Tuesday 8 March 2011

Novena of Grace of St. Francis Xavier (Day 5) Tuesday 8th March 2011 9th Week in Ordinary Time Year I

The Gospel this evening is helpful to our Novena reflexion. The setting consisted of the religious bureaucracy [chief priests and elders], the spiritual elite [Pharisees], the scholars [scribes] and the partisans of a puppet ruler [Herodians]. It was a setting best described as practical political prostitution because they all had different agendas and ordinarily they had no reasons to come together. But in the interest of taking Christ down, they came together under the guise of honesty, under the guise of searching for what was true. The answer of Christ cut through their hypocrisy.

Thus, the Gospel setting leads us down another path of holiness. Holiness is related to truth. In a sense, the authorities were doing the right thing even though the intention was questionable. Holiness is living the truth because to know the truth is to act on it. What was hypocritical of this expedient religio-political group was that they had no intention of living the truth.

So what does it mean to live the truth? To answer this question, we need to clarify three things. Firstly, how do we come to know. This is not easy at all. In fact, in the current climate of post-modernism, forging consensus is made difficult by “how” we arrive at the truth. Our present day theory of knowledge largely defines the act of knowing as a subjective act. In a relativist paradise, this rule is ultimately expressed as “What I know as true is true for me”. But, knowledge is never merely a subjective act of the individual because the act of knowing is objective in the sense that the community also participates in the act of knowing. That is why knowing is inter-subjective, meaning that it is “objective”—that it can be brought out into the open. If we follow the ancient philosophers of Greece, knowledge is always of the truth. Therefore, the act of knowing and the object known are both objective in the sense that how we arrive at and what we arrive at must be open to question. Thus, to know is an objective endeavour because it is not dependent on how I think or what I feel.

Secondly, what is truth? Again, to define “truth” is to sink into a philosophical quagmire. Yet we must. Truth “is” and that is why knowledge is of the truth. Knowledge is of what “is”—meaning, of reality. Therefore, truth, if it is to be true, has to be the same for all of us, rendering the earlier adage “what is true for you is not true for me” as really untenable. And yet, many in this post-modern world hold on to this relativistic position. In a space as big as this church, there are as many “truths” as there is the number of people.

But all is not lost because thirdly, knowledge is never for itself. To know truth is not just to know “something”. Thus, the knowledge, which is of the truth, serves a purpose. For example, knowing that there is a drain in front of you means taking appropriate measures to avoid falling into the drain.

When I was younger, I used to like “facts”. You know, "the capital of Zimbabwe is Harare and the former name of Zimbabwe is Rhodesia”. This form of “knowledge” serves a purpose, that is, knowledge is power and knowing and rattling facts can be quite impressive. But, I have stopped watching any of these “knowledge” documentaries because the purpose of this type of knowing is simply a form of gluttony.

Knowledge serves a purpose and it is more than just “naked” power. Knowledge serves a purpose and it is about change. Let me pause for a recap. Both the act of knowing and what is known must be objective. This actually ties in with what I have said in days past. The drive to know is a rational endeavour because it takes me into the public arena—the space we call reason or discourse. Thus, if knowledge is not just for itself, then it must serve the purpose of changing people for the better; otherwise it is nothing but intellectual gluttony—an expression of an insatiable appetite to know—akin to the Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder of “hoarding”.

Truth changes us and because it changes people for the better, it leads us to make difficult decisions such as to accept, to forgive and to love. Here, we are brought back to the Gospel. The group that posed Christ the question wanted to know but was not willing to change with what they have come to discover. Truth serves no purpose for them. Were they really after the truth that liberates or just information to destroy? [For many of us, information to store, to hoard for this future use which might never come].

In this respect, we have a lot to reflect on the purpose which comes with knowing. First, to know always involves change. It cannot rest merely at the “grasping” of what can be known. Let me give an example—the innocuous pastime called gossip. People who engage in gossiping always believe that they have “truth” on their side. When chided, a response you might hear is “It is true what…”. Even though there is “truth” in gossips, the question to ask is what sort of purpose do they serve? Is it to disseminate so-called “truth” or is it just an “assertion” of power since knowledge is power? [People use “information” or knowledge to blackmail or to destroy]. Gossips serve no purpose except to feed our salacious appetite to know. In the end, gossips, instead of leading us to ethical behaviour will end up destroying the community. To further illustrate the point that truth involves change, let us take a look at marriage. A spouse may be overly eager to know the truth about the husband or wife’s fidelity or infidelity. So check on the SMSes, emails etc. The more important question is what will he or she do with the unpleasant truth? Will the knowledge save the marriage? Humbly I submit that I know enough marriages to know that that kind of “need to know” does not help marriages. Here, I am not counselling blissful ignorance. I am saying that if you are not ready to know, then it does not help to know.

Because, we often think that truth is about transparency and disclosure. A crucial criterion for transparency is whether a disclosure would be constructive. Only then will truth become liberating. In a way, I am glad that the penalty for a priest breaking the Seal of Confession is excommunication. Why? In Confession, we know a lot of secrets—truths—about peoples’ lives. And yet, we have no right to disclose no matter how true that may be and even if we should be put to death.

In the end, if holiness is living the truth, the question to ask is not what “truth” is. It would be good to realise that truth is not a “thing” to know. Truth is a person to know: Jesus Christ. He does not hover behind the truth. He is the truth and Christian holiness consists of knowing Him who is THE truth, witnessing to Him who is the Truth and becoming Him who is the Truth.

The Gospel this evening is helpful to our Novena reflexion. The setting consisted of the religious bureaucracy [chief priests and elders], the spiritual elite [Pharisees], the scholars [scribes] and the partisans of a puppet ruler [Herodians]. It was a setting best described as practical political prostitution because they all had different agendas and ordinarily they had no reasons to come together. But in the interest of taking Christ down, they came together under the guise of honesty, under the guise of searching for what was true. The answer of Christ cut through their hypocrisy.


Thus, the Gospel setting leads us down another path of holiness. Holiness is related to truth. In a sense, the authorities were doing the right thing even though the intention was questionable. Holiness is living the truth because to know the truth is to act on it. What was hypocritical of this expedient religio-political group was that they had no intention of living the truth.

So what does it mean to live the truth? To answer this question, we need to clarify three things. Firstly, how do we come to know. This is not easy at all. In fact, in the current climate of post-modernism, forging consensus is made difficult by “how” we arrive at the truth. Our present day theory of knowledge largely defines the act of knowing as a subjective act. In a relativist paradise, this rule is ultimately expressed as “What I know as true is true for me”. But, knowledge is never merely a subjective act of the individual because the act of knowing is objective in the sense that the community also participates in the act of knowing. That is why knowing is inter-subjective, meaning that it is “objective”—that it can be brought out into the open. If we follow the ancient philosophers of Greece, knowledge is always of the truth. Therefore, the act of knowing and the object known are both objective in the sense that how we arrive at and what we arrive at must be open to question. Thus, to know is an objective endeavour because it is not dependent on how I think or what I feel.

Secondly, what is truth? Again, to define “truth” is to sink into a philosophical quagmire. Yet we must. Truth “is” and that is why knowledge is of the truth. Knowledge is of what “is”—meaning, of reality. Therefore, truth, if it is to be true, has to be the same for all of us, rendering the earlier adage “what is true for you is not true for me” as really untenable. And yet, many in this post-modern world hold on to this relativistic position. In a space as big as this church, there are as many “truths” as there is the number of people.

But all is not lost because thirdly, knowledge is never for itself. To know truth is not just to know “something”. Thus, the knowledge, which is of the truth, serves a purpose. For example, knowing that there is a drain in front of you means taking appropriate measures to avoid falling into the drain.

When I was younger, I used to like “facts”. You know, "the capital of Zimbabwe is Harare and the former name of Zimbabwe is Rhodesia”. This form of “knowledge” serves a purpose, that is, knowledge is power and knowing and rattling facts can be quite impressive. But, I have stopped watching any of these “knowledge” documentaries because the purpose of this type of knowing is simply a form of gluttony.

Knowledge serves a purpose and it is more than just “naked” power. Knowledge serves a purpose and it is about change. Let me pause for a recap. Both the act of knowing and what is known must be objective. This actually ties in with what I have said in days past. The drive to know is a rational endeavour because it takes me into the public arena—the space we call reason or discourse. Thus, if knowledge is not just for itself, then it must serve the purpose of changing people for the better; otherwise it is nothing but intellectual gluttony—an expression of an insatiable appetite to know—akin to the Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder of “hoarding”.

Truth changes us and because it changes people for the better, it leads us to make difficult decisions such as to accept, to forgive and to love. Here, we are brought back to the Gospel. The group that posed Christ the question wanted to know but was not willing to change with what they have come to discover. Truth serves no purpose for them. Were they really after the truth that liberates or just information to destroy? [For many of us, information to store, to hoard for this future use which might never come].

In this respect, we have a lot to reflect on the purpose which comes with knowing. First, to know always involves change. It cannot rest merely at the “grasping” of what can be known. Let me give an example—the innocuous pastime called gossip. People who engage in gossiping always believe that they have “truth” on their side. When chided, a response you might hear is “It is true what…”. Even though there is “truth” in gossips, the question to ask is what sort of purpose do they serve? Is it to disseminate so-called “truth” or is it just an “assertion” of power since knowledge is power? [People use “information” or knowledge to blackmail or to destroy]. Gossips serve no purpose except to feed our salacious appetite to know. In the end, gossips, instead of leading us to ethical behaviour will end up destroying the community. To further illustrate the point that truth involves change, let us take a look at marriage. A spouse may be overly eager to know the truth about the husband or wife’s fidelity or infidelity. So check on the SMSes, emails etc. The more important question is what will he or she do with the unpleasant truth? Will the knowledge save the marriage? Humbly I submit that I know enough marriages to know that that kind of “need to know” does not help marriages. Here, I am not counselling blissful ignorance. I am saying that if you are not ready to know, then it does not help to know.

Because, we often think that truth is about transparency and disclosure. A crucial criterion for transparency is whether a disclosure would be constructive. Only then will truth become liberating. In a way, I am glad that the penalty for a priest breaking the Seal of Confession is excommunication. Why? In Confession, we know a lot of secrets—truths—about peoples’ lives. And yet, we have no right to disclose no matter how true that may be and even if we should be put to death.

In the end, if holiness is living the truth, the question to ask is not what “truth” is. It would be good to realise that truth is not a “thing” to know. Truth is a person to know: Jesus Christ. He does not hover behind the truth. He is the truth and Christian holiness consists of knowing Him who is THE truth, witnessing to Him who is the Truth and becoming Him who is the Truth.