When Matthew speaks of the Law and the Prophets, he means the entire Scripture. When the Messiah comes, He will fulfil all and not one dot of the Law will be overturned. Our problem is not with the Law. It is not as if we disdain laws or regulations. We acknowledge them as important to our well-being and to the regulation of our relationships. “Do not kill”. “Do not steal”. “Do not covet your neighbour’s spouse”. We hold these prohibitions to be important. The challenge is when we encounter restrictions placed on our personal behaviour, especially those that infringe on our personal autonomy or freedom. We tend to feel that they do not apply to us. That is the challenge of entitlement. Many may think that they are not like that but the truth is many will express irritation when asked to submit themselves to some regulations which they deem to be stupid. The clerics, the celebrities or the civil servants amongst us might know this phenomenon. Many priests will not wear their clericals but at Lourdes, they will because they get treated with respect especially in the queue to enter the baths.
Laws require obedience. They compel but it is not slavish compliance or obedience. Instead, if we think of Jeremiah’s (Jer 31:33) encounter with Yahweh where the Prophet was told by God, “I will make a new covenant with the House of Israel… Deep within them, I will plant my Law, writing it on their hearts”. Hence, it makes a lot more sense that Jesus spoke to the Pharisees that “I have not come to abolish the Laws but to fulfil them”.
St John Henry Newman, doctor of the Church, called this innate sense that God has left in us as our conscience. In fact, he defined conscience as the “aboriginal Vicar of Christ”, the moral compass given by God and it is not based on sentiments or personal opinions. Since this is the voice of God, Newman prioritises conscience over everything, shockingly, even including papal authority but the caveat which many forget or ignore is that our conscience should be properly formed. If not, then the priority of our conscience might just be an excuse for self-will or to justify whatever we want. As Whitney Houston sang in one of her songs, “I live my life the way I feel, no matter what I’ll keep it real”. That is not conscience but justification for doing what a person wants.
The challenge today is to allow God’s voice to speak or to manifest itself for us to obey. In general, we tend to prioritise our autonomy and freedom to do what we desire or want that this priority is prized over any restrictions or limits we encounter. We chafe whenever there are restrictions but that chafing is really a confirmation of our broken nature. Or rather they highlight our unruly behaviour and that our senses are guided by a broken moral compass. It does not mean that all rules or regulations are perfect. It just means that when we react immediately each time we feel our freedom curtailed, we should check ourselves first.
St Paul himself said, “I do what I should not and I fail to do what I should”. That is an indication of how vitiated human nature is. Conscience in order for it to be formed correctly might require that we have self-discipline. It may require that we be self-restricting too. That way we tame our wilder nature. If not, it will not be possible to hear the faint voice of God because we are accustomed to having things done our way.
The law or the rule should come from within and for that to happen it requires us to play by the rule. For example, we are aware that a football pitch has lines drawn so every player acknowledges that the ball must be kicked or passed around within the lines drawn. Without that accepted guard-rail, the game will degenerate into chaos. Likewise, slowly by force of habit one can acquire self-restriction or rather self-discipline.
I remember an incident 40 years ago. We lived in two formation houses and as novices there were restrictive rules we had to follow. They were necessarily strict so that we could learn self-regulation. The two houses are separated by a garden and both had telephones installed. This was way before the advent of mobile telephony. A senior member of the Jesuit who visited the house told the junior priest who happened to be the formator to uninstall the phone of the house where the formator was not living in. The formator refused. He said, “If the boys do not learn how to be responsible for the use of the phones, they will not learn at all”.
I never forgot that lesson. Freedom was given so we could learn self-discipline. As a Jesuit novice, I was in charge of our annual outing spending and we were given more money than our holiday budgeted for. It was a lesson how not to overspend.
Forcing people to behave might just give us a semblance of compliance orobedience but in reality it is counter-productive. The result might look good because people fear punishment. But when the external constraints are removed, people return to their original or primal setting. We all know that you can take a Malaysian out of the jungle but you cannot take the jungle out of a Malaysian. We might think that exerting greater control will ensure that things can be done correctly. It might lead to demotivation at best or rebellion at worst. We are familiar with passive aggressive behaviour.
Finally, we cannot compel people to love. We can only lead people to love more. Thus, you can see the bedrock for what we do on Thursday evening is not coercion but rather invitatory. If there is anything good that can be done, it should be presented as an invitation to consider rather than a propaganda that commands acceptance. Thus, we are invited to fall in love with the Lord because His words are sweeter than honey, even than honey that drips from the comb (Ps 19:10). God’s commandments are not merely burdensome rules but they are intended by the Lord to bring fulfilment and happiness to those who obey them. Those who do not know how to love will always feel its burden. Only those who love will never feel the heaviness of a command.
