The Royal "Baby" and his parents. |
(Eighteenth Sunday of the Year
(C): This homily was given on August 4, 2013 at St. Pius X Church, Westerly,
R.I., by Fr. Raymond Suriani. Read
Ecclesiastes 1: 2; 2: 21 -23;
Colossians 3: 1-5, 9-11; Luke 12: 13-21.)
[For the audio version of this homily, click here: Eighteenth Sunday 2013]
“When Is a Royal Baby a Fetus?”
That was the title of an article
that I came across the other day on the website of the people who produce The
Atlantic magazine.
It was written by Owen Strachan not
long after the most important news event of the year (at least it was the most
important news event to many in the mainstream media). I’m talking, of course, about the birth of
Prince George Alexander Louis of Cambridge, the son of “Bill and Kate” (a.k.a.
Prince William and Kate Middleton).
Now the reason I mention this
today is because in his piece Strachan focused on a very strange phenomenon
surrounding the little Prince’s birth, namely, how the secular press referred to the royal infant before he was born. Normally the pro-choice members of the news
media (who are clearly in the majority) refer to an unborn child as a “fetus,”
not a baby—and they adamantly refuse to do otherwise. As Strachan noted,
Countless media
reports [in recent weeks] bore news about the “royal baby.”
Why was this noteworthy? Because this term, to get exegetical for a moment, was not used to describe the future state of the child--once born and outside of the womb, that is. No, the American media used this phrase “royal baby” to describe the pre-born infant. It’s not strange for leading pro-life thinkers like Eric Metaxas and Denny Burk to refer to a fetus as a “baby.” It's not strange, either, for people to refer to a child they're expecting as a "baby," regardless of where they stand on the issue of abortion. It is strange, though, for outlets like the New York Times and the Washington Post and Boston Globe--which purport to be neutral on the issue--to use this seemingly explosive phrase without so much as a qualification. And why is this strange? Because it codes a pro-life position into their description of the unborn child.
Why was this noteworthy? Because this term, to get exegetical for a moment, was not used to describe the future state of the child--once born and outside of the womb, that is. No, the American media used this phrase “royal baby” to describe the pre-born infant. It’s not strange for leading pro-life thinkers like Eric Metaxas and Denny Burk to refer to a fetus as a “baby.” It's not strange, either, for people to refer to a child they're expecting as a "baby," regardless of where they stand on the issue of abortion. It is strange, though, for outlets like the New York Times and the Washington Post and Boston Globe--which purport to be neutral on the issue--to use this seemingly explosive phrase without so much as a qualification. And why is this strange? Because it codes a pro-life position into their description of the unborn child.
Of course, those news
organizations are anything but pro-life, which was precisely Strachan’s
point! As he said a little later in the
article:
In both the mainstream
media and the pro-abortion movement, fetuses are future humans being knit
together in a woman’s body. They are not
humans while in the womb. To kill them
is not to kill a human, but something not-yet human.
How strange was it, then, that leading news sources referred to the fetus of William and Kate as the “royal baby.” There were no pre-birth headlines from serious journalistic sources like “Royal Clump of Cells Eagerly Anticipated” or “Imperial Seed Soon to Sprout.” None of the web’s traffic-hoarding empires ran “Subhuman Royal Fetus Soon to Become Human!” No, over and over again, one after another, from the top of the media food chain to the bottom, Kate’s “fetus” was called, simply and pre-committedly, a baby. Why was this? Because, as I see it, the royal baby was a baby before birth. The media was right; gloriously, happily right.
How strange was it, then, that leading news sources referred to the fetus of William and Kate as the “royal baby.” There were no pre-birth headlines from serious journalistic sources like “Royal Clump of Cells Eagerly Anticipated” or “Imperial Seed Soon to Sprout.” None of the web’s traffic-hoarding empires ran “Subhuman Royal Fetus Soon to Become Human!” No, over and over again, one after another, from the top of the media food chain to the bottom, Kate’s “fetus” was called, simply and pre-committedly, a baby. Why was this? Because, as I see it, the royal baby was a baby before birth. The media was right; gloriously, happily right.
Yes, that’s correct; the media,
in this instance, did tell the truth.
But do you know what that means, my brothers and sisters? THAT MEANS THAT 99.999% OF THE TIME THEY LIE
TO US!!!
Which would lead St. Paul to say—in
the words of today’s second reading from Colossians 3—“Stop lying to one
another!”
And how about the other
abortion-related lie that’s been in the news lately concerning the new Texas
law—a law which is designed, primarily, to protect the health of women? Don’t pro-choicers tell us all the time that
what they’re most concerned about is protecting a woman’s health? Well apparently they lie about that concern, because aside from banning abortions
after 20 weeks, the chief purpose of this new Texas law is to require higher safety standards in abortion
clinics.
You would think that pro-choicers
would be ecstatic about that—but they’re not.
They’re much more concerned about having abortion available, even if
it’s in a filthy, unsanitary clinic like the one Kermit Gosnell, the convicted
murderer, ran for decades in Philadelphia.
Young Michael Najim, long before
he was Fr. Michael Najim, used to
give talks to Confirmation classes in which he often said to his fellow high
school students, “We are the most lied-to generation ever.”
That was back in the early 1990s. Well that’s no longer true. What’s now true is that THIS PRESENT generation is the most
lied-to generation ever!
And it’s that way largely because
of the media, and because of the expanded means of communication that we have
in our modern world. Let’s face it, in
generations past if you wanted to get a lie into the minds of a lot of people,
it was pretty difficult. You had to work really hard at it—especially before
the advent of television and radio. Now,
however, you can literally tell a lie to millions of people all over the world
in less than a second! You can “tweet
it” or “text it” or “blog it” or “Facebook it”—and it’s out there for almost
everyone to see!
The technologically-driven lies
that are with us right now are many and varied, but some of them we hear
constantly: fetuses are not truly human;
human life does not begin at conception; science and religion are incompatible
enemies; marriage is something other than a relationship between one man and
one woman; marriage has little or nothing to do with having and raising
children; sex is a recreational sport with few or no serious consequences.
That last one, by the way, is
pretty much the message of the movie that just came out, called “The To Do
List.” Have you heard about it? As one film reviewer put it, the main
character in the story “loses her virginity to a guy who really doesn’t know
her and definitely doesn’t love her, and then she . . . packs up her things and goes to college,
un-traumatized and un-stricken by tragic regret.”
What a lovely family film.
Is it any wonder that some of our
young people have such a difficult time telling the truth? They hear so many lies every day, and then
they hear about (and sometimes encounter) adults who are living various lies—athletes, for example, who are caught using
steroids after claiming for years that they were “clean”; politicians who lie
about where they stand on certain issues, and about their faithfulness to their
spouses in their marriages; even members of the clergy who lie about their
faithfulness to the moral teachings they claim to believe.
So much of what our young people
have to deal with every day encourages them to be untruthful.
I’m not making excuses for them;
I’m simply saying that this is the reality of where we’re at in our culture
right now.
Can it change?
Of course it can!
But the spirit of lying will not
be eliminated (or even diminished) unless each of us makes the effort to kill it in our life by being truthful! Notice what St. Paul says in this text. He says, “Put
to death the parts of you that are earthly: immorality, impurity, passion,
evil desire, and the greed that is idolatry.
Stop lying to one another, since you have taken off the old self with its
practices and have put on the new self, which is being renewed, for knowledge,
in the image of its creator.”
None of this evil stuff goes away
magically. (That’s the key point that
Paul is making here.) By the grace that
comes to us through faith and the sacraments, we have to actively and willfully
KILL these evil realities in our lives, or they will continue to live within
us! We “kill” sin, of course, by
choosing to be virtuous. For example, we
kill immorality by choosing to be moral; we kill impurity by choosing to be
pure; and we kill lying by choosing to be truthful—even when we’re tempted not
to be (and, let’s be honest about it, from time to time we all are tempted not
to be!).
I’ll leave you today with the
words of our new Holy Father, Pope Francis.
In one of his talks at World Youth Day last week, he told the young people
to “rebel”. He said, “Rebel—against this
culture!”
And that’s exactly what we have
to do. We have to rebel against this
“culture of lying” that we’re presently living in.
May God help each of us to do
that, today and everyday.