Homily

I was talking to a young man a while back who had been raised in what I believe is a good Catholic family, but he had decided to leave the Church in favor of Deism. I asked him to explain. "Well, I just can't believe in a church that tells you all the time that you should be afraid of going to hell. I don't think religion should be about fear." I was almost speechless. Almost. I managed to pull myself together after a few moments. "John," I said, "probably only 20% of Catholics today even believe that there is such a thing as hell, and only 2% of those think there is even the slightest chance of them ending up there." I continued with what I think the Church is all about. The danger of going to hell is not at the top of that list. But neither is it off the list.

In today's world for so many people, too many people, the idea that they could end up in hell is almost beyond belief. No, it is beyond their capacity to believe. And, as I mentioned, even believers find it hard to accept that they could ever be eternally separated from God. But we can be strangely and very easily misled. Before I go any further, let me say that it is true that Jesus tells us "Judge not lest you be judged," and it is not for Christians to judge other people, in the sense that, bottom line, we cannot judge the state of other people's souls. And yet while it is true that we must not, and cannot judge the state of people's souls, it does not mean that we cannot judge anything in life, including the actions of people.

Now, today, when people say, "You can't judge me!" they never think that you are judging the state of their souls. What they usually mean is, "You cannot tell me that what I am doing is wrong." But isn't that a judgment on their part? You can't tell them that they're doing wrong, but they can tell you how wrong you are to even dare to attempt to correct them. They insist you cannot tell them what is right or what is wrong, and typically you will find that they tend to accept the idea that there is no such thing as objective morality, or any solid standard of good or bad behavior that a person can use to judge moral behavior. Hmmm. So if I steal your wallet, should you call the police or not? Wouldn't that be judging me?

I recently heard a very popular travel guide talking about the "anything goes" attitude towards prostitution in Amsterdam, and he explains that unlike Americans the Dutch people don't believe you can legislate morality. He obviously considers them to be more enlightened, but his position is ridiculous. Every law says that this behavior or that action is forbidden. If that's not morality, then what is? What people really mean when they say you can't legislate morality is that you cannot tell them that this action or this behavior should be illegal. Murder is immoral but nobody suggests we get rid of the laws against homicide because you can't legislate morality.

Today it's considered very acceptable, and even an example of folk wisdom to tell someone, "You can't judge me," or "You can't tell me what is right or wrong." And again it should be obvious to some people that they are making a judgment about what I "cannot" or "should not" do. But it's not obvious to them at all. They are not concerned with having a reasonable understanding of moral issues. They simply declare that you can't tell them anything about morality. Yet they have no problem telling you!

If I have done well on an exam, if I have won the big race, if I have been promoted at work, if I just saved an elderly lady from a burning building and then go back to rescue her six cats, and people say to me on each occasion, "Good job! Well done! Congratulations! You're a hero!" should I, would I reply with, "You can't judge me!" See how it works?

If Tommy is hitting his little sister with a stick, should we tell him it's a bad thing to do that, or not? Should there perhaps be a punishment, or not? If later in life Tommy is beating his wife with a stick should we declare his behavior as good, or bad, or should we simply not judge him? After all, he's an adult now and can make his own decisions, right? It's a free country, right?

The currently popular notion of the moral neutrality of so many behaviors in our society is absurd. When you go to the movies do you not want the bad guy to get what he deserves, and the heroine to triumph over evil? How much would you enjoy the original "Star Wars" if everyone in the theater could not decide whether Darth Vader was a good guy or a bad guy? But isn't that making a judgment?

We live in a world where, when people are angry with someone they tell them to go to a place they do not believe exists (or at least a place they know they will never be in.) So much of the current attitudes about "not judging people" are not grounded in objective truth but rather they are simply emotional pleas not to make other people feel bad by telling them they are wrong and they shouldn't be doing evil. And so often they not are not even pleas but rather commandments against telling other people that their behavior is immoral.

Should we not care about others? Should we not tell them if their behavior is harmful to themselves and/or others? Granted we cannot force others to choose good and avoid evil. We struggle with that ourselves. But should we not speak out when we see harmful attitudes and actions that threaten the health, the lives and the souls of other people? Emotional mush surrounding moral behavior and its consequences threatens our society today more than ever. We need clear thinking, not appeals to feel sorry for others, to form the basis of our moral decisions. After all, everybody feels bad when they are arrested. Should we stop arresting criminals to spare them grief?

Now, to the Gospel and the man without a wedding garment. It's not unusual for people to say that the king in this parable is unfair. He told his servants to bring in everybody from all over the place, even the lowest and the least. How could he expect this man on such short notice to be wearing the proper clothes? Lots could be said here, but I will just say a little.

What does Jesus mean by this? It's impossible to say with absolute certainty. But if the king invites the guests, is he not also free to take back his invitation? It seems the rest of the crowd was able to get their wedding garments on. Why not this guy? And when asked why he wasn't properly dressed the man says nothing. He has no defense, no excuse.

However one thing is clear: just because you are invited, and just because you enter in, that doesn't mean you will be allowed to stay. Something more is required than just showing up. And if you do not do your part, you may be cast out into the darkness. There is a judgment.

Despite the many warnings Jesus Himself makes in the Gospels, almost nobody today believes they could ever end up in that darkness. We could never be surprised like the rich man who ignored Lazarus, or like those on Jesus' left when He separates the sheep from the goats. We could never be found without excuse like the man in today's parable. Not us. Impossible! Sure, we know that "He will come to judge the living and the dead" but only bad people have to worry about that.

We pray before every Holy Communion that we not end up under judgment or condemnation. It's a reality that is possible, even for us. People worry about being "on the wrong side of history" today. We should worry about being on the wrong side of eternity. Dear friends, let us beg the Lord to show us how we must live, so that when we are judged we will be granted eternal life.