life retreats and 1 was in Steubenville (this last one by Bishop Daniel Conlon).

    May God bless you and your ministry for souls.
    In Christ
    Alan and Angeline

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you.
      Just mentioning contraception and abortion or any other pro-life issue can have people toss their heads, so rarely do they hear it that those of us who even mention it in passing in a homily can be dismissed as out-of-date. Too many think the Church has no authority to teach on these things or that she has changed her teaching.
      God bless you.

      Delete
  10. Excellent homily, Father. Your statement that "Other people do not seek forgiveness because they don’t accept that what they are doing is wrong" is so applicable to those wracked by divorce and/or annulment. Petitioner-spouse's do not even consider they are violating the greatest of the virtues - Charity - the moment they file for divorce. I say this because of the excessive burden - both financially and personally - divorce places upon the respondent-spouse and children. One's income does not increase due to divorce, but the hours one has to work to meet the financial needs of a civil divorce requirement do. It is an unfair burden foisted upon spouses, the majority of which -by law- cannot even contest the action. So, the very first thing a petitioner does in a divorce is violate their Catholic Faith to obtain a temporal end - their own "happiness". They don't consider they've done anything wrong from the beginning as modern Catholic thought preaches that happiness in marriage is one of the 3 bona, which it is not, but they have justification for divorce/annulment because that has what has been promoted these past 3 or 4 decades. Regardless, when you document to an errant spouse the errors of their actions backed up by Catholic teaching, its hard to convince them of such when they can find so many willing voices within the Church to support them, especially within marriage tribunals. I've said numerous times, the Church implicitly approves of divorce simply by the requirement they have one before filing for annulment, and then ignores Canon Law throughout the process by not seeking the reconciliation of spouses as mandated because the civil divorce has defined the marriage as "irremediably broken". As said at the beginning, they don't accept they're doing anything wrong because no one in authority is telling them they are. Rather, they hold their hands and say "Poor Baby" and are then given the sweet candy they want. We respondent-spouses haven't a chance to defend our own marriage because our petitioner-spouses aren't told they are doing anything wrong - whether by civil or ecclesiastical authorities. It's a "no win scenario" and one damn hard to keep from embittering one's own Faith and convictions, especially when you're a husband and father living the devastation to your marriage and children, helplessly, from the sidelines.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you, David.
      The marriage issue is a great problem, because we recognise that not all marriages are of God, and fail. Many marriages are fraught with tension and sorrows of all kinds. The reason the Church waits for a Divorce before beginning an annulment is, I think, practical: to declare null and void a marriage the state still recognises is to put the Church into conflict with the State. And I would ask what good an annulment be to someone still legally married? Neither spouse could enter a new (and holy?) union. This is a very difficult subject because it is so deeply personal. Were some spouses to make false claims in order to gain an annulment they could marry again in Church but it would be sacrilegious; they would have fooled the Church, but not God =or themselves. I have to say that by the time most folk go to the Tribunals they are usually completely closed to any idea of reconciliation, so there would be little that could be done to achieve it, and yes, sadly, some may see nothing wrong in breaking their marriage without first attempting to save it. God bless all those in difficult marriages.
      God Bless.

      Delete
    2. Thanks for the comments, Father...your point is accepted on church-state relations re: divorce and is entirely understandable. However, it remains that despite a civil divorce, the marriage is in fact still valid in the eyes of the Church. For Tribunals to simply ignore that Truth by ignoring the Canon's that mandate seeking spousal reconciliation and accept the civil decision that the marriage is irremediably broken and not worthy of any attempt at reconciliation is, to me, unthinkable and entirely unjust to those who neither wanted nor promoted divorce in the first place - the other spouse and the children. In my case as well as others, the innocent spouse was not even consulted - we just get the notice from the Diocese that our marriages are being investigated after 5, 10 or 20 years. The Church simply accepts the judgement of two individuals the marriage is over - a civil court judge and the petitioner-spouse. But there is a third party to this triumvirate - the respondent spouse, who's opinion is not even asked for or considered. Marriage is a Sacrament instituted by Christ Himself - is it not worthy of more of an overt attempt at reconciliation of the spouses, before an annulment tribunal sits in judgement? I believe it does, especially when only one spouse wants "out".

      The damage done to children via divorce is enough to generate a repugnance in any sane individual, let alone a Parent. For a Catholic Parent to inflict such upon their own children is simply unfathomable to me. I've lived it for 5 years - others for twice that and more - and we know that divorce never stops giving to those who can least carry the burden - our children. That evidence alone should be enough to deter most Catholics from even pursing divorce, let alone promoting it. Divorce is no one's friend, though that is exactly how the modern world promotes it, most times at the expense of the children. But it really favors only one person - the petitioner.

      God Bless...

      Delete
    3. Thanks again, David.
      Sorry for the late response.
      You say that “it remains that despite a civil divorce, the marriage is in fact still valid in the eyes of the Church”, and that is true; it retains the assumption of validity by the Church until proven otherwise, which is the purpose of the tribunal: it answers the question, “is my marriage sacramentally valid?”. Should a spouse lie in order to achieve the annulment the judges cannot know this unless the witness statements do not back it up, and a declaration of nullity could not them be granted with moral certainty. I think tribunals do look to see if there has been any attempt at reconciliation; I don’t think they simply get the paperwork and proceed. At the end of the day, the tribunal too must satisfy itself before God that the marriage has irretrievably broken down. Where spouses disagree and the respondent holds that marriage is still valid, it must be the weight of evidence that holds sway, not simply the statements of the spouses. That is why the witnesses statements are of great importance in the process. I should add that it is possible for one spouse to sincerely believe the marriage to be valid, and on their part all necessary requirements fulfilled, but the other spouse may demonstrate to the tribunal a previously hidden intention against marriage or a hidden impediment. Only the judges, working with all the evidence, can make a decision on validity, and it is checked by the court of second instance, not just the tribunal of the Diocese in which the person resides. It is always a painful process, and it must be done with great honesty by the spouses. Should one cheat the tribunal, the declaration of nullity is worthless before God since it was obtained by deceit. The General Judgement will make known the injustice against the spouse who is the victim of a deceitfully-gained declaration of nullity.
      All tis said, i am very concerned that you say “In my case as well as others, the innocent spouse was not even consulted -we just get the notice from the Diocese that our marriages are being investigated after 5, 10 or 20 years. The Church simply accepts the judgement of two individuals the marriage is over - a civil court judge and the petitioner-spouse.” The responding spouse has at least the moral right to challenge the application for a declaration of nullity by their own statement and witnesses, so that you were not consulted I find disturbing. It is not meant to be decided simply on the word of the petitioning spouse (the civil judgement plays no part in determining sacramental validity).
      I think your final statement holds a lot of truth, “Divorce is no one's friend, though that is exactly how the modern world promotes it, most times at the expense of the children. But it really favours only one person - the petitioner.” However, where a divorce has taken place because of abuse of the petitioner and of the children, a certain measure of safety for the children is brought about. I have seen marriages where one spouse and the children have been subject to great physical and emotional violence, and I don’t think such a marriage was good for anyone.
      God Bless.

      Delete

Please comment using a pseudonym, not as 'anonymous'.
If you challenge the Magisterium, please do so respectfully.
We reserve the right to delete from comments any inflammatory remarks.
If we do not reply to your comment it is through lack of time rather than interest.