Homily — 21^st Sunday in Ordinary Time, Year B

Fr. Timothy W. Castor

Today we conclude our five-week meditation upon the sixth chapter of St. John’s Gospel—the Bread of Life Discourse. We reached the climax of this most profound teaching of our Lord last week when he made known that he intended to give us his flesh and blood to be our food and drink: "unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man," he told his disciples, "and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.... for my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink." We know that he was speaking of the Most Holy Eucharist which he instituted on the night before he was crucified. And, because of his promise, we know that every time the Holy Mass is validly celebrated, the sacrifice of Calvary is made present to us, and the bread and wine are changed, through the miracle of transubstantiation, into the living Body and Blood of Jesus Christ our Lord. Through this marvelous gift, we share in the fruits of the Cross—our Lord’s most perfect act of love.

Today we hear the reaction of Jesus’ disciples—both the Twelve and the larger crowd of people who followed him and listened to his words. We find that, among this second group, there were many who simply could not believe this teaching: "This saying is hard;" they said, "who can accept it?" And, in what must be one of the most heartbreaking verses in Scripture, the Gospel goes on to relate, "As a result of this, many of his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him." It’s interesting to note that Jesus doesn’t call them back; and he doesn’t retract his words. They understood him correctly, but what they lacked was the gift of faith. As Jesus explains, "it is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are Spirit and life." In other words, this teaching originates, not from the human intellect, but from the Holy Spirit. No mere man could have thought this up, and it cannot be understood in human and natural categories. This is why the gift of faith is necessary in order to believe these truths and to put them into practice. This gift was given to the Twelve (at least to all but Judas), as is evident in Peter’s beautiful confession of faith, "Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God."

"This saying is hard"—and I’m sure it was no less difficult for the Twelve to accept than it was for the multitude. But Peter and the others put their faith in Jesus; they trusted in his word and submitted to it even if they could not completely grasp it’s meaning at the time. This is not the only hard saying in our Faith. Throughout history, difficult doctrines have perplexed the Christian faithful and have been the occasion of many divisions and schisms in the Church. Individuals, finding a particular teaching hard to accept, have left the unity of faith, sometimes taking many thousands of souls with them. Completely new churches and religions have started in this way. And this pattern began right here at this moment in our Lord’s life on earth. So, while it is always distressing when division occurs, it should never be surprising. Truth is an objective reality—it is not something to be decided by each individual. But sometimes the truth is hard to accept and each individual must decide whether he or she will order their life in accord with the truth.

Even within the Church herself and among those who consider themselves faithful Catholics there is dissent and controversy over hard teachings. Nowadays, it’s usually not points of theology that are disputed, rather it is the moral teachings of the Church which many find hard to accept. Especially in the area of sexual morality—issues of marriage and family life—there’s much disagreement with the Church’s teaching. We live in a society which opposes Catholic teaching in these areas at almost every turn, and it’s difficult to resist the steady pressure of society’s mores. For example, the Church has always taught that sex outside of marriage is a grave moral evil. But our present-day society loudly maintains that fornication is a delightful pastime to be enjoyed by all. Many Catholics have bought into this philosophy, [and even follow the world’s example of living together before marriage. This used to be called "living in sin," an expression which seems to have little or no meaning anymore.] The Church clearly teaches that artificial contraception is strictly forbidden because this frustrates God’s design for sexual union in marriage. But many Catholics simply cannot or will not listen to the Church on this matter. "This saying is hard;" they say, "who can accept it?" It is a hard saying, I don’t deny it. But with faith and God’s grace it’s a teaching that brings life and true happiness. Just ask any of the many couples in our own area who follow this teaching in their lives and have put into practice the principles of natural family planning. They will tell you that being obedient to the Church has brought them great peace and joy, and has even drawn them closer together as a couple.

We could spend a lot of time discussing these and many other points of sexual morality. But I’d like to take a few moments to address a particular issue which has been much in the news lately: homosexual unions or same-sex marriages. Our society seems to be strongly leaning in the direction of approving these unions; and in many parts of the world, and even some parts of our own country, lawmakers have given same-sex marriages legal recognition. Unless you’ve been living under a rock for the last few weeks, I’m sure you’re aware that one major Christian denomination in this country has even approved the consecration of a bishop who is openly living in a homosexual relationship with another man. In so doing, this particular denomination has not only expressed its toleration for this kind of behavior, but has lifted it up as a model for its members to follow—a perfectly normal and acceptable alternative to traditional marriage.

As faithful Catholics, this should horrify us (as it horrifies many of the good members of this very denomination). Our second reading today speaks of the true nature of marriage, especially Christian marriage. It is a union between one man and one woman; it is founded on love, equal dignity, and mutual submission; and it is a reflection of Christ’s love for the Church. But there are many who are perplexed and confused. They find the arguments of those who promote same-sex marriage to be very convincing and difficult to answer. Some have even been persuaded that such unions ought to be accorded equal rights under our law, and they consider the opposition of the Catholic Church to be—once again—a hard saying which no one can accept.

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith at the Vatican has recently issued a document addressing this question. It has the rather ponderous title, "Considerations regarding proposals to give legal recognition to unions between homosexual persons." The document is really much easier to read and understand than the title might suggest. I highly recommend that, if you’re confused by this issue, you visit the Vatican web site and carefully read the arguments presented in this document. But for now, I will try, briefly, to summarize the Church’s teaching; and in doing so, I will be quoting heavily from this document, which, although it is a new document, contains no new teaching—it is merely a reiteration of what the Church has always taught in this regard.

It begins by reaffirming the true nature of marriage that it "is not just any relationship between human beings," but that "it was established by the Creator with its own nature, essential properties and purpose. No ideology can erase from the human spirit the certainty that marriage exists solely between a man and woman, who by mutual personal gift, proper and exclusive to themselves, tend toward the communion of their persons. In this way, they mutually perfect each other, in order to cooperate with God in the procreation and upbringing of new human lives." The physical and spiritual complementarity of man and woman, and the fact that their union brings forth new life, show that it is the intention of the Creator that marriage as an institution foster this complementarity and fruitfulness. Homosexual acts are condemned in Scripture, in tradition, and in most human cultures, precisely because they are contrary to nature—they are contrary to the way in which the human person is created. By nature, homosexual relationships lack the complementarity and fruitfulness that are meant to exist between a husband and wife. For this reason, the document states that "there are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family. Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law. Homosexual acts close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved."

However, the teaching of the Church makes a distinction between homosexual acts (which are always gravely sinful) and the homosexual orientation. Those who are afflicted with this disorder (and it is a disorder in the same sense that any physical or mental disability is a disorder) "must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. They are called, like other Christians, to live the virtue of chastity."

The document then addresses the specific question of granting legal recognition to same-sex unions, and argues against this practice from four different perspectives: from the order of right reason, from the biological and anthropological order, from the social order, and from the legal order. From the order of right reason, the Church argues that "every humanly-created law is legitimate insofar as it is consistent with the natural moral law, recognized by right reason, and insofar as it respects the inalienable rights of every person." We’ve already seen that homosexual acts are contrary to natural law, therefore it is not possible for civil law to recognize and legitimize these same acts. This would be harmful to the common good because "legal recognition of homosexual unions would obscure certain basic moral values and cause a devaluation of the institution of marriage."

From the biological and anthropological order the Church argues that homosexual unions "are not able to contribute in a proper way to the procreation and survival of the human race." In other words, it is just not possible for these unions, on their own, to bring forth new life. Furthermore, if persons in such unions were permitted to adopt children, "the absence of sexual complementarity in these unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children.... They would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood. Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development."

The document argues from the social order that "society owes its continued survival to the family, founded on marriage." Giving legal recognition to homosexual unions would redefine marriage to the detriment of the common good. Genuine marital unions, and the families they produce, are accorded special rights and privileges in law because of their unique role in society—human society depends, for its very survival, on marriage and family. This does not deny anyone’s fundamental freedom to live whatever life they choose to live. Marriage between a man and woman is not merely a lifestyle choice—it represents a positive contribution to the whole of society. And as such, it "can receive specific and categorical legal recognition by the state." The same cannot be said for homosexual unions. In fact, from everything else we’ve considered, it can certainly be argued "that such unions are harmful to the proper development of human society."

Finally, from the legal order, the document states very simply, "Because married couples insure the succession of generations and our therefore eminently within the public interest, civil law grants them institutional recognition. Homosexual unions, on the other hand, do not need specific attention from the legal standpoint since they do not exercise this function for the common good." Does this mean that homosexual persons are denied their civil rights? Absolutely not, because, just like any citizen, "they can always make use of the provisions of law... to protect their rights in matters of common interest."

After pointing out the responsibility of Catholics in public office to oppose the passage of legislation approving same-sex unions, the document concludes with these words:

The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behavior or to legal recognition of homosexual unions. The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society. Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behavior, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity. The Church cannot fail to defend these values, for the good of men and women and for the good of society itself.

So how did we go from the bread of life to same-sex marriage? They are hard sayings—difficult teachings of our faith which set us apart, as Catholics, from the rest of humanity. Increasingly, I’m convinced that the distinction between faithful Catholics and the culture in which we live will become sharper and deeper. And, as in times past and in other societies, this distinction may well lead to persecution. To remain faithful to the truth, however, this is the price we must pay. In today’s first reading, Joshua spoke to the people of Israel as they entered the promised land: "If it does not please you to serve the Lord, decide today whom you will serve, the gods your fathers served beyond the River or the gods of the Amorites in whose country you are now dwelling. As for me and my household we will serve the Lord."

© 2003, The Rev. Timothy W. Castor