skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Do you sometimes think that the Church is stupid? For many of us, the experience of Church is basically immediate which means that the parish staff or the priest/s. When parishioners are at odds with the parish office or the priest/s, for them, that is the Church. But do you think that God is stupid? The answer is possibly no because we are God-fearing. Nobody wants to cross His path, just in case.
Today, someone walked up to Jesus to ask the question of eternal life. God’s word is eternal life but somehow that word mediated when through the Church does seem a bit outdated or even stupid. For example, last week, Jesus did not mince His words. He told the Pharisees outright that God had intended for marriage to be permanent but the Pharisees had been waffling with the teaching to suit their needs. They are not alone because many of us feel that “No divorce” sounds rather out-dated and dumb.
In the Gospel, Jesus proposed to the young man to sell all his possessions and to follow Him. We all know the outcome of the invitation. If we listen attentively to the 1st Reading and the Responsorial Psalm, they may strike a chord with some of us personally because we are living in a wealth-soaked society. It might not feel that way but not a few amongst us have enough money to last a couple of life-times. Now, imagine Jesus who directed the young man now telling you who have more than enough to leave everything behind and to follow Him. In the context of the 1st Reading and the Psalm, wisdom is needed when it comes to our relationship with mammon, possession and wealth.
Wealth and riches are not bad in themselves. In the OT, riches are considered blessings from God. They represent God’s benevolence. Our problem is not too much wealth. Rather our challenge is sharing. In that way, wealth and riches can and do enslave us. In inviting the young man to leave everything behind, Christ did not make of poverty or divestment of possession an end in itself. Two words come to mind and they are love and tension.
Jesus looked at the young man with love. Here, love is not soft. It is not indulgence or a condonation of our weakness. The 2nd Reading speaks of a double-edged sword which we can apply to the word “love”. Indulgently, we all want to be loved. But a two-edged sword would also mean we are to love as well. It is not easy to love in the fullest sense of the word. The love that Jesus had for the young man comes from a place of realisation and understanding. He knows that we struggle to maintain the balance, that is, everyone grapples and wrestles with the tension between having and not having. This is exemplified in two scriptural experiences. First, the temptation in the desert. Second, the welcome extended by Moses and Jesus in last week’s Readings.
Man does not live on bread alone. In His hunger, Jesus was taunted by Satan to turn stones to bread, He replied that Man does not live on bread alone. Christ was not saying that we do not need food because He knows that in order to worship God, we need strength provided by nourishment. After all, we are not angels but earthly creatures. The retort of Christ to Satan was simply that food is not and should never be our God.
Likewise we should be more welcoming, as we heard last week where Moses and Christ showed hospitality. But the slogan “all are welcome” can be deceptive because we know that not everyone is welcome. At least, not a terrorist, for example. True welcome is to love sinners but also to reject sins. The rule of engagement in wars is a good expression of this of proper welcome. We respect the enemy captured and treat him well even if we stand on opposite sides. True charity does not condone obstinacy or stubborn resolution in sinning. We protect ourselves against serial killers or rapists.
We are brought back to the central truth that following Jesus on earth is filled with challenges, most especially when it comes to wealth and possession. The Franciscans themselves were racked by this struggle. Immediately after the death of St Francis of Assisi, his followers clashed on the form of poverty they should embrace with regard to possession. It was not a pretty picture for them but it shows how hard it is for us to deal with possessions.
Detachment has never been a rejection or a repudiation of creation. Detachment signals one’s desire to cling onto Christ alone. On a recent pilgrimage, my luggage weighed about 12kg. I was proud of myself but during the journey, it became clear that I had two shirts and one trousers too many. What weighed down the bag were the small items which came from the thoughts of “I might need this or I might need that”. A pilgrimage is where one learns the meaning of true detachment because one’s luggage can be burdened by the weight of our attachments.
The lesson this Sunday is centred on our relationship with material possessions and wealth. The truth is we have too many wants but only a few needs. All of us Lazada, Shopee, Temu and Shein experts know this. Of late, we have been focussing on climate change and the need to adjust our lifestyle. Indeed, we should care for our common home, that is, show concern for the environment. It is a serious call by no less than the Holy Father. But like every follower of Christ we also know that this is not our permanent home. Is it precious? Yes, it is. Is it permanent? Never. That is the difference. It is wisdom to know where our permanent home is and none of our possessions or wealth can ever follow there. After all, Jesus did proclaim on the Mount: Blessed are the poor, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
We make a sharp turn to the family this Sunday. Fortuitously the South Johore Vicariate is also focussing on the family. What goes into the creation of the family? The first is marriage. A marriage establishes a family. The second is children. Children are fruits of a marital union.
These two aspects that form a family are fraught with difficulties. In certain places, the word “woman” is already a problem. How to define who or what a woman is has become highly controversial. In fact, the challenge is to delineate what marriage is and even the Bible is not “helpful”. Through Sacred Scriptures, we know that God established the human family through the bond of marriage between a man and a woman. Presently, this definition is being challenged. What about the union between two women or two men?
Difficulties arise because people are emotionally attached to their definition. For example, “Children completes the marital union”. In itself, such a statement speaks of openness to life but when a person, for example, like Taylor Swift, heard that, she proceeded to label herself a “Childless cat lady” as she endorsed Kamala Harris. Definitions can be emotional pitfalls. Here in our country the word for God is also an emotive issue and considered dangerous.
The focus of such a simple statement that “children completes the marital union” should be seen in the word “union”. It means that the union between a man and woman must be open to life. It is true that this statement may affect some couples because they remain childless after marriage. From biblical times until now, we have no idea why some women are unable to conceive or why some men are sterile. However, technologically, we have developed fertility practices to help infertile women to conceive. Progress is amazing but the challenge is that we do not sufficiently discern between possible and permissible technologies.
A reason that the definition of marriage has become problematic is because current technology permits the fertility industries to hire wombs to gestate and bear children. When wombs can be rented, the very union between a man and a woman is dissolved since wombs can be rented. A corollary to the rentable womb is that the definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman is also loosened. Since ova can be purchased, then two men may now be so-called married and have a family.
As we slide down the path of absolute “diversity”, meaning that almost everything possible (with the exception of rape, murder and child sexual abuse) should be allowed, it might not be long before preaching a homily on marriage based on the age-old Catholic teaching be labelled as hate speech.
Yet, in the Gospel today, Christ did categorically teach that there is to be no divorce. How do we reconcile His teaching on marriage? An angle to take is to recall how “marriage” as a sacrament is related to God’s relationship with humanity and to refresh a look on the priesthood of the Catholic Church.
Marriage as a natural phenomenon represents the covenant between God and humanity. For two baptised, the covenant is sacramentalised because it symbolises the union between Christ and the Church. Through the relationship between a man and a woman, children, the fruits of this particular union, are signs of the love between Christ and the Church. Christ’s love for the Church is faithful and fruitful. How? He proved that love through the sacrifice of His life. He laid down His life so that the Church might be born. That sacrifice of Christ’s life—giving action or love is witnessed through the couple’s openness to life, that is, to having children. Maybe one can appreciate why the Church has taught that contraception frustrates the life-giving grace of God witnessed through a couple’s sexual union that is open to life.
Further into the sacrament of marriage, we see how Christ can never be unfaithful to His Church. Likewise, the Church is considered pure and holy simply because she is the Bride of Christ. This image of heaven is to be reflected here on earth and thus, amongst all human institutions, the only one which best reflects this reality is the marriage between a man and a woman. We all know how imperfect marriages are but that is the beauty of a life marked by love and sacrifice. We marry never for ourselves but for the other. The most profound love of a man or a woman is to lay down his or her life for a friend. In marriage the closest friend one has is one’s spouse. Sacrificial death is life-giving and children born of a loving couple are fruits of such a love.
We can only make sense of this if we believe that there is heaven and an afterlife. If not, there will always be attempts to tailor God’s perspective according to the reality of earth. Without heaven it is easy to “force” God to behave according to our will. Was that not what Jesus told the Pharisees? You are head-headed and that was why Moses permitted divorce. Christ has not lied on the teaching on marriage and the Church must never shy from voicing a perennial truth for humanity to embrace.
Divorce is not a modern curse. It is humanity’s revolt against God. During the time of Jesus, imagine that all it took was just bad cooking or even body odour to initiate a divorce proceeding. Thus, the Gospel is not a condemnation of our times. Instead it is a challenge to our culture, most especially in the 100 years or so. We seemed to have forgotten the commands of God and the instructions of Christ with regard to marriage, its stability and its effects on civilisation.
Marriage is a good for civilisation. Without marriage, there is no family and without the family, where is civilisation? The recovery and the renewal of the family remains an ongoing task of the Church. Each marriage here is part of that endeavour. If your marriage is good, praise and thank God. If your marriage has been a struggle then look for help and do not wait until it is irretrievably broken down. If you have been hurt by marriage seek healing through the means available—counselling and therapy.
Finally the crisis of the last few decades within the priesthood is a reminder to us. While the celibacy of the Catholic priesthood is a matter of discipline imposed by the Church and it is not a doctrine, in practice, it is related to Christ teaching on the indissolubility of marriage. A priest remains unmarried personally because he is married to the Church, that is to the people of God. When marriages fail for Catholic couples, one can be certain that defection in the priesthood is not far behind.
Christ sends His Disciples into the world. Two Sacraments denotes this one sending—Matrimony and Holy Orders. These two sacraments are complimentary because failure in one weakens the other. On the one hand, the downfall of the priesthood is symptomatic of the dissolution of marriages. Broken marriages undermine the priesthood. On the other hand, the fidelity of the priestly vows encourages the faithful in their marriage. While focusing on the family is crucial, paying attention to the quality formation of the priestly vocation is equally important. Strengthening these two sacramental vocations enriches and energises the Church’s witnessing.
How nice if all leaders have the spirit of prophesying. At least that was Moses’ wish for his leaders. The inner circle of Moses was concerned that some, notably Medad and Eldad, who were outliers, could even prophesy. The same scenario is repeated in the Gospel. People were using the name of Jesus to exorcise and the disciples were disturbed, after all, they who have been with Him from the outset, may have felt a proprietary claim to the power of Christ.
Interestingly, this outside-the-fold experience proved the power of the name of Jesus. Those trying to relieve others of sickness or to rid them of possession or to raise the dead used the name of Jesus because they were literally invoking God to save. No surprising because Yeshua or Jesus means God saves in Hebrew.
The openness of both Moses and Jesus highlights two connected themes that we can delve into. First, it is the value of hospitality. Second, we might want to give a thought to how hospitality or welcome may breed the deadly sin of jealousy.
Today’s lens, through the phenomenon of diversity, makes hospitality an even more compelling quality. The fact that both Moses and Jesus exhibited a kind of openness to others paves the way for us to rethink, widen and deepen our sense of hospitality. Words associated with the attitude of welcoming are inclusiveness, diversity, acceptance, tolerance etc. These words related to hospitality can make truth sounds rather judgemental and condemnatory.
Why?
Because truth draws boundaries and we have become uncomfortable because boundaries exclude. Remember that the gift of prophesy is directed towards God and the power to exorcise is directed to salvation which means hospitality cannot be anything and everything.
Ironically, the type of hospitality pushed on us is rather “exclusive” in the sense that people can be excluded or cancelled because they fail to meet the criteria defined by the “establishment”. Two examples. First, the entertainment industry. It is packed with an elite glitterati who have set themselves up as our moral guides. In fact, entertainment has become edutainment. We are being talked down to by jet-setters on how to reduce our carbon footprint. Second, the tech illuminati. They corral our knowledge by limiting our search results shaping our views through the content we consume unwittingly.
At present, there is a concerted drive, all in the name of good, to control, shape our thoughts and our lives. On one hand, the basis for hospitality or exclusion should not be based on whether we think alike or not. On the other hand, hospitality cannot be a blanket inclusivity. We necessarily exclude because not everything possible can be permitted. Such a judgement opens the dialogue on the morality of our behaviour or action. Is it permitted to abort a baby in the womb, for example? For some, the argument is already set by those who hold the power to patrol thoughts and behaviours. For others, our behaviour should be guided by God's revelation and an appreciation of creation’s purpose as intended by Him. In that sense, hospitality or inclusiveness is never a value in itself. Instead, it is a value that must serve the will of God and also be directed to salvation. Hospitality while welcoming is also discerning because it is focused on the salvation of souls.
Secondly, the hospitality shown by Jesus or Moses seems to allow the sin of jealousy to rear its ugly head. Were the disciples of both Moses and Jesus jealous because both their leaders were welcoming? Maybe. Much of Church’s division stems from jealousy. Last week, Christ chastised the disciples because they were arguing about who was the greatest amongst them. Even those who were indignant about the two brothers vying for the places of honour beside Jesus could also be acting out of envy. In today’s Gospel, the desire to exclude can be a form of jealousy for how God can choose to work outside of the disciples of Jesus.
The fear of losing out is a compelling drive to be the first, to be at the forefront. For those behind, envy can creep in. But inequality is fact of existence because God created us differently. Imperfection is not a defect to be eradicated. For example, pedigree dogs often have genetic weaknesses because there are no variations in their genes. Even a bad gene that gives rise to Thalassaemia allows for survival of victims of the disease in malaria-infested areas.
Our challenge is an inability to celebrate “inequality”. We desire uniformity forgetting that differences give the opportunity to celebrate God’s goodness and kindness. Two priests who do the same work. One is better than the other. It is a moment to enjoy another person’s success and take comfort that God is great but instead how often have priests engaged in murderous envy, gossiping and talking bad about other priests.
Imagine both Jesus and His cousin, John. The attitude of The Baptist models a discipleship especially for those who are co-workers in the vineyard. Some of us are just sowers. Some of us are just reapers. If we are able to enjoy our ministry, we might be able to give glory to the Lord for the great ministration of our co-workers.
A good leader is someone who knows how to celebrate the wonders of a God who dispenses His grace according to our needs. The Church would be so much more powerful in witnessing if only we learn how to keep the green-eyed dragon at bay. It does not help that advertisements feed and augment our envy. We are constantly made to feel less than others because we do not have the prerequisite paraphernalia of life—a gadget, a car, a house. The more we need to fulfil our wants, the more unhappy and envious we become.
The Gospel today is truly an invitation to enjoy others by admiring rather than by envy. My deepest sense of who I am is not defined by what I have, what I do and how people think of me. A proper or ordered sense of who we are grants us the grace to be discerning in our welcome. The hospitality we are called to is not a free-for-all type. It takes into consideration God’s view of humanity which we can glean from Sacred Scripture and through the long-standing teachings of the Church. If we call ourselves Christians and Catholics, it is good to know that God did not leave us to reinvent the wheel each generation. He gave us His Son who left behind a Church assisted by His Spirit and guided by Scripture and Magisterium. We do have a standard to live up to personally, a measure to welcome others and a principle to engage the world.
From the Cross last week, we move to servitude. After the Transfiguration, Jesus makes His way to Jerusalem. The journey passes through Galilee, a Jewish territory where Jesus had encounters with the Pharisees. It may explains why He wanted to keep His messiahship a secret while preparing the disciples for His impending passion. Still, the disciples do not have a clue that Christ’s mission leads to the Cross. They argue amongst themselves about who would be the greatest.
Our world has its own metrics for the measurement of success. The 1st Reading speaks to our current standard of achievement. Sometimes we experience this during a funeral. In fact, there is a demand for the eulogy in some services. There appears to be a need to sing the praises of the deceased in order that he or she be remembered for the things that they have done. But the Book of Wisdom reminds us that the greatest memorial is not a mausoleum. It is to be remembered by God.
If anything, we should behave in a manner that God can celebrate us. Thus, the Gospel also challenge our thinking when Jesus holds up what He considers to be the standard of success. The disciples wanted to stand tall in society. In a way, success for them is achievement-centred. But for Jesus success is not ambition but rather servitude.
What is significant is that Jesus took the example of a child to be the standard of our service. A child is powerless because he or she stands outside the legal framework that offers him or her protection. The servanthood that Christ wants His disciples to know is that we serve those who are the most unwanted in society.
There is basically no comparable reward for the work we do. The remembrance by the Lord is the reward we should work for. St James warns us against the ambitions of the world. The desire to be successful in the measurement of the world frequently leads to jealousy and selfishness. It makes sense that all our advertisements are targeted towards massaging our envy. “You need that house, this car, those travels, and etc., if you want to be counted”. There is a cafe nearby here and it is popular. The cars parked outside clog the road leading to Jalan Serampang. The food? No comments but it is the location, it is the place to be seen at.
Christ is often seen in places where those in the know will not frequent. He came to serve rather than be served. Within this framework of ministry, St Peter asked a perfectly valid question. What is in it for us who serve? We happens to us if we have poured out our lives for others and have nothing left for ourselves. It is not selfishness but rather a question of trust. Nobody wants to disappear. Nonentity is not a great option. Everyone longs to be loved. Everyone wants to be complete rather than dissipated.
Maybe it is the blindness of the modern world to believe that one’s existence or presence is predicated upon one’s self-definition. It means that “I alone” determine who I am. It is an amnesia which fails to remember that one’s personhood is dependent rather on God. “I am” only because “God is”. It is not “I am” and only then can I serve but rather “I am because I serve”.
This is important for the fear of losing oneself is real. For those who have placed their trust in God, they can never be lost. It is a wisdom that exudes peace since we know that we can never be lost because of God.
It is this personhood that is built upon God that allows one to spend an entire life in servitude. Two examples in the last two hundred years are helpful. St Damian of Molokai. After a while, he realised that the only way to continue serving Christ in the poor was to become a leper himself. St Teresa of Calcutta who left the cushy comfort of her convent in order to embrace Christ hungry and poor. In fact, over a period of years, her life was markedly dark and devoid of consolation from God. Yet, she continued to put her trust in the Lord as she continued to serve even when not feeling it.
Another word for this service is to lay down one’s life. As Jesus Himself said, “Those who want to save their life will lose it. Those who lose their life for my sake will keep it for eternity”. It is another way of telling us that we risk losing ourselves if we try to protect ourselves too much. It is when we are not afraid to lose ourselves that God will remember us. That is a way for us to dare to lay down our life.
The psalmist says, “Our life, like a bird, has escaped from the snare of the fowler”. You may have heard of this. We can transfer this to the movies. It is an accept fact that history is written by the victors. I grew up on a diet of British war comics. Remember those barbershop comics that detailed the exploits of the British Army during WWII? What about the stories of the losers? The Germans. Here, in our context, the Japanese.
There is a movie called “Taking Chance” starring Kevin Bacon. Quite a boring movie but it centres around accompanying the remains of a Marine fatally wounded, from the airbase to his hometown, to be buried. For that one story of a soldier who died, imagine the thousands of forgotten Iraqis whose bodies lay unclaimed and rotting in the sun or buried in Mass graves. Who remembers them? For everyone memorialised in Arlington national cemetery, there must be many who are unremembered. They only have God.
It is a kind of certainty knowing that it is dependence on God who gives us the sense of who we are. It is the same for who unloved souls, in the aborted and in the unwanted embryos stored in many of the IVF fertility facilities.
Likewise, for every saint who is officially canonised, there must be countless martyrs and confessors who are not known to us but known to God. If you can imagine a candle. Its purpose is only to be burnt. It is best only when it is burnt. Likewise a Christian. He or she is best a servant and the basis is Christ. For if God can care for the uncared for, perhaps we can find strength to embrace the Cross or even be forgotten. Our service is often a Cross. For those who find it burdensome, it will weigh down like a ton. But if we are filled with love, then the service, even if it be a Cross will also be a joy.
It feels like a repetition. Yesterday was the Exaltation of the Cross. The Gospel today seems to echo yesterday’s commemoration as the focus is on the Crown and the Cross. Actually, it is more than a repetition because it feels like a mini-Passion or Holy Week.
The 1st Reading points to Christ the suffering servant. The reason for enduring pain and difficulties is faith in God’s succour or assistance and we dare to be unafraid because God will always come to the aid of His servant. This assurance is truly the joy of saints. Imagine being wiped out or being made redundant. People no longer respect and no longer recognise you. Even when one endures injustice, one is unafraid because of God.
The experience of the Suffering Servant is a guarantee of God’s faithfulness. He will not allow His servant to be annihilated and this becomes the basis for accepting the suffering Messiah. Jesus foretold His impending suffering. He did not sugar-coat the troubles that lay ahead. But Jesus promised them that their sacrifice would not go unrewarded. The Evangelist presents this sort of Saviour as the model to follow. Are we going after Him and if not, what prevents us from following?
The answer is partly determined by the world because the world’s expectations is different from Christ’s. He asks for a discipleship that is radical and resolute—to lay down one’s life without fear. But we have loud voices coming from the world. One of the counsels given is prudence. We are advised to temper our radicality. Furthermore, radicality is also tarred with the brush of extremism and no one likes to be called a fundamentalist—a word that suggests of imprudence and uncompromising hard-headedness. More than being labelled, radical discipleship is also considered to be “fool-hardy” and no one likes to be deemed a fool.
Instead, worldly prudence demands that we be even-headed, even-tempered or level-headed. Idealism is the foolishness of the young. But what undergirds this “prudence” is basically fear. Many of us are afraid. We fear rejection and so we do not try. We fear failure and so we compromise. We fear scarcity and rationalise our greed. Fear is a prison that dampens the fire of our desire to love the Lord and to follow Him closely.
But we are not alone. Even as devout a Jew as Peter would have heard of the Suffering Servant of Isaiah. After this revelation of Jesus about His future suffering, Peter tried to temper Christ’s resolution to carry out the Father’s will. The idea of a great God is almost incompatible with servitude and suffering. We want an omnipotent God who displays His power for all to see. The idea of a powerless God scandalised Peter that he began to remonstrate with Christ.
Peter only began to understand more of his vocation after Christ’s death and resurrection. It proves that growing into a radical discipleship of Christ might be for some of us a life-long pilgrimage. Sometimes when a person is young, he or she will never contemplate the after-life. They have a lot to live for. But for many of us, whose past stretches in a long shadow behind us, we have little time before death to think of our legacy and how we will be judged.
The logic of the world does not allow us to embrace Christ’s invitation. “If you want to be a disciple of mine, you must deny yourself, take up your Cross and follow me. And whoever wishes to preserve his life will lose it and he who loses his life for my sake will keep it”. This is not easy to embrace but it is not impossible.
Present society is pain-phobic meaning that we avoid pain at all costs. In fact, we numb ourselves through drugs of all kinds. Even food is a form of narcotics. But St Paul, through the grace and power of Christ, tells us that he completes in his body, the suffering lacking in the Body of Christ. It is not impossible to carry the Cross because of the grace and power of Christ. Martyrdom, be it red or white, is a grace of Christ. It might not feel like it but the true shape of love is cruciform. Without the Cross, love will don the cloak of convenience. There is purpose in our pain and sorrow, not that we deserve to suffer. Instead, in Christ, suffering takes on a salvific role for in Him, suffering saves.
This Sunday’s Gospel in the midst of nowhere is a reminder to refocus and fix our eyes on Christ and His Cross. We are invited to clasp Christ carrying His Cross for the salvation of the world. Many of us will struggle because it is natural to desire the crown minus the Cross. But if we follow Him, the Cross will cast its shadow over us. The credibility of the Christian conviction rests on the crown of the Cross. The Cross is indeed our victory and glory forever.
We have returned to Mark’s Gospel since last Sunday and today he captures one of the few Aramaic words possibly used by Jesus Himself—"Ephphatha”. Like “Talitha kum” Christ is engaged in the act of restoration. He restores a man to hearing.
The first reading mentions deafness as it highlights the signs and wonders that accompany the Jews returning from their exile. The blind shall see, the deaf will hear, the lame will leap, the mute will sing and streams in dry lands will burst forth with life. These are concrete signs that their oppression has come to an end. By restoring the man’s hearing, Christ not only ended his isolation from society, He also fulfils the Messianic longing expressed in the 1st Reading.
What is interesting is that the Lord performed two great sacramental acts. Later in the Gospel, Jesus will heal a man born blind. Whether it be deafness or blindness, Jesus not only uttered words of healing. He also used matter and gestures to complete the act. Fingers in the ears and spittle on the tongue are both sacramental matters and actions. The use of matter accompanied by the formulaic prayer to accomplish healing is reflected in our Sacrament of Anointing. Oil on the forehead and the palms coupled with the formula of healing and salvation, forgiveness and restoration.
What this particular healing revealed is how profoundly social the sacraments are. But, deafness, like blindness, is more than just a physical condition. It goes beyond physical deficiency. In fact, restoration has universal dimension as we witness Jesus making His journey through the Decapolis. St Paul may be the great Apostle of the Gentiles but Christ Himself had already forged that path ahead of St Paul.
In a way, “ephphatha” is truly a powerful invitation by the Lord to open our ears, our eyes and our hearts. It makes sense if we read it from the perspective of St James’ epistle. He admonished the Church not to be partial or prejudiced in community living and communal arrangements. Maybe we are not as deaf as we are unwillingness to hear. In other words we may be wilfully deaf and not only that. We may be wilfully blind too. We cannot hear God even if He were shouting at us. We cannot see Him even if He were to stand right in front of us.
The word “wilful” sounds condemnatory or condescending. Judgemental even. Could it be that we are not as wilful as we are unable to distinguish where God is speaking to us? The discordant voices we hear are confusing and we have difficulty trusting. A good way to appreciate how we have arrived at this unwillingness is the phenomenon of scams. There are so many scams going around that we have become paranoid. For example, some will never take a call from a number not saved in their mobile’s address.
Top that suspicion with our sense of betrayal. We have been dismissing the so-called far right conspiracist theorists but imagine that Mark Zuckerberg has come out recently to say that Meta or Facebook was forced by the present US administration to censor contents during Covid and also suppress the Hunter Biden laptop story. In other words, governmental cover-ups are real. So too Church leaders have been known to hide the truth of the clerical scandals over the years. When people are lied to one time too many, trust level goes down and people cannot be faulted for not believing even as they steadily grow cynical. We tune off not because we do not want to hear but because we do not know which voice belongs to God.
How do we sift through all these conflicting voices to hear God speaking to us? Where do we find the authentic voice of God?
Firstly, to hear God, we need to have a connexion to Him. Many forget this important criterion. Prayer is an essential element in establishing a relationship with God. How do we hear Him if we have no relationship with Him? Elijah went to the cave and there He encountered God in the silence of the breeze. It is a reminder to each one of us, how noise has pervaded our airwaves that we are easily distracted.
Secondly, God’s voice is also interpersonal. We have become so wrapped around the pole of our individual autonomy that we forget that truth is interpersonal. What do I mean by this?
Truth is not just what I determined. In the past, we had a lot more taboos. They are like invisible boundaries which serve to prevent members of a group from straying too far away from approved behaviour. Today, we have by and large removed social taboos that are linked to religion. We have replaced taboos with personal preferences. Except for the protection of minors and the vulnerable, everything else is possible.
In effect, all kinds of taboo behaviours are accepted or they are being normalised except the more “traditional” behaviours demanded by religion. As long as there is consent, the norms of morality is basically reduced to personal choice. If there is accountability, it just means that one should avoid being caught. For example, it is said that the 1MDB debacle would not have seen the light of day if a fat woman did not flaunt her Berkin bags. Plausible deniability is the escape route from accountability.
But more than that, we are children of rampant relativism. You may have heard of the “apparent agreement” that people arrive at, that is, “what is true for you is true for you and what is true for me is true for me”. It appears to be an amicable compromise but it is the fertile breeding ground for who has the greater power to exert the “truth”. What is true for me is true for me but what is true for you is labelled as misinformation, disinformation and malinformation. One man’s truth is another man’s extremism. Today, sources of information, otherwise known as “news” have become more partial and partisan because they push certain perspectives. Relativism reduces God’s voice to just one perspective or it makes it difficult for Him to break through.
Where do we find and how do we hear God’s voice? Amid this melee of noises Christ’s voice remains constant and dependable through His Church. We need to make a distinction between the validity of truth and the personal failures of individuals. Current model of morality is rather tied to personal “sinlessness”. We are unable to process the that being right is not based on what is widely accepted or that truth’s credibility is not dependent on multiple failures to live up to it. Just because everyone has a mistress does not make it right and just because everyone cheats on the spouse does not make monogamy less true.
This is where the Church comes in. Whether we like it or not, the certain source of God’s voice remains His Church. Personal prayer and proper formation in the Church’s moral and social teachings help to shape our conscience. It is the voice of God speaking to us. There are some who commit spiritual suicide because of what they perceive to be hypocritical behaviour of those who proclaim the Gospel. But the faith and morals of the Church is based on Christ’s promise before His Ascension: I will be with you until the end of time. The age of the experts is no replacement for the Church’s teachings. Most importantly, the failure in the leadership of the shepherds does not invalidate Christ’s teachings through His Church.
I once lived in a formation house with a person who was unique. Fellow scholastics had two descriptions of him depending on one’s communal relationship with him. Living with him is a tragedy. Not living with him is comedy. Most fascinating was anything he did not understand was considered stupid. And since he was not from Ireland, you can imagine the number “oirish” customs and norms that were stupid for him.
Today we enter the arena of laws and given that some of them are not easy to understand or to accept, we might also be tempted to judge them as stupid. The 1st Reading is pretty clear as Moses admonished the Israelites entering the Promised Land to uphold the laws that have held the community together because they had come from God and no one was to add or subtract from them.
But we are also familiar with the term, “man-made laws”. It was exactly what the Pharisees did. They identified 613 commandments or mitzvah complete with customs and taboos. The philosophy behind all these promotions and prohibitions is a God whom we can bargain with. I do this or I refrain from doing this and because you are a just God, you must reward accordingly. St Paul fought against these obligations and taboos by asking the people to be formed interiorly by the Spirit, to be inwardly transformed so that we may know the will of God.
Christ had many encounters with the Pharisees who had no problem piling on guilt upon the masses without themselves being subject to them. Today such a spirit thrives in those who insist on the “rules for thee but not for me”.
The Second Reading of James gives us a clue for what it means to keep the law. He or she rushes to assist the poor and needy. That is the nature of the pure religion. As Christ railed against the Pharisees, it begs the question of the purity of heart because one can cling to the rules or rites without the heart in it.
One of the challenges we face is this. A person attends Mass every day; runs from one Novena to another; prays the Rosary at every opportune moment; fasts three times a week; makes a pilgrimage every year. Is that person a better person? Is he or she automatically closer to God? Or what if the person still sins. He visits prostitutes. She gossips relentlessly.
Modern man looks at this break between belief and behaviour and concludes that religion is ineffective but more than that, hypocritical. An easy target is a Pharisee. Somehow we cannot run away from conflating hypocrisy with a fuller religion. It appears that the more one is religious, the more there seems to be incoherence in practice. What is the problem? What is the solution?
The solution does not lie in getting rid of religion although it is a modern and natural reaction. Since religion harbours hypocrisy, the natural solution to reducing hypocrisy is to rid ourselves of religion. A better response would be to take a closer look at Christ and His challenge.
Ritual purity is not about us. It is never about how “clean” or how “pure” we are before God. It is not a case of making myself “clean” so that I can face God. The presumption is that I am on par with God and that it is up to me to perfect myself in order to face a perfect God. The truth remains that no matter how pure we are, we are never worthy of God. Thus, the answer is to look at the purity of Mary, namely her Virginity and ask what that is all about.
The Church has taught since the beginning that Mary remained a Virgin. Why is it that important? Virginity expresses dedication rather than purity. She was whole-heartedly dedicated to the Lord. The analogy is the tabernacle in every Church. It is reserved only for the Blessed Sacrament. Nothing and not even diamonds can be kept there except the lowly consecrated bread. Why? The tabernacle resembles the womb of Mary. She remained a Virgin because there is no place in her womb for anyone else except her Lord and Saviour. There is no one in the heart of Mary, except her Lord and Saviour.
Likewise for us. Laws are the structures whereas the heart is the flesh. The solution is to cultivate a heart for God. That is why Jesus said so simply to the Pharisees: Nothing from outside can make you unclean inside. What is unclean comes from your inside. If you are filled with evil and violence, you can be sure that your demeanour will exude that.
A true love of the laws must bear fruit in our behaviour. Sometimes we can get caught in discussions about how much we are observing a rite. On the other hand, there are those who react to the perception that there are too many rules and regulations to the point of stifling one’s creativity or desire to serve.
What is missed out is this: where is the heart in all these? To those who love, no distance is ever too great. Anyone who has fallen in love knows this. You will go out of the way, and not only that, you willingly embrace suffering because of love. But to those who struggle to love, even a step is an inconvenience. As the Malays say in their proverb. “Mahu seribu daya. Tak mahu, seribu dalih”. Translated, it literally means that “if you want, you will deploy a thousand attempts. If you do not want, you will table a thousand excuses”.
A simple test for us is the obligation. How many of us find ways of escaping any regulation? We do the minimum in order to fulfil what is required. But amazingly the Church is fantastic because she does not disdain this attitude. Like Christ, she never stops inviting us to a higher plane of love. Look at the contrition in our repentance. Imperfect contrition is the fear of hell. Perfect contrition is sorrow because I have offended God whom I should love with all my heart.
The world will not change if we add more rules or structures of “goodness”. The “globalists” believe they can force people to respect “rules” of engagement, that is, to accept diversity, equity or inclusion. Compulsion can only go as far as the heart is willing because without the heart, those compelled will pay lip-service. What is needed is more love in our hearts for God. The more we love God, the easier the laws are from Him.
Finally, those of us who value freedom associate the exercise of the faculty with choices available. The more choices the greater the freedom. But in truth, there is no absolute liberty to do as we wish because true freedom is to be free for excellence and never to be free for licence. Those who opt for personal licence will always find God’s laws to be burdensome. Those who opt for excellence will always search for the spirit that guides our laws. To those who love God, they will delight because His laws serve as a lamp to their feet, and a light to their path.
