---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 1:10 AM
Subject: Homily by Brilliant Dominican on Prolife and family issues
To:
Fr. Brent is the Dominican priest that came to talk about the Angelic warfare society last year. Here's a homily he gave at the Dominican parish in Charlottesville, Va during Lent.
Homily for the Third Sunday of Lent by Fr. James Dominic Brent, O.P.
http://www.stauva.org/religious-education/adult-education/homily-for-the-third-sunday-of-lent-by-fr-james-dominic-brent-o-p-2/
St. Thomas Aquinas Parish, Charlottesville, VA
Brothers and Sisters, it is a great joy for me to be back here at St. Thomas Aquinas parish! Your pastor, Fr. Luke, has asked me to come and speak to you this Sunday about some difficulties that you may be having in answering for some of the politically incorrect teachings of the Church – particularly the teachings on contraception and gay marriage. There is no doubt that you are being called upon in your places of work to answer for these teachings in various ways, and it is often demanded that you give reasons for these teachings that do not make appeal to the bible or divine revelation. Furthermore, there is an atmosphere around us that tells you that you are not allowed to assert your beliefs or views about these matters in the public square. The message given to you – whether spoken or unspoken – is that these teachings are specifically religious, and based on the bible, tradition, or divine revelation, and that therefore you have no right to assert them in the public square or to expect others to form public policy on the basis of these teachings. The atmosphere around is designed to intimidate, marginalize, stigmatize, and silence you. I am here this weekend to tell you that there is no reason to be afraid or intimidated in any way whatsoever by the world around you, that there are very good reasons to assert in public that contraception is intrinsically evil and so too is any notion of “gay marriage. ” The reasons I have in mind are to be found not in the bible or in divine revelation but in shared human experience, common sense, and critical reflection. Where shall we begin?
Let us begin by remembering a very important point.
There is a higher law, and all human beings have the capacity to know the higher law. Higher than the laws formed by human beings, higher than the civil codes passed by human legislators or rulers, there are higher laws that rulers and leaders themselves are subject to and beholden to.
There is a higher law, and all human beings – including political leaders – have the capacity to know it. Fortunately, our American tradition has many examples of people who appeal to the higher law, and have made a difference for the better in the world by doing so.
Consider first the Declaration of Independence. I encourage you to go back and read again that beautiful document. The founders begin by asserting that there is a higher law – that all human beings are endowed by their Creator with the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They go on to argue that when kings and rulers violate those higher laws, the people have the right and indeed should throw off the governance of such abusive political leadership. The Declaration then enumerates a list of abuses and usurpations committed by the Kings of England, and concludes that the Americans are now removing themselves from the jurisdiction of the King. America is founded, therefore, on the proposition that
there is a higher law, and that all human beings have the capacity to know that law.
A more recent example is to be found in the Nuremburg trials. At the end of the Second World War, the allies were able to capture some of the remaining Nazi leadership, put them on trial, and charge them with crimes against humanity. What was their defense? The Nazis defended themselves by arguing that what they did was in accord with the law of their land, and that they were just following orders. What was the reply?
You knew better.
There is a higher law, and all human beings have the capacity to know that law. You knew that it was wrong to put people in gas ovens. Therefore, the Nazis were found guilty of crimes against humanity, and punished accordingly.
A more recent example still comes from Martin Luther King Jr. and the civil rights movement of the sixties. When Martin Luther King Jr. went into the public square to put an end to segregation in the United States, he made many arguments based not on the bible or on divine revelation. He did not claim that all Christians should see the problem with segregation, but that all human beings whether Christian or not, whether they have any faith or not, should see the injustice of segregation. Let us listen to an excerpt from his marvelous
Letter from a Birmingham Jail. Martin Luther King Jr. wrote:
“Now, what is the difference between the two [a just law and an unjust law]? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality.”
What
distorts the soul and
damages the personality is unjust. These are powerful truths. What
distorts the soul and
damages the personality is unjust.
Brothers and Sisters, when the Church teaches that contraception is intrinsically evil and that it is not possible to support gay marriage, you and I are not limited to arguing for these claims on the basis of the bible or divine revelation. The truth is that contraception distorts the soul and damages the personality. And so too would gay marriage also distort the soul and damage the personality in various ways. And there are many reasons to show that this is so, and these reasons are taken not from the bible or divine revelation, but from shared human experience, common sense, and rational reflection.
Let us consider first the issue of contraception. Why is contraception intrinsically evil? Let us think about it. Contraception works just often enough to generate the illusion that one is safe from either disease or pregnancy, but it fails often enough that now 1/4 women in the US has HPV (a sexually transmitted disease) and 1/5 women over the age of 14 has had an abortion. Contraception reduces sex to a recreational activity, transforms women into a mere object for the indulgence of men’s sexual pleasure, and it leaves women vulnerable to every form of blame, hostility, and pressure to have an abortion when the contraception fails. Contraception panders to and expands the lusts of men, it neutralizes men’s will to commitment in marriage, and diminishes their sense of responsibility for the children they beget. Contraception is very deeply emasculating. Hence, the phenomenon of the men who are middle aged teenagers and grown up wimps. Contraception enslaves men and women to a pattern of instant gratification. Contraception makes marital infidelity – adultery –
very easy, and makes pregnancy seem like a disease. Hence, the erroneous perception has spread in our society that contraception is health care. That is not true. Although the pill in particular can sometimes licitly be used for purposes of regulating a women’s cycle, contraception
as contraception is not health care. It cures nothing. Fertility is not a disease, pregnancy is not a problem. Pregnancy is
always and
essentially a blessing – even in difficult circumstances. These are but a few reasons for saying that contraception distorts the soul and damages the personality. There are many more reasons for saying so. One day, I sat down and was able to come up with a list of twenty six negative social consequences of contraception. They form a set of reasons – reasons taken not from the bible but from shared human experience, common sense, and rational reflection – to say that contraception is evil.
[1]
Are you aware that among couples who live their marriages according to the teachings of the Church, and remain open to life in each and every marital act, the rate of divorce is less than 5%? What would family life in America be like if
everyone lived their marriages that way?
Let us now consider the issue of gay marriage. Before I begin, it is important for us first to distinguish between merely having same sex attraction and the free choice to act on same sex attraction. The Church does not teach that same sex attraction is sinful in itself, but only that the choice to act upon such desires is sinful. The desires are one thing, the activity is another. There are many people who have same sex attraction, and lead a chaste and holy life. The Church does not condemn people who have same sex attraction. I myself know people with such an attraction. They come to me, and we talk. I care deeply for them, and so please do not misinterpret my words as any sort of condemnation of any class of human beings. What I am speaking of here is specifically the controversial question of gay marriage.
It may seem to many of you that there is no controversy left. That all enlightened, sophisticated, well educated, and sane human beings now accept the reality and goodness of gay marriage. This is part of the atmosphere of intimidation now at work in our society, and there is a sustained attempt to marginalize, stigmatize and silence you. But there is no need to be afraid or intimidated in any way whatsoever. The truth is that there are many intelligent, sophisticated, and well educated people who have good reasons to think that gay marriage would distort the soul and damage the personality – especially of the children involved.
The first point to be made is that gay marriage is in fact not possible. It belongs to the very essence of marriage that it be between a male and a female and ordered per se towards procreation. Same sex relationships are not of that nature, and one cannot make them to be of that nature just by applying the word “marriage” to them – any more than one can make a flower to be a bird by calling the flower by the name “bird.” Nonetheless, because of current usages, I will use the oxymoron “gay marriage.”
On January 13 of this year, in Paris, there was a demonstration of over 400,000 people who turned out to protest a recent law in France that would institutionalize gay marriage. What was most interesting about this protest was that many of the protesters were not Catholics or Christians or even believers. There were atheists, agnostics, secularists, and homosexuals present as well. All of them were opposed to gay marriage.
The famous psychoanalyst in France Claude Halmos, one of the leading recognized experts in child psychology, has declared herself to be against homosexual marriage. Also, Italian psychoanalyst Silvia Vegetti Finzi also took a stance against the adoption of children by same-sex couples. Secularistic Philosopher Sylviane Agacinski has done the same. According to Agacinski, gay marriage would give “a pretense of desexualized conception that is not realistic,” but would “risk imposing the right of obscuring the other sex in the conception of these children and of preventing them from having access to their own real origin.” Here are experts who have grave doubts about gay marriage, and that should give one pause.
[2]
But one need not be an expert to grasp the reasons for opposing gay marriage. All that is required is common sense and a little reflection. Consider for example a girl raised by two men. The little girl would have no woman in the home to model both femininity and motherhood, and the girl would also lack a living model of love between husband and wife, male and female. So, the daughter would lack something needed for normal healthy development. To have such role models is one of the critical needs of personal development, and so gay marriage would deprive her of these needs. The same would go for a son raised by two women. We have reasons to say, therefore, that gay marriage would distort the soul and damage the personality. But there are other reasons.
Gay marriage would institutionalize the lie that homosexual activity is morally permissible. Gay marriage would distort the minds of the young in perceiving the meaning and significance of sexual complementarity between male and female. Gay marriage would intentionally deny children the right to a father or a mother. Let us think about that one. It should be common sense that all children have the right to both a mother and a father, and that no one should intentionally deny a child of either a father or a mother unless the common good absolutely required it – such as in the case of a military draft. But gay marriage would deny children of either a father or a mother. Gay marriage would also totally separate the process of having children from the marital act, and increase the occurrence of other intrinsic evils such as gamete donation,
in vitro fertilization, and surrogate motherhood. For these and other reasons drawn from shared experience, common sense, and rational reflection, we can say that gay marriage would distort the soul and damage the personality. Consequently, any attempted institutionalization of gay marriage would be intrinsically evil, totally unjust, and we cannot support it.
At this point many people are probably asking why, if there are such good reasons against contraception and gay marriage, more people don’t see it. If the reasons are so good, then why doesn’t everyone see them?
That is a very good question, and reveals a certain mystery about human beings. As I said earlier, there is a higher law, and all human beings have the capacity to know it. But as you know from your own experience in life, human beings often fail to live up to their full capacities. Many people are ignorant of certain moral truths. Sometimes, the ignorance is inculpable. The person is not blameworthy. Over the last several decades in this country, there has been a systematic movement that has used the educational institutions, the media, and music-entertainment industries to propagate in very powerful and persuasive ways many distortions and lies about the human person and human sexuality. Many young people have now been raised on these distortions, and it is very hard to say whether they are blameworthy for going along. May the young people learn to rise above the crowd, to call upon the Spirit of truth, and to call into question the accounts of life, love, and sexuality that have been transmitted to them through the culture! But there are some people who know well what the higher law is on these matters, and they deliberately and intentionally reject the truth. We must pray a lot for such souls, for grace to transform them, and save them.
Brothers and Sisters, please do not be discouraged by the ocean of ignorance around us in our society! Jesus too was once surrounded by the darkness of ignorance and fury. And there came a point in his life too when it seemed that the darkness had triumphed. But we know how the story ended. Jesus is the light of the world. “The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it” (Jn. 1:5).
Do not be afraid to bear witness to the truth. You have good reasons to go into the public square and assert the truth. You do not need anyone’s permission to speak your mind. You do not need anyone’s authorization to say what you think. There is no need to be intimidated. The Holy Spirit is with you. He is calling you to bear witness to the truth.
It is a beautiful thing to bear witness to the truth. It is a beautiful thing to bear witness to the truth even when it seems useless. It is a beautiful thing to bear witness to the truth even when people walk away. It is a beautiful thing to bear witness in time to the truth that is eternal. The time has come to bear witness. Let us begin.
[1] In addition to my own list, more stustained and developed social scientific and philosophical arguments are to be found in Mary Eberstadt,
Adam and Eve After the Pill (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2012) and also J. Budziszewski,
On the Meaning of Sex (Intercollegiate Studies Institute, 2012).
[2] Links to articles in French and Italian regarding Halmos, Finzi, and Agacinski can be found here:
http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1350400?eng=y
Dear Stuart,
One of the most shocking parts of the conference for me was the session entitled “This Clinic Stays Open: Extremist Threats Facing Clinics & Providers.” Sarah Shanks (Director of Abortion Access Fund, Inc. and Public Relations Coordinator for 
I have been traveling across my region training students all over with new tactics to reach the women and men walking into these abortion mills. As the pro-life generation, we should be preparing and arming ourselves with all the tools needed to effectively reach out to these women. In February, University of Richmond Spiders for Life put the techniques I had taught them to use the weekend after my training and were 
