Friday 28 February 2020

7th Sunday in Ordinary Time Year A 2020


There is something about our Catholic intuition that more inclusive than it appears. It is basically a sensibility (a principle upon which our sacramental system is built on) that is founded on a sensitivity to life. If you like, it is an adaptation to life after the Fall; a life which we are all too familiar with.

If, in the preceding Gospel passages, Jesus taught the Beatitudes, then last Sunday and this, He enters into the heart of them by reinterpreting the Torah, the Law inherited from Moses. Today, He tackles the last two pronouncements by connecting them to a perfection we should aspire to because it reflects who God is.

Therefore, the standard of Jesus is definitely higher. In promoting this, He might appear to have repudiated the Lex Talionis of Leviticus. This law of retaliation does come across as barbaric from our civilised vantage point. What, you might ask, will an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, lead to? You might think it a tad too vengeful. As Gandhi was supposed to have remarked: soon enough everyone will be blind. Precisely, the Lex’s legitimacy is derived from the context of tribalism. The Lex is limiting meaning that if you need to strike back, you are curtailed or prevented by the law from exacting damage/retribution beyond what you had suffered. If I had been wronged, you can bet that a big part of me wants to strike back even more. Hence, Jesus proposes an ideal which goes beyond the need for reprisal, thereby inviting us to follow His example.

Only love can take us beyond revenge.

Perhaps it makes sense, especially so within the framework of a multi-religious society, to hear people say: all religions are the same. After all, every religion instructs its followers to do good. Whilst it is true that every religion prescribes virtue, still that does not make them the same. What may render all religions seemingly alike is that being a Christian makes no difference at all in the religious equation. In fact, those who are not Christians behave better than some of us. An example. When the time comes for a blood donation drive, the Buddhists will be there to give. Catholics? We are afraid that the drop of blue blood in us might just be drained out of us if we were to donate blood.

Our standard should be exceptional. Exceptional is just another word for saintly.

I am sure you must have heard of this post-Vatican hymn: “And they’ll know we are Christians by our love, by our love”. I hesitate to sing this song for obvious reasons that our love, if at all, is rather measured and calculated. We are afraid to lose out and fearful that people will take advantage of us, no? The truth is, in a competitive world, being a Christian is a vocation to “losing out”. The thing is, “losing out” is not the same as resignation. It is not the same as being stepped on. Someone bullies you and you think that it is your Christian duty to quietly accept it as suggested by the Gospel. Here, I am not in any way declaring that the Gospel is wrong. Just that the losing out as prescribed by Christ pertains more to the consequences that come with living up to His standard.

For example, when there is injustice, we take the side of the disinherited, disenfranchised or dominated. In the context of Laudato si, we should stand with the environment and the poor who are most affected by climate change. It is as simple as taking the trouble to ensure that we reduce our plastic footprint and not only lowering our carbon cost. This country has the distinct notoriety of being Asia’s worst plastic polluters—a 16.78kg per capita per annum. So, where the world pushes for convenience, we resolutely take the path of conservation. Just one simple act. Make sure you have tiffin carriers in the boot of your car. How often have I forgotten that and when I am packing takeaway, I would say, “Aiyah. Never mind. Next time”. Where the world urges reckless consumption, we endorse careful moderation. Where the world pushes for the utilisation of nature we seek a sustained care for our common home. In all these, there is a lot of losing out when we follow Christ. You only have to refrain from bribery, and you know what I mean by the “cost of discipleship”.

When the 2004 tsunami devastated Aceh, Christian aid agencies were the first to enter into the desolate ruins to help and provide refuge for those affected. What brought Christians there was the love of Christ. It is this same love that brings many into the frontline of difficulties even at the cost of their lives. No greater love a man has than to lay down his life for his friends. That is the depth that Jesus invites us to in our discipleship.

Of late, we have received calls asking if we have Mass. In a neighbouring country, Masses have been suspended indefinitely, all in the effort of arresting a contagion that is scaring more people to death than actually killing them. The point is that more people have died from dengue fever than from Covid-19. With dengue, we have not stopped living but in response to Covid-19, there is no longer the obligation to attend Mass on Sunday except for the “virtual” obligation to attend Mass via YouTube.

I had a query from someone who happens to live in the said neighbouring country asking if it was OK to miss Mass here in JB. The question was rather telling—perhaps a revelation that the person was already on a path to something more than what is required by the law. Exactly what the Lord was trying to bring out in deepening the Torah.

The answer to the question is this: As long as one lives within the territory where the suspension applies, one is exempted except for the “virtual” obligation. We actually do not need the Romans to send us packing into the Catacombs. The fear of liability is enough to drive us into virtual existence.[1] Be that as it may, the enquiry reveals how the human heart knows that there is something deeper than a mere obligation. This is where the Catholic sensibility comes into play.

If we resort to obligations, we tend to obey the law of inertia by seeking the barest minimum. What better way to deal with the minimum than prohibition? For example: “Thou shall not kill” is easier to process than a positive command “Thou shall love”. How does one “love”? It leaves us uncertain as to whether this act or that act counts as loving. Hence, “Thou shall not kill”, “Thou shall not steal”, “Thou shall not covet thy neighbour’s wife”, and etc.

But we are called to more. We intuitively recognise that the human heart is created to contain the universe. This Catholic sensibility is expressed in our act of contrition. “O my God, I am truly sorry for all my sins. I detest them because they deserve your just punishment but most of all because they offend you, my God, who are all good and deserving of all my love…”. Within this prayer, we encounter the bare minimum, which is the fear of hell acting as a deterrent against our sinning. It also captures what is essentially our nobility that we refrain from sin because we love God. The Catholic sensibility holds that if the love God does not prevent us from sin, at least the fear of hell might.
Thus, the love that Jesus commands us to is by nature less prohibitive and by instinct, more generous. Lazy and sinful humans that we are, we tend to settle for that which barely fulfils the minimum requirement. This kind of easy-going discipleship is not supported by the Jesus in today’s Gospel. The requirement for the discipleship of the Kingdom goes deeper than what was prescribed by the Torah. Whilst our Catholic sensibility does accommodate human frailty, it is through the Sacraments that the Church strengthens us to surpass mediocrity, raising us from the mundane to the magnificent. We are created to embrace heaven and so Jesus asks us to go all the way. There is no halfway on the road to paradise.


[1] The phrase “virtual obligation” is possibly an oxymoronic term. Virtual means “being something in essence or effect, though not actually or in fact” or “not physically existing but made to appear by software”. If virtual reality is not real, then can virtual obligation therefore oblige? In any case, electronic confession, that is, via the internet is not valid.