17th Sunday in Ordinary Time Year C 2025

The common thread running through the 1st Reading and the Gospel is prayer. Abraham pleaded with God on behalf of many innocent citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah. The exchange between God and Abraham revealed the generosity of God. Abraham kept lowering the criterion for redemption and God acceded until a point where He could go no lower.

Whatever was the sin of Sodom or Gomorrah, the point was God’s readiness to save. While the Lord is ever—ready, the question remains. What can God really accomplish or what can God not do? It is a weird question when one considers God’s sovereignty. He can do whatever He wants but in the interaction between Abraham and God, we need to consider that there may be limits to God’s “freedom”.

There is such a thing as the trajectory of sin. What the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was is not the point here. At present, some might dispute “sodomy” to be a sin but suffice to say that an unrepentant attitude puts a limit to God’s generosity.

God is not like Shylock who demands a pound of flesh. As the Responsorial Psalm goes, “On the day I called, You answered me”. In the case of Sodom and Gomorrah, even God Himself was searching for compromises against what was supposed to be the consequence of a trajectory.

A survey of our gastronomic habits might help us to understand the consequence of a trajectory. We are in the midst of a health epidemic. Firstly, our eating habits border on hedonism. We prioritise pleasure to the extent that the goal of eating is no longer nourishment but consumption. In fact, we eat more than we need. Our food is laden with additives and most of all with sugar. If a person were to eat, eat and eat, the result would be obesity with its attendant diabetes and a good measure of hypertension. Likewise, no matter what God could do and what Abraham hoped to achieved, both Sodom and Gomorrah were doomed from the start.

Success or failure, the experience of Abraham teaches us how important praying is. Our praying should be persistent. We should persevere because in the Gospel passage, Jesus in response to the Disciples requesting Him to teach them how to pray, cited the example of a persistent friend. Persistence paid off, for the man in house who had refused to be inconvenienced, finally responded to the friend’s persistent pleading.

In other words, God wants to answer our prayers as long as we are not shy in asking. But not all prayers can be answered nor all petitions be granted. We should temper our expectations which begs the question of Who this God is and what we should expect of Him. In short, what sort of relationship do we have with God?

For a few scientifically minded, God is like a watch-maker. This notion is closely associated with Deism. It emphasises a deity who created the universe and does not intervene in its affairs. Much like the creator of a watch who sets the time device into motion leaving it to run on its own. We are comfortable with this kind of a distant God because we can rely on reason and natural laws to explain the universe instead of resorting to religious texts or revelation.

The opposite of a watch-maker is a deity involved in the world. Closely linked to an involved God is a moralistic therapeutic deity who desires that humanity be good, happy and to feel good about themselves. In other words, God’s role is to make people happy and since happiness is paramount, then anything that makes demands on us should to be downplayed. The organising principle in life is convenience which translates into non-demanding, non-threatening commandments.

The idea of a therapeutic deity coincides with our sense of entitlement. We expect a god who bends to our will not realising that God may not be able to and that is not because He does not want to.

Why?

Pope Francis was right in his inspiration in highlighting the ecological crisis. We cannot continue in the manner we devour the earth’s resources. Our consumption is out of control and it is not a matter of environment destruction or climate change that is challenging. Rather, we have been careless but we expect the Lord to fix or solve the consequences of our ecological irresponsibility.

An area of great concern for us is health. Many are sick and it feels that God does not seem to hear our prayers for their healing. But think about the ease with which we “tapau” (take-away) our food without second thoughts. Have we ever consider the amount of plastic that leaches into our food due to the high heat of our soup and sauces? Can the Lord still hear our prayers even if we have no regard in the manner of our consumption?

God wants to answer our prayers but if we are consuming ourselves to death, there is nothing He can do even when we pray persistently.

The bulk of our prayer is petitionary in nature. We are perpetually petitioning God to intervene in a trajectory which we do not take responsibility for. The plastic we have ingested. The medication we have consumed. Ironically the prophylactic or preventative medicines we use to prolong our lives may also be hastening our death. It is a known fact that the long-term use of pharmaceuticals to solve a medical problem causes side effects which result in organ damage.

People ask, “Where is God in my prayers?”. Are we expecting God to do magic? On the one hand, Jesus asks us to pray and to petition the Father. We should. And yet within that petition, it is not supposed to be a gimme, gimme, gimme because we are entitled to. Rather, our prayers must also include the element of doing God’s will.

We may be living in an age of entitlement but salvation is not automatic. It cannot be imposed, because we must desire it. Hence, are we ready to pay the price? In the case of our petitionary prayers, the God who created us without our consent cannot save us without our consent. If we take the hint from the second reading, it speaks of entering into Christ death. Thus, salvation is ours but we must desire it. And therefore we must work for it. But not in a way as if we merit salvation through our efforts but rather, we dispose ourselves to God’s salvation.

The whole idea of salvation is therefore a call to the conversion of heart. If the heart is not involved, no matter what, the Lord cannot do much. Anyway, if you did not know it, petitionary prayer is also prayer for conversion. It is not just asking for God’s favour but also asking that we change to fit into God’s will and also carries with it an acute awareness that there is a price to pay for our sins.

It sounds rather negative to end with “paying the price of sin”. It is not but it illustrates the truth of our salvation. Recall the Calvary conversation between Christ and the repentant thief. It highlights the difference between forgiveness and paying the consequence of one’s sins. Christ promised the repentant thief that he would be in heaven. But He did not come down from His cross to remove the repentant thief from his suffering. Forgiveness was expressed through the promise of heaven. Whereas the repentant thief who was on the way to heaven still needed to do his so-called “penance”, that is, to be responsible for his actions and their consequences.

16th Sunday in Ordinary Time Year C 2025

Memes of neologism can convey snippets of wisdom and I have a couple and they capture the zeitgeist in which we live in. One is basically “Cellfish” spelt with a “c” or “cell” rather than “s” or “sel” denoting that a person uses a mobile device in a rather rude and selfish manner, that is, listening loudly or playing a movie without care for others around them. It has become an accepted norm now in cafes, buses, aeroplanes etc. The other one is “textpectation” defined as the anticipation for a reply after one has texted. We demand our answers and solutions not today but yesterday.

Ironically we have machines after machines and “mod-cons” to simplify our tasks and also to buy us time and yet, we are frenetic or frantic, always having no time.

Today the Gospel invites us to slow down and to take time out from our busy schedules. Last Sunday’s Good Samaritan may also be seen from the view of slowing down. The other two were in a hurry to go somewhere whereas the Samaritan practically slowed down, took the time to nurse the injured. This week, we have Martha and Mary who had invited Jesus. Rightly so Martha was busy preparing to host whereas Mary was seated as she contemplated Jesus by listening to Him speak. The Samaritan was an outsider. Likewise, was Mary. She was truly unusual, for women were outsiders too, as they were segregated or separated from the main congregation. Mary broke with social convention by sitting at the feet of the Lord and Saviour.

It is life to sit and contemplate the Lord.

The earlier mentioned memes of neologisms reveal us, who we are, to ourselves. We are entertaining ourselves to oblivion and we are impatient and are unable to wait. Instead we feel entitled to having the answers at our fingertips. Anytime and anywhere they must be available to us. Furthermore, there is too much electronic noise in our lives. We have become so used to the humming and hawing that we seem to have accepted that peace or quiet is unavailable to us.

But digital detox might be what we all need. There is no way to detox except to take time off. We may be able to cram a lot but no matter how much we can fit into a frame of time, what remains is that certain things will need time to unfold. Just like baking a cake or ageing wine. Maybe one can be efficient in the use of time but time too has to behave according to its created nature. Time passes at the mercy and will of God.

In order to contemplate the Lord, there is no possibility we can rush the experience. In other words, there is no quicker way to heaven. What may be the common experience thus far is the fear of losing out. It is possibly a Malaysian or Asian trait that whenever a tour is organised, it is meant to achieve as much as possible for fear of losing out. Therefore, people want to fill up whatever activities as captured by this slogan—pack more life into your years, rather having more years in your life. A long life is preferable but for every year one lives, one must ensure that it is lived efficiently—quite the kind of philosophy we have these days.

It misses the point of what life is supposed to be. Right now, the trend is to jump onto the latest flow, Artificial Intelligence. Without reflecting on the ethical implications of unmitigated use of Artificial Intelligence, we are ushered into embracing it so that we will not be left behind.

Trend hopping has a way of distracting us from the flow of a contemplative life. The recovery of this dimension is central to our overall well-being. Nothing is more destructive to the human psyche than the uncontrolled stress of activism.

What has happened is that people are driven to search for that kind of connection with God which they seem to believe is missing in Catholicism or Christianity. They have sought alternatives in Buddhism or any one of those spiritual or new age movement which they think can overcome the lack in Christianity. Therefore Jesus was right. A prophet is not accepted in his own country. There are Catholics who fail to recognise the sublime gift of their faith which they had received in their childhood.

It is a shame and Mary’s experience sitting at Christ’s feet reveals that such a spiritual relationship cannot be manufactured. It can only be cultivated. Christ is the Prince of peace and sitting at His feet is the start of contemplation and spirituality. Spontaneity is truly over-rated. It may be creative, fun and novel but it can lead to indiscipline. No matter how exhilarating spontaneity is, life is basically rhythm.

Regularity establishes a sense of connexion far better than leaving things to chance. To sit with the Lord basically requires a regular schedule and in order to be with and desire Him, more than anything else, there is an urgent need to recover the notion of heaven. Without heaven and given that our vision is short-sighted we will be driven to look for quick-fixes and instant gratification. Heaven is beatific and there will be times that being with Him may just take us beyond this world. If the time is right, we arrive there through the portal of death. Whereas without a notion of heaven, the desire to be with Him will never be attractive enough. Finally, a point to remember for those of us who are constantly rushing is that being in a hurry to live is at the same time being in a hurry to die. In that case, what is death for? Who are we living for and who are we dying for, if not for the Lord.

15th Sunday in Ordinary Time Year C 2025

During this period of Ordinary Time, we explore a theme that forms a part of Christian living. It is neighbourliness. In the case of the other two Synoptic Gospels, Jesus is tested on His priorities and so they posed Him the question on which the greatest commandment is. In Mark and Matthew, Jesus pointed to the Shema of Dt 6:5 on how one should love God and also to Lv 19:18 on how one should love the neighbour. Luke’s Gospel carries an interesting twist. A lawyer shows interest in eternal life and what he should do to merit or inherit it. Instead of answering directly, Jesus first draws both the biblical quotations from Deuteronomy and Leviticus out of the lawyer. In response to the man’s desire to justify himself, Jesus tells the parable of the Good Samaritan to illustrate the full meaning of who or what a neighbour is.

The biblical background of the Samaritan shows that despite him being despised, he is even more law-abiding than the listeners, who are mostly Jews—symbolised by the Levite and the priest passing by and avoiding the injured man. In using a class of people whose status is questionable, Jesus intends to show that God’s love is not provincial, for it is blind or impervious to colour and creed, culture and class. To do good is godly or divine and the only criterion for action is that someone needs help.

When one thinks of assistance or being helpful, there are no good Samaritans in Japan. If there is a person of Japanese origin in the congregation, this might sound shocking to hear that there are no good Samaritans in Japan. Or even in Korea too. Before you pick up a stone, the statement is not meant to denigrate as it is to invite one to probe a little deeper. The word Samaritan is synonymous with a person who reaches out to others through acts of selfless behaviour. When a person does not care about himself or herself but sets out to do good, we are fascinated or inspired. But should we be amazed by a kindness that reaches out? Perhaps this is better appreciated when we look at the familiar experience of clutter-blindness, meaning that when everyone is good, then a person’s kindness or generosity will not stand out. We will basically take it for granted, just like clutter-blindness—that such “Samaritan” behaviour is normal and routinely to be expected. Apparently, in Japan, regularly, lost items are returned to their owners.

Call it is social values or religious up-bringing, the result is a culture where there is a high degree of human solidarity. Individuals behave in a manner which enriches society as a whole. Just as when the tide rises, all boats are raised or as the climate-change proponent would say, the islands disappear. The point is, when everyone is kind, then nobody’s kindness will in any way be exceptional.

Instead what we have is the proliferation of the service industry. The existence of such an industry is itself a tell-tale sign of why kindness should not be exceptional but ordinary. The very fact that we need to pay for someone to treat us better is really saying something about the state of our solidarity.

In the past, the Catholic Church ran one of the largest, if not the most extensive network of hospitals and schools. Prior to the advent of government-sponsored medical and educational services, health-care and scholarship were expressions of two priorities of the Church. Firstly, it was the out-reach of the Good Samaritan. Both educating the young and caring for the sick were expressions of this parable. No one was turned away from schools or hospitals. Especially so when you consider all the orders, congregations and institutes founded to provide health care and education for the poor. Secondly, our Samaritan outreach was not based on an ideology. To reach out to others is to reach out to Christ Himself. “Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, that you do unto me”.

The question posed by the lawyer can now be turned on its head. Using the parable of the Last Judgement in Matthew 25, where the sheep and the goats are separated, the criterion for differentiating is based on what one has done or found to be deficient in so doing. The result is rather stark. One is either redeemed or condemned. Such a system where one is rewarded or punished can generate a sense of guilt. Sadly, one is driven to act only because one is fearful. Perhaps we can detect the same fear with respect to the Church’s obligations. We are left with the guilt of “go to Mass or else”.

Excellence or nobility demands that we go beyond the criterion of the Last Judgement, that is, to transcend reward or punishment. The question of who my neighbour is may invite me to look out or search for them. They are out there and I am supposed to find them. But if the question were rephrased as to whom I am a neighbour or to whom have I been a neighbour, the change in perspective is profound.

It becomes an introspective exercise inviting me to look more at my thoughts and behaviour. This is challenging because it now becomes a matter for the examination of my conscience. I become more conscious of the shadows lurking in my thoughts and reactions. I may be kind to someone and then the motive could be that I am just doing my duty and no more. Thus being kind to someone also invites me to purify my motivation.

What draws me to be a neighbour? The answer and motivation is Jesus Christ. Am I able to see Jesus in everyone. Or is my vision filtered? Do I see Him whom I should love and adore? Or am I driven by narrow parameters like race and religion or by selfish and material considerations. According to St Paul, Jesus is the image of the unseen God. By the same token of Matthew’s 25chapter, every man, woman and child is an image of the invisible Jesus.

The Parable of the Good Samaritan should make us look for Jesus. Slogans that inspire actions can only go so far. There is a quote floating around attributed to Mother Teresa of Calcutta where, it seemed, she was asked about what to propose to young people and her reply was “Give them Jesus, only Jesus, always Jesus”.

Her entire life was premised on Who Jesus was to her and for her. Every action of hers was never to fulfil a slogan nor to meet some indices of achievement or accomplishment. Instead, she saw Jesus in every person she came across. She was a neighbour to everyone because she loved the Jesus in everyone she met and served. Maybe we can follow her example.

14th Sunday in Ordinary Time Year C 2025

This Sunday’s theme calls for a story that is familiar to many of us. It is the story of four people who are simply named Everybody, Somebody, Anybody and Nobody. It flows into the narrative of today’s focus—the task of evangelisation.

You may have heard this before but it bears repeating that there was an important task to be carried out. Everybody was sure that Somebody would do it. Anybody could have done it. But Nobody did it. Consequently, Somebody got angry about that since it was Everybody’s job. But then Everybody thought Anybody could do it. Nobody realised that Everybody would not do it. It ended up that Everybody blamed Somebody when Nobody did what Anybody could have done.

Last Sunday, we celebrated Ss Peter and Paul. The Pope may have an important duty but it is not his alone. In the past we had an army of priests and religious. Apart from their pastoral duties, they also took care of our religious formation. Some of us are old enough to remember the strict discipline of the Brothers or Sisters in our schools. We were content to accept their ministration. Today, we still have that kind of complacency—meaning that in terms of faith formation, we tend to wash our hands off our responsibility.

A good example of taking up responsibility can be found in a neighbouring parish. Our Sunday School population has somewhat exploded due to “migration”, not immigration from Singapore but migration from a neighbouring parish. Why? The Sunday School programme there is pushing parents to take a more active role in imparting the faith in their children. In other words, faith is caught at home more than it is taught at catechism.

Our culture is increasingly louder, figuratively speaking. We are together alone meaning that we may be together but in actually we are more alone than ever before. The Pandemic’s social distancing may just be the outward expression of what we have been doing ever since the advent of social media. Ironical that it is called “social” media because it is supposed to connect us socially through electronic media when in fact it has increasingly locked us behind the walls of idealised expectations. We do not interact with each other in a real world but communicate in such a way that leads us to fantasise on more ideal connections. Idealised fantasies make for loneliness because reality often fails to meet one’s expectations.

The result is “louder”. Our speech is no longer intended to connect us more closely but it has to be louder because “I need to shout in order to convince you”. The evangelical enterprise is much harder to carry out because we are trapped behind the walls of our own thoughts.

With such a challenge, the story of the Fourbodies become real for us. The description of the Church as synodal may just be a way of escaping this prison of our own making. We are prodded to take responsibility for the Church by being accountable for our beliefs. What is negative is that we might just be swayed by present currents.

What sort of winds blows?

Firstly, it concerns a short-sightedness in our spiritual vision. Because we cannot fathom heaven’s rewards that come after a life of surmounting challenges, we try to turn the vision around to make the world more like heaven or rather to lower heaven’s goal to fit our vision. In that way, we focus more on the rewards that the world can give. We struggle to put aside or delay our gratification believing that reward has to be in this world.

Thus we shy from struggles and suffering. Why suffer when pleasure is readily available.

Secondly, we have to adjust our reward system. Admittedly, the 72 came back rejoicing that even demons submit themselves. They have power over the forces of evil. So, they rejoiced because they could see the result of their work. How often have we been disappointed by the lack of fruits? We labour in the Lord’s vineyard and sometimes we might not see the fruits of our blood, sweat and tears.

The lot of the labourers is to trust in God for He is the Lord of the harvest.

Secular culture proposes a system of reward which is this worldly. It only knows this world and thus it is a material form of reward. But life eternal is another reward which we should work for. Christ Himself did say, “Work for treasures that do not fade”.

However, to propose a system of reward that is other worldly is still to be trapped in a way which is basically “materialistic” even though it is located in a spiritual realm. Reward must come from a kind of satisfaction provided by God Himself and there is no measure to it. In a recent retreat we were all posed this question. “Am I driven or am I drawn?” Even spiritual reward can carry with it a certain drive. One is driven to work and driven to succeed etc. But drawn is another matter altogether. Can I be drawn by God for Himself. I am drawn to follow Him to the ends of the earth for no matter where He is, there is home.

In a way, this “home” is alluded in the experience of the 72 as they enter houses. Give peace, eat and drink whatever is set before them. There is a certain placidness in this posture which shows that one is at “home” for where Christ is preached, there is home. Bringing the Gospel to the world is definitely challenging and it can be lonely but it makes sense of what St Paul says in the 2nd Reading. The marks of Christ’s Cross on one’s body is not a curse but it is the greatest witness to the truth of the Gospel, the good news that a world is longing for.

Solemnity of Ss Peter and Paul 2025

We are quick to react and it is possibly fuelled by our crave for dopamine—the neuro-transmitter chemical in our brains that creates a temporarily high which that makes us feel good. Why do we react? We are accustomed to having quick fixes or immediate solution and since we are surrounded by uncertainty, it is not surprisingly that we react instantly to news that upsets or runs counter to our expectation. Left, right and centre, we are bombarded by the “latest” news and usually of the sensational type. They call it “click-bait”.

Imagine in April the betting world was speculating on who the next Pope would be. In fact, experts are everywhere interpreting every gesture or utterance of his. When Pope Benedict gave the Regensburg’s address, it sparked an immediate outrage because he allegedly insulted the Muslims. Pope Francis’ “Who am I to judge?” was taken to be his accommodating nod to behaviour contrary to Catholic teaching. Whether conscious or not, our news cycle is a constant roller coaster ride of dopamine-fuelled knee-jerk reactions.

Today we celebrate two Apostles, both pivotal in the Great Commission given by Christ before the Ascension. They are so central that they even supersede the 13th Sunday in Ordinary Time. This is what the Preface says of them.

“For by your providence the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul bring us joy: Peter, foremost in confessing the faith, Paul, its outstanding preacher. Peter, who established the early Church from the remnant of Israel, Paul, master and teacher of the Gentiles that you call. And so, each in a different way gathered together the one family of Christ; and revered together throughout the world, they share one Martyr’s crown”.

They are both celebrated together because one Great Commission is executed in a two-pronged approach to evangelisation. While both Apostles do the same work, one ranks higher in terms of authority.

The Gospel Reading today revealed the primacy of Peter because upon him, the Rock, Christ wants to build His Church. It is a mighty responsibility for one man to shoulder. In the passage, Christ asked the central question which the Church must answer from Peter until the end of time. For as long as there is time, he and those who hold his office, on behalf of the Church, must supply this answer: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God”.

We can appreciate Peter’s primacy, if we survey the three elements of creed, cult and code that inform any religion. Firstly, in terms of creed, we profess a faith that has not been invented by us. Instead, we received it from the Twelve who through Apostolic succession handed it down to us. Secondly, our cults unite us in the worship of God. Admittedly the word “cult” is negative but in our case, the worship that we give to God is expressed through the different rites of the universal Church. Last count, we have 21 rites throughout the Catholic-verse. Thirdly, the code denotes the moral principles that govern our ethical behaviour. There is a central authority under whom we are governed and it is here that the Primacy of Peter resides.

Peter is central to the unity of the Church. Catholics and Orthodox are separated because the Orthodox Churches lack the Petrine principle. They do not accept the primacy of Peter and his successors. Yet, the Orthodox are rightfully Churches because they profess the same faith or creed and are united in their worship or cult.

Since they maintain a worship legitimised by Apostolic Succession, we are allowed to received Holy Communion in these Churches. The only thing is that they may not like it, since for them, Catholics in the “West” are heretical.

The centrality of Peter and the authority of the Pope is a good for the Church. It might help to be less reactive and maybe to be more engaging in terms of praying for the Church, most particularly for the Bishop of Rome who holds the primacy of charity or love for the whole Church founded by Jesus Christ.

The Pope’s authority over the universal Church is not a lordship. Authority is a service, just like Christ who washed the feet of His disciples on Holy Thursday. The Pope’s authority is to maintain both creed and cult so that the faith received, while expressed differently, is still in continuity with the faith of the Apostles.

The previous Pope, Francis tried to lead the Church along synodal path to becoming a Church of service rather than a hierarchy that lords over the laity. The pace of change is slow but St Pope Paul VI who on the 80th anniversary of the teaching of Rerum Novarum reminded the Church that people listen to the teachers not because they teach but because they live their teaching authentically. The Church has a long way to go in becoming more credible in her preaching.

More than ever, in a fractured world, the office of the Pope is to hold the Church together because he is the guardian of unity in faith and morals for the Church. Peter the Pontiff is the bridge, sturdy and strong, whose ministry is to help the sons and daughters of the Church along the path to eternity. In that sense, the Pope is powerful.

What does he need? If we take the example of the US President, we may discern what is to be done. The POTUS too is powerful for he holds the key to an arsenal powerful enough to reduce the face of the earth into a perpetual nuclear winter. The owner of Tesla is also a key player in the development of the future of Artificial Intelligence. For a while both are willing to share the spotlight but at the pinnacle of power, there is little room for inflated egos. If that sends a shudder, perhaps we should find a way to deal with power. Of course, we may have the intellect or even the wisdom to see reality for what it is and even call it out. But what did Jesus do?

According to Luke’s Gospel, Jesus, at the Last Supper, prayed for Peter that he would not fail but if he did, when he repents, he should strengthen the faith of the brothers and sisters. It is easy to pontificate and pass judgement but not easy to pray. Each Mass, we mention Pope Leo’s name. Rather than react because we know everything, it is better to pray for the Pope because he is a powerful man. For the Pope, he needs our prayers for wisdom to build bridges and the steer the barque of Peter along the sure, strong and steady path to heaven. For us, the sheep led by the shepherd of Christ, it is better to pray than to pontificate.

Corpus Christi Year C 2025

Holy Thursday should be the proper solemnity for the Body and Blood of Christ. But since we have the Rite of Washing of Feet for that evening, the spotlight should naturally shine on the Christ who came to serve. Thus, it is left to Corpus Christi to tease out the profound impact of Christ’s sacrifice on Calvary because His passion, death and resurrection become present to us each time we celebrate the Eucharist. In short, we get a first-hand view of what Christ did on Calvary, albeit, in an unbloody manner.

Every Eucharist is truly a privileged window to the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross. If Easter showed us that Christ came to save us, then Corpus Christi reminds us that His desire to redeem and save is an ongoing operation. On this day, it might be a good time to ask what we truly believe in because small things mean a lot. For example, on Trinity Sunday, you were made aware that the replacement of just one word in the formula of baptism can have catastrophic consequences. The change from “I baptise” to “We baptise” invalidates a baptism and consequently nullifies the effects of subsequent Sacraments. Most devastating is felt when one of those invalidly baptised men becomes a priest.

In my previous posting as parish priest, when a host drops onto the floor, either the communicant or the minister nonchalantly picks up the host, either to consume or to “dispose” if it appeared to be soiled. “Nonchalantly” as if it were nothing. Over here in Sacred Heart Cathedral, the minister steps aside, covers the spot with a purificator and usually someone will go to the area where the host dropped, with water and purificator to purify and dry the place. Honestly speaking, when I first encountered this, it felt rather stupid or unnecessary.

Let me clarify where the feeling of non-necessity is coming from. We are lined up to receive Holy Communion and it is no big deal for a host to drop on the floor or ground. Simply pick it up and get on with life because life is short, life is busy. Do not make a big deal out of it.

But science makes us look stupid while it also helps us. How so? A surgeon in preparation for surgery goes through a stringent sterile procedure of hand-washing, vesting, putting on the gloves and masking. In this exercise, he or she is meticulously diligent that there should be no possibility of contamination traced to the process. What is the big deal? Imagine the surgeon half way through a surgery removes her mask, rubs her nose and blows it and then continues to operate. What is a few bacteria or viruses?

But when we watch the NCIS series, observe how painstakingly careful the laboratory technicians are when it comes to the collection of evidence. Even a micro-fragment can be used to prove a case. Like for example, paint transfer, no matter how light the contact between two vehicles—invisible to the eyes but not to the microscope, can yield evidence to convict.

Now it makes a bit more sense that purification takes place after a Communion mishap. It highlights the reality of not “what” we receive but “Whom”. I have read somewhere that a Protestant pastor expressing to his Catholic counterpart that if he were to believe what we Catholics believe in, he would not be kneeling but would fall flat on his face.

Why? Because small things matter.

At the end of the Eucharist, there is a purification that takes place at the credence table. Ordinarily, the priest should conscientiously purify the sacred vessels ensuring that all particles of Holy Communion are swept into the chalice which is rinsed with water and then consumed by the priest. Such minutiae indicate how important the Eucharist is to us but more than that, it expresses our deference and reverence toward Whom we consider to be our Lord and Saviour.

As I face you, what is behind me is the Sacristy. The name itself indicates a place where sacred vessels and holy vestments are stored. Within the Sacristy there is a sink called the Sacrarium. It leads nowhere because whatever water that flows into the Sacrarium, enters the ground beneath where no one steps on.

In the past, this was how they purified a chalice. It was rinsed first with unconsecrated wine which was poured into the Sacrarium. Then, it was rinsed a second time with water and again drained into the Sacrarium. The care that we put into the purification of our sacred vessels is indication of how highly we honour the Lord—that the bread and wine are truly the Body and Blood of Christ

Such a devotion is not alien to us. The Chinese have a term to describe a precious child. “寶貝” [“băo bèi” in Mandarin or “bou2 bui3” in Cantonese]. Whenever a precious child is hurt, the mother or the father will feel the same hurt and in terms of caring for the “bou2 bui3”, the parents will go out of the way to ensure that nothing should injure the child. Was that not the very temptation which Satan proposed to Jesus on top of the parapet? “If you are the Son of God,” he said, “throw yourself down; for scripture says: He has given his angels orders about you, and they will carry you in their arms in case you trip over a stone”.

If we believe the Eucharist to be the Body and Blood of Jesus, should our behaviour not mirror a parent’s protection of a “bou2 bui3”? In a way we ought to modify our behaviour according to our conviction. We should endeavour to move in that direction as you may be aware that at each weekend Mass, the first item for announcement is to invite you to the Thursday evening or 1st Friday 24-hour Adoration. Our devotional life is a concrete expression of what we believe of the Eucharist as the source and summit of the Christian life.

Perhaps you might understand why in the Cathedral, we have not made any announcements about a person’s choice of clothing. Not that that is not important. I sometimes remark crudely that I am not bothered by indecent dressing. There is a reason. The Parable of the Merchant and the Pearl highlights how a person would sell everything to acquire the pearl of great price. Jesus is the only treasure worth our lives and our sacrifices. When we have discovered Him to be the soul of our lives, our behaviour, which includes dressing, will slowly conform to what we profess in. A time-tested path to encountering or discovering Jesus is through beauty in our architecture and our liturgy. The embrace of beauty sets the soul on the road towards excellence in behaviour and nobility in spirit. Such a change can only be achieved through captivation and not through coercion, through conviction and not through compulsion. If a person is forced to dress up for Jesus, what happens when there is no force?

The Eucharist can only be the source and summit of Christian living because Jesus Himself is the source of sustenance for the ascent to the summit of eternity. Through the most sublime gift of His Body and Blood, He is not merely the food which nourishes our spiritual life. Instead, He is the only food Viaticum, that is, the singular sustenance for the journey to our eternal homeland. In conclusion, while the Solemnity of Corpus Christi highlights the centrality of the Eucharist as the presence of Jesus, truly, really and substantially, the reality is that He is the only food that can transform us to resemble Him. We are the only ones who can receive Him and benefit from receiving Him. As St Maximilian Kobe said, “If angels could be jealous of men, they would be so for one reason: Holy Communion”.

Trinity Sunday Year C 2025

There were days that I had to take bus when I was studying theology in Dublin. I avoided the upper deck of the bus because the Irish, in the slums where I lived, were like some Malaysians. “No smoking” was just a meaningless sign. There were times I was forced upstairs and the scenery on the way to or from college looked different.

Like today’s Trinity Sunday. A different perspective can deepen our understanding of who God is. The lower deck of the bus represents our everyday life. When we face a reality, day in and day out, the landscape can fade into the background. Those who are clutter-blind know the experience.

Our liturgy is basically Trinitarian. We take it for granted. The common formula at the end of the Collect sounds like this: Through our Lord Jesus Christ, your Son, who lives and reigns with you, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, God, forever and ever. Amen. Since all our prayers are Trinitarian, do we need Trinity Sunday at all.

Trinity Sunday is like the upper deck of the double-decker bus—a reminder to step away from the everyday grind that sometimes reduces a mystery to nothing. Firstly, the Trinity is not our invention. It is a revelation from God on which our faith is based. We believe in one God even though He revealed Himself as the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. While we need to be faithful to this revelation, the question remains if the formula is dated or out of touch with progress.

For example, when in the 50s or 60s under the aegis of liberation, equality, feminism, it was felt that language was inherently oppressive since its structure was patriarchal. There was a movement to neutralise language through a process of de-masculinisation or maybe emasculation. In the past, the word “everybody” carried with it a masculine pronoun, “he”. “Every Malaysian knows at least two languages and that is because ‘he’ lives in a multi-lingual country”. Today we phrase it as “Every Malaysian knows at least two languages and that is because ‘they’ live in a multi-lingual country”.

This “neutered” English crept into our liturgy. It was felt that our prayers should also be “gender neutral”. The word “neutered” is terrible because it seems to emasculate or “defang” language. Anyway, the trend was to update our liturgy to suit this linguistic development. The challenge is that we have a given formula. It is not a construct that the Church invented. Instead it was handed down to us by the Apostles.

The received formula is “I baptise you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”. It became inclusive when “We baptise you in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” OR better still, “I baptise you in the name of the Creator, the Redeemer and the Sanctifier.

Three points to note about these ancient and modern formulae. Firstly there is an agreement in the singular “name”. We are baptised in the NAME. There has never been any baptism done in the NAMES which directs our attention to the given. God’s revelation is a given and on that mount before His Ascension, Christ gave us the formula to baptise in ONE NAME and not three names.

Secondly, it is Christ who baptises. The use of the singular pronoun “I” signifies that the person or the minister who baptises, acts in persona Christi. It is the person and not the “assembly or congregation” that Christ is acting through.

Thirdly, the usage of the formula “creator, redeemer and sanctifier” arises from a confusion between personality and the job description. Whenever God works, God works as one. However, we ascribe creation to God the Father but the Son and Spirit are also working because it is through the Son that creation came to be and it is in the Spirit that life flourishes on earth. There is a relationship between the Father, Son and Spirit which is marked by unity. However, when we speak of Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier, what is missed out are the relationships between these three descriptions. What sort of relationship exists between the Creator and the Redeemer? Between Father and Son, there exists a relationship because words like Mother and Child, Father and Daughter are relational terms. The relational nature of these words are clarified when we ask this question, “Who comes first? The mother or the son”? Our logical framework is based on age in the sense that between an adult and a child, the adult has more years and therefore he or she should take precedence but in reality, no one can be a mother without a child. The minute a woman is pregnant, she is already a mother.

Coming back to the formula, creator, redeemer and sanctifier, the updated formula even though it is progressive, it cannot do justice to the relationship inherent in the revelation of God. In fact, a priest in the recent past, that is, in 2017, had his (not theirs, ha, ha) ordination invalidated and consequently, all his sacramental acts too. The Deacon who baptised Matthew Hood used this formula “We baptise you”. The clever Deacon was trying to be more inclusive. Apart from the so-called Fr Matthew Hood’s ordination being invalid, his absolution in Confessions were also not valid and subsequently all the marriages he conducted too. In the Diocese of Toowumba, Queensland, Australia, the same happened.

Just recently, we also changed a formula in the English language to better reflect our understanding of the Trinity. It is the formula used to conclude the Collect. The change took place on 17th Feb 2021. It was Ash Wednesday. “Through our Lord Jesus Christ, your Son, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, ONE GOD, forever and ever” became “Through our Lord Jesus Christ, your Son, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, GOD, forever and ever”. Why?

The previous formulation undermines the uniqueness of the Trinity because the translation can suggest that there are three gods. Firstly, the prayer is directed to God the Father and therefore the reference to “One God” is not a reference to the Trinity. Perhaps a rephrasing might help. “Through our Lord Jesus Christ, your Son, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, for He (Jesus Christ) is God for ever and ever”. The conclusion is affirming the divinity of Christ and not referencing the uniqueness of the Trinity.

Jesus Christ is God. He is not One God for if He were One God, then we have three Gods. Our language about God has to be faithful because God chose to reveal Himself to us as Father Son and Spirit. How do we want to deal with this? In the past they dealt with it from the perspective of one and three. They had to grapple how three are not three but one. We are no different. We may not wrestle with three in one but still we may be worshipping three Gods without knowing it. Take the Taize hymn. “The Lord is my light, my light and salvation. In God I trust”. If my memory serves me right it used to be “In Him I trust”. Once again, the de-masculinising of our liturgy which in the end begs the question of whom we are worshipping. If we were to follow the trajectory to its logical conclusion, perhaps the hymn should be fully de-masculinised as “The Sovereign (gender neutral) is my light, my light and salvation” otherwise we might be pointing to the Lord and then affirming that the God we trust has no connection with the Lord whom we had just affirmed.

Language has become less a servant of speech, of unity in the search for truth. Instead it morphed more into a means of manipulation serving ideologies to influence thought, perception and social interaction. Somehow a criminal is less a “criminal” when he or she is labelled a justice-involved person. I am well aware that we live in a world where there are approved narratives and we are expected to toe the line. Woe to those who disobey this diktat.

This homily tries to talk about the Trinity in the context of a changing linguistic landscape. Expressions of speech can change and they do but there are realities which we have received and they are beyond us, no matter how we feel. The dogma of the Trinity is the foundation of creation. All created reality came to be through the Trinity. Every prayer of ours has a Trinitarian motif. While our prayers may describe the workings of the Trinity ad extra as the Creator or the Redeemer or the Sanctifier, what is also needed is to appreciate the inner life of the Trinity ad intra because all created reality came to be through their relationship with one another—as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We would do well to remember that.