What do the following words have in common: blading, carjacking, fantabulous, ginormous, macintrash, spam (as in "e-mail spam"), televangelist, and funkinetics?

According to a professor at Rice University and her students, these are all relatively new words the English language. That’s what they have in common. For example, prior to the early 1970’s, no one had ever heard of a "televangelist," simply because the word didn’t exist! Now it’s true, religious people (like Bishop Fulton Sheen) did appear on radio and television before the 1970’s, but the term "televangelist" was never used in speaking about them. They were simply called "religious people on radio and television!"

I mention this today to make the simple point that our language—indeed every language—is constantly evolving. Consequently, we cannot presume that what a particular word meant in prior generations is what it means today.

Perhaps the most obvious example of this in English is the word "gay." Fifty years ago, if someone called you "gay," they were simply indicating that they thought you were a very happy person. Now if someone calls you "gay" they are probably saying something altogether different about you. So please beware!

Another example of this phenomenon concerns the word "love." In today’s Gospel text from Matthew 22, when Jesus was asked, "Which commandment in the law is the greatest?" he responded, "You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the greatest and first commandment. The second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself." Now Jesus used the word "love" in these verses with a clear, definite conception of what it meant. The problem is that when a person hears that text of Scripture today, in 2002, he may have a very different notion of love in his mind—and that notion can alter the meaning of the text entirely! The command to love doesn’t mean to him what it meant to Jesus. As I said a few moments ago, language constantly changes—and if there’s one word in English which has radically changed for many people in the last hundred years (besides the word "gay"), it’s the word "love."

Here’s an illustration of what I mean: Many centuries ago, St. Augustine said, "Love, and then do what you want." When some modern Americans hear that quote, they mistakenly think that Augustine was advocating hedonism. They think he must have been the Hugh Hefner of the fourth century! Well, in point of fact he was the Hugh Heffner of the fourth century—but that was before his conversion! These words were written many years after he had repented of his sins and given his life to Christ. Augustine’s message was that if we truly love someone (with the kind of love Jesus is talking about in today’s Gospel), then we will always treat that person with respect and charity as a child of God. And so we can "do what we want," since we will only want to do what is good for them. We will never want to harm or abuse them in any way.

Whenever Jesus Christ spoke of love, he was speaking about the giving of oneself to another in a committed, selfless, self-sacrificial relationship. Does that sound like the contemporary understanding of love? I don’t think so! In fact, in the modern world, this New Testament understanding of love is very often turned completely upside down. Love doesn’t mean "giving" (as it did to Jesus), it means "taking" and "using": taking from another person and using that individual for our own selfish ends.

Take a look sometime at the lyrics of the top 20 songs in the country (most of these are currently available on-line): "Gangsta Lovin," "Luv U Better," "The Game of Love" and the rest on that list. I did that the other day, and I discovered that this idea of love as taking from others and using them for pleasure permeates the majority of these songs. Is it any wonder that so many of our young people end up in unhealthy, manipulative relationships with their peers, their parents, and nearly everyone else in their lives? "If you loved me, you would . . . ": that’s a common verbal manifestation of this kind of love that uses another human being for personal gain and pleasure.

After the 10:30 Mass this morning, we will hold our annual walk for life. The funds we raise will benefit local groups which seek to protect pre-born children, support women in difficult pregnancies, and help men and women find healing after abortion. Put in the terms of this homily, the walk for life is an act of love—real love, the kind of love Jesus was talking about when he said, "Love your neighbor as yourself!" Abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and other such evils, are all rooted in the selfish notion of love which permeates our culture. It’s the notion of love which says, "Pre-born babies in the womb exist for me and for my enjoyment and benefit. [So do fertilized eggs, according to Christopher Reeve and Michael J. Fox.] Therefore, I can do as I please to them and with them. If I choose to terminate their existence or manipulate them in some way, that’s perfectly acceptable. It can even be an act of great love. After all, isn’t it better to abort some of these children than to allow them to be born into a situation of poverty or sickness? Isn’t it better to use their stem cells for the good of others who are seeking healing and a better life here on earth?"

Jesus Christ, through his Church, says, "No, it’s not better!" Jesus says, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself. These children—however small they might be at the present time—are your brothers and sisters from the moment of their conception until the moment of their natural death. Therefore you must give them your compassion, your care, and your utmost respect. They are not to be sacrificed to make your life more convenient, or to make you feel better."

I wonder how many of us will remember this truth when we go to vote in a few days? Or will we vote (as so many Catholics do in this state) out of pure self-interest and self-love. Will the issue be, "Which politician will work to protect the most innocent and vulnerable among us?" Or will the issue be, "Which politician will help me the most? Which politician will put the most money in my billfold or pocketbook if he gets elected?"

You see, my brothers and sisters, our perspective on love—our accepted definition of love—manifests itself everywhere: at home, at work, in school—and even in the voting booth.

Back when I was young, the Beatles had a song out entitled, "All you need is love." There is certainly some truth in that statement; but, unfortunately, the Beatles never told us exactly what kind of love we need. As Catholic Christians, we’re supposed to know the answer: the kind of love we need is the kind of love that gives; it’s not the kind of love that takes and uses.

Jesus expressed it perfectly in one line: "Greater love no one has, than to lay down his life for his friends."