The Sunday theme and the Gospel seem to be at opposite ends of a spectrum. The theme, “The Lord is kind and full of compassion”, is taken from the Responsorial Psalm. For those who subscribe to the Gospel of Nice, a theme like this is reassuring. But note that there may be a correlation between the idea of a nice God and our definition of freedom. Lurking near our idea of a God who is kind and compassionate is a corresponding notion that He cannot help but forgive. Not far from the notion of a helpless but forgiving God is a concept of freedom that is almost absolute. [1]Today’s Gospel passage, however, gives us another picture. We are invited to bear the yoke of Christ. The yoke is to corral and curtail the free movement of draught animals whose function is basically to do what they have been harnessed and trained to do. Thus, the yoke suggests of “slavery”.
So, on the one hand, the Sunday theme proposes a kind of freedom and on the other hand, the Gospel prescribes slavery. How are they related and are they really opposite ends of a spectrum? Is the opposite of freedom slavery? To answer these questions, we need to understand the difference between liberty and licence; between what is possible and what is permissible.
When we think of freedom, we think of liberty. Our working understanding of liberty is basically licence; licence to do what we want. But, liberty is not a licence to do what we want. Consider this: We are at liberty to choose good or evil. This liberty accords with the definition of who we are—created in the image and likeness of God. Whilst we are at liberty to choose good or evil, we have no licence to do evil. Let me rephrase. We have the freedom to choose good or evil but we have no right to do evil and licence seems to suggest that. When we cannot tell the difference between liberty and licence, then our definition of liberty is the licence/right to do anything and everything.
This brings me to my next point which is the difference between what is possible and what is permissible. There is an infinite array of possibilities in all our lives. Science, with its attendant applications, technology, has made life liveable. Through technological progress we have achieved an enviable standard of living and we will continue to improve in the quality of life. With such improvement, we also widen our possibilities. What has also happened is that we have equated possibility with permissibility. The possibility of splitting the atom has been translated into the permissible use of nuclear fission in bombs, for example. This example highlights the difference between what is possible and what is permissible and instinctively we know that they are not the same. Possibility describes our capacity but permissibility prescribes our moral responsibility. In a way, Japan’s Fukushima has brought this distinction to the fore. Europe certainly possesses the technology and yet her citizens are debating the permissibility of building nuclear power stations. [2] There are lines beyond which possibility will not cross even if it can. What is possible for us to do is not always permissible. Therefore, I may have the liberty to terminate a person’s life but I do not have the licence to do so.
Here you begin to realise that the liberty that we have been socialised to believe we ought to have is a kind which is invested solely in the individual, meaning that it is a liberty that is unfettered and absolute. You watch the “Pursuit of Happyness” and you hear the main character Christopher Gardner, played by Will Smith, mouthing the same philosophy: “Hey. Don't ever let somebody tell you... You can't do something. Not even me. All right?” That philosophy seems to permeate every stratum of our society especially young people who are daily fed this fallacy that “nobody can limit them”. Let me clarify, on one level Christopher Gardner was correct but to remain at that level would be to set an individual’s unfettered liberty as the sole criterion for a person’s self-expression. [3]
However, apply that unlimited capacity for self-expression to the act of suicide. A man who jumps off the 21st story of a hotel appears to behave according to the dictate of absolute liberty in the sense that he is in charge of his life. However, place that single act of “individual and unfettered liberty” against the actions of the detectives who need to investigate the circumstances that led to the jumping, the personnel from CSI who need to examine a mangled body, and worse, the poor Indonesian contract workers who have to scrape off body parts, wash the blood off the pavement and scrub clean the wall of the hotel, etc.
There is no such thing as unencumbered liberty. Our liberty is always set in relation to others. Doing what we want is not always an expression of freedom. What is ironical is that the very exercise of “personal” liberty, in many cases, is also an expression of our slavery. The liberty to watch pornography is actually a form of slavery. [4] The same goes for playing computer games endlessly, drinking excessively and gambling thoughtlessly. These are addictions. They enslave.
The opposite of freedom is not slavery as if the presence of one necessitates the absence of the other. You are either free or not free. True freedom is not the absence of slavery. True freedom is only found when we are bound—according to the second reading: “Your interests are not in the unspiritual, but in the spiritual because the Spirit of God has made His home in us”. In the Gospel, Christ tells us that true freedom is to be bound under His yoke. The meaning of being bound under His yoke is spelt out by the Catechism: Human freedom is a force for growth and maturity in truth and goodness; it attains its perfection when directed toward God, our beatitude. The more one does what is good, the freer one becomes. Our greatest freedom comes not because we are free from slavery to addiction but from being yoked to Christ. Only when we freely accept the yoke of Christ do we come to realise that He is not our “captor” but our liberator. He stands not behind us as a task master but beside us bearing the full weight of our yoke. So, the more we are bound to Him, the more we will know true freedom. In Him, we live, we move and have our greatest freedom.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] When we have a God on our side, we gain greater confidence and thus, freedom. Here, we are not too far from a God who cannot help but forgive…
[2] Maybe we do need to go to Europe. Here in our backyard if only our government understand this difference with respect to the issue of the “rare earth” facility of Lynas.
[3] It is true that no one can limit our dreams but our dreams are circumscribed by the curtains of permissibility.
[4] Recognising the difference between liberty and licence, what is possible and what is permissible may help us understand where the Church is coming from. In the area of contraception, the Church based her teaching on what she considers to be permissible whereas many Catholics reaction would come from what is possible. Clearly we do have the means and yet we are not permitted.
