31st Sunday in Ordinary Time Year C 2022

We covered the link between the reality of sin, most essentially the truth of personal sin and the necessity of salvation. We can appreciate more of this connexion in the 1st Reading and the Gospel because it raises an important debate of who can be saved. The basic answer has to be everybody. But the sad and frightening truth is that not everybody will be saved. Such a claim sounds strange simply because we are accustomed to the current “established” and “inclusive” religion that God is irredeemably merciful.

The passage from Wisdom does suggest a helplessly benevolent God who wills the salvation of all. The fact is, He is merciful towards all that He has created and He desires to save. And that is heartening to hear. Yet, in the Gospel we clearly have someone who failed the criteria for inclusion. An innocent tax collector Zacchaeus was not. He was a treacherous traitor, a brazen blackmailer and a shameless sinner. To figure out the animosity against him, picture a Jewish Nazi-sympathiser who profits from selling out his own countrymen to the SS-Gestapo. Maybe we can resonate better with an example closer to home: scammers who prey on the vulnerable, relieving the unsuspecting victims of their hard-earned savings.

So, are there people who by virtue of who they are and what they do beyond the pale of salvation? Like Zacchaeus who because he was a tax-collector was unquestionably condemned beyond salvation. Like the hated legions of anonymous scammers who should be banished. Or could it be that we need a category more wretched than we are to feel good about ourselves? Many amongst us struggle with recurring sins and also repeated failures to repent and reform our lives so much so that we have given up hope on ourselves. In other words, the greater our resistance to change, the easier it is to spot the sins of others. Generally, a person with a judgemental attitude often finds it easier to condemn others than to work on his own conversion.

Conversion draws our attention to a feature in God’s salvific will which is succinctly captured by the author of the Wisdom. What we might miss out is compounded by a phenomenon called the “snowflake” syndrome. Firstly, the Book of Wisdom depicts a God who, little by little, corrects and admonishes those who offend or sin. The challenge for snowflakes is that they “bruise” easily. In this part of the world, such a condition is aptly labelled as the “strawberry” generation. Abusive or offensive, notwithstanding, employers can relate how the present batch of employees is easily hurt and demoralised when corrected. Overly emotional and incapable of dealing with opposing opinions will only make the path to conversion a bit more difficult. When one is easily offended, it will be difficult even to accept God’s gentle admonition or correction.

Going by the current standard, Zacchaeus would have been the perfect candidate deaf to the soft promptings of God. Given his stature and status, he should be offended even by a whisper of a criticism. Yet there seemed to be a certain humility with which he responded to the crowd. Though he sounded defensive, he stood his ground to ask for reasonable justification for their condemnation. “I may have been unjust but, pray do tell, how I have been unjust and I will make good of it”.

It may not be purely “hyper-sensitivity” or touchiness alone which makes hearing God next to impossible. In fact, this Gospel narrative is a call to conversion but the scrutiny is naturally focused on Zacchaeus because he is the “evil” one, the condemned tax-collector. What may escape our spotlight is the nameless one in the crowd murmuring against Jesus. He stands as custodian of norms accepted. He is the standard who castigates Jesus or anyone breaching the laws of propriety.

Jesus repeatedly transgressed the taboos set up to “protect” the virtues of the self-righteous. He frequently dined with sinners—adulterers, prostitutes, tax-collectors and the likes. “Who is in or out?” misses the point that God is relentless in searching for souls to save. This means we have to respond and in Zacchaeus, he recognised the need for reparation for the sins he may have committed.

When God searches, we need to reciprocate. So, when the new translation for the Roman Missal came out 2011, there were objections to the phrasing of the Consecratory Prayer over the chalice. “Pro multis” which refers to God’s salvific will was corrected from “for all” to “for many”. You remember the formula “It will be shed for you and for all men”? Compare it “Which will be poured out for you and for many”. Now, it is true that Christ died for all humanity but what the “restricted” translation affirmed is that each individual must also accept and live the grace won by Christ in order to attain eternal life. “For many,” asserts that salvation is not automatic because it cannot be forced upon a person. In the case of Zacchaeus, “Reparation” symbolised his intent on following Christ illustrating that discipleship has a price.

Without conversion, we can become a Church of Pharisees gather to congratulate ourselves. Whether or not we agree with the criteria set by the “crowd” or the single Pharisee, the point of being “in or out” has always been moral, that is, our actions have consequences. Today our dilemma being “in or out” revolves around whether or not we think like the ascendant group or subscribe to a set of approved behaviour. An observable case is how the net of homophobia is cast wider and wider to include anyone who even dares to disagree with the growing acceptance of same sex marriage, never mind whether it is a moral act or not.[1]

The morality of “in or out” in the exclusion of Zacchaeus shows that the criteria of inclusion must be tied to salvation and eternity. To be “in” is to be saved. It comes with a price which Zacchaeus was conscious of when he asked for proofs of his injustice and the assurance of the reparation he would make. It does not matter who we are or where we have been. It matters that we are changed or transformed. The case of Zacchaeus was an early version of identity politics and the failure to appreciate that it is not who we are that saves us. Rather it is the challenge of where we have been and if we are heading in the right direction of eternal life. The question is “Are we ready to pay the price for our salvation?”.

At the heart of this drama involving a midget of man is conversion. For our generation, what complicates this journey towards transformation is the dilemma posed by identity politics. In a sense, identity politics reflects our fascination with definition, statistics or better still, the delineation between “in or out” based on ideology. Identity politics can canonise us into specific behaviour[2] while failing to recognise that at the heart of being “in or out” is conversion. “In or out” can be made clearer by asking what the goal of salvation is. Let us be clear that God wills the salvation of all. The question is “For what?”. Does it mean that Christ saves us so that we can live forever on earth? No, the correct answer is “I came that you may have eternal life to the full”

The present ideology expects forgiveness from a loving God forgetting the corresponding responsibility of cooperating with His grace of conversion. Grace has never been cheaper in an entitled world that demands pleasure without accepting its purpose. There are many obstacles to discerning God’s outreach to us. In fact, Satan is doing all he can to ensure that we may never hear God. This is not blaming “poor” Satan for our failures but highlighting that the blindness of identity politics can prevent us from hearing God. “In or out” used to be a moral question. Today it is a matter of security or strength in numbers. But “quantity” or number is no indicator of rightness of our action or the guarantee of our salvation. Just because everyone bribes the police does not render corruption less immoral. Instead, “in or out” is “qualitative” in the sense that to be “in” qualifies us for heaven and inclusion is always dependent on following Christ and living His moral commands or imperatives, no matter how unpopular they may be. We pray for courage. We ask for humility.

Addendum

Earlier I mentioned about same sex marriage etc. I have never in my so many years preaching said anything about it. Why? It is not easy because you know stories can change. Stories have changed. Stories will change. Our neighbour down south has legalised homosexual acts between consenting adults. With regard to SSM, you need the PM and all the all farts of his generation to die off before the conversation changes.

In the past, when abortion was being pushed, the slogan was “My body, my choice”. Nobody, not even the Church or God can tell me what to do with my body. It is my choice to keep or abort the baby. Then came Covid and the emergence of the Vaccine. Suddenly, “My body, my choice” lost its currency because vaccination was being forced onto people. Ask Novak Djokovic. “His body, his choice” was no longer valid for him. He was banned from the Australian and the US Open. In the Church what happened? “Your body, your choice” became “No Vaccination, No Communion for you”. In short, people paid the price for upholding what was once “sacred” to the abortion industry.

With regard to sexual mores, in the beginning, the conversation of same-sex attraction centred on sexual behaviour. Why? Behaviour has a moral component to it because it deals with relationships. Even between a man and a woman. How should both behave with each other? For example, can a married man have a sexual relationship with a woman other than his wife? You know the answer.

However, “sexual behaviour” gave way to “sexual preference”. We enter the familiar territory of “my body, my choice”. Morality is not much of a consideration because my behaviour is an expression of my preference. There is greater autonomy here. Soon enough, “sexual preference” opened up the space for “sexual orientation” to flourish. Here, there is even less room for morality here because the origin of one’s behaviour is now transferred to nature. Very easily, the language shifted to one’s “sexual identity”. Think of Lady Gaga’s “I was born this way”. That is the narrative now, morality plays no part. If anything, God is to be blamed for making you this way.

I am not interested in judging people. (1) Life is short. (2) Life is tough. I empathised with people who have same sex attraction. I also empathise with a serial adulterer. A man or woman who cannot be faithful to the spouse is struggling in the area of sexual behaviour. In such a situation, what does “I was born this way” mean? If a man were to say, “I was born to have sex with every woman with or without her consent”, what is our take on this? Perhaps we should use another example because sex is a private matter that no government or religion should intrude. Say, “I was born with this murderous rage inside me that I am fulfilled only when I kill”. What is our response?

“I was born this way” becomes moral as soon as it involves another person. Here is the confusion that has taken place between what is possible and what is permissible. They are not the same. It is possible to have sex with every woman but is it permitted? When science which excels in the art of possibility (because we have technical prowess) is divorced from God, then science will confuse what is possible with what is permissible. Is it possible to manufacture a baby? Yes, it is. Buy some ova from a woman who needs money. Fertilised them and pay a woman to surrogate an embryo. Do we need to question the morality of these possibilities? People are afraid to debate simply because cancel culture uses the fear of labels to silence people. “You homophobe, you hater, you racist, you misogynist”.

Now that we exist solely (or are trapped) in the realm of the possible, the challenge for the Church is immense. When the “marker” for salvation is placed within the boundary of possible, then the “teaching” of the Church with regard to the morality of behaviour must change to accommodate what is possible. If identity and not moral behaviour becomes the central “marker” for salvation, then the Church must change her “teaching” if she is not to be labelled a “hater”. When morality is no longer guided by permitted behaviour, then heaven has to be an entitlement. If the Church alters her moral teaching, then we must ask if she is still the Church founded by Christ when He returns or if like Moses coming down the mountain, we are found worshipping the golden calf that we have fashioned ourselves, to validate our behaviour.

___________

[1]It used to be a moral matter. “Sexual behaviour” touches on morality because it involves relationships. Later the behaviour evolved into “sexual preferences”. To prefer exhibits autonomy as it is linked to one’s choice. However, preference gave was to “sexual orientation” which is even less “moral” because it expresses “who I am” rather than “what I do”. Naturally orientation has morphed into “sexual identity”. Think Lady Gaga, “I was born this way”. If identity and not moral behaviour becomes the central “marker” for salvation, then the Church must change her “teaching” if she is not to be labelled a “hater”.


[2] For instance, the destruction of masterpieces of art in order to stop the use of oil. What sort of behaviour confuses beauty of the past with the viability of the future?

30th Sunday in Ordinary Time Year C 2022

This Sunday is Mission Sunday and fortuitously we continue with the theme of prayer. Last week, the description for prayer was that it should be sustained. But Jesus Himself did caution against “babbling” in our prayers as if God were deaf. Therefore, it might be good to clarify what our prayers should be like and how we ought to carry ourselves when we pray. Finally, what connexion does the prayers of the Pharisee and the Publican have with the mission of evangelisation?

Firstly, it is rather odd to name this weekend Mission Sunday, as if the task of evangelisation is extraneous to the Church’s own self-definition. Mission cannot be simply one amongst her diverse activities. At the Ascension, the Great Commission given by Christ to the gathered Apostles to go baptise all nations has, from the Church’s inception, clearly marked her roadmap. She has been sent by the Saviour to draw the entire world into His Kingdom under His Lordship.

Thus, evangelisation is who we should always be because every minute of our Christian existence is supposed to be missionary. If anything, “Mission Sunday” merely highlights our identity making sure that we never forget who we fundamentally are—evangelical. When Jesus asked Peter, “Who do people say I am?”, the answer was resoundingly, “You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God”. Therefore the Church derives her meaning from the unchanging proclamation of Jesus who stands at the centre of history and life.

In the context of this mission, the idea of prayer and its purpose fits very well into the Church’s enterprise. The prayer we make is both for the success of our endeavours as well as to remain ever faithful to the task we have before us. St Paul in the 2nd Reading gave details of the struggles he encountered along the way. Tenaciously, he held on to the faith. Using the metaphor of sports, he saw himself as faithfully running the race to its logical conclusion, to a life that culminates with Christ.

Indeed, evangelisation is a crucial race only because there is a world hungering for the grace of the Gospel. If the scope for the Church is to evangelise, then both the Pharisee and the Publican are important. We might think that the central theme of the narrative surrounding these two men is humility or the lack of it, which is, arrogance. After all, one of them walked in and immediately began virtue signalling before God. But it is not about humility and if it concerns arrogance, then it is the pride of not needing salvation.

More than humility, the postures and prayers of these two men standing before God fundamentally underscore the connexion between sin and salvation, between the truth of redemption and the necessity of justification. Desiring to be justified is desiring salvation. Whereas the Pharisee felt himself justified as he declared his self-sufficiency. In short, he had no need of God for he believed himself justified in his behaviour. God could not save the Pharisee not because he was perfect but because he had no need of the Lord.

On the other hand, the Publican stood at a distance and dumbstruck before God, conscious of his abject sinfulness and his utter need for salvation. He who has need of God was justified and saved by God Himself. We see in these two men, the Church’s missionary thrust played out, which therefore begs the question, “What is salvation for?”. Or better still, “What is there is to save if one were not a sinner?”.

What is it to be justified and saved? Is this not a conundrum of our age and generation that we MAY have forgotten that Christ came to save sinners. Why? Even if we were to accept the connexion between the reality of sin and the necessity for redemption, the problem might still arise as we struggle to see ourselves as wretched sinners. A priest told me that he often encountered people who enter the confessional without sin only to leave with four sins. (1) They lie that they are sinless which is (2) itself also a sin against the Holy Spirit (for to claim that one is sinless is to call the Holy Spirit a liar). (3) They abuse the Sacrament of Confession while (4) complaining about others. In other words, it is easier to accept that we are sinners in a generic sense rather than a sinner in one’s personal capacity. To announce a salvation without acknowledging the truth that we are miserable sinners sorely in need of redemption is to proclaim a vacuous god of therapy. To be saved is merely to feel good about ourselves.[1]

Perhaps we are lukewarm with regard to our mission only because there is no more sin. We cannot “judge” not because there are no faults but rather because we are already perfect. In that case, why would we want to proclaim salvation when no one has need of it.

In a sense, another focus of this Sunday is on two Pharisees. The one in the Gospel was unnamed and proud. The other, in the 2nd Reading, was Paul, the tyrannical persecutor of Christians. Justified by Christ, he became the chief evangelist of the Church. Saved from his sins, he ardently preached the Gospel of salvation. The example of St Paul showed the role forgiveness played in his evangelical drive. He was the great evangeliser and preacher because he was forgiven much. To “Christify” the world, we would need to acknowledge the reality of sin, not just systemic or structural out there but also personal sin within.

So, if there is a race, it is not a competition as to who would be first but rather a race to be saved by Christ. A civilisation that is deeply enamoured with the spirit of science and enchanted by the god of technical conquest is also a world deeply scarred in the effort to reorganise itself by excluding God and the necessity of His redemption. The mission of the Church is to lead humanity to an encounter with the Risen Saviour. Friendship with Christ is not only salvific but it offers the remedy and cure we need in a society that is confused and searching for its soul. Only the Church has the answer to the world’s deepest longing and He is none other than Jesus, the Saviour and the Lord.


________________

[1] A tell-tale sign of the therapeutic god is the facility of receiving Holy Communion and the avoidance of Confession.

29th Sunday in Ordinary Time Year C 2022

In the last two weeks, we surveyed a faith that saves and a faith that serves. This Sunday we see how faith should persevere. Faith should express itself through a persistence in prayer as symbolised by the sustained supplications made to an aloof and rather “shameless” judge. He answers her not through the merit of her request but out of shame that he will be humiliated by this tenacious widow. His response directs our attention to God, for in contrast to the judge, the Lord is honourable as He does not operate on the basis of shame.

The truth is our encounters with God can be worse than the widow’s experience of the shameful judge. At least, the fear of disgrace moved the judge to respond. Whereas our God is often savagely silent. It begs the question: “Really? There is an honourable God who hears and answers our prayers”? Many can relate their negative rather than positive history with God.

The 1st Reading is very much an encouragement to never stop praying. Moses prayed unceasingly and in his ceaseless prayers, we catch a glimpse of what true prayer is. Clearly, the context was a war to be won but prayer represents more than a request for victory. As Pope Francis remarked, “Prayer is not a magic wand; it is a dialogue with God”.

If to pray is to enter into a conversation with God, then whenever we pray, time and space become holy. Like Moses meeting God at the burning bush. To facilitate this encounter, the Church proposes the liturgy of the hour, a rhythmic praying of the Divine Office so that our days and our lives can be sanctified and offered for the greater glory of God. In dialogue, we are also seeking God’s will. In other words, our lives should fit into this schema of sanctification. We do not just engage in holy rites. Rather, we are holy, which is why we perform the rites. But somehow, we have lost the idea that holiness should pervade or permeate our entire existence. Instead, we have reduced holiness to merely a feature of life, that is to say, we try not to let holiness get in the way of living.

Contrast the vision of sanctification proposed by the liturgy of the hour with our pragmatic notion of prayer. Having a Sunday Mass that fits our hectic schedule is practical. But it also betrays a utilitarian mentality that separates life from holiness and treat sanctification almost in a functional manner. For example, take a look at the way we pray the Angelus, never mind that it is merely a Marian prayer. In the light of the Protestant critique that Catholics overemphasise their devotion to Mary, we have downplayed the devotion to barely existent. The regularity of the recitation at 6 am, 12 noon, 6 pm belongs to the same rhythm of the liturgy of the hours because the prayer reminds us that nothing is more important that the sanctification of time and space. We stop whatever mundane activities we have so that we can raise my minds to God, albeit, using a Marian prayer.

However, more often than not, the business of life comes first and the Angelus is recited at our convenience just to get it out of the way.[1] This same diktat or tyranny of convenience flows into our Sunday Masses too. Granted that this state labours under an Islamic weekend that makes liturgical life on a larger scale challenging. This lack of convenience should actually spur us even to want to pray more, to sanctify more. Instead, to “get Sunday Mass out of the way”, we celebrate it on a Friday. The same goes for transferring our holy days of obligation to Sunday so that we can “kill two birds with one stone”.

When the tyranny convenience dictates the sanctification of our day, it might just contribute to a restriction of prayer to mostly asking from God. To be fair, God is Provident, and as such, asking is not inappropriate. The Gospel commends us to “ask, seek and knock”. The challenge is that in asking, we expect God to bend to our will, rather than we bending to His.

To infuse holiness into time and space, our praying should move beyond a transactional model of “I scratch your back, you scratch my back” meaning that “I pray and God, you answer”. The example of St Monica teaches us what it means to pray consistently. She begged God for the conversion of her son Augustine and it was only after 16 years that her prayers were answered. It might feel like a one-way street but it is certainly far from the model of God as a dispenser machine. To pray without losing hope is faith that wants to conform our minds, convert our hearts and bend our knees to God’s will. “Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven”.

Sadly, no matter how noble our prayers may be, sometimes God cannot answer our prayers. To illustrate. A pal calls you every day. The conversation may be rubbish. But he calls daily without fail. Sometimes even twice or three times a day. The trashy banters are premised on the fact that there exists a relationship between two friends. Whereas another chum of yours calls only when there is a problem. Which one are you keener to respond to? Everyone know how it feels that we are called upon only when our services or expertise are needed. We often treat God that way.

But God is beyond this. The analogy of the fair-weather friend can only go that far because God does not engage in the pettiness of “tit for tat”. To better understand God’s seeming silence in the face of prayer, we may have to take a look at our behaviour.

You contact a plumber to unclog your sewage pipe. He finds a lot of tissue stuffed and stuck in the drainage. This simply illustrates that our behaviour has consequences. Extend this example to the way the environment is treated. People who used to frequent Cameron Highlands can attest to the fact that temperature is rising. It is not as cold as before. When we mow down our forests, we cannot expect the environment to be unaffected.

God cannot answer our prayers like the plumber when we keep throwing rubbish into the toilet. Same too for the indiscriminate logging that changes the climate of the highlands. Rather than thinking that God does not answer our prayers, it is more likely that God is helpless. What can He do in the face of our blatant irresponsibility?

The point is even if God should never be reduced to a Mr Fixit, it does not mean that we stop praying. If anything, prayer is to change us. St John Paul II, in writing about the Rosary quoted a Satanist priest turned a Saint (Blessed Bartolo Longo) that “Just as two friends, frequently in each other’s company, tend to develop similar habits, so too, by holding conversation with Jesus and Mary, by meditating on the mysteries of the Rosary and by living the same life in Holy Communion, (that is, in friendship with them) we can become, to the extent of our openness, similar to them and can learn from these supreme models a life of humility, poverty, hiddenness, patience and perfection” (Rosarium Virginis Mariae 15). The purpose of prayer is to transform us more and more into the image of the God who created us. But if prayer does not make us grasp the necessity of changing our behaviour, then perhaps prayer can reorient our sense of salvation.

Prayer belongs to the scheme of a faith that saves and serves. However, if our vision of heaven is dim, then our prayers will often be made in the context of staving off death. Thus, we are invited to look at prayer and its relationship to eternal salvation. If faith saves, then our persistent and prolong prayers must always be for our salvation. We pray always to be saved for eternal life and it is in the context of redemption that God will answer our prayers. God might not answer your prayers for a long time. He will definitely grant your prayers if you ask for eternal life.


__________________

[1] The whole idea of the Angelus recitation is to stop time and space so as to be conscious of the supernatural reality sacred time and space.

28th Sunday in Ordinary Time Year C 2022

Last week, we connected personal faith with communal service. The most compelling symbol of this association is the eremitical or cloistered vocation. The monks and the nuns who live alone serve through praying for the Church and the world.[1] Today, gratitude for salvation is paired with faith. In other words, faith saves and salvation should lead to gratitude.

Sadly, just like the ability to trust in God, gratitude does not come naturally. In both the 1st Reading and the Gospel, the two characters who came back to give thanks to God were both foreigners—one of them a Syrian and the other, a Samaritan. Why did they come back? The explanation may be found in being an outcast. Only when we are not entitled that we can better appreciate the graces that we have received. When we are accustomed to blessings unasked or unsolicited, it is easy to forget that everything is grace. Take a look at a child with everything. He can be callous with or indifferent to the gifts he has. Priests too. They receive so much that they can forget to be thankful.

What function does gratitude have apart from having good manners? To understand why gratitude is important, a distinction needs to be made between the feeling and the attitude. Feeling and being grateful are not always the same. We cannot control our feelings. They are instinctive or natural reactions to situations and circumstances. When cheated, it is unreasonable to expect a person to be cheerful about it. Feelings aside, we can choose to be grateful, no matter what the circumstance may be. In Dublin, I lived with a phlegmatic Polish Jesuit who had a ready but irritating response whenever someone complained about a problem. His answer was always, “It could be worse”. That quip possibly encapsulates an attitude we can have with regard to any situation which is bad. It sounds like a false or naïve positivity, but it is not. It merely states and recognises that a bad situation can in fact be worse which means we can be thankful or we can choose to be grateful. It is a frame of mind that helps us transcend.

As an attitude, gratitude can be better cultivated if we go beyond the idea of duty. To be dutiful is a good quality but it usually belongs to the discipline of obligation and if one were to describe duty as a kind of love, then it is a lower form. As a matter of fact, one can be dutiful even without loving. The many homes which house the elderly are good examples. Children are dutiful because the parents are safe in these care facilities but are seldom visited by those who so-called care for them. Duty can burdensome once we have tasted the freedom of spontaneity. Many will chafe when whenever a duty is imposed because by nature responsibility inhibits our freedom. “You want to” is very different from “You have to”.

To illustrate, the industry providing wedding fashion has no respect for the sanctity of the ceremony in Church. Sometimes, the bride’s wedding gown leaves little in the matter of imagination. Whereas the bridesmaids’ attire is also on the flighty and revealing side. The constant battle many parishes have with wedding garments is that they are quite inappropriate for a sacred rite. When it is insisted that the bride covers herself, there will be resentment and if the person is entitled, hell will break loose. Why? Because we have been habituated to operate on the basis of obligation and duty. Imposing a dress code as an honour to God is to reduce respect for Him to the bare minimum. It means that one dresses appropriately not because it is the proper act coming before the Lord and Saviour. One does so because one has been forced to.

A good development we have during this pandemic is that the Sunday obligation has not been restored. Technically, you can miss consecutive Sunday Masses and still do not need to confess the mortal[2] sin of missing Mass on holy days of obligation before receiving Holy Communion. Your attendance is a pleasant indication that we do not require a “forced” obligation to “compel” us to devoutly assist[3] at Mass. I appreciate it that you are here even though there is no obligation to do so.

It should not be duty or obligation that draws us to the Eucharist but gratitude that we have been saved. Gratitude recognises that the goodness of salvation cannot come from ourselves. When we are grateful, nothing is ever too much for us. If you survey our saints, many were saved sinners and they never forgot that they had been redeemed.

St Ignatius of Loyola, many a times found himself in tears as he celebrated Mass that he was worried for his eyesight. When Jesus accepted the invitation of Simon the Pharisee to eat in his house, a woman of ill-repute came and weeping, wet Jesus’ feet with her tears and she proceeded to wipe them with her hair. Kissing His feet, she anointed them with ointment. In response to Simon’s patronising attitude, Jesus concluded that she who had many of her sins forgiven could love much. Whereas he who was forgiven little, loved little.

The challenge is to ascent from merely being dutiful to radiating gratitude. Generally, I do not make comments about dressing in Church and not even when a bride’s gown is scanty. For some people, Church is a fashion parade. You all can attest to this especially during Christmas. The point is that people are not as wilful as they are “inexperienced”. A person who needs to flaunt or parade is someone who has not fully experienced the salvation of God.

Why have so many of us not experienced or know God’s salvation? The clue is found in the experiences of the two cured lepers. In times gone by there was an unmistakable correlation between sickness and sin. The former was considered the result of the latter.[4] The two lepers who were healed were grateful for the forgiveness of their sins. In an era of reduced culpability, we have reversed the order in which sickness is the cause of sin. When we no longer sin or cannot be responsible for sinning, then what is the healing for?

You observe this in some post-Christian countries where churches have been converted into spas. This is emblematic of our current state in which we go to Church not because we are sinners but because God is supposed to be there to make us feel good. If we are not careful, the Lamb of God, and by extension the Church, play the reduced role of merely taking away our stress rather than our sins. Apparently we are all immaculately conceived.

Without gratitude for redemption, it is not easy to return love for the grace of forgiveness. If everyone were grateful that he or she has been redeemed by the Son of God, we would not have habitual late comers for Mass. In fact, everyone will be rushing here to be in time for the God whom they love. Grateful for salvation, there will be no tension with wedding couples over their wedding wardrobe, their flowers arrangements, the shooting of confetti cannons or the choice of hymns.

The task ahead is not more rules or restrictions. Instead it is to increase the possibilities of experiencing that we have been saved by love. A way to foster this appreciation is to present the teaching of Christ through liturgy of His Church as well as through her architecture. Behaviour and buildings are effective expressions of the beauty of Christ’s salvation. More than that, it is to be captured by and directed to the Eucharist. As Saint Teresa of Calcutta said, “Once you understand the Eucharist, you can never leave the Church. Not because the Church will not allow you but because your heart will not let you”. This is a heart overflowing with gratitude that the salvation of Christ comes through eating His Body and drinking His Blood.

Does gratitude serve a function? Yes, it does. Secure in Christ’s salvation, nothing can ever disturb our interior peace. Teresa de Avila’s “Nada te turbe”[5] springs from this space of gratitude. So too St Paul in his letter to Timothy. He is not shaken by hardship because He is rooted in the salvation of Christ.


__________

[1] Another is a category in the Jesuit catalogue is “Praying for the Society”. To this category belong the elderly, the infirmed and the “useless” Jesuits. They may have outlived their usefulness but they can be effective “pray-ers” for the ongoing mission of their Jesuit companions.

[2] 1. It is a grave action. 2. There is full knowledge that it was seriously wrong. 3. Committing with complete consent of the will.

[3] To assist at Mass means to be an active participant and worshipper.

[4] In reality, it cannot be this way. Why? The Son of God suffered even though He was sinless. Suffering is not necessarily the result of sin.

[5] “Nada te turbe, nada te espante, quien a Dios tiene, nada le falta, nada te turbe, nada te espante, solo Dios basta”. (Nothing disturbs you. Nothing scares you. Whoever has God, lacks nothing. Nothing disturbs you. Nothing scares you. God alone is sufficient).

27th Sunday in Ordinary Time Year C

The Readings and the Gospel direct our attention to one of the three theological virtues. Faith as a central tenet of Christianity challenges us to trust in God, which means that it should go beyond our confidence in our capability to solve problems. But more than just personal believing, Jesus reminds us that faith is also intimately connected to service. Thus, to have faith is to trust God and to remain faithful in our service of Him and our neighbour.

We are told in the first reading that God cannot be outdone by our confidence in Him. There will be times when everything is bleak and God is distantly silent. In such a situation what should we do? How should we proceed? In general, we easily slip into the temptation to cast God aside because He is useless. However, St Paul in the 2nd Reading advised Timothy to persevere in hope.

What do we hold on to or how do we hope when things clearly do not go the way we want them to be?

This question at first glance appears to have come from a space where trust forms a part of a business transaction. What sort of deal are we talking about? Suffering from a chronic illness with no cure in sight. A spouse whose wayward behaviour is straining family relationships. Stuck in financial ruin brought about by the current economic downturn. Now, if trust in God belongs to this type of contract, then when we pray, the Lord’s duty is to fulfil our request.

The fact that our temporal sphere does not fully capture the entire dimension of our existence shows that trust in God must be located within realm of the Resurrection. Sadly, much of what goes on in the world has severely placed a limit to this heteronomous economy, meaning that our vision beyond the horizon of this life is frustrated and hemmed in by our negative experiences. As pointed out earlier, this is not helped when the concept of our relationship with God is “gimme”. When we cannot peer beyond the shroud of death, we will be intimidated and cowed.

The strength of faith is founded on the assurance that even if life were to end in a defeat, it can only be a temporary set-back because the Resurrection is the final arbiter of life whereas death is not. Death cannot hold on to those who through the waters of Baptism participate in the passion, death and resurrection of Christ.

Such a long-sighted vision provides a perspective to make the connexion between faith and service. Personal faith has a communal dimension because living is not limited to the self in the sense that we live only for ourselves. Jesus’ own life revealed faith to be inextricably linked to a life of service. Another way of expressing this connexion is that service of God and of man must flow from our faith. For if faith and service were not linked, then very easily service can slip into and be co-opted by ideology.

Let me explain.

Within the current cultural setting, more so, now that it is shaped by “woke” consciousness, we are socialised to embrace and serve causes that are important to human progress. For example, consider the present focus on the environment. Every calamity or catastrophe must be environmentally tagged. A new report on the typhoon that hit Japan recently which killed a few people carried a comment that the severity of the storm was the result of climate change.

We are bombarded time and again that our environmental future is in jeopardy and ecologically, the world is doomed. With such a threat, it now falls upon our shoulders to sort things out and to make them right. Additionally, with the god of technology and the goddess of social engineering on our side, the list of original sins can be reversed. The clarion call is loud and clear: to cure creation of original sin and to restore humanity to its aboriginal state. If not the ecological disaster to reverse, then it should be the demands of dismantling systemic injustice of racism or patriarchy. In other words, everyone is obliged to serve because the fate of the world rests on one’s shoulder.

The question is, what is service for, in itself? Why should we serve? The phrase “selfless service” is possibly the closest inkling we have to the reality of the resurrection. If not, that is, if there were no afterlife, if there no were eternity, then service needs to be recognised. Otherwise, what is the point of “serving” if one were not acknowledged?

Without the assurance of the Resurrection, then “eternity” or “memory” must be located within this world. We will be compelled to hunt for acclaim and accolade. The same hunger for acknowledgement can be detected in the drive for memorialisation. Monuments are built because we crave and yearn for immortality. Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and all the social media outlets provide the “eternal” platforms to broadcast or televise ourselves. These are networks for self-recognition or virtue signalling.

A story told to me years ago by a Jesuit Provincial of Hongkong might help us appreciate what true selfless service is and how faith in the Resurrection makes it possible to be altruistic. As the Gospel rightly indicates, this kind “selflessness” is not meaningless because even if no one values or appreciates our service, it is not a failure.

The story revolves around the treatment of Jesuit lay brothers. The vocation to the Jesuit lay brotherhood is dying. By no means is the Jesuit Order unique as the different societies of brothers—the Marists, De La Salle, the Gabrielites—are suffering the same fate. The Provincial related the story that in those “bad old days” when a Jesuit brother celebrated his birthday, he followed a routine no different from any other day. He first served the meal to the Jesuit Fathers and only after all the Fathers had eaten, then the Jesuit brother would settle down in the kitchen to have his birthday lunch.

Today such a practice would be considered as “demeaning”. We have done away with such a “derogatory” approach towards the Jesuit lay brothers. Unfortunately, our enlightened pendulum has swung to the other extreme in which everyone must now have a gold star so that he or she will not feel “left out” or “humiliated”. Come Easter or Christmas, the list of people to thank for their service would be long. Not that it is a bad practice to have.

But could this pendulum swing be an indication that we have suffered a loss of faith in the Resurrection? More and more our speeches are required to ensure that everyone is applauded for his or her service. Indeed without the Resurrection, our service must be tied to the appreciation that we get in this world. Does this explain why at funerals, some people have this urge to eulogise or better still, canonise the dead? A faith minus the vision of the resurrection will be condemned to settle all the scores in this world for fear that there will be no justice in the afterlife![1]

Last but not least, faith in the Resurrection is the only hope that can sustain those who are disgusted by and despaired of the politics in Church. Right now, we have a Cardinal in Hongkong standing trial for “colluding with foreign forces”. In the face of this “show trial”, the silence of the Catholic Church is louder than a satanic rock concert but that is just the Church officially. Should we be astonished by such a turn of event? No. We should never be shocked by persecution. We should even be less surprised by sin coming from the sons and daughters of the Church. What Cardinal Zen should do is to stand tall with the martyrs before him as he faces the certainty of suffering and death. He keeps silent not because he is weak but because He knows that God is more powerful. Like the servant in the Gospel, Cardinal Zen must stand in firm hope knowing that if his vindication does not come in this world, it will certainly come in the next because in his fidelity, God will always be faithful.


_____________

[1] In fact, a faith without the Resurrection will see that those whose lives are unproductive, should be terminated. Euthanasia is the logical conclusion to a faith minus the Resurrection. Those who are trapped by forbidden love share this similar conundrum. Without the Resurrection, their abstinence or celibacy makes no sense. They are “condemned” to find fulfilment in this world, for if not, then their lives would be meaningless.