30th Sunday in Ordinary Time Year A

An attempt to entrap Jesus resulted in a profound synthesis of the Law in the Old Testament. Of the 613 laws in the rabbinical tradition, Jesus was asked which was the greatest of the laws and His response was to bring together two commandments—the love of God and the love of neighbour—in such a way that to love God would necessarily mean that one ought to love one’s neighbour. In short, love of neighbour is the fruit of one’s love for God.

The first commandment is lifted from the Book of Deuteronomy (6:5): The Shema is what every devout Jew should know and recite in the morning and evening. Leviticus (19:18) provides us with the second commandment to love our neighbour as ourselves.

However, the commandment that one should love God and neighbour is not revolutionary. In fact, to talk about love is perhaps redundant. Why? This is because we are by nature lovers. God created us with love and in love. It is natural that the creature should show the characteristics or features of the Creator. God is love and so are we created loving. Therefore, we should never be surprised that we love. In fact, when Backstreet Boys to Westlife sing of love, they are reminding us who we really are: Lovers.

The challenge we face is how to define love.

Almost everyone is an expert on love so much so that love has lost its currency or value. It is not what we think it is. Love is too lusty to the point that it has less to do with an ability—a faculty—and much more to do with our emotions. Love cannot be distinguished from lust. In fact, I like the song by Black Eyed Peas: Fools in lust could never get enough of love, love, love. If you are young and strapping or if you like, old and "gatal" (randy), you often cannot tell the difference between love and lust. I love you often means I lust for you.

But, love is to be more than lust. It may be passionate but it is more. Benedict XVI, in the first encyclical Deus caritas est, tells us that love must move beyond lust. He says that Eros which is associated with the wildness of passion (as in lust) in a Greek temple setting is enthusiastic. The root of the words “enthusiastic” or “enthusiasm” is “theos” meaning God. To be enthusiastic or to have enthusiasm means to be taken up by God. When one is taken up by God, one becomes more loving.

The catch, however, is this: Eros, which is one of the Greek words for love (the other two are philia and agape), takes us up into God—it is an ascent, a climb if you like. Lust must reach upwards towards God which for Jesus involves not just the heart but also the soul and the mind—the whole person. It involves an “acting person” because love is a verb—an action word—rather than a noun—a word which denotes a “feeling” or an “emotion”. Both the first reading and the second speaks in terms of love as a verb, an action word so much so that Paul tells the Thessalonians that they have become examples to believers in Macedonia and Achaia.

Love in action means that we often love even when not feeling it. To be taken up into God is “hard work” because it often takes us out of ourselves. Some mothers or fathers know that. Even when the marriage is over, they keep to their side of the bargain in bringing up the children. Couples who have been married for years, when all the fires have gone out, they keep faithful to each other. In other words, love is sacrifice. For priests or religious, the vow of obedience is a “love” word. It is “easy” to obey when you like the superior. But, love becomes an act of supreme self-sacrifice when you obey a superior even when he or she is disagreeable. In today’s world where one is so clever, it is even a greater sacrifice of love when you have to obey a superior whom you think is more stupid than you.

Love of God and neighbour takes a lot out of us. It took the life of Jesus, no less. He loved His father and His disciples to the point of laying down His life. Ever since Jesus, the saints provide us with great examples of what it means to love God and neighbour. Two great and more well-known contemporaries are Maximillian Kolbe and Teresa of Calcutta. Maximillian didn’t die for millions. He gave his life so that a father may see his wife and children again. Teresa didn’t die for millions but she loved many unloved and unwanted throughout her life.

We don’t need to be in Auschwitz or Calcutta to begin loving. The supreme sacrifice of love is to be found in such simple setting as the home, at work, at school or on the road. It is easy to love in general. It is more demanding to love in specific this or that person.

We do not always love as we ought to. In fact, everyone is bound to encounter the difficulty of loving. Of course, we may feel that some people have the vocation to irritate or annoy us, and etc. The fact is, often there will be people—wife, husband, a child, colleague, teacher, a catechist, a priest--who will fulfil the role of scapegoat in our lives. This only proves one thing: our failure to love is an indication that we ought to pray even more to discover and to fall in love with God.

It is important because when we love God, we can love our neighbour. We love our neighbour, that is, this or that specific person, not because he or she is attractive or agreeable. You know Jesus hanging on the Cross had every reason to curse the Roman centurions or guards for what they did to Him. But, He was able to forgive because He had known the love of the Father. Thus, we love, we forgive and we reach out because we have found love in God and God in love.

29th Sunday in Ordinary Time Year A

The exchange between Jesus and the Pharisees can be described as being “caught between the devil and the deep blue sea”. If Jesus had said “NO”, then he would be charged with subversion. If Jesus had said “YES”, then he himself would be guilty of betraying his people, his religion and his God. It’s like “damned if you do and damned if you don’t”.

But, the answer Jesus gives is brilliant. He gives proper due to both God and Caesar. For Jesus, there is no conflict between God and Caesar or according to our more familiar formulation, there is no conflict between Church and State, between religion [which some see as the private sphere] and public life, as long as we are clear about the relationship between them. For Jesus, the clarity of the relationship is found in the priority given to God. The assumption is that there is someone who is in charge and to whom we ought to give our loyalty. It is when we acknowledge that God takes priority, only then can we render to Caesar what belongs to Caesar. Why? Because Caesar or the State, even though it plays an important role in our lives, that role is limited and cannot take the place of God. We owe our loyalty to our King and country; we are citizens, we enjoy all the security that our country provides. But, our country is not God.

Thus, the question is how do we render to God what belongs to God first? Friedrich Nietzsche once said, “God is dead and what are these churches now if they are not the tombs and sepulchres of God”? However, if you think about it, Nietzsche’s reference to the death of God was a reference to Christianity as a spent-force. The reason for Nietzsche’s “God is dead” was because Christianity or Christians no longer made a difference in life. Christianity was no longer effective.

A logical response to Nietzsche’s critique against Christianity may be found in the realm of Caesar. In order to make a difference, that is, to testify that God is alive, we must venture into the realm of Caesar. We prove that God is alive by our mission in the world.

But, the first thing we need to do though is to get away from the idea of mission that has been glamourised. We think that mission is somewhat associated with political action on behalf of the poor, the marginalised, the excluded and the unjustly treated. These aspects of our mission are important because politicians are also telling us that God is dead and that they, the politicians are now in charge. Some of the problems we face in the country and in the world are because “politicians” have behaved like gods. The same is observed with the environmental crisis when “man” behaved as if they were gods and not stewards of creation.

So, our mission through the realm of Caesar is not restricted or confined to the glamour of political and social actions. In fact, it flows down to such simple tasks as found between your pots and pans in the kitchen. As it is not glamorous, it requires deep personal conviction as well as perseverance. It is tough to render to God what belongs to God without any promise of reward. And sadly, we often do things because we fear the possibility of punishment. And that leads me to my next point.

Often, our mission lacks power or credibility simply because our personal life lacks conviction. We may fantasise that our mission lies elsewhere and not in the “here and now”. As a result of this “dis-ease”, we live half-hearted lives as we do not see our present “situation” as husband, wife, children, parents, catechist etc as good enough to be offered to God.

In the 2nd Reading, St Paul affirms the Thessalonians that their faith in action, their love at work and their perseverance in hope are proofs of their utter conviction. The human spirit does not die from want or lack of courage. Look at fools rushing in where angels fear to tread. They may not be wise but they certainly do not lack courage. The human spirit does not die from lack of courage but it withers or dies from lack or want of conviction. Take a look at the life of St Thomas More. His philosophy of life was one of personal conviction: I die the King’s good servant but God’s first. In the midst of his predicament and despite his favourite daughter’s encouragement to give in to the King’s demand, Thomas was convinced that in order to remain faithful to his king, he must first remain faithful to God. This rendering to God first before all else is the conviction that we need to continue Christ’s mission in the world.

And we are somewhat supported by the first Reading. God chose Cyrus, a pagan king to achieve His purpose. The good news is that we are chosen by God and think how much more can God achieve because we are His and we belong to Him? But if we suffer a lack of conviction, then we will not be able “to render to Caesar what belongs to Caesar”. It is said that “Indifference to evil is worse than evil itself, and in a free society, some are guilty, but all are responsible”. The trouble in an apathetic society, when we suffer from lack of conviction, is that all are guilty but only some are responsible. And these few responsible ones are the ones who pay the price for our guilt.[1]

Mission Sunday is a reminder that our mission is to follow Christ whose mission has been to lead the entire creation back to His Father. Give to God and to Caesar is a formula of conviction that we can continue Christ’s mission. When we give God our best, we will also want to make the world a better place.

FOOTNOTE:
[1] Ask RPK and the Hindraf Five who are detained at the “State’s” pleasure.

27th Sunday in Ordinary Time Year A

Whilst China attempts to come to grips with the economic damage of tainted milk, the rest of the world is deciding which brand of milk chocolate may be eaten or not. On Friday evening, we had the Blessing of Animals and Animal Lovers in conjunction with the Feast of St Francis Assisi, the patron of animals and the environment. What connects the Blessing of Animals, tainted milk and the Gospel?

To find the connexion, let’s firstly set the Gospel within the context of its time. In those days, the landlords commonly lived far away from their land-holdings. And it was customary to lease out the land for a fee, for a percentage of the produce. The trouble with this arrangement arose because the relationship between the landlords and their tenants often bordered on ruthless extortion. Given such a lop-sided deal, it was understandable that the tenants behaved the way they did: killed the landowner’s agents and finally the heir to the estate.

But in our case, the parable exceeded the “context” of its time when understood from the perspective of the Prophet Isaiah in the 1st Reading. Agricultural land was and still is scarce in the Middle East. Prime agricultural land was often reserved for other crops. Grapes were grown on hillsides. Thus, they necessitated the terracing of hilly terrain and removal of stones, rocks and boulders. And to protect the vineyard, the landlord had to build a watch-tower and plant hedges around it. In short, a lot of effort went into turning a hillside into a vineyard. From this perspective, the landlord was not an unfair one. In fact, he lovingly fashioned out of nothing a vineyard to be leased out.

This is where the Blessing of Animals, the Milk Scandal can be connected to the Gospel. The Vineyard could represent many things. In our case, let the Vineyard leased out be our natural environment. The Landlord in this case, is none other than God who created the heavens and the earth out of nothing. God has left the environment under our stewardship and care.

But, our living environment has become rather complex and also quite removed or detached, if you like, from reality. A few examples might help us appreciate the complexity of our living environment. We can create artificial environment to the point that it is not easy to differentiate between Reality and Virtual Reality. One of the most engaging pastimes and for some people, not a pastime but business, is the phenomenon called “Second Life”. It is a “place” [for want of a better word] or it exists in “cyber-space” where one can socialise through one’s avatar or onscreen graphic character. For some it is business because you can build an empire from scratch and then sell it to someone who wants to live your fantasies.1 But, if you haven’t had the chance to enter “Second Life” perhaps you might want to read the nutritional label of what you eat. It is safe to say that more than 50% what we eat is processed. It’s like someone has chewed the food, spat it out and packaged it. Processed food is eating what someone has chewed, spat out and packaged.

What I mean to say is, we are removed or somewhat detached from the natural environment that God has given us and in a way that makes the “care or stewardship” of the environment problematic. The more artificial life becomes, the less we are responsible for God’s creation. That is why the Blessing of Animals connects us with God’s creation. Our connexion with the natural environment is crucial because removed from the environment, we become less grateful to God for the gift of created reality. Parents who have children addicted to computer games—to virtual reality--will understand this. If you remove them from their games, they become less human in their response to you.

St Francis Assisi had a wolf for his pet. He could talk to the animals better than Dr Doolittle can. In a village somewhere in Central Italy, the inhabitants were having problems with a wolf. Francis asked the wolf why he attacked people in the village. The wolf’s response was “hunger”. The solution, according to Francis was to feed the wolf and the villagers did with the result that the wolf became the town pet. Is it any wonder why elephants rampaged through villagers’ plantations? Animals do not attack for fun.

St Francis and the taming of the hungry wolf show us the inter-connectedness of the whole world in such a way that we are a part of the environment and not set apart from the environment. In giving us the environment, God has made us co-creators with Him—we are to care for the environment the way God lovingly crafted for us. Tainted Milk has shown us how connected we are to each other. Through emails, I am receiving an ever-expanding list of products to avoid because they are tainted by melamine.

The 2nd Reading says that we ought to fill our minds with everything that is true, everything that is noble, everything that is good and pure, everything that we love and honour, and everything that can be thought virtuous or worthy of praise. Since we are tenants in the Lord’s vineyard, let this be translated into a greater sense of responsibility for the natural environment. We like to think that we are more environmentally conscious as we embrace recycling. But, do you know that the philosophy behind recycling must go beyond recycling for the sake of maintaining the same level of consumption? Consumption must give way to conservation. Otherwise, the wholesale degradation of the environment is a spit upon the face of the Creator.

In summary, we need to intersect with the natural world because no matter how much we long to remain in virtual reality, we can never get away from the “physical need” to use the toilet. No matter how long we cruise through cyber-space, we remain “embodied” spirits—tied to this world. Thus, the earth—the Lord’s vineyard—is not only a space for gratitude towards the God of all creation but it is also the only place where we become human. Without the environment, we cease to be human.

1.Before Mass, I asked the Altar Servers if they knew anything about “Second Life”... one of them said, “the everlasting life”. It actually refers to an alternate “universe”. Last year, an Italian Jesuit asked fellow Jesuits not to be afraid of this virtual universe because it could be a fertile ground for new converts wishing to better themselves. Soon enough, Jesuits will be saving virtual people from virtual sins.

26th Sunday in Ordinary Time Year A

In the Parable of the Sower, some seeds fell on rocky ground, they sprang up quickly but because they had no roots they withered and died. You may be wondering what bearing the Parable of the Sower has on the Gospel today.

Firstly, the parable in today’s Gospel was addressed to the established religious authorities of the time—the chief priests and elders of the people. These so-called religious people took offence at Jesus fraternising with sinners and the Gentiles. In the parable, the sinners and the Gentiles were represented by the elder son, whereas the chief priests and elders of the people were represented by the younger son. The sinners and the Gentiles chose to go their own way but repented and thus gained an entry into the Kingdom. The first reading says this clearly: “When the sinner renounces sin to become law-abiding and honest, he deserves to live”. On the other hand, the established religious authorities were those who knew better but yet failed to act on their privileged knowledge and as a result they excluded themselves from the Kingdom of God [1]. Again, the first reading says: “When the upright man renounces his integrity to commit sin and dies because of this, he dies because of the evil that he himself has committed”.

This is where the connexion between the Parable of the Sower and the Two Sons may be established. The seeds falling upon rocky ground can be taken to represent the religious authorities who know better but do not live their better knowledge. There is a shallowness in their behaviour that can be described as “lip-service”. But, interestingly, that they paid lip-service to God is not actually our problem here. Why? Everyone pays lip-service to one thing or another. It is part and parcel of who we are as sinners.

What is problematic is when we begin to associate “religious” behaviour as the cause of our lip-service. It is as if being religious, like the chief priests and the elders, is an obstacle to a meaningful relationship with God. An example is the use of the term “holy”. So, many of us do not like to be labelled as the “holy” type because the holy type is the hypocritical type. Isn’t this a common answer when asked to “serve” the church or in an empty church to sit in front? [2] “I am not holy” may express a genuine and humble fear of failure to live up to the standard of holiness but it actually disguises the fear that “holiness” is very close to hypocrisy. This is because the “higher” you rise, the further or harder will your “fall” be and it probably explains why we are suspicious of the “holy” types, because we keep seeing those who claim themselves to be holy but in actual fact live unholy lives. That is why people stay away from church, because "church" is a gathering of hypocrites.

Furthermore, our problem with what we term as shallow or superficial religious behaviour is compounded or complicated by the dichotomy between “ritual” and spontaneity. Ritual does not give life, spontaneity, on the other hand, does. So we scorn or disparage the “ritualistic” or regular part of life. Is it any wonder why young people have a problem with the Mass? Because the celebration of the Mass is distinctly “regular”. We understand "regular" in the sense of occurring at fixed intervals but the Latin root of the word “regula” means being subjected to rule. Rules are expressed through rituals and rituals belong to “established” religion and "established" religion is peopled by the so-called "holy" hypocrites.

That is why the Parable of the Sower might be instructive. All religions must have clear moral guidelines and elaborate rituals to maintain the semblance of what they are and to prevent them from degenerating into arbitrariness or caprice. Nothing is more destructive of your worship than a priest arbitrarily “praying” the Pater Noster at one Mass and skipping it at another Mass.

In short, religious or regular practices cannot be reduced to just primarily keeping the rules or observing the rituals. This is where we need to be on guard. Keeping the rules and observing the rituals are good but in themselves they tend to render our religious observances shallow and superficial. In the chief priests and the elders, that superficiality turned them into self-righteous judges of characters.

Nowhere in the Gospels did Jesus say, “Do not follow the rules”. And He Himself observed the “rules” by keeping the Sabbath. The Parable of the Two Sons may teach us that there are three things necessary for entry into the Kingdom. They are (1) right thinking, (2) right worship and (3) right acting. The chief priests and the elders probably excelled in right thinking. They knew the law and they studied theology. They may even observe the rubrics of worship carefully—how to bow, how to genuflect, how to sign themselves. But they, like the younger son, failed in right acting. They didn’t know how to love. They only knew how to judge those who didn’t measure up to their “superficiality”.

People today are repelled by shallow behaviour. This is more so if our behaviour does not commensurate with what we teach and celebrate. It is important to note that bad behaviour does not make the religion bad. Bad behaviour just makes the religion harder to accept. This is probably the challenge of Islam and the Western World. In the 2nd Reading, St Paul asks of us to imitate the humility of Christ. So, humility is the way to go for us who are sinners to ensure that we become beacons rather than stumbling blocks for bending knees (worship) and acclaiming tongues (teach) in search of Christ the Lord.

Right thinking and right worship have their rightful place in the way we live our lives. The ideal is for us to go beyond superficiality in the observance of rituals and rules to bear fruit in the way we behave: justly and with mercy.

We had a vigil on Friday night to pray for the country. I am not saying that we were right in what we did but I am explaining why we did what we did. Right thinking (orthodoxy) and right worship (orthopoesis) leads to right action (orthopraxis). John Paul II is insistent that there is truth to be known and to be taught. You find this teaching in the encyclical Fides et ratio. So too Benedict XVI. His insistence on “worship” is telling us something as well. We are very much guided by what he said in Deus caritas est, that “prayer, as a means of drawing ever new strength from Christ, is concretely and urgently needed. People who pray are not wasting their time, even though the situation appears desperate and seems to call for action alone”. This praying that we asked for, before the Blessed Sacrament, is important if we aim to act rightly. However, in order to act justly we need to convert a mindset. Firstly, hypocrisy affects everyone, not just the “holy” ones. Let not those who claim to be holy but are hypocritical deter us from seeking holiness. Holiness is a matter of personal responsibility and not dependent on whether or not the others are holy. Secondly, we must invert the order that “right acting” is proof of right thinking and right worship. Instead, right acting is fruit of right thinking and right worship. So, if you want justice, again I say, let’s search for the Truth (who is the Christ) and let’s worship Him.

FOOTNOTES:
[1] It does not follow that knowledge always leads to right action. Just because you know more does not mean you will behave according to what you know even though that would have been the ideal.
[2] This could probably be explained by the parable of the Pharisee and the Publican. One a hypocrite and the other a sinner, who standing at the back of the temple went back justified with God.

25th Sunday in Ordinary Time Year A

If you understand the tricky business of organ transplant, then you’d begin to understand the parable in today’s Gospel. Harvest is not only a time-consuming affair but it is also a timely one. When the harvest is ripe, one has to gather quickly. In a sense, both the workers and the vineyard owner are desperate. One is desperate enough to hang around the whole day waiting for employment and the other desperate enough to go in search for more labour to expedite the harvest. The urgency ends with God paying disproportionately to those who work. What are we to make of this God?

Firstly, it seems that God is an unfair God. And we all know “unfair”. For those who experience injustice, an unfair God who is generous does not resonate well with us. For example, there are people with top grades who know the unfairness of being denied a place in the university. We know of qualified people whose promotion is denied but instead it is given to less qualified people. In short, merit is unmerited in an unfair society. An unfair God only amplifies the humiliation of the experience of blatant miscarriage of justice.

Therefore, the Gospel is disturbing to say the least. It tells us that we have this God who is generous but his generosity is not bound by the limits of fair-play and justice. And the First Reading sort of supports this point. “Yes, the heavens are as high above the earth as my ways are above your ways, my thoughts above your thoughts”. God’s way of behaving is not like ours.

To understand this God, we need to consider the question Jesus asked: “Are you envious because I am generous”? Thus, the question is not about justice or fairness but of envy. The first batch of workers had agreed upon a set wage. The subsequent batches of workers were promised a fair wage. Thus, there was no question of injustice. They were paid according to what they had agreed. The sore point came when those who did the least amount of work got the same as those who did a full day’s work.

Envy is something which afflicts all of us. And the language of envy is “that’s not fair”. It often leads to resentment and if left unchecked will eat into our very being. Envy is also amplified if we feel ourselves victimised.[1] Perhaps, our experience of “unfairness” is actually the experience of envy.

The hearers of the parable knew what Jesus was talking about. It was not injustice or unfairness that they were reacting against. The truth was that Jesus had been consorting with sinners and the Gentiles. The Jews and the Pharisees represented those “called” by God at the start of the day... and as such, they thought that they should be privileged. The problem is that God seemed to treat with kindness the late-comers: the sinners and the Gentiles. It was not unfairness on the part of God but envy on the part of the Jews and the Pharisees that God should ever be so kind to those who do not deserve it.

The reaction of the Jews and Pharisees is occasion for our deeper reflexion. As stated, the Jews and the Pharisees represented those privileged to be the first people chosen by God and sinners and Gentiles were plainly Johnnies-come-lately. The relationship between the privilege of the first and the last to be called has a bearing on evangelisation. First of all, the call of God is gratuitous and unmerited on our part. It is God who calls and at any time one is called, the appropriate response is gratitude. Secondly, if one were called first, the honour is more responsibility than it is privilege.

And this is where we need to be more aware of our responsibility to those who come after us. Are we doing enough to bring the Good News of our calling to people who have yet to know Jesus Christ? That is the gist of the 2nd Reading: I want to be gone and be with Christ, which would be very much the better, but for me to stay alive in this body is a more urgent need for your sake.

In summary, at first glance, we who aim to form a society under the principles of justice and fair-play are somewhat taken aback by the Gospel because God seems to be unfair. But upon closer reflexion, we realise that the Jews and Pharisees were envious of God’s generosity and sadly, their envy blinded them to their responsibility. A calling does not accord greater privilege. On the contrary, we are yoked with greater responsibility to bring the good news of salvation to people everywhere. On our shoulders lies the Gospel. To be called first is to be a light to the world. We are to be the Good News and that is why the 2nd Reading ends appropriately: “avoid anything in your everyday lives that would be unworthy of the gospel of Christ”.

FOOTNOTE:
[1] Just as an aside, you know that we sometimes remember things we read or hear. Well, I remember a primary text from Plato on the question of Justice. I can’t remember which one of his works but I remember very clearly that one of his characters in a discussion said something like this: “Justice is for those who do not have the guts to be unjust”. We dare not be unjust and so we don’t like others to be unjust. There is an element of envy in this, I think!!

Triumph of the Cross Year A

The feast of the Triumph of the Cross became prominently observed in the Western Church only in the 7th century. In case you’re interested, prior to the cross becoming our universal symbol, Christians used the symbol of fish because the Greek word for fish (ἰχθύς, capitalised ΙΧΘΥΣ) stood for the acronym: Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, Θεοῦ Υἱός, Σωτήρ. Jesus Christ, Son of God, Saviour. Now, let us get back to our subject matter, the cross. In the 4th century, St Helena the Empress Mother of Constantine was credited as one who led in the discovery of the Cross of Christ. It was taken away as a war trophy by the Persians in the AD614 and 14 years later Emperor Heraclius returned part of what was retrieved to Jerusalem.

The cross is a powerful symbol for Christianity and yet Catholics and Protestants approach this symbol differently. The usual thing is to look at it and say that Catholics tend to emphasise Christ's death on the cross (it explains why we have the body – called the Corpus) whereas Protestants emphasise Christ as risen (it explains why they have an empty cross). Christ on the cross reminds us of the sacrifice he made whereas the empty cross points to the power of Christ over death. Furthermore, Catholics are supposedly “worshippers” of Mary and the Saints, therefore, the Protestants will try to avoid “graven images” (read = statues).

But beyond the Protestant “aversion” to idolatry, the first reading may actually support the Catholic approach to this powerful symbol and it is connected with the Eucharist we celebrate. St John Damascus writes that the serpent was raised up on a piece of wood like a “standard” and those who look at it with faith are cured of the serpent’s bite. Therefore, Christ dead on the cross is the source of life for those who look at him. We see Christ hanging on the cross with blood and water flowing from his side—the fount of sacramental life in the Church because water symbolises baptism to wash away sin and blood symbolises the Eucharist that gives life.

That Moses raised the serpent standard in the first reading is being translated into the Mass we celebrate. In Mediæval times, there arose the practice of “ocular communion”. Ocular has something to do with the eyes; with what is visual. This spiritual practice came about because people were simply “more aware” of their unworthiness to receive the Lord. At that time, the frequency with which we receive communion would have been unknown to them. The practice of “frequent communion” only started in 1905.

So, in Mediæval times, people would come to Mass and wait for the consecration when the host would be raised and looking upon the elevated host, they would profess silently like St Thomas, otherwise known as the Doubter: “My Lord and my God”. They did likewise with the chalice raised. After that, they would go in search of another Mass where the consecration was about to take place. The triple bells we hear let people know that Christ will be raised up and that to look up and look at it is to look at the Saviour for redemption. Today we may be a few hundred years removed from this practice and may thus call it a superstition. Since the Mediæval or Middle Ages is commonly known as the Dark Ages, we associate that period with barbarism and superstition. But, it cannot be disputed that such a practice arose because of a firm belief in Sacred Scripture, a deep desire for salvation and a trust in the power of God.

In some ways, we are no different. We wear the cross like an ornament or tattoo the cross as an embellishment. I saw a girl the other day who had a rosary tattooed on her ankle and leading to her foot was the cross. I haven’t a clue what that symbolised for her but for us, the cross is really a symbol of salvation because it is a symbol of love’s triumph over hatred. On Friday, a parishioner came to see me. She comes to Mass daily. She has been robbed many times by snatch thieves. Still, she faithfully attends daily Mass by walking from her home down the road to church. So, on Friday when she came, after yet another robbery attempt (she was blue and black on the face because she had struggled with them and had managed to ward them off) I offered to bless her. Yes, there is a blessing for victims of crime or oppression. There was a sense of powerlessness and frustration. I was utterly disgusted by the incidents of her being robbed. As I was opening the Book of Blessings, I was also letting out my frustrations. I said, “Let’s pray that those thieves (I used a stronger than the phrase “those thieves”) will meet with a bad accident that they be so badly hurt but do not die. They should suffer”. When we got to the page, we collected ourselves and I started to pray: “Lord, your wicked Son ...”. She flinched and instinctively I knew I had committed a Freudian slip because the prayer actually read: “Lord, your own Son was delivered into the hands of the wicked, yet he prayed for his persecutors”. I was that consumed by hatred that it came out through the prayers. When you hate so much, it is bound to come out somewhere and somehow.

But, in the cross, there was no hate even if it were an instrument of hate. On the cross, Christ not only preached love but he practised love till the end that he cried out from the cross: “Father, forgive them”. The 2nd Reading expresses this as “self-emptying”—a Kenosis of his divinity so that we might be saved. Today, more than ever, we need men and women of the cross; Christians of the Kenosis—self-emptying so that others might have life. Kenosis will always involve dying and suffering. In order for love to triumph there will be the cross as Blessed Teresa of Calcutta says, “Suffering is a sign that we have come so close to Jesus on the cross that He can kiss us and that He can show that He is in love with us by giving us an opportunity to share in His passion”.

It is so relevant for us all. Given the fearful, oppressive and tense climate we have today, it is really easy to give in to anger, hatred and despair especially when there is this naked display of aggression but the cross is a powerful symbol of victory over evil; of love over hatred. And as we continue with the celebration of the Eucharist, we remember that Christ had to be lifted up so that we may have the strength to embrace His life. Let the cross we wear or sign on ourselves not remain a mere symbol but truly become the outward sign of who we really are: Followers of Christ, Prisoners of Love and not of Hate.

23rd Sunday in Ordinary Time Year A

The central theme today deals with fraternal correction. It is not an easy thing to do because people don’t like to be corrected but more so people do not like to correct others. I would like to explore why this is so and perhaps see how we can embrace this sacred duty enjoined upon us by Christ Himself—to correct and be corrected.

First of all, it’s not easy to deal with diversity. For example, how many of us believe that all religions are the same? One hears enough of the idea that every religion just represents a different pathway to the same God. Here, the intention is not to debate the veracity of the statement that all religions are the same but to note that the idea or statement shows an inability to handle diversity. If that were so, we might also face the same difficulty with regards to fraternal correction. This inability to deal constructively with diversity is translated into: “We all believe that everyone’s opinion is right. Let’s not be judgemental”.

The difficulty we encounter with fraternal correction points to us the challenge we face with regard to what is right and good. If every opinion is to be tolerated because we need to respect people, the question is, “How can we act in a good and right way”? Every opinion to be accepted means that we do not know what is truth. Therefore, “doing” good is not good enough because we need to know what is right and good before we can do it. Knowing what is right and good leads us to know the truth. Therefore, to say that everyone has the right to be right is not saying anything at all. In fact, it makes living even more difficult.

The Doxology we sing might give us a clue. “Through Him, with Him and in Him”... it comes from the Greek word “Doxa” which, apart from the meaning of “opinion”, also means “right worship”, that is to give glory to God. To be “orthodox” means “to know and practice the right way in which God wants to be glorified.” This “right way” implied that some ways are wrong ways, even if we were to show respect to the persons who hold them.

That there is truth cannot be doubted. People often say, “Don’t judge” because we are tolerant and this “do-not-judge” attitude extends only to areas concerning sexual preferences or life issues like contraception, abortion or euthanasia. However, when an MP makes a statement against a particular race, people are up in arms against your man. This is proof that the exercise of knowing the truth is selective.

Some things are just not right which means that there are truths to be known and we can know the truth because Christ is the Truth. Christ taught the Truth and He continues to teach us through the Church and speaks to us through our conscience. Conscience is not integrity, sincerity or preference. One can kill with sincerity and conscience is not involved. Conscience is a hard, objective thing—a challenge to self, a call to conversion, and a sign of humility. In this case, it means that one must really listen carefully to the teachings of the Church. The Church and conscience are not mutually exclusive.

In the matter of fraternal correction, we are pointing to some standard of behaviour which should command us. It is truth’s ability to compel us to behave rightly. And here, Christ Himself offers practical help to us. We are not dealing with the issue of “forgiveness” but on how to approach an erring member of one’s community. Christ says, firstly, do it in private, then before a few and finally before the whole community. Failure to convince a person leads to excommunication.

It sounds drastic but in reality, fraternal correction is an exercise of love. Our Lord offers practical help but what He is not saying is that fraternal correction can only be an exercise of love. St Paul in the second reading calls it simply a “debt of mutual love”. Sometimes we think that keeping quiet is part of that mutual love. But it is not. Parents with young children have this tendency of keeping quiet. A child is naughty and they think that “disciplining punishment” does not fit in with today’s enlightened child care. As it were, one is to show greater patience. The problem arises when the parent can no longer tolerate the nonsense. He or she hits out at the child. Ultimately, the child sees not the fact that he or she has done wrong but only the anger of the parents. Knowing something is wrong and keeping quiet is tantamount to allowing someone to destroy himself. Thus, correction requires courage and involves risk. Risk that your action might be misinterpreted. However, it does not mean that we go out of the way to “repay the debt of mutual love” by pointing out people’s fault. Many suffer from self-righteousness.

Nobody likes to correct. The attitude we ought to take, if we do not want to reduce morality to “my standard”, is fraternal correction is an exercise of love for our brothers and sisters. The basis of one’s correction is not so much “I am right” but because “I love you”.

Nobody likes to be corrected. So a good attitude is to never go away without thinking about it. The basis to receive correction is “Let me see if there is truth in what you say”. Ultimately, we must be guided by the love of the Truth who is Christ Himself.