Human dignity and the mission of the Church

Homily: 27^th Sunday in Ordinary Time – Cycle B

Friends, when we listen to our Scriptures today we can see that they are inviting us to consider God’s plan for marriage: that, “from the beginning” God made humankind male and female and that marriage—the union of man and woman in an indissoluble bond—is so fundamental to human nature, that it causes persons to break the natural bonds of family to enter into it.  I think that if we look a little more closely, however, we can see that these readings speak to us of something even deeper.

Within this exposition of God’s plan for marriage, we see revealed something of the dignity of humankind.  In our reading from the Book of Genesis we begin by hearing God, having just created man, exclaim “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a suitable partner for him.”  Then God creates the animals of the earth and presents them to the man, none of which prove to be a “suitable partner”.  Saint John Paul II, in his Theology of the Body, explains to us that God, in this story, is not some “bumbling inventor” trying to impress the man and failing before he comes up with the “genius idea” to make one “equal” to him to be his partner.  Rather, God is slowly revealing to the man something very important about himself: that he is not one unique type of animal, otherwise equal to them; but rather he is above them, more like God than the other animals.  This “original solitude”, as Saint John Paul II calls it—man recognizing that he is alone and without a “suitable partner” among the animals—is a sign of that fact.  The “suitable partner”, therefore, is the one who is “bone of his bones and flesh of his flesh”, that is, one who is equal to him: a human person.

This idea is further shown to us in the reading from the Letter to the Hebrews.  There, the author reminds us that Jesus came to live as one of us so that “he might taste death for everyone”: meaning that he would pay the price for our sins so that we might be restored to communion with God, which we lost through the sin of our first parents.  The author reveals that Jesus did this because he is “of the same origin” of those who he saved.  “He who consecrates and those who are being consecrated all have one origin”, he wrote, reflecting what was revealed to us through the creation story of the book of Genesis: that we are not just one type of animal among the others, but that we are above them, more like God than the other animals.

Friends, that Jesus, the Son of God, who is God himself, came to save us from sin and eternal death because he is “of the same origin” as us is not news to us (or, at least, it shouldn’t be).  What we sometimes forget, however, is that Jesus did not just come to save us (although that was his primary mission).  Rather, he also came to establish a Church to be the place where humankind would be reminded of this truth that sin has caused him to forget: that we have a particular dignity above the other creatures and that our destiny is not in this world, but in a world yet unknown to us, in which we will come to know God face to face: a dignity not afforded to any of the other animals.

            Ever since Christ’s ascension, the Church has proclaimed this truth that had been forgotten by man.  Today, this continues so that every person might rediscover their original dignity and order their lives in such a way so as to realize the end for which they were made: eternal life with God.  This proclamation happens though an enduring structure that helps ensure that this mission is as widespread as possible.  Our diocese, the Diocese of Lafayette-in-Indiana provides for this mission here in north-central Indiana.  As a parish, we are here because of a diocese (originally, the diocese of Vincennes, then the diocese of Fort Wayne, and now, for the past 74 years, the diocese of Lafayette-in-Indiana).  It is through the diocese that we realize that we are connected to something bigger, something truly universal.

As a parish, we have a responsibility and a capacity to reach many persons with this saving message; but we can’t reach everyone.  Through the diocese, persons who might not otherwise be touched by this saving message, or efficiencies that might not otherwise be realized, are made possible for us.  One perennial example is Catholic ministries at universities in our diocese.  Saint Thomas Aquinas parish on Purdue’s campus, Saint Francis of Assisi parish on Ball State’s Campus, and the Newman Center ministry on Wabash College’s campus are all supported by funds provided by the diocese because, as all of you well know, I’m sure, none of them could survive on contributions provided by students alone.

Further, the diocesan offices help support parishes by providing resources to help each parish accomplish its mission: its various offices helping to provide and support priests for every parish, administrative support (from human resources, to payroll, to IT support, and beyond), and pastoral support: so that parishes with less resources don’t always have to “re-invent the wheel” to provide quality ministry to those whom they serve.

Therefore, we, as Catholics, have a responsibility to our parish and, because of our parish, to the diocese.  The biennial Fruitful Harvest Appeal is our opportunity to directly help the Bishop in his ministries—ministries that we could not provide on our own—and the administration of the diocese as a whole: without which we would not exist as a parish.  It is fundamental that we support Fruitful Harvest so that this mission to bring this radical message of the dignity of each human person, redeemed as they have been in Christ, to all who are in need of hearing it continues (even if we, ourselves, may be in need of hearing it again).

As a sign of our recognition of our responsibility to the Bishop, and of our gratefulness to God that we have this diocese through which we connect with him, we are all invited to offer our pledges here today at Mass to be united to the sacrifice of the Eucharist that will be presented on this altar.  If you received your pledge card in the mail and have already returned it, THANK YOU!  If you brought your pledge card with you today, great.  In a few moments we will collect it from you.  If you forgot your pledge card, but still want to make your pledge with us here today, or if you didn’t receive a pledge card in the mail, but want to be included, please use one of the blank cards in the pew.  We’ll give you a couple of minutes to fill it out before taking up the collection.  When the ushers come forward, please place your cards—sealed in the envelopes—into the baskets.  Please be generous.  In this difficult time for God’s Church, your gifts are sign of faith that the Church is Jesus Christ’s and not man’s and that its mission to proclaim to each person their exalted dignity must continue.

On behalf of Bishop Doherty and his staff, thank you for your generosity.  May God bless each of us as we Walk Together in the Light of Christ.

Given at Saint Mary’s Cathedral: Lafayette, IN – October 6^th & 7^th, 2018

Covering our faults with mercy

Homily: 31^st Sunday in Ordinary Time – Cycle C

          There’s a story about a married couple—I’m not sure what their names were, but let’s call them Lawrence and Sarah—who had been married 15 years.  Larry and Sarah began to have more than the usual trouble that married couples have and they started to feel as if they had lost their way and that their marriage was in crisis.  Neither of them was ready to give up on the marriage, however, so they both decided to work on it.  Sarah had an idea of how to turn things around.  Her idea was to make a box: one for Larry and one for her.  The boxes were “Fault Boxes” and the idea was that every time either Larry or Sarah was irritated by something the other one did, he or she would write what that was on a slip of paper and drop it in the box.  Then, when the other one saw what had been written, he or she would be aware of many of the ways that he or she created tension between them.

          Both Sarah and Larry were diligent in filling out the little slips of paper.  Then, after doing this for a month, the couple sat down after dinner one night to open their boxes and review all of the little slips.  As Larry flipped through the pieces of paper he read things like “leaving the jelly top off of the jar,” “wet towels on the bathroom floor,” “dirty socks not in the hamper,” and on and on.  Larry began to think seriously about how the little things to which he didn’t pay much attention were creating big problems in his wife’s heart.  Sarah then opened her box and began to read the little slips.  They all said the same thing.  On each slip of paper that Larry dropped in the box he wrote, simply, “I love you.”  Needless, perhaps, to say, but the crisis ended right there.

          What Larry demonstrated was the power of mercy.  You see, it wasn’t that he didn’t think that Sarah had any faults, nor was it that he was trying to get her to ignore his own faults, but rather it was that he decided to cover over those faults with mercy.  And isn’t this exactly what God does with us?  In the Book of Wisdom, today’s first reading, we read: “For you love all things that are and loathe nothing that you have made; for what you hated, you would not have fashioned… But you spare all things, because they are yours, O Lord and lover of souls, for your imperishable spirit is in all things!”  God loves everything that he has made, especially each one of us!  And so, even though he sees all of our faults, he strives to cover over them with mercy.

          Yet how often do we think that God looks at us like Sarah looked at Larry, like a bag of faults that need to be fixed?  He knows that we do!  But this is one of the many reasons why he sent his Son to take on our human nature: so that, by the way he treated us as he walked among us, we could know how he has always treated us, which is how he will always treat us.  And this great story of Jesus and Zacchaeus the tax collector that we heard in our Gospel reading is just one example.

          Zacchaeus was a grave sinner in the eyes of all because he was a tax collector, which meant that he was a collaborator with the Romans who were occupying their land.  Tax collectors didn’t get paid from the Romans, so they added fees to the taxes they collected in order to make money.  These were completely unregulated, so tax collectors often made themselves wealthy by taking advantage of their kinsman, thus making them despised all the more.  Zacchaeus, the Gospel says, was a chief tax collector, which meant that he was particularly despised by the people.  Perhaps this is why, when Jesus came to pass through Jericho, Zacchaeus, who was very curious about him and, thus, wanted to see him, wasn’t concerned about how funny it must have looked for him, a grown man, to climb up into a tree so that he could see him: he had given up his concern about public opinion long ago.

          Perhaps Jesus noticed him in the tree and asked about him; or perhaps his disciples noticed him and decided to tell Jesus about him.  Either way, Jesus came to know who he was and, perhaps, some of his story: especially how he had become wealthy as a tax collector.  Jesus had a decision to make, however.  Would he focus on Zacchaeus’ faults or would he cover over his faults with mercy?  I think that we see, of course, that Jesus did the latter: inviting himself to Zacchaeus’ house so that he could express God’s love for him and, thus, urge him to leave off any sinful dealings in his life.  Thus, having been treated with mercy, Zacchaeus converts his life and promises to make restitution for his unjust dealings.  In other words, the crisis of whether or not Zacchaeus might be lost to sin forever ended when Jesus covered over his faults with mercy.

          My brothers and sisters, in so many ways, this is exactly why Pope Frances called for Jubilee Year of Mercy: he wanted us to experience anew how God covers over our faults with mercy.  More than that, however, he wanted us to learn anew that our experience of God’s mercy is an experience that is meant to be shared.  In other words, the Pope hopes that, through our experience of the Father’s mercy, we will become “merciful like the Father”, as the motto for the Year of Mercy reads.

          Friends, this experience of mercy comes to us every time that we celebrate the Holy Eucharist.  As we approach this altar today, let us open our hearts to experience God’s mercy anew once again—the experience of God seeing our faults and covering them with love—so that we might go forth from here ready to share that experience with everyone until the day we all are one with our merciful Father in heaven.

Given at All Saints Parish: Logansport, IN – October 29^th, 2016

The gates of the netherworld shall not prevail

          I cannot chalk it up to anything but God's providence that a federal judge in Indiana would declare it unconstitutional to deny same-sex couples marriage licenses in this state during the Fortnight For Freedom and when we are celebrating the feast of the Church's greatest martyrs, Saints Peter and Paul.  It provided a great opportunity for me to speak about how our faithfulness to God and the mission we have received from him will keep us under God's sovereignty, in spite of whatever our government tries to throw at us.  Therefore be bold!  Confess the truth about God and the human person, in love, wherever you are and you, too, will come to share the crown of righteousness!

          Click here to read the Indiana Bishops' statement regarding this week's ruling.  Take note of what they highlight as the difference between what we know as marriage and what our courts are trying to define it as.  If you are married, you should make sure that your marriage falls on the correct side of that distinction.

------------------------------------------------

Homily: Saints Peter and Paul, Apostles – Cycle A

          Well, my friends, let’s face it.  When it comes to national politics, Indiana just isn’t on anybody’s radar.  If you’ve been around for a while and have been through a few election cycles, you’ll know that the words “Indiana” and “swing state” or “critical to this election” are almost never uttered in the same sentence.  Although big in size, we just don’t have enough people to make a difference one way or another.  Oh sure, perhaps one of our senate seats will be up for grabs and the outcome of that race might be important for which party has the majority, like it was in the last election cycle, but other than that Indiana doesn’t get a lot of air play on the national scene.

          The ancient Jewish nation of Judah experienced much of the same thing during the time of the early Church.  Occupied by the Roman Empire, the nation that, at different times in its history, was a powerful nation in the area was simply a small outpost along the Roman trade route with Egypt.  Nothing that happened there really made news elsewhere in the Roman Empire.

          Unlike other empires before them, the Roman Empire didn’t try to wipe out the culture of the peoples that they conquered.  Rather, they kept the local government intact, as long as it made itself obedient to Caesar.  Thus, during the time of Jesus and the early Church, a Jew named Herod was still in place as the King of Judah, in spite of the Roman occupation.

          Now Herod knew that his place as king was a tenuous one.  Many of the Jews were not happy with the Roman occupation and it looked like Herod wasn’t trying to do anything about it.  Yet he knew that to try and do anything against them would mean almost certain destruction—both for the nation and for himself—so he walked the line between the two.

          This followed into his dealings with Jewish religious life.  John the Baptizer had made quite a stir with his teachings; and when Herod let himself get tricked into having him killed, he knew that it didn’t bode well with the people.  And so when Jesus came his way, he basically ignored him, sending him back to Pilate to be judged.

          The nascent group of Jesus’ followers, however, was causing a real stir in Judah and so, increasingly, Herod knew that he was going to have to act.  When he did take a firm action and had James the Apostle killed, he found that the people, in general, were pleased with this and, thus, that it boosted his image.  Emboldened by this, he then had Peter arrested so as to convict and execute him as well.  Perhaps he thought that if he worked swiftly and decisively against these followers of Jesus that he would get noticed by Rome (and at least secure his place as King of Judah).

          A federal judge here in Indiana has, in a way, done much of the same thing in this past week.  Seeing that bans on giving marriage licenses to couples of the same sex were being ruled “unconstitutional” in states across the nation, he ruled the same here in Indiana.  Now, I cannot stand here and claim that this was in any way an attempt by this judge to grab notoriety.  I don’t know anything about him except that he is the judge that ruled that Indiana’s ban on giving marriage licenses to same-sex couples is “unconstitutional”.  Nevertheless, it does seem to me to be an example of someone who might not otherwise tread out into tumultuous waters such as these being emboldened to do so because he sees that it is “pleasing to the people”.

          With Peter and Paul, however, we see that it wasn’t the political power that had the last word.  Although after having Peter arrested Herod had him bound and guarded tighter than any other criminal, God intervened and provided for Peter’s escape.  Of course, we know that this would be only a temporary escape and that in the not-so-distant future Peter would find himself in Rome where he would be crucified on the Vatican hill.  Nevertheless, this was a clear sign that God was in control and that he would not let Peter be martyred until he had finished the mission he had given him.

          In Paul’s letter to Timothy he speaks of how he, too, was delivered by God so that he could “finish the race”—that is, complete his mission here on earth.  He speaks of the Lord standing by him and giving him strength and of how the Lord rescued him “from the lion’s mouth” when all of his companions had abandoned him, so that “the proclamation might be completed”; which, for Paul, also led him to Rome where he, too, would be martyred.  These were meant to be proofs, both to Peter and to Paul—and to the Church and to those who were persecuting it—that God’s mission for these men (and, thus, the Church) would not be thwarted by the powers of this world.

          And this is the message that comes to us at this dangerous moment in the life of our nation (and, now, our state).  The powers that be continue to make decisions that undermine the institutions that are the foundations of our society.  These decisions are already negatively affecting the Church.  Catholic adoption agencies in states where couples of the same sex are given licenses to marry are forced to close their doors when federal funding is taken away from them because they refuse to place children in homes of same-sex couples.  Catholic health care institutions throughout the country are threatened by the Health and Human Services mandate that all employers must provide contraception in their employee’s health benefits.  Now, what constitutes a family is being completely redefined and it would be naïve to think that this will not, eventually, affect the Church.

          Yet what we celebrate today is that the sovereignty of God is greater than our fault-filled attempts to govern ourselves.  Just as God would not let Peter or Paul be martyred before their mission on earth was complete, so too he will not let these evil powers prevail against us until our mission here is complete.  We will only see that, however, if we remain faithful to our mission, like Peter and Paul did.  If we do, then we will be able to say, like Paul, that, even though we are “being poured out like a libation”, we know that the “crown of righteousness awaits [us]”; because we have “competed well” and have “finished the race”.  And, thus, we, too, will know that Jesus’ promise to Peter is true: for the “gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against [us]”.

          This, my brothers and sisters, is what we celebrate today: that, through Jesus, evil has been conquered, even if it still exists today; and that in his Church, founded on the pillars of the Apostles Peter and Paul, we are secure.  But, if we are secure, it is only so that we can fulfill our mission: the work of building up his kingdom that he has given to each one of us.

          Therefore, my brothers and sisters, we cannot lay idle.  Rather, we must finish the race.  Let us not think that we are too small to make a difference: for Peter was an uneducated fisherman, unqualified to lead, yet qualified by his faith in Christ, and Paul, although learned, was also a great sinner who, by God’s grace, turned from his effort to destroy the Church to become its greatest builder.  Each of us can and will make a difference if we remain faithful to our call and finish the race.  Fed and strengthened by this Eucharist—and by our support of one another—we cannot fail to finish it.

          Let us, then, take courage to continue to speak boldly the truths about God and the human person which God has revealed to us in Jesus Christ, and to act on them by serving one another, so that, when we have finished the race, we, too, might receive the “crown of righteousness” that both Peter and Paul received: the gift of eternal life.

Given at All Saints Parish: Logansport, IN – June 29^th, 2014

The Solemnity of Saints Peter and Paul, Apostles

50 years of love

          This past Saturday, I had the joy of celebrating a Mass of Thanksgiving for my Aunt Fran and Uncle Dick on the occasion of their 50th wedding anniversary.  50 years for any couple is an amazing achievement, but when it happens in your own family it is something special.  It was great to see so many of my cousins and their families, whom I rarely see these days, and to be able to offer Mass in thanksgiving to God for the grace that has sustained Aunt Fran and Uncle Dick these past 50 years.  Below is the homily I gave for the Mass.

Here's to many more years of faithful perseverance in love!

----------------------------------------------

50^th Anniversary Mass Homily: Richard and Frances Hakey

Gn 2:18-24; Eph 5:2a, 21-33; Mt 19:3-6

          Now I suspect that I might surprise some of you here when I say that, even after 50 years of marriage, Fran and Dick have what I would call a “modern” marriage.  Yeah, I know that they got married at the time when the Mass was still in Latin and that I seem to remember them having dinosaurs for pets (oh wait, that was the Flintstones).  No, even knowing that, I’d still call their marriage “modern”.  Because, you see, Fran and Dick, I would guess, married each other for love; and “marriage for love” is, actually, a somewhat modern thing.

          Just take a look at any ancient account of marriage.  What were they done for?  They were done to create political alliances between nations/kingdoms; or they were done to help bolster a family economically; which, of course, meant that they were almost always arranged and, thus, that the bride and groom almost never married because of love.  In the 19^th century, however, the “modern” period of history emerged: ushered in by the Enlightenment and a new focus on the liberty of the individual.  One of the consequences of that focus was that men and women now saw marriage as primarily for themselves, instead of being a way to advance one’s family or kingdom.  Thus, “marriage for love” also emerged.

          As human persons, we all know love in some way, and we know that love always involves at least two things: someone who loves and an object being loved.  Further, I would guess that most of us can tell the difference between the superficial love we have of things, such as coffee, chocolate, or a delicious steak, and the love that we have for other people.  I would even venture to say that those of us self-styled as “pet lovers” would still be able to distinguish between the love we have for Snoopy, Rufus, Fluffy, and Mr. Pickles and the love we have for our wives, our husbands, our children, and our close friends.  We recognize that the deepest, most authentic love is something that is shared equally, and that even the most loyal dog or loving cat, or even the most decadent slice of Ghirardelli chocolate cheesecake, cannot return our love to us as equally as we can give it.

          Thus we hear in the reading from the book of Genesis that the “suitable partner for the man” was not found in the wild animals and birds of the air, but in the woman, who was “bone of his bones and flesh of his flesh”—in other words, his equal—and that it is for this reason that “a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife…”  And so, perhaps “marriage for love”, even though it has emerged only recently in history, was how God meant for it to be all along?

          Anyone who has been married for 50 years can tell you that love of this kind—that is, true, authentic love—is not a feeling, but a choice: the choice to do whatever is truly good for another even when there seems to be no advantage in it for one’s self (or even, perhaps, when it seems to be detrimental to one’s self).  With this understanding, then, “marriage for love” is to feel so strongly a desire for another person’s happiness that one is willing to make a life-long commitment of working towards that end and, thus, that “marriage for love” is most perfect when that desire is shared by two persons who hold that desire for each other.

          And so when Saint Paul says that wives should be subordinate to their husbands, he’s not saying so because he’s trying to uphold some unequal cultural power structure between men and women, but rather he’s instructing them on how best to love them.  In other words, wives love their husbands best when they get behind and support their husband’s “program of life.”  And what is that?  Loving their wives as Christ loved the Church.  And how did Christ love the Church?  By handing his life over completely for her so that she might be made holy: “without spot or wrinkle or any such thing”.  (Wives, doesn’t this sound like a project that you could get behind?)  Therefore, the husband is to hand his life over—that is, to sacrifice all of his personal ambitions—so that his wife will become holy; and the wife is to get behind this project, thus sacrificing all of her personal ambitions as well so that she can be made holy; and in doing so she in turn supports her husband’s own path to holiness, for no one can hand over his life for the good of another without himself becoming holy.  And isn’t sainthood—that is, eternal holiness—what we’re all here for?  (This truly is a “great mystery”, isn’t it?)

          Fran and Dick, I hope that I am correct in stating that you indeed did marry for love; and that the love for which you married resembles in some way what I’ve described here.  If so, and even so, I would say that, while you married for love, you remained married for these past 50 years by grace.  True love, as I’ve described it here, is hard and so God’s grace is needed in order to persevere.  Your faith in God, and in his abiding love for us in Jesus, his Son, and your fidelity to the sacraments, most especially to the sacraments of the Holy Eucharist and Reconciliation, have provided the grace to remain faithful throughout these 50 years and thus to celebrate the fruits of this grace: being surrounded by your children and your children’s children.

          And so you come here today surrounded by loved ones to give thanks to God for the grace that has worked in and through you and to ask for his continued blessings on you in the years to come.  On behalf of everyone here, let me say “thank you” to you for your great witness of faith and love over these past 50 years.  May this witness, strengthened by this Eucharist, inspire each of us to be faithful to our vocations to love so that when our Lord Jesus returns he will find us holy and thus ready to be welcomed to the eternal banquet he has prepared for us in heaven.

Given at Saint Patrick’s Parish: Joliet, IL – October 5^th, 2013

Three reasons why marriage is unique

          Ok, so I'm very late in posting my homily from last weekend.  It's kind of heavy lifting, but give it a shot.  I think that it reads better than it preaches, so perhaps this is a better medium for it.

(P.S. Doug and Jenny... I hope you don't mind me using you as an example!)

----------------------------------------------

Homily: Trinity Sunday – Cycle C

          As human persons, we all know love in some way, and we know that love always involves at least two things: someone who loves and an object being loved.  Further, I would guess that most of us can tell the difference between the superficial love we have of things, such as coffee, chocolate, or a delicious steak, and the love that we have for other people.  I would even venture to say that those of us self-styled as “pet lovers” would still be able to distinguish between the love we have for Snoopy, Rufus, Fluffy, and Mr. Pickles and the love we have for our wives, our husbands, our children, and our close friends.  We recognize that the deepest, most authentic love is something that is shared equally, and that even the most loyal dog or loving cat, or even the most decadent slice of Ghirardelli chocolate cheesecake, cannot return our love to us as equally as we can give it.  Thus, for us to say that “God is Love” should strike a chord in us.

          Throughout the centuries, many theologians (most notably Saint Augustine) have come to the realization that for God to be perfect, he must be love, because there is nothing more perfect than love.  And that for God to be love, fully and completely within himself, there must be a plurality of persons within the one, singular Godhead.  If there wasn’t, God would have to go outside of himself in order to love, which would mean that at best he would be someone who loves, but that he couldn’t be love itself.  But God is love in himself, as Saint John reveals to us.  What this means then is that God somehow—mysteriously—must be more than one person, otherwise he couldn’t be love—fully and completely—in himself.  Still further, for love to be perfect it must be shared between persons who are equal to each other.  Since God is perfect, the persons who are somehow mysteriously within the Godhead must both be perfect, otherwise the love that is God would be incomplete, which is impossible, because he is perfect.  Confused yet?  So am I.  Let’s see if we can bring this closer to home.

          When Jenny loves her husband Doug, she does so “perfectly” (inasmuch as she can, since none of us can really do anything perfectly, per se).  This is because the love between two people who are married is a love between equals, a man and a woman, a husband and a wife; that is, two people.  Because Doug and Jenny are equal, Doug can receive the perfect love that Jenny gives completely and he can return his own perfect love to Jenny, which she can receive completely.  Now when Doug loves his cat Smokey, he does so “imperfectly” (though I’m not sure Doug would agree with me on this one).  This is because love, in order to be perfect, must be shared by equals.  Obviously Doug and Smokey are not equals; Doug is a human being created in the image of God and Smokey is a cat, created to be at the service of man (if you don’t like that, don’t get mad at me… take it up with God).  This doesn’t make Doug’s love for Smokey any less real, but it does make his love less than perfect, because Smokey cannot fully receive Doug’s love—that is, he can’t know it for what it is—and he certainly cannot return to Doug his own love, at least not in the way that we understand love.  I would venture to say that all of us understand this: that love, in its most deep and authentic form is the love between persons, between equals.  Yet, there is still something even more wonderful here.  In the human world, perfect love is always between two persons who are different beings.  In God, amazingly, awesomely, mysteriously, perfect love is between persons within himself.

          While this image of the “perfect” love between husband and wife does a lot of work towards making the Trinity comprehensible for us, there is still something missing.  Let’s continue by stating something that we might think is pretty obvious: that if God is perfect love within himself, he must be supremely happy.  Just as Doug and Jenny know that with their perfect married love, they need nothing else in this world to be happy (besides God, of course), so God, because he is perfect love within himself, needs nothing else to be happy.  Did you hear that?  God needs nothing else to be happy, not even us.  Even if God hadn’t created anything, he would still be perfectly happy in the perfect love that he is in himself.  Sounds kind of selfish, doesn’t it?  Well, rest assured, it is.  Love between two people that is closed off from being shared with others is self-serving; in a sense, the couple is “hoarding” the delight of their love all for themselves.  For love to be perfect, and if it is to be the highest level of happiness that one can experience, there must be a “going out to another,” that is, an openness to being shared.  In other words, the perfect delight that results from perfect love would not be possible if a) the two were not open to sharing that delight with a third and b) if there wasn’t a third person to share it with.  This sharing is what certain theologians have called, “fellowship.”  And just as the two who love must be equal in order for love to be perfect, the third, in order to fully share in the delight, that is, the fellowship, of the two, must also be equal to them.

          Doug and Jenny were having difficulty conceiving a child.  This was a great burden for them because their married love literally ached for there to be a third person, equal to them, who could fully participate in the delight of their love.  After a while, they decided to get a puppy, Daisy.  They knew that Daisy could never participate fully in their delight, but their desire that there be fellowship in their family was so great that they were willing to compromise with an incomplete fellowship until God’s will granted them the grace of a more perfect fellowship in having a child (which he did, by the way, giving them a baby boy, George, last year).  For God, however, this isn’t a problem.  We know that he is perfect love.  And so we know that he is a plurality of equal persons in himself.  And, thanks to the work of various theologians, we know that this plurality of persons must be three: the One who loves, the One who is loved, and the Fellowship of their love; that is, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

          I know that this has been a lot to take, but there is one last thing that needs to be said.  There is good reason why the example of Doug and Jenny works here, because the very nature of a family, formed by the marriage of a man and a woman, is itself an image of the Trinity.  And it is in the differences, differences which are complementary, between a man and a woman that makes this image possible.  Just as the differences between the Father and the Son complement each other and make possible the outpouring of love that literally begets the Holy Spirit (a begetting that would not be possible if it were “the Father and the Father” or “the Son and the Son”), so to the differences between men and women complement each other to make possible the outpouring of love that begets, that is, co-creates with God, a child, a person equal in dignity that delights in the fellowship of love with his or her mother and father.  Anything else, quite frankly, is a knock-off: it’s artificially creating something God never intended.  Can co-equal love exist outside marriage?  Sure.  But it cannot be marriage, and therefore an image of the Trinity, if the possibility of total self-giving, to the point of the natural creation of another, does not exist.  To think otherwise is to fall victim to original sin: believing that we can have it our way, instead of adhering to the wisdom with which God created the world (the Wisdom that spoke to us in our first reading today).

          My brothers and sisters, marriage truly is “Unique for a Reason”: because when we truly live it out according to God’s plan it draws us into a mysterious participation in the life of the Trinity and it also witnesses the mystery of that life to the world, which is of great value.  Objectively, that is, scientifically speaking, marriage (as God has defined it) is good for us, for our children, and for our society and therefore ought to be defended from any attempts to alter its nature, attempts that are occurring right now in our country.  Let us, then, courageously come to its defense: for in doing so we will not only be defending the good for ourselves, but we will also be giving glory to God, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, who was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end.  Amen.

Given at All Saints Parish: Logansport, IN – May 26^th, 2013

The Solemnity of the Most Holy Trinity