26th Sunday in Ordinary Time Year C 2025

We remain with Prophet Amos who showed concern for the reality of inequality and perhaps we may also grow in the awareness that wealth can desensitise by making us apathetic towards the poor. In a sense riches is both a blessing and a curse and by highlighting the truth that wealth has a corroding effect on our compassion and our concern for the welfare of the less fortunate. If we have grown jaded, then this is the Church’s way of leading us back to the right path.

The shrinking of the known world enabled by easy travel and also the ubiquity of media streaming has brought the reality of poverty right before us. Anyone with a modicum of humanity will definitely find this to be unacceptable and as such there is a pressing need to alleviate poverty. Social studies have raised our awareness of societal inequalities and one of the movements which has come about from this heightened awareness is Liberation Theology. It takes the perspective of action on behalf of the poor. However, its application may also create a dichotomy which in a way pits one section of society against another. Usually the contention is between the “haves” and the “have nots”.

There is a large-scale disparity which according to the Prophet is unacceptable to God and we are called to right this inequality. In fact, more and more we have become aware of how God takes the side of the poor. Therefore the question before us is how we can, for want of a better phraseology, make something wrong something right. Sadly though, more than the existence of inequality, there is also a tendency to interpret reality through a dualistic lens. For example, we tend to look at life from the perspective of black and white with the corollary that white is associated with good and black with bad. Somehow in this difficult journey towards the attainment of a just society, the process would generally involve some forms of vilification. The rich are regularly painted as bad and poor are good. The rich are cruel and the poor are angels.

Will a dualistic typology help or will it create or foment resentment. However, and let this be clear that this is not a get-out-of-gaol card for the rich to justify, legitimise or even sanctify ignorance or apathy. There are rich and well-meaning people who have been hurt by the poor. The cheating, the lying, the stealing etc. A domestic helper can steal as well. Having said this, could such a statement also be a form of vilification of the poor, meaning that, that the rich easily blame the poor and so get away with having to do the right thing.

Bear with me because we live in an age of “hyper-sensitivity” and “trigger-warning”. We are easily offended because we are victims.

Perhaps a good way to deepen our conscience is to look at the stereo-typical “dumb foreign maid” who steals or the “stupid alien“ who does not know to take our food order etc. Many of them are educated. They have dreams too. But they just have no opportunities in their countries. In the Gospel, Abraham was named but in other places he has been described as “my father is a wandering Aramean”. What does that mean?

Many of our fore-parents came from India and China and they settled here. Many of them would have been poor and they struggled and despite challenges they rose to prominence. They had dreams too when they left in search of better opportunities etc. They succeeded and we are enjoying the fruits of their labour.

With regard to the current batches of many migrants within our country, do they not have dreams? Are not entitled to a better life or success?

The question is, would they want to come if they had a choice? Are they begging for punishment? Perhaps, the next time we are irritated by the stupidity of a poor person it might be good to remember that if given a choice, would the person serving us like to be in a position to be subservient or humiliated?

The idea of a better society is enticing and possibly we think that we need to make systemic changes. But systems can only compel our behaviour through the threats of coercion. Our focus on providing the mechanisms to engender change must take into consider the slow growth in conscience. In order to become more sensitive to societal inequality, growing a conscience is good start by becoming more aware of the plight of the poor. It is an awareness that arises from an acceptance that God has not intended injustice to be the status quo. That there is the poor is a result of sin but it does not belong to the active will of God.

The problem for many of us is that the richer we are the more we are in danger of blindness to inequality. On the other hand, there is no guarantee that even if we were to treat people well, they will not turn around to stab us in the back. The point is, we need to be responsible for our just behaviour. Take a look at Joseph’s behaviour when he found out that Mary was pregnant. There will be people who will cheat or betray us. And they can be rich or poor. But their unjust behaviour is no excuse for us not to live a righteous life.

Ultimately, we uphold and embrace a righteous life because it is pleasing to God and it is not dependent on whether others are living it. That the rich should be caring for the poor, there is no doubt. The parable of Dives and Lazarus tends to make us judge the rich as bad actors and Lazarus as the good protagonist. And that does not help us grow a better conscience. What might be more helpful is to be more conscious whether we be rich or poor, there are inequalities which need to be made right. Everyone is responsible through living righteously before the Lord.