This desire for completion or wholeness is our straining for eternity. Nobody wants the good times to end and this is reflected in the structured conclusion of our fairy tales. “And they live happily ever after” is a formula that tries to capture this permanence we crave. Furthermore, no matter how fractious a relationship may be, nobody entering into matrimony ever walks up to the altar with the proviso that the marriage is a temporary arrangement.[4] If anything, the fabulous gown, and the elaborate floral arrangements trumpet the aspiration that this will last forever.
In the context of this final Sunday of the liturgical calendar, there is another temporal tradition that approximates the coveted continuity or the lastingness in eternity. It happens when a monarch dies. When a king dies, this ringing proclamation goes out to assure the nation that there is stability in the kingdom. “The King is dead, long live the King”. In the demise of a ruler, we get a taste of stability or permanence—an approximation of heaven and this brings us to the Solemnity of Christ the King.
Unlike the temporal rulers, His Kingdom is eternal. Through our belief in the Resurrection, we are given the assurance, born of hope, that in God’s providence nothing is ever wasted, not even what the world might consider to be an insignificant life, as in the mindless crucifixion of a powerless Man standing before a representative of the mighty Roman empire. Hence, it is highly symbolic that the final Sunday of the Year where Christ is proclaimed King is still set within November, the month dedicated to the memory of the dead. He is the first-born of the new creation. As the Gospel clearly indicates, His Kingdom is not of this world, for the Resurrection belongs to a reality which is beyond time and space.
This brings us to a relevant question. If the Kingdom is other worldly, then what does it mean to celebrate Christ as King? In the last 50 years or so, the notion of the monarchy has become alien to our democratic mentality. It feels like a holdback from an age considered irrelevant. For example, considering that everyone is created equal, we find bowing or curtseying, in short, “standing on ceremony”, rather pretentious.
But stand with Jesus we must. Pomp and pageantry are not foreign to God as suggested by the “Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus” that the Angels sing. The elaborate rituals surrounding the liturgy are testimonies to the glory that belongs to God. The difference is that they are not pompous and certainly not patronisingly pretentious. As He stands before Pilate, we catch a glimpse of the quality of His Kingship and the nature of His Kingdom. He may not be control but He is not weak. In fact, He stands triumphant before Pilate and we ought to stand with Him so that we may learn what His Kingdom represents.
How do we stand with Jesus? Recall the provenance of this Solemnity. The year was 1925 when Pius XI established the “Solemnity of our Lord Jesus Christ, King of the Universe” (Domini Nostri Iesu Christi universorum Regis) to counter a way of thinking which not only marginalises God but organises life as if God does not exist. The title solemnly proclaims Christ’s holy sovereignty over individuals, families, ideologies, causes, societies, governments, and nations. In other words, Jesus Christ is King over every aspect of our lives.[5]
Thus, on 11th Dec of that year, which marked the 1600th anniversary of the Council of Nicaea, Pius XI established this feast through the encyclical “Quas primas” and within the document, he instructed the Catholic faithful to consecrate or renew their consecration to the Sacred Heart of Jesus and to make reparation for the atheism practised in many nations. In that mandate, the Pope made a connexion between Christ the King and the devotion to His Sacred Heart, a link which leads us into the heart of the Eucharistic life of the Church. As long we celebrate the Eucharist, then Christ the King is always relevant.
However, we face a secularism that is not only alive but has been rather virulent. The recent Popes have in many ways battled with it. Benedict XVI named it as the “Dictatorship of Relativism”. Prior to that, John Paul II characterised an expression of it as a “Culture of Death”. For entertainment, we definitely glorify mayhem in our movies and music. In life and death issues, we promote abortion and euthanasia.[6] In relationships, we resort to pornography and exploitation of the body. These are but some illustrations of how far-reaching the civilisation of death has been.
The irony is that we congratulate ourselves on the advances that we have achieved as an enlightened and progressive society. Somehow, we are oblivious of the ideology that undergirds many of our research analyses and investigations. For example, both human embryo studies and assisted suicide span two ends of life’s spectrum. “Is this life?” at the beginning and at the end “Is life worth living?”. We blatantly breach the boundary of morality in our research under the aegis of “common good”. Thus, under this overarching narrative or norm, the uncertain status of “a clump of cells” that make up an embryo must never outweigh the good of many because common good dictates that we should save as many as we can through scientific investigations. In light of many being saved, what is the sacrifice of a few embryos? Then when life is “used up”, the question that surrounds the end of life is this: “What is the point of living if one is not productive anymore?”.
The ideology that powers our common life is one which is antithetical or contradictory to the Kingdom of Christ. As mentioned earlier, the nature of His Kingdom is eternal and universal. His is the Kingdom of truth and life, a Kingdom of holiness and grace, a Kingdom of justice, love and peace. In the last 50 years, as Church, we have opted for the poor because we are collaborating or rather, we stand with Christ by planting the seed for the Kingdom to come.
This solidarity with our King must begin with the self. Frequently, we think of injustice as being “out there” and we want to make right the “out there”. But the seed of Kingdom must take roots in the fertile soil of our hearts first. It must begin with me. Is Jesus Christ the supreme Lord and Saviour of my life? The beauty of this Kingdom is that He has initiated it here on earth. It is waiting for its completion in heaven. As long as one has been baptised, then each Catholic is invited to be a part of this Kingdom. It is never imposed which means every conscience must decide if it wants to follow Him or the evil one. We all recognise how dire the world is yet we forget that the change or transformation we desire or want for the world begins with the individual. It does not begin “out there”. It begins with me and I must become the change that I want to see in the world. There is price to be paid when we choose Christ over Satan. But fear not as the author of the Letter to the Hebrew encourages us. Since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us shake off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles. And let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us, fixing our eyes on Jesus the King—the source and summit of our faith and life. For in Him, we shall triumph.
___________
[1] For Karl Marx, religion is the opium of the masses. They cling to religion for want of a better vision of life, a kind of pacifier because we have nothing else to hold on to.
[2] If one never got the “justice” that is due to him, we can fairly surmise that “justice” will be served in the next life.
[3] A good illustration is demonstrated by the lack of satisfaction. The mega-rich elite do not seem to be contented with their already massively accumulated wealth. Wealth generation is good but they have more than enough to spend over 100 lifetimes. Yet, they want more.
[4] No couple that intends to marry, does it in a “temporary” manner. In fact, when the couple is quarrelling and yet when they walk up, there is this hope that things will be better after the wedding. The couple would have desired permanence for their union.
[5] This sounds jarringly incongruous in the current make-up of the world. 4/5 of the world is not Christian or to be politically correct is made up of peoples of other religions. It feels almost arrogant to celebrate this Solemnity.
[6] There is criticism that pro-life proponents appear to restrict Catholicism to the single issue of abortion. What about the poor? These one-issue Catholics are bend on protecting life at its inception but do not seem to show concern for the single mother struggling to bring up children. Perhaps the pro-life movement and those who campaign for the poor betray a blinkered “silo” mentality with regard to the topic of life and death. The protection of the unborn and the support for the poor are closely related because one must flow to the other. Campaigning to protect the life of the unborn without caring for the poor misses the point of what the defence of life is truly for. But if we show no concern for the truly defenceless, meaning the “clumps of cells” or the unborn, why should we care at all for the poor? Why are we not closer to bridging the gap between rich and poor? In fact, it is widening even more. It is not fashionable to say that the ingrained and abject poverty we experience in this world has its roots in the lack of care for those who are defenceless in the womb.
