a homily for the homilist

How do the "Compassionate" Clergy reinforce "Choice?" They reframe the notion of outlawing abortion in political dialogue so that it occupies the realm of "The Impossible Dream." The pro-aborts are absolutely right when they say Jesus didn’t specifically talk about abortion in The Gospels. He DID talk about the poor a multitude of times, however. On one specific occasion, he mentioned that we would always have the poor with us. In other words, try as we might to solve world hunger... this side of paradise, the Master told us we would not succeed. Why would He do that, if we are supposed to keep striving for perfection in compassion toward our "neighbor?" It sounds rather sadistic.

Apparently we are not to look too far outward in time nor space when approaching compassion. Our "neighbor" is not thousands of miles away in a foreign country. Our neighbor is right next to us. Did you ever wonder why compassionate clergy are comfortable with showing photographs of emaciated children looking for their next meal in mission lands, yet squirm when confronted on their doorstep with photographs of aborted fetuses? It’s the same reason forlorn teens point toward the viciousness of war when rationalizing the untimely deliberate death of their own offspring. They don’t want to admit what is within their own control. They blame unseen, unreachable politicians for irresponsibly implementing a non-neighborly foreign policy. But they excuse behavior that is within their own immediate jurisdiction – control over their own bodies. (even a cleric’s control over sermons in a 501 (c)(3) environment) One cannot be expected to be celibate outside the bounds of marriage if we are not expected to eradicate poverty, can one?

My own pastor recently alluded to the liberation theology of Archbishop Romero in a homily extrapolating illegal immigrants from the Gospel of the beggar Lazarus. He wanted to illustrate that contemporary Lazaruses are no longer being patient for pie in the sky like their Scriptural counterpart. They are willing to righteously break the law for a more upward mobility. THIS neighbor not only has the moral right to steal from his countrymen with ethical impunity, in order to feed his family, he has the global right to invade "arbitrary" boundaries in order to redistribute the wealth. It doesn’t matter that the Popes condemn the very essence of Socialism as an ideology, the parish priests feel absolutely justified in comparing the foibles of Capitalism to the nihilism of Communism as one would compare apples to oranges. The dear Archbishop allegedly said, "Why is it when I feed the poor, they call me a saint, but when I question the existence of poverty, they call me a communist?" I have a question of my own. Why is it that progressive Cardinals compare innocent babies to convicted criminals in their "consistent ethic of life" even though Popes emphasize there is a hierarchy of "never permissibles?"

Speaking of Free Will, when must man’s law absolutely coincide with God’s law? When the Natural Law is self-evident. But what is self-evident anymore along a time line that has surpassed existentialism? Citizens are free to deny their very gender as assigned by nature. They are free to hook up non-reciprocal genitals, in a non-procreational fashion in their quest for a self-actualized lifestyle. In short, citizens of the Kingdom are no longer expected to be citizens of the worldly realm and vice versa. That’s because, in the contemporary Christian mind, the slightest effort is considered success, and a compassionate God could not possibly condemn anyone to hell for eternity. We have superceded the Post-Modern. We are Post-Logic. That is the surest "sign" that the clockspring has almost completely unwound. When logic ceases to exist, utter chaos is not far behind.