A Detroit Priest, A Controversial Homily, and Romans 8

Recently the diocese of Detroit was in the news due to a funeral homily which a priest gave for a teen who had commit suicide.  NBC news put it this way:

“The Archdiocese of Detroit said a priest is no longer allowed to speak at funerals after he infuriated the family of a teenager who killed himself by raising the question in a sermon of whether people who die by suicide can be granted God’s forgiveness.    According to the teen's father, [the priest] condemned his son instead of celebrating his life.”

His mother was quoted saying:

“Maison didn’t deserve this. He basically called him a sinner in front of everybody. We were just blindsided.”

Since then, the Detroit diocese has reprimanded the priest and apologized to the family. 

Well, the diocese also released the text of the homily.  While the priest did say that suicide is wrong, he didn't dwell on it.  The homily doesn’t fit the harsh description given by the family – and the condemnation from the media and the diocese seems quite undeserved. 

Most of the homily was spent reminding the audience that there is hope in Christ even for suicide victims.  Far from condemning the teen, the priest came very close to canonizing him.

Which brings me to the topic I want to address.  It’s about one mistake the priest did make, and a commonly misinterpreted passage of Romans 8.

The Dueling Truths of Human Nature

The Christian religion is filled with truths which have to be held in tension.  That means Truth A would lead you in one direction, and Truth B would lead you in the opposite direction... but you have to believe both.  As the conservative speaker/columnist Ben Shapiro likes to say, "Two things can be true at once."  

Today I want to look at one instance of this which relates to the status of humanity.  And then we'll think about what happens when we choose one truth over the other.

How Did the Obergefell Decision Work?

Back in 2015, the "Obergefell vs Hodges" decision (OvH) at the US Supreme Court made same-sex marriage a possibility across the country.  Since then the political aspect of the "marriage debate" seems to have died down.

But a week ago a chap told me he thought OvH was a masterwork of jurisprudence.  I replied it was a textbook case of an activist judge legislating his personal ideology from the bench.  Then he was asked me - (well, challenged me) - to prove my assertion from the text of the decision itself.

Today I want to share my analysis of how the decision works and whether Justice Kennedy made a sound decision... or an arbitrary royal decree.