A Radical Message for Mother’s Day 2012

Today I am posting a homily that my good friend Father Ezaki, Allentown PA, Diocese preached on Mother's Day.

A Radical Message for Mother’s Day 2012

Father Bernard J. Ezaki

Rad-i-cal adj. Arising from or going to a root.

            On this Mother’s Day, how can I not think of my own mother, who died in May of 2004?  I think of Mom especially in the spring, for she loved to make things grow—from the lush philodendron that sprawled over our mantelpiece, to the fuchsia and geraniums that cascaded from hanging pots on our back porch, to the peonies and lilacs that bloomed in our yard, to the bluebells, hyacinths, irises, daylilies, and cleome that flourished in the garden.  Then there were Mom’s prized tomatoes that climbed on stakes along the side of the house.  The very fragrance of a tomato plant will always make me recall my mother.  Why, one year, Mom brought in a tomato that was the size of my little brother’s head!  Mom sure knew how to make things grow.

            I, on the other hand, could learn only the most rudimentary facts about plants.  Now here’s one horticultural fact that I did manage to pick up: If you separate a plant from its roots, the plant is bound to die.  That fact is so crucial that I think I’ll repeat it.  Any plant separated from its roots is bound to die.

            Speaking of roots, our Western Civilization has its roots in Roman Catholicism.  If you don’t believe me, I recommend a book with a title that says it all:  How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.  Yes, our civilization has its roots in Christianity.  Unfortunately, people who call themselves enlightened are trying to sever our culture from its Christian roots.  The inevitable result, barring divine intervention, will be that our civilization will wither and die. 

            In our Gospel today, Jesus says (John 15:12), “Love one another as I love you.”  One way Our Lord expressed His love for us was to speak the unvarnished truth.  So hold on to your hats, folks.  Here comes some love in the form of unvarnished truth.

            Roman Catholicism has given Western Civilization two vital taproots that give life to our culture.  Yet people in the media and the government, on both sides of the political aisle, are doing their best to sever our culture from these roots.  What are these two vital taproots?  First, the belief that human life is precious from the moment of conception to natural death.  Second, the firm conviction that the primary purpose of sex is procreation.  Let me discuss these two key concepts one at a time.

            The Catholic Church has always taught that human life is precious from the moment of conception until natural death.  Once society abandons this conviction, there is no rational argument in the whole world that can oppose abortion, partial birth abortion, assisted suicide, and the euthanizing of the infirmed and elderly.  If you think I’m joking, consider this:  Princeton’s atheist professor Peter Singer has gone so far as to suggest that children under the age of one year (he calls them “neonates”) should not be accorded full human status.  This would allow society to destroy them in the event they are handicapped or inconvenient.  If you think this notion is horrendous (as I do), what rational argument can you use to oppose it other than the conviction that human life is precious from conception to natural death?  Once you abandon this idea, any restriction on the killing of human life is purely arbitrary.  Yet those who govern us have been throwing this idea out the window ever since Roe versus Wade in 1973. 

            So much for vital taproot number one.  Human life is precious from the moment of conception until natural death.  Now for the second of our civilization’s vital taproots.

            The Catholic Church has consistently maintained that the primary purpose of sex is procreation.  Every sexual union between a husband and wife must be at least open to offspring.  Does this mean that sexual intimacy between a husband and wife does not have to be an expression of love?  Of course not!  Every sexual act between a husband and wife ought to be both unitive and procreative.  It ought to bring a married couple together in love and at the same time be open to the giving of life.  Yet the primary purpose of sex is procreation.  Let me explain with an analogy involving my favorite topic—food.

            The primary purpose of food is nutrition.  Does this mean that we ought not to enjoy what we eat?  By no means!  Pleasure and nutrition should always be united in the act of eating.  As a matter of fact, if you don’t enjoy your food, something is wrong.  Yet the primary purpose of eating is nutrition, not enjoyment.  Why? Because there are many things we can do in life to bring us pleasure.  Fishing, tennis, a good book, a wholesome movie, a hike through the mountains are all legitimate sources of joy.  There is, however, only one way by which we normally take in nutrition, and that is through eating. 

            Similarly, the Church has always taught that the primary purpose of sex is procreation.  Again, does that mean that a husband and wife do not have to express love in their sexual intimacy?  Heavens no!  The giving of love and the giving of life should always be united in the act of sexual intimacy.  As a matter of fact, if you don’t love your spouse, something is wrong.  Yet procreation (and not love) is the primary purpose of sex.  Why?  Because there are numerous ways by which a husband and wife can express love.  A dinner out, an exchange of gifts, the mutual sharing of joys and hardships—these are all legitimate ways of expressing love.  Yet there is only one way by which children ought to be brought into the world, and that is through sexual union.

Procreation is the primary purpose of sex.  Once this idea is abandoned, it is not long before the purpose of sex becomes recreation rather than procreation.  Then there is no rational argument in the whole world that would forbid sex with anything and everything.  If you think I’m joking, I give you again Peter Singer at Princeton.  He actually argues for the merits of bestiality!  If you think this is disgusting (as I do) what rational argument can you use to oppose it other than the conviction that the primary purpose of sex is procreation?  Once you jettison this idea, any restriction on sex is purely arbitrary.  Yet, ever since the 1960s with the advent of the birth control pill, there are those who are trying to separate our society from this vital taproot.  The primary purpose of sex is procreation.

I know what some of you are thinking:  Why is this crazy priest preaching such a downer homily on, of all days, Mother’s Day?  For one thing, these are timely issues.  Pro-abortion Kathleen Sebelius is going to be a commencement speaker at Georgetown University.  She personifies the severing of taproot #1.  Our President has come out this week in favor of so-called “gay marriage.”  He personifies the severing of taproot #2.  Yet I have a deeper reason.  Once we abandon the idea that human life is precious from the moment of conception to natural death, once we jettison the idea that the primary purpose of sex is procreation, then human mothers become an endangered species.  Can anyone argue this in the face of the declining birthrates in the West?  Our Lord warned that this would happen.  On His way to the Cross he predicted (Luke 23:28), “Weep not for me, but for yourselves and for your children, for days  are coming when men will say. ‘Blessed are the barren and the wombs that never bear.’”  We have severed our society from its very roots.  Unless we make an immediate about-face, there can be only one result. 

Dear Lord, have mercy on us all!