28th Sunday in Ordinary Time Year C 2025

With faith comes gratitude. With entitlement comes a pound of flesh. Today’s 1st Reading and Gospel give us pause to reflect on the attitude that we may want to embrace. Last Sunday’s focus was on faith. Appropriately, this Sunday, we turn to gratitude.

The background of both the 1st Reading and the Gospel is exclusion. Naaman and the Lepers are excluded from polite society. Interestingly, no matter how much of an advance we have made in society or as a civilisation, one thing for sure is that sinful humanity will find a way to segregate or to exclude. This exclusion may not even be wilful. For example, in our rush towards digitalisation, those born recently are frequently classified as digital natives. But the elderly have become digital orphans and excluded from the ever and fast-changing electronic landscape. How many of our elderly or the digital illiterates have been scammed?

The point is that exclusion is something we have to watch out for. Perhaps what Jesus remarked might be useful to remember: “The poor you will always have with you”. The Camino has confirmed this existential truth. We can all start out the same but we will never end the same. We can provide for an equality in opportunity but we can never force an equality of outcome without injustice to the natural order of things. There will be people who will be excluded, not wilfully but by the sheer truth that an equal outcome cannot be enforced. Now, in the case of those who have been left out, their salvation is in God. It makes sense that God is called the Father of orphans, widows and the poor simply because nature is simply unfair.

Thus, Naaman and the Lepers were able to see that blessings were not their entitlement. Rather they were gifted to them. When one has received a gift, one becomes a person of thanksgiving. Naaman found the true God and decided that he would now worship the God from Whom he had received the gift of healing. The Samaritan Leper came back to thank Jesus and praise God. 

Gratitude is a response of faith. In other words, it is faith in action. We give thanks to God for His bountiful love shown towards us. Perhaps it makes sense to look at Laudato si from this perspective. It is not so much this overarching fear of the destruction of the environment that spurs us into action. Rather we begin to take care of the world because God has gifted it to us. It is our gratitude toward the Lord’s kindness that we begin to look at the world differently.

What might prevent this gratitude is the attitude of entitlement. Without denying the pain that people can go through or suffer from, take the example of a child. Every child is really a gift from God. In this sense than, abortion is spitting in the face of God who desires to give. Childlessness on the other hand, painful as it is, is not a curse from God. We do not know why some can bear, some cannot. It could be due to the quirkiness of nature combined with our lifestyles. Suffice to say that from the natural point of view, not every married couple will succeed in bearing children. There is pain involved and this is not to deny that.

However, we take the example of a child who died. It is always tragic as any death before time is. Yet, it is a matter of faith and gratitude that one gives thanks to God for that life, no matter how brief it may have been. Everyone who comes into our lives and has made a difference is a gift. It has never been an entitlement. Rather, it is a privilege.

How often is it that we become angry with God or are disappointed by God for not giving us what we ask for. Along the Camino on a very wet day as I was walking, someone scrawled on the white line at the edge of the road, God is love. It was so random and in the rain, I was thinking what that meant. Does God’s love for me means I get everything I want? What if I do not get what I want, would God still be love?

Could we or would we ever give thanks to God for the little that we have? Like the mother whose baby died at 5 years old giving thanks to the Lord for the 5 years rather than for not having more than 5 years?

We have become so entitled that our gratitude is now part of our entitlement. Meaning? We thank God only because He has fulfilled our wishes. Otherwise we would never thank Him.

St Josephine Bakhita, a Canossian Sister who was abducted, abused and sold into slavery thanked her former abusers. She reflected, “if I were to meet those slave-traders that abducted me and those who tortured me, I would kneel down to them to kiss their hands, because, if it had not have been for them, I would not have become a Christian and religious woman”.

When we are entitled we will struggle to show gratitude. There will always never be enough for us to be thankful for. Profound gratitude is a radical orientation. Prayers should consists of asking, showing sorrow, giving thanks and praising. Most of the time we petition or we express sorrow. But the prayers to thank and to praise are frequently hinged on how much we can get. That is entitlement. To let go of that, we need to give thanks and to praise no matter what. It is not easy and it might take an entire lifetime to move from “my God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” to “Rejoice always, pray constantly, give thanks in all circumstances; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you” (1 Thess 5:17-18). But like the Camino, no matter how hard the climb, the grace to be thankful is one step at a time. We will get to the summit of praise with the grace of God.

27th Sunday in Ordinary Time Year C 2025

Habakkuk is not an ancient prophet. He could be classified as a “modern” one. He saw the injustice that existed during his lifetime. We too can notice the inequalities glaring back at us. Like us, Habbakuk cried out to a God who is seemingly silent and uncaring. But the Lord reminds him to have faith in the future and to continue living. Today’s prophets who fight can end up dispirited if they do not have faith that God will make right the situation that calls out for righteousness.

We are movers and shakers. We cannot sit still. In a way, we are keen to change the world for the better. It is a good attitude to have. Yet it might also lead to discouragement and disillusionment. Movers and shakers are performance-driven and also production-centred. In other words, we thrive on measurable results and count on successes. We have been bred to succeed and when we do not succeed, the result can be anxiety and depression.

Given that the organisation of the world we have is complex and knowledge about the universe is also immense there is a tendency to organise life through specialisation. The ever-increasing specialisation of knowledge has led to increasing fragmentation of our experience. With specialisation, we know more of less.

Sounds gibberish but take a look at our medical faculties. A doctor-friend told me that given his mother’s medical condition, it was a good thing that he himself is a doctor because specialisation has made the specialist an expert but he or she is often hampered by the lack of multi—disciplinary experiences. It made a wholistic diagnostic of his mother’s condition difficult. Does this sound familiar? And have you known of a person who had to be hospitalised but the doctors were unable to diagnose the condition? As a result, the person was subjected to a whole battery of tests and passed on from one specialist to another specialist.

The result of our inability to grasp the bigger picture and to solve a problem can create a sense of despair especially when we are unable to control our destiny.

If we are not the masters of our destiny, then who is? This is where Habakkuk comes in. His vision leads us along the path of trust and discipleship. We let God take charge and we keep faith with Him. Though we may be tempted by the need for results, what is best is to trust and have faith that God will come through for us.

Take a look at the Gospel. There are two themes inter-related. The first is how faith can do great wonders. What is faith? Remember the saying, “give God the best and not the rest”. For many of us, faith kicks in when we are helpless. God seems to be our fail-safe option and faith tends to be more like “I can do it first” rather than God is at the heart of all there is.

Perhaps the 2nd theme of Jesus in the Gospel on servanthood might be helpful. It is not about humility in service per se. Rather it is leaving all in the hands of God. It is a kind of attitude which can only be described of as letting God be God. This is where we will struggle because we like beings in charge and we need to be in control. We are afraid of letting go.

It is quite natural because humanity has been created a little less than a god. When we see a wrong, when we encounter a problem, we would want to rectify the situation because our human intelligence makes us problem-solvers.

The Camino pilgrimage has taught me one thing which I am still learning. Every journey undertaken, I seemed to have things which I had packed but did not need at all. The redundancies or fail-safe were never needed. The extra set of clothings that might come in handy. This gadget or that instrument. The point of faith is that God will meet us at the moment when we need Him most. That is faith. I must say that I have yet to learnt fully the meaning of having faith in the Lord’s Providence. But like the Camino, it is a life-long process of learning to trust. Perhaps death is the final act of faith that each one has to make because we can only enter eternity when we have placed ourselves fully into the loving embrace of God.

26th Sunday in Ordinary Time Year C 2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

25th Sunday in Ordinary Time Year C 2025

In the 1st Reading, Amos stands as a figure of justice for he fought for the poor and condemned those who took advantage of them. He also warns that God will not forget those who have been unjust. Today we have a particular kind of Amos who apparently stands on the side of justice. The SJWs or Social Justice Warriors. Depending on the context, the definition carries a negative connotation. On the positive side, it refers to a passionate campaign on behalf of those who suffer injustice. Just like what Amos stood for. For others, whilst it describes advocacy for the voiceless, it frequently takes a superior position that cancels those who do not share the same viewpoint.

Amos remains a relevant figure in today’s world for there exists a gap between rich and poor which is not just abysmal but also quite unbridgeable. Jeff Bezos or people in the same shade of wealth like him and the common man or woman on the street might as well be existing in different universes.

On the one hand, standing up for justice is laudable. What we need to be conscious of is the phenomenon of being a sour grape. It describes a negative attitude towards wealth only because it is unattainable to the person who is seemingly fighting for justice. In fact, Glaucon, a character in Plato’s Republic, gave a cynical definition of justice. According to him, there are some who fight for justice not because they love justice but because they do not possess the power to be unjust and to get away with it.

Think about it. Some of our political leaders are corrupt because they have the power to be corrupt and best of all, they believe themselves to be untouchable. However, there is also the type who stood against corruption becoming corrupt as soon as they come into power. In the struggle for justice, we may want to be mindful or watchful of our relationship with wealth and power.

Both power and wealth are ordinary measures of success for us. The present philosophy of life is driven very much by production and performance. A cursory glance at our marketing communications confirms this theory. They are centred on access provided by wealth to a lifestyle which makes the wealthy an envy for those who are poor. The engine that drives our notion of a good life is very much powered by envy. Keeping up with the Jones is what they call it.

Thus, the Gospel provides a way to reflect on how we should treat in particular our relationship with prosperity and material plenty. In the parable Jesus brings out the idea that God must come first in our consideration.

The steward is praised for his astuteness. How? He had been caught wasteful and for that, he would be punished with the loss of employment. Somehow, he managed to secure for himself a future by renegotiating the debt owed to his master. That astuteness, and not his dishonesty, earned the praise of Jesus.

Even though money was involved but what the steward did was even better. He was able to manoeuvre and in a way brought to fore two points to consider. First, Jesus brought up the issue that it is basically impossible to serve God and mammon. Second, it is our duty and our salvation to prioritise one over the other, which is, to put God first over wealth. If God comes first, then wealth will have a role to play in our lives.

Years ago I read a quote attributed to St Teresa of Avila but now I am no longer sure if she did say this. Still it bears repeating because it shows us how we should treat money for what it is. “Money may be the Devil’s excrement, but it is certainly a good fertiliser”. If St Teresa did say that, then she knows what money is and what it is good for. In other words, how can we possess money or wealth without being possessed by it?

Our relationship with money is never in terms of possession but as the Gospel reminds us, the material universe is ours only in terms of stewardship. Thus the quantum we possess is basically the amount we are looking after and not the amount we “own”. The African proverb best illustrates this. “We do not inherit the world from our ancestors. We borrow it from our children”. We are basically stewards and servants.

This truly sounds like a communist manifesto which aims to centralise or “collectivise” wealth. But it is not. Rather it is to understand how wealth should serve us rather than be worshipped. We should neither fear wealth nor be controlled by it. And if we desire heaven, God has to come first whereas wealth has to serve us. It is not and never the other way around. This is the long-term view to take if we want to secure our place in eternity.

24th Sunday in Ordinary Time Year C 2025 (Exaltation of the Cross).

The other day I was out for breakfast with a group of people. The Koay Teow Soup had already arrived but everyone was chatting, oblivious of the bowls on the table. What I did was to tap my forehead continuously hinting that we should make the sign of the Cross to say Grace before Meal. But no one noticed me. After a while I indicated to them that my forehead was already turning red from the non-stop tapping. They laughed because they had thought I was tapping because I was ruminating or having a headache.

Last Sunday, the theme was centred on discipleship. Translated, it means that when we follow Christ, there is cost to it. That cost has to be borne by us as Jesus Himself said: “Take up your cross and follow me”. Incidentally, the 24th Sunday this year has given way to the Exaltation of the Cross. For Catholics, the Cross, be it the Sign we make or the Crucifix holds a central place of reverence for us. Today’s feast honours Christ’s Cross as it commemorates the finding of the True Cross by St Helena, the mother of Emperor Constantine. Apart from the cross as the price of discipleship, there is also another reality that belongs up to the Exaltation of the Cross. It is our sinfulness and thus the Cross also symbolises the power of Christ’s sacrifice which brought about our redemption and salvation.

The fact that we are sinners is brought out clearly in the three parables if we were to follow the actual 24th Sunday’s Gospel taken from Luke. Sin is analogous to being lost like the sheep, the coin and the son. In each case, redemption is demonstrated through searching,finding and looking out for. The shepherd searching for his lost sheep, the house-holder finding for his lost coin and finally the father looking out for the return of his son.

Sin may drive us away whereas the Cross draws us back by redeeming and saving us. In fact, to be lost is never the end of a chapter unless one intends it. It means that one must consciously reject God’s desire to save and as such be lost eternally in perdition. Thus, the son’s return to the father and in both the cases of the lost sheep and coin, the recovery is filled with joy and ecstasy. There is great rejoicing when sinners repent or return to the fold.

What should draw us towards God is that He is madly in love with us since He seems to long for our return. Therefore, the Exaltation of the Cross is not highlighting our need to suffer for our sins or even the necessity to suffer because we follow Christ. Instead, it is to recall the extent God will go to in order to ransom our souls. This theme radiates through the three readings today. The bronze serpent foreshadowed Christ lifted up on the Cross. St Paul reminds us how far Christ would descend in order to lift us up. In the Gospel, Christ on the Cross is the Saviour of the world.

If that be the case, should not an awareness of God’s yearning for us make humanity turn to Him in droves. Yet for a long time, the response has been lukewarm. What might be the problem?

Would it be true to state that even though we may be conscious that God loves us, it is still not attractive enough? Just like my cat which does not respond to me at all. She only searches for me when she needs food but otherwise there is no relationship at all, not when I call her. In other words, we need God when we are desperate and the only proper response He has is to grant us what we have asked for.

This less-than-attractive quality about God may be explained by our sense of sufficiency which is ironical as there exists a great hunger in us. The evidence of our immense longing is found in how much we are driven to accumulate. Have you noticed all the online shopping available to us? Lazada, Shein, Taobao, Shopee are merely material versions of the spiritual heaven that we actually desire. Apart from these online shopping channels, we are bombarded by some visions of “material” completion or satisfaction through the houses, latest electronic gadgets, club memberships or modes of travel we acquire. Actually, the notion of sin can be explained by this desire or hunger for God. We are looking for Him but in the wrong places.

At the same time, there is a phenomenon which might help us appreciate the cross. This year, there seems to be a positive uptick in Catholic membership in France as witnessed by the higher number of baptisms or increased Church attendance in the UK amongst men. What might be a plausible explanation for this change or this increase? Could it be that Covid Pandemic clarified our vision by pointing out the emptiness of materialism as it uncovers the nagging truth that material accumulation cannot truly satisfy the human thirst for God?

Interestingly, a parallel and observable phenomenon took place in the 19th century. France underwent the upheaval of the Revolution that brought in “egalite, fraternite et liberte” (equality, brotherhood and freedom) and swept away the “ancien regime” of the monarchy. The catastrophe visited upon the Church in France, even though it was witnessed through the wave of de-Christianisation at the same time was paralleled by the rise in religious life. A good example is the Congregation of the Little Sisters of the Poor which was founded post—French Revolution.

Perhaps, what is most revealing is that the human spirit will languish when unchallenged. When our hearts are coarsened by materialism, our spirits will lose their vitality. A lack of challenge will result in a faith which is tepid or lukewarm. What is necessary for the Church to become vibrant is when we have challenges to face and obstacles to overcome. We should not be afraid of challenges but instead look at them as opportunities for growth in our holiness. In other words, to follow Jesus, we need to carry our crosses. Having said that, the Cross does not need us for its own validation. We need the Cross not merely because it is the instrument that saves us from our sins. Rather, we need the Cross if our souls were not to languish from the lack of challenge, impoverished by an absence of courage and character to bear the Cross.

23rd Sunday in Ordinary Time Year C 2025

I like that Jesus has set his face like flint. He is halfway through His journey to Jerusalem. There is a resoluteness in His behaviour. Crowds follow Him and in the context of this pilgrimage, He calculated for them the true cost of what it means to be a disciple.

The price of discipleship is the Cross.

What does it mean to take up the Cross and follow Him. Our collective consciousness usually prices or costs it as suffering and our embrace of it. Yet it simply does not make sense within modernity to hold up an ideal from which our culture is trying so hard to escape from. We are terrified of pain. How many women no longer give birth naturally but have to depend on epidural to relieve the pain of childbirth? This is not a derogatory statement about the fear of pain but an observation that there exists a contradiction. It is a challenge because on the one hand, we emphasise a pain-free philosophy of life while at the same time hold up a suffering Christ as an ideal to embrace.

The 2nd Reading might open a way to appreciate better the cost of a discipleship which is unbloody. St Paul was already in prison and possibly had need for the services of Onesimus, a slave. Yet he decided to return Onesimus to his former owner, Philemon. He sent him back not as a slave but rather as a brother. Paul exhorted Philemon to accept Onesimus like he would accept Paul himself.

This is one meaning of the Cross. It is not measured in suffering per se but it calls for us to prioritise our values etc. In a way prioritisation will involve giving up ideas which we hold to be important in order for us to embrace better values. The adage that “in the Kingdom of grace, the good can be the enemy of the better” illustrates this perfectly. What we have hitherto held to be a good may sometimes even be a hinder to our perfection. It happens in many situations where and when we are emotionally invested.

For example, I have an idea of who I am and I like myself because I have cultivated this image for the longest time and it has served me well. There will be self-denial involved, which is painful, when I need to give up my cherished notion of who I am because I have been called to something better. Like Philemon who may, before his baptism, believed in possessing Onesimus as slave. Now he has to treat him as an equal which would require adjustment in his worldview and in the treatment of Onesimus. Having to change one’s mindset can be emotionally distressing and even more painful than physical suffering.

A Chinese father who must accept that his daughter will marry an Indian son-in-law or a Malayalee father who must welcome a Tamil daughter in law. Racism or all kinds of “-ism” are lenses or prejudices which inform the manner we view world. These may have to change just like the Israelites, who in order to enter the Promised Land, must depart from Egypt.

Conversion is precisely leaving Egypt for the Holy Land—a turning away from sin in order to live a life of grace. This is where the Cross is to be found. The use of strong language helps to illustrate the cost. It is not a glorification of pain or suffering. If so, it would be masochistic. Rather, growth will involve the pain of forsaking what does not give life in order to embrace a purposeful life.

However, the idea that discipleship is costly is not the issue here. Rather our greatest challenge is to create the condition for a person to embrace discipleship no matter the cost. At the most basic level, we use fear like the threat of punishment to command behaviour. Countries regularly use their penal system to elicit proper behaviour. At best, fines can corral behaviour but what happens when punishment cannot be enforced. Fear of hell can be a motivation. But look at our children. As they reach 15 or 16, when threats no longer work, then what happens to good behaviour?

Our enticement or motivation should go beyond fear to love. A divinely-inspired spirituality comes from a space whereby we are drawn rather than driven toward giving up what is good for the better. And that kind of a draw can only come from an experience of the love of God. It springs from a growing awareness or consciousness of what pulls me away from life and what makes me edge towards life.
What can we do to make sure each person can come into contact with this loving God? How can we secure the space where God can reach out to a person? This is no set formulary that when it is applied will guarantee a positive outcome.

What might be helpful is faithfulness on the part of the Church with regard to the patrimony she has received. She safeguards the Sacraments and provides them because every Sacrament is the action of Christ Himself mediated through the Church He founded. If the Eucharist is how Jesus feeds His people through the Sacrament of Holy Orders, then the Church must provide access to Holy Communion. The space for the encounter with Christ can be facilitated through the beauty of the liturgy, the architecture and our behaviour and these provide the proper condition for people to encounter and experience God.

God is not a watch-maker Deity who is distant from His creation. But neither is He involved in such a manner as to imposed Himself on us. Instead He is a God who invites us to share His life and be filled with Him. His Son, Jesus, on the Cross, opened His side, not only to pour upon humanity the cleansing waters of the Sacrament of Baptism and feed the Church with the Sacramental Food of His Body and Blood but He opened His side to invite us to a part of His life. This year’s theme of Hope is exactly what the Church wants to do with regard to allowing people to encounter the Lord’s mercy and love and be drawn to Him. Once we have fallen in love with Him, then like Mary and John, we will have the courage to stand beneath the Cross whether it is bloody or not.

22nd Sunday in Ordinary Time Year C 2025

Today the Gospel speaks of charity and humility. These virtues remind me of an experience and a conversation. The experience was in the Jesuit noviciate. My fellow novice’s father was a self-made multi-millionaire. Sometimes his family would invite me to join their dinners at swanky hotels. The elderly man never forgot his roots. He made sure that the porters who served him were properly tipped.

A conversation I had the other day centred on the current manpower shortage etc. The reality is that parents all have great dreams for their children. The usual success path usually revolves around the familiar and tangible professions—doctors, engineers, lawyers, accountants etc. No parent, if they truly care and love their children, would aim low. Everyone aims for one of these exalted careers. Perhaps these are already outdated as youths today prefer to be tech-titans or have ambitions to build their online empires.

Can anyone picture a society consisting only of doctors, surgeons, accountants, engineers, lawyers or Elon Musks? In other words, what happens if everyone in the world were a leader. The Chinese proverb rings true—a mountain cannot have two tigers. Therein a disturbing idea that suggests fatalism or determinism. It might even reveal the sort of God we worship. For example, “Does God ever will a person to be a rubbish collector?” which begs the question of what sort of a rubbish God we have. Furthermore, does it sound like predestination to say that someone is born to be a rubbish collector?

The reality is we do need rubbish collectors. We need “slaves” whose lives are dispensable because they carry out the “D” works for us. Dirty, dangerous, demanding, demeaning or difficult. There are jobs which fall within these descriptions. Who is going to be performing all these work? Would it be patronising if the answer is “foreigners”? Does that not suggest that these people are fated and condemned?

The virtue of humility is not really associated with the menial work that needs to be done. What is there to be humble about when it is already servile. Rather, humility is for those who have moved up the ladder of social hierarchy and who are recognised as leaders. Like the father of the Jesuit who arrived in Malaysia penniless and subsequently becoming one of the richest men in the country. He rose up but he never forgot his roots.

Not forgetting where we come from is helpful because there will be people who are born to serve. It is fairly reasonable to conclude that not everyone will be a leader. Leaders must never forget to look after those who may have to remain at the bottom of the rung.

Genuine leadership is sorely lacking in an era of immense wealth and prosperity. Furthermore, we are suffering a crisis of leadership. As leaders falter, society instinctively clings to moral credibility as a standard. It is fascinating that much of this crisis is centred on the personal failure of leaders, to the point that moral failure has become a cause for depression. Take the example of the octogenarian politician who stepped up, seemingly to put an end to “kleptocracy” but he was just a replay of the politics of race, religion and self-enrichment. How not to be depressed if we cannot escape the culture of corruption?

Disappointment with poor leadership can be an excuse for some to abandon the personal duty toward excellence. For example, feeling betrayed by their religious leaders, we have a cadre of young people who has publicly stated that they are spiritual but not religious. While they retain a personal belief in God, they shy away from any form of external affiliation. It could be self-protection, a kind of insurance against the failure of leadership. Succumbing to spiritual suicide, families have stopped going to Church because they are disgusted by a priest or are disappointed by the treatment they had received. Our relationship with God or affiliation with Christianity cannot be premised on whether or not someone else is living up to standard.

Furthermore, the response to excellence gives meaning to the readings. True leadership is a vocation to humility and a calling to remember the poor. It is not just about lowering oneself or making oneself less prominent. We are living in an age where the generation of wealth is phenomenal. There are people who are not just rich but uber rich. The gap between the rich and the poor has widened into an invincible chasm. And the ease of wastage is scandalous in the light of those who are poor and have no access to proper nutrition etc.

Leaders must shepherd humbly and charitably. Wealth may be a blessing but it is also burden of responsibility. The irony of human aspiration is that it is based on an aversion towards poverty. We desire plenty because we fear destitution, as if, being poor were a condemnation or a curse. Hence, the Gospel proposes a divine compensation.

Do not look for material reward because God Himself will provide. In other words, trust that God will never fail us and secondly, earthly poverty is only temporary. It may last one’s entire lifetime but it cannot stretch into eternity. Even though, there will be times when it will feel as if one has lost everything on earth. However, what is true is that God who sees all things done even in secret, will compensate for what we lack in this life.

In a way, both charity and humility reveal how fleeting or contingent life can be. There is a quality of temporality in which fortunes can change hands in the blink of an eye. It would do well for us to remember that. Here today, gone tomorrow. Rich today, poor tomorrow. Store up our treasures in heaven and not on earth. The higher we go, the more we should love and be mindful of those whom God has placed under our care.