6th Sunday in Ordinary Time Year A 2023

As a parish priest, one routinely conducts prenuptial enquiries for Catholics preparing to get married. More and more, Catholics are having difficulties finding spouses of the same faith. We have Mixed Marriages which describe the union between a baptised Catholic and baptised non-Catholic. By and large, many of our marriages consist of the type known as the Disparity of Cult or Worship, meaning that a baptised Catholic is marrying a non-baptised. In the process of the interview, I would often remark to the non-Catholic party that marrying a Catholic comes with an extra burden. The Catholic spouse is bound by the laws of the Church. This brings us into the heart of this week’s Gospel.

What roles do ecclesiastical laws play in the life of a Catholic? How do we appreciate them?

The background to the Gospel is a continuation of the Sermon on the Mount. We already have a framework for the Kingdom in the Beatitudes and now Jesus gives more meat to the way we interpret the Law. With regard to how we follow the Law, in the Book of Ecclesiasticus, Ben Sirach stressed the reality of human freewill. We do have a choice but having the ability to choose does not equate willy-nilly to doing what we want. Freedom has consequences.

Is it possible to hear that joy comes from following the laws of God? In the case of the Gospel, Jesus referred to the 10 Commandments, the set of rules we are familiar with. We hear Jesus excoriating the Pharisees and the Scribes, not because they keep the Law but because they would interpret it according to their whims and fancies. This is nothing new because we recognise the same inconsistency in those who legislate but exclude themselves from having to follow the same rules. As they say: “rules for thee but not for me”. Jesus was never against the Law but rather against a hypocrisy of imposing on others the burden that the lawgivers themselves cannot shoulder.

Given that we have a Bohemian inclination, we tend to regard laws as restrictions rather than as an encouragement towards greater freedom. Our mindset will determine how we perceive laws as a blessing or a burden. If our attitude towards laws is minimalist, then we will easily resent that we have been imposed upon. We chafe whenever our personal autonomy is curtailed.

Coming back to the example of marriage and the laws pertaining to the covenant, when asked what is most important in a marriage, the usual reply is love. When love is paramount, who is the Church impose? There is a rule for Catholics that children are to be baptised and brought up in the faith. The Catholic must declare that he or she will not defect and do what is necessary to ensure that children are brought up in the faith. The usual argument against this requirement: “Where is the freedom of an individual to choose his or her religion?”. Let the child grow up so that he or she can choose what to believe.

There is an inconsistency in the application of what we regard as an individual’s self-determination. Where is freedom to choose when it comes to schools or health regimen? Parents routinely choose the school for their children. When they are sick, for example, with dengue, no parent would ever say “Wait till the child turns 21 for him or her to decide to go hospital”. Immediately the baby is sent to the best hospital with no expenses spared. So much for the right to choose.

The laws of Christ in the Church are meant to foster freedom to be better children of God. Prohibition always sounds restrictive until we realise that negative formulations draw the boundaries where we should not transgress. We love our neighbours by not stealing their wives or property, by not slandering or killing them. The problem with positive laws is that we cannot legislate how to be good. We can only draw the boundaries of how we cannot be bad. Our attitude determines how we embrace God’s laws. A minimalist attitude means sticking to the bare minimum. But in love, there is no compulsion which makes obligation the lowest form of love. Which would you prefer? Having a rule that your child kisses you goodnight. Or the child spontaneously gives you a hug and a peck on the cheek every night?

It is true that laws need to be updated to accommodate changing situations, circumstances and pastoral demands. Should we relax the laws with regard to marriage and divorce? Should we be more flexible than viewing marriage as a covenant only between a man and a woman? Or should we just change the terms of reference for marriage to basically a bond between two loving persons? Some of the changes asked for by present society strike directly at the heart of who we are. Are we subject to the laws of nature or do we break away from the limits imposed by creation? These are some of our challenges. Some Church leaders may have caved in to the demands of relevance.

Circumstances shift as they often do. But the variation in the laws cannot be based on the principle that the “old” or the past is bad and the “new” or the latest is good. In terms of product branding and commerce, the latest is always the updated. In technological advances too. We perceive the new as always the better. However, in terms of laws that govern us, the referent cannot be the latest or the newest. Instead, change should always be in consonant with the Creator’s intention. If we accept that God is the Creator, then we must guide our change according to His logic of creation. Otherwise, we will be subject to the tyranny of the fashionable. Right now the fad is to change one’s gender according to one’s preference. Hailee Steinfeld, the actress in Pitch Perfect 2 suggested that it is OK if you wanna change the body that you came in. Anyone who argues that there is no logic of creation, that is, nature has no laws, must realise the shakiness of this position. The very fact that we decry “inhumane laws” is already a tacit recognition that laws must respect the bounds of nature, that is, what it means to be human.

To update our laws, listening to the Spirit is important. When individual freedom and self-expression are priority, then listening to God might be a bit more difficult. Adhering to God’s laws means recognising that His laws supersede our demands. Not everything which is possible within our capacity has the morality of permissibility. I have the capacity to kill does not mean I have a right to kill. I have the possibility of having sexual relationship does not mean I have the right to sleep with whoever I want.

When God set Adam and Eve in the Garden, He drew certain restrictions based on who they were. Man has been created for a life with God when translated must include obeying these restrictions. But when individual autonomy becomes the guiding principle of life, then appreciating God’s laws will be challenging. When God’s laws are perceived to limit our freedom, then it is God who needs to bow to our freedom. Indeed the rules of engagement have changed. Now we demand that God change His Laws or lower the bars so that we can go to heaven, instead of we changing so that He can let us into heaven.