Audio: The Nativity of the Lord (Christmas) - Mass During the Night

Homily by Fr. Hamilton at the Mass During the Night on the Solemnity of the Nativity of the Lord (Christmas).

Reading 1 Is 9:1-6

Responsorial Psalm Ps 96: 1-2, 2-3, 11-12, 13.

Reading 2 Ti 2:11-14

Alleluia Lk 2:10-11

Gospel  Lk 2:1-14

Second Sunday of Advent

Dominica II Adventus B
6 December 2020

“Attitude is everything!”  It’s a common phrase highlighting that a good attitude and positivity really can change your outlook and can frame your life in such a way that, even when things are difficult and maybe not so good, you can be positive, and joyful, and happy.  And there seems to be some truth to that notion.  A positive good attitude breeds more of the same.  Get outside and enjoy some sunlight and fresh air, put away negative thoughts, laugh around a campfire with a good beverage, or just stop and call to mind the good you do have… these and so many other simple things are likely to positively impact you and those around you.  And studies even show that such positivity and focus on the good can have a real measurable impact on a person’s overall health and wellbeing.

It seems fundamental to our nature that we are drawn to goodness.  It is attractive to us.  We love hearing good and positive news.  And on the flip side, aren’t we often aghast when something evil and tragic happens?  Think of an attack that takes many lives.  Our reaction to such things reveals that it’s like we can’t even imagine the degree of evil that sometimes displays itself in our world, so fundamentally good are we.  And can’t we say that too – that negativity, bad things, and evil really do shock us – can’t we say that too demonstrates our fundamental orientation to goodness and positivity?  Even if people who do not ascribe to faith would not want to admit a divine origin of the goodness in us, they still recognize the basic fact of our goodness and our attraction to it.  As a person of faith, I am inclined to see in our natural orientation to positivity and goodness signs of our origins.  We believe we are made in God’s image and likeness, right?  If the supreme Good Himself made us, shouldn’t we expect that marks and characteristics of our Maker are present in us, just as an artist or craftsman leaves his marks in the things he makes?  Our fundamental goodness and orientation to positive things can be considered like the thumbprint of an artist in the clay he molds.  God made us and so no surprise that goodness and positivity resonate in us.

So, what am I doing with this homily this weekend?  Well, I’ve written a few self-help pop-psychology books I’ll be selling in the narthex… No!  No moral therapeutic deism here.  Far more than a basic self-help principle that “attitude is everything,” there is a faith principle and a theological truth we desperately need to latch onto.  We have Good News!  We have been claimed by Good News Himself, the Word of God in our flesh, Jesus the Christ!  We need to spend far more time with, give far more focus to, the Good News than we do the bad news.  Doing so will put you more in touch with the fundamental truth that God loves you and that He is in control.  Doing that will positively impact you.  A solid grasp on the fundamentals of our teaching can also serve to remind us of these things.  Fundamental matters like, God is good and He made the world to be good.  By the guilt of our first parents, sin and disorder entered this world, yes.  But God did not abandon us.  In His great love He sent His Son to suffer the disorders of our world and to bear our sins.  Jesus redeemed us.  And though as we pray soberly in the Salve Regina, we still walk in this valley of tears, we have forgiveness for sin and grace to advance in holiness toward the hope of eternal salvation.  This is Good News!

It is so easy to be wrapped up in and saturated by the bad news.  Yes, we know things in our world need fixing.  We are disturbed by the evil and lies that surround us.  We have anxiety about the state of affairs in our world, our leaders, and their agendas.  And we have worries and frustrations about Church leaders too.  We each have our personal struggles and pains.  No matter what you think of the science or the motivations, together we bear a psychological exhaustion with the events of this year.  I think I’ll scream if I have to think or say “COVID-19” one more time.  And I’m just about ready to trash all the “Closed” signs on every other pew.  Yes, negativity, darkness, and bad news is out there.  But if we believe in Jesus then we must catch ourselves when we give more attention to the bad news, to the kingdom of darkness, than we do to the Good News and the Kingdom of Light!  We don’t have to be naïve and pollyanish about our own sins and the problems in the world and in the Church.  Sober acknowledgement and challenge of those things is needed.  But be careful!  If we have been claimed for Christ and if we truly live as his disciples then we are a people of the Good News!

You know, right, that “Good News” and “glad tidings” are literal meanings of the word we translate as ‘Gospel’?  This weekend in the Scriptures the little appearances and reminders of Good News jumped out at me.  “Give comfort to my people, says your God.”  “Speak tenderly.”  “In the desert prepare the way of the Lord!  Make straight in the wasteland a highway for our God!”  We should evaluate ourselves.  Think of what others who really know you might really say about you and your attitude, the things you say, the way you act, the things everybody can read on social media.  Are you and I known more for spreading the bad news?  God’s word through Isaiah said, “herald of glad tidings; cry out at the top of your voice… herald of good news!”  I know we have worries.  Legitimate ones.  I know it is easy to be wrapped up in what is going poorly.  I know things can feel like a desert or a wasteland.  But still at the start of a new Church liturgical year, something about the Gospel today caught my attention.  Did you notice how St. Mark gets right to the point?  Whereas other Gospels spend significant space describing the conception, the birth, and the infancy of Jesus, how the whole story began, St. Mark makes a beeline to refer to his writing as the ‘Gospel’: “The beginning of the Gospel,” the first line today said.  Again, that word for Good News and glad tidings.

Brothers and sisters, by faith and by baptism we have been brought into the Kingdom of Light inaugurated in our midst.  Yes, we still await the final fulfilment of that Kingdom in Heaven.  And yes, in this in between time of waiting, so characteristic of Advent, we have to suffer the disorders of our fallen world, we have to suffer our own sins and the sins of those around us.  But we cannot give more thought and attention and energy to the bad news than we do to the Good News that defines us.  Think of it this way: We cannot live as children of the light as effectively as we must if we give more attention to the Devil and his kingdom and the bad news than we do to Jesus and his Kingdom and the Good News.  We have received the message of faith.  We are called to be messengers of the same for others.  “A voice of one crying out in the desert: ‘Prepare the way of the Lord, make straight his paths’.”

Twenty-Eighth Sunday in Ordinary Time

Dominica XXVIII per Annum A
11 October 2020

I want to engage in a thought experiment with you.  Suppose you want to build a new home.  You ask around to get the best contractor you can find.  You are enticed by one builder who comes with many recommendations.  The builder has a great reputation in the region for using some of the best quality materials especially for roofing structures and for safe rooms.  Living in Oklahoma, the reputation for great quality safe rooms and roofing draws you in.  But as you meet and interview the builder you discover that he likes to build his houses on sand.  It seems obvious to you that building on sand is not a good idea but every time you bring it up he keeps insisting that his roofing and safe rooms are of the highest quality in the region.

But does the house stand?  Does the safe room stand especially when you need it most?  These would be your natural and logical questions.  Sure, the materials the builder uses might be the best around, they might somehow be better and more cost-effective than any other builder on the market.  But, doesn’t the foundation matter?  We would likely all say that a builder should have good materials and a sound building plan for a safe room and a roof.  It is good that he has such high-quality materials and reputation for such things.  But… the foundation!  How can you talk about your roofing and safe room materials if the entire foundation of the home is not stable and, in fact, is a false foundation?

The critical importance of a foundation is obvious to us in the material realm, something like a house as I just described.  In fact, I bet most of us would say the builder’s claims and those who celebrate his reputation are absurd.  It makes no sense to sell how good your roofing work is and your safe room materials are when, being built on a poor foundation, the whole thing crumbles anyway.  This same logic consistently applies and should be easily seen in the moral realm too.  Foundations matter.  Fundamental things matter.  First things matter.  You get first things, fundamental things, incorrect and what follows will not have the value it should have, or will not be reliable, because the most fundamental issues are flawed.  A literal house and a figurative moral house cannot stand on a flawed foundation.

Applying this thought experiment to the moral realm I want to offer some comments this weekend on our upcoming elections and our moral duty as Catholics to be involved in the proper ordering of our society by the important task of voting and voting with a well-formed Catholic conscience.

At the outset I need to anticipate the pushback.  This is not an inappropriate topic for a sermon in church.  And it does not violate any perceived tax law regarding tax-exempt institutions and the separation of Church and State.  My words today are about moral principles and platform issues and NOT about any one particular candidate or political party.  Part of the proof for this is that these words today can be applied not only to this year’s election but to any future one.  In other words, this isn’t just about this year.  In fact, still more proof that this is not about any one party or candidate, a portion of what I say today is borrowed (I cut and pasted it) from words I spoke on this topic in the lead up to the 2004 and the 2008 elections – when there were entirely different candidates and when there were some notable differences in the national party platforms.  In other words, the same moral principles apply no matter the election year and no matter the party and no matter the candidates.

Patriotism (I spoke on that back on the July 4th weekend) is a virtue and participating in civic life by voting is one fulfillment of patriotism.  As Christians we do have a responsibility to God to seek to order this world He has made according to the Natural Law and in a way that promotes godly life.  There is separation of Church and State.  That principle seeks to prevent the formation of a state-sponsored official religion, and to prevent a person’s religion being the reason that person flourishes or does not flourish in the State.  Separation of Church and State should not be understood however to mean that religious people or religious values are not welcome in the public square.  It can be very easy for us to be cynical about political life, politicians, and voting.  Especially with national politicians you might hear it said that they are all in bed with lobbyists and big money.  On the flip side, others might claim a politician’s record or platform might appear great but that he or she isn’t really sincere and is just doing the right thing to get votes.  These comments may in fact be true.  But our voting should not be based on personality or presumed insincerity of a given candidate.  I know that if I were to make voting decisions based on whose characteristics are most likable, or just least offensive, I would cast very different votes than voting based on policy.  We should vote based on a candidate’s stated platform, what the record shows he or she is likely to do, and based on those issues that are most critical to the common good and which do not permit, morally speaking, differences of opinion.  In other words, the well-formed Catholic conscience first looks at those issues that are most fundamental and foundational to the common good.  There are some issues in our fallen world that are objective moral absolutes and there are other issues that permit diverse opinion based on prudential judgment.  It’s analogous to the difference between the foundation of a home and those things that come later like a safe room and the roof.

As with any moral matter we must do good and avoid evil.  The same is true when evaluating issues, party platforms, and political candidates.  Some issues involve such a grave disorder of what God has established in creation, such disrespect to fundamental human dignity, that they are always and everywhere immoral and can never be legitimately supported.  Such issues are called intrinsically evil (USCCB, Faithful Citizenship, 22; hereafter FC).  As people of faith our non-negotiable opposition to these is demanded by the gravity of the issues themselves.  A prime example of this is the intentional taking of innocent human life.  Human life and the right to life is the most fundamental human good and it is the condition for all other human rights and goods.  Just as it is not sound reasoning to overlook a home builder’s poor choice to build on sand while advocating his great safe rooms and roofing, likewise it is not good moral reasoning to focus on a platform’s or candidate’s great plans for dealing with poverty and education or other issues if you overlook his support of an intrinsic evil like the taking of innocent human life.  The basic and foundational right to life is the condition for all other goods.  Abortion is always and everywhere an intrinsic evil and while something like euthanasia is also an example of an intrinsically evil violation of human life – by the numbers – abortion kills thousands more lives daily than does euthanasia and so abortion demands more of our scrutiny when voting.  To be sure, the right to life is linked to other rights and other issues in our civic life that either help or harm the flourishing of human life.  However, it is insufficient moral formation to treat the right to life as just one issue among many.  Frankly, a party, or a platform, or a candidate could have the best sounding ideas for other issues related to life (like education and health care) but if all that is predicated on escaping the womb it is a very weak and immoral platform indeed.  “It is a mistake with grave moral consequences to treat the destruction of innocent human life merely as a matter of individual choice. A legal system that violates the basic right to life on the grounds of choice is fundamentally flawed” (FC 22).  Other issues that are intrinsic evils and are non-negotiable for a well-formed Catholic conscience, though not an exhaustive list, are embryonic stem cell research, human cloning, and same-sex marriage.

Often our electoral choices present to us the challenge that one candidate supports one intrinsic evil, while the other candidate supports a different intrinsic evil.  How do we choose between the two?  In such cases we likely have to evaluate the magnitude of the given evil.  As I said earlier, abortion kills far more people and demands more attention and is not equaled by the number of times euthanasia is committed.  For example, I looked at stats from the State of Oregon, a state which permits both abortion and euthanasia.  In 2016, publicly available numbers indicate that 133 deaths were registered due to euthanasia that year versus 8,942 registered due to abortion.  Though both issues are intrinsically evil, when faced with having to make an electoral choice between the two it is clear which issue demands more attention since one is significantly more prevalent than the other.  And what if both candidates support the same intrinsic evil?  In that case, we would have to try to discern which candidate’s platform and record might at least lessen the evil or be less extreme.  In most cases we will find a mixed bag due to each candidate supporting one non-negotiable issue over another.  Thus, we have to evaluate whether a candidate gets it right on the fundamental right to life, and then on other non-negotiable issues try to pick the candidate whose policies would do less harm.  A well-formed Catholic conscience can never cast a good moral vote hoping to advance an intrinsic evil supported by a candidate if you are voting precisely to promote that same intrinsic evil.

Still other issues in our civic life permit a variety of response and are based upon prudential judgment.  They are not classified as non-negotiable issues because they are not intrinsic evils.  We should also be interested in these issues, things like promotion and defense of the public order, addressing poverty, health care, education, respect for the environment, crime, civil rights, judicial appointments, capital punishment, immigration, and international peace.  But, like the roof or the safe room in my analogy, these issues are less fundamental than the basic good of human life.  They do admit a variety of opinions while maintaining a well-formed Catholic conscience.  We do not want to ignore any of these issues.  Yet, we must also recognize there is a hierarchy of issues.  The foundation, the fundamental good of human life comes first. Get that wrong and no matter how good other policies sound really what you have is a house of cards.

As Catholics with a well-formed Catholic conscience we apply these moral principles to party platforms and to particular candidates so as to make the best decisions we can when we vote.  We have dual citizenship.  We are citizens of this country and of this world, the city of man.  Yet, by faith and baptism we are made citizens of heaven.  We are called to order this world in accord with the Natural Law, which anyone with reason can access and know, and we are called to order this world according to the commands of God even as we strive to be prepared to enter the heavenly wedding feast of the Father’s Son.  Among other things, our well-formed conscience and our moral deeds, reflected in our voting, they vest us like the image of the Gospel parable, in the proper wedding garment required of those who are both invited and chosen.

Twenty-third Sunday in Ordinary Time

Dominica XXIII per Annum A
6 September 2020 

This weekend is a most embarrassing Gospel for modern ears.  It’s embarrassing because Jesus encourages and even demands that his disciples commit sin!  Jesus encourages the most grave modern sin that is universally denounced even by non-Christians… he encourages us to meddle in other people’s business and to be “judgmental.”  It’s as if a person’s soul and its eternal destination matters!  Now, I trust you see I am being a bit facetious.  Jesus, who is God, certainly is not encouraging sin.  And though we might be uncomfortable with fraternal correction and though we know in our modern setting that we are almost assuredly going to be denounced for practicing fraternal correction in religious and moral matters, it is NOT sin to correct another.  And, in fact, to confront another whose sin is grave and which places his soul in jeopardy is a serious obligation of charity – not just an idea you might try sometime if you really have to – but a serious obligation of a believer.  It is ironic, no, that in an age that quickly denounces fraternal correction as being judgmental, the same accusers easily and quickly trade in their pious sanctimony and become among the worst offenders who broadcast someone else’s faults, mistakes, and sins to listening ears or all over social media.

Despite the way modern ears may want to reject correction, we must be serious about the lesson from Jesus in this passage that there is an authentic fraternal correction and that it is something we may need to be prepared to do.  Now, to be sure, there can be wrong and bad ways to go about fraternal correction.  And there can be ways to go about it that are in fact being “judgmental”.  But it is equally true, we must admit and be clear, that the mere fact that some attempts at correction can go astray does not mean all attempts at fraternal correction are motivated by judgmentalism.  We certainly know that Jesus is encouraging an authentic fraternal correction that is serious, that is charitable, and that is personal in that it demands a sincere human encounter and interaction with a brother or sister.  Failure to do fraternal correction in a good and a holy way is easy to spot.  Going up to someone guilty of grave sin and initiating the contact by claiming he or she is going to hell is not likely to go well.  We can all think of images of true failures – even sinful failures at correction.  Have you seen images of some of those radical groups who claim to be Christian and who show up to protest at funerals or other gatherings, holding huge placards announcing how God hates certain people, or how God rejoices in the death of certain people?  Jesus does not encourage us to do that.  Yet, he also doesn’t encourage us to be weak.  And in an age that prizes individualism and is marked by relativism, as if each person is the center and arbiter of his own absolute moral truth, we must admit that we are in fact called to confront sin.  And we are called to do so in a specific way and with the heart of Christ.

This fraternal correction harkens back to some of the earliest biblical evidence for the common responsibility we have for one another.  We can note the biblical account of the brothers Cain and Abel.  When Cain killed his brother out of jealousy and God asked Cain where his brother was, Cain famously asked, “Am I my brother’s keeper” (cf. Gen. 4:9)?  God rejected that claim.  None of us is alone or an island unto ourselves.  We are brought into relationship and into community and we have responsibility to one another.  You can see why the first reading from the Prophet Ezekiel was selected and placed with the Gospel passage for this Sunday.  Here the Prophet Ezekiel is told that part of his duty is to be a watchman and someone who warns others.  If a wicked person is committing evil and the prophet does not speak out and attempt to convert the evil doer, God says the evil doer will die as is appropriate for his sin, but what’s more, the prophet will be held responsible for the death.  We are responsible for one another.  This lesson comes to deeper development in the instruction of Jesus in today’s Gospel passage about fraternal correction.

Now certainly these Scripture lessons have a direct and most serious application to the service of those who are prophets and, in the case of the Gospel, the apostles.  By extension this serves as instruction for those who follow after the apostles in shepherding Christ’s flock.  Thus, bishops and priests have a most serious obligation here.  And would that more in their ranks exhibited a noticeable courage to be watchmen in the Church for the salvation of souls.  We can and should pray for that.  And we should find charitable ways to motivate our shepherds to such courage.  But, by extension, we can apply this call to fraternal correction to others in the Body of Christ, as a call to all Christians to be so committed to the salvation of souls that we seek to speak out when we encounter a brother or sister in the faith sinning gravely.  Imagine the good that can be done for a soul when parents and family members speak out when a child is straying from the faith, supporting immoral lifestyles, cohabiting with a dating partner, or marrying outside the Church.  Imagine the good that can be done when a believer speaks to a friend and encourages a deeper conversion to the faith.  Imagine the good that can be done when a parent encourages a child or a friend encourages another person to go to confession or to be more faithful in attending Holy Mass.  And sometimes it’s the inverse.  It is a child who becomes the inspiration to the adults to draw closer to Christ.

No matter how uncomfortable we might be with fraternal correction and no matter how modern society might dismiss it as being judgmental, a lesson for us today is that we are our brother’s keeper and that to be a believer united to Jesus Christ as a member of his Body not only means that I myself must separate myself from sin and repent, but also that I must be concerned to see others in the community likewise leave sin behind.  We cannot be a part of Christ if we are not apart from sin.  See what I just did there?  In fact, acknowledging our own sinfulness, making regular use of confession, and having zeal to change our own ways likely helps us also be in the best position to approach a fellow disciple who needs correction, and to do so with the mind of Christ.

Some things stand out in this Gospel about how we are to approach this duty of fraternal correction.  First, we must note that we are speaking here of serious sin.  Sin that if not stopped places a person outside of the fold of the Church.  That’s why Jesus says, if they won’t listen even to the Church treat them as a Gentile or a tax collector.  That is, someone cut off and excluded from community.  Jesus is not encouraging us to be busybodies about smaller or lesser sins.  Yes, it’s obnoxious that a fellow disciple lied and claimed to not get your email.  Yes, it would be better if a disciple did not drop a colorful word.  Yes, it’s annoying that a fellow parishioner promised to bring the brownies to the meeting and then didn’t even both to show up!  This is not what Jesus is talking about.  He’s talking about serious sin that cuts someone off from the community.  Things like fornication outside of marriage, adultery, serious theft, using God’s Name in vain, idolatry and worship of false gods, not being in a valid marriage, etc.  Second, note how personal this is.  Don’t go broadcasting someone’s sin.  Jesus tells us to go to the person and he repeatedly reminds us this is a ‘brother.’  Go speak to the person alone.  If he won’t listen, then take one or two others.  If he still won’t listen then bring in the authority of the Church.  Have a direct personal encounter.  Let your brother or sister see your concern and hear from your heart of your love and concern for a gravely sinful situation.  I think the injunction to personal encounter here is instructive.  You have to have courage and own your concern and exhibit charity in order to look someone in the eyes and raise an uncomfortable topic.  It is comparatively easy and weak to do what most people do: avoiding touch issues altogether, trolling in the darkness online, assassinating someone’s character in tweets and facebook posts.  This is not Christian behavior.  Third, note the context here.  This Gospel passage fits in with what preceded and the lesson of seeking out what is lost.  What is the value underlying and motivating the confrontation of a sinner?  The motivation is not being “right” or showing yourself to have some imagined doctrinal or moral superiority.  Rather, what motivates the confrontation is the value of a fellow disciple, a human soul made in God’s image and likeness, the object of God’s love for whom He desires salvation.  This value can be seen in the Gospel language of having “won over” your brother.  The value is not the being right but gaining or winning a soul.  Finally, the goal of Jesus’ instruction is preventing a grave sinner from continuing in his sin with an unrepentant heart.  He invites us who are members of his Body to share in his mission to call others to repentance in order to have salvation.

When it comes down to it, do you believe that Jesus is God?  And do you believe that we must change our ways and be conformed to him to have salvation?  If you do, then fraternal correction really isn’t all that controversial.  If you don’t, well, today’s psalm spoke about a hardened heart.