skip to main |
skip to sidebar
As Jesus was poised to enter Jerusalem, He encountered Bartimaeus, the blind beggar. What can we learn from this encounter?
Of the many persons helped by Jesus, we get to know the beggar’s name indicating that he could have been an important personality. In fact, outside the inner circle of Christ’s disciples, this man, even though visually impaired, was alert intuitively or spiritually to the presence of the Saviour.
In Bartimaeus’ appeal to Christ, we catch an echo of the Penitential Rite at Mass. “Jesus Son of David, have mercy on me”. “Eleison me, eleison me” translated becomes the familiar “Kyrie eleison”, that is, “Lord, have mercy (on me)”. This plaintive cry of Bartimaeus can help us take a look at who we truly are and what we need most.
Bartimaeus shows us that we need God more than we realise. The overarching theme provided by the first and second readings is our creaturely helplessness. In Jeremiah, the Israelites were exiled and vulnerable. It was God who led them to freedom. In restoring the Israelites, God revealed Himself to be the Father of a people. In Hebrews, Jesus the High Priest can empathise with our helplessness and weakness because He is a man like us except for the inclination to sin.
At every turn, man is helpless, especially in the area of sin and salvation. We may have bionic capabilities propped up by technological mastery but when it comes to saving ourselves we are beggars like Bartimaeus. The beauty of this blind man was not only his sensing of who Jesus is but despite the attempts to silence him, he still cried out to Jesus all the louder. Beneath the cry for healing was a firm faith supplied by the title “Son of David”. Faith in the Saviour saved him.
He is a symbol of a humanity that is disabled by sin and whose only recourse is to throw itself at the mercy of the Saviour. As sinners we are unable to save ourselves but must depend on God alone.
In the case of Bartimaeus, his faith is immense. After Jesus called him, he shook off his cloak and went towards the Lord. Such was his confidence in Jesus’ ability to heal. If the miracle did not materialise, one wonders how Bartimaeus could find his cloak. The cloak is like our security blanket and forsaking it signals the courage to leave behind one’s comfort. Sometimes we can be canonised in our sins because we know no better.
The nature of sin is not only its addictiveness. It could also be a form of security. We cling to sins because we dare not let them go. It is like a security blanket and therefore it is not merely a case of faith or a lack of it, as if we have no faith. The challenge for modern man is that our faith is often limited by our capacity to control. Since we are self-made, we pride ourselves on the ability to control our destiny which means we tend to shun helplessness. We even resent the state of helplessness because it is a sign of weakness. A self-help generation trusts God only in as much as it trusts ourselves. In other words, we turn to God only because we cannot do things for ourselves.
A good illustration is provided by our political experiences. Think about palace plotting, or party politicking, or clerical conspiracy. While we consider them weaved into our social fabric but manoeuvring is a symptom of our need to be in control. Thus, the election of the Pope is never an innocent affair because certain quarters will try to manipulate the outcome. Intrigues and politicking are indications of the lack of faith and our need to be in charge. We are fearful that God cannot be depended on and so set ourselves to supply what God is incapable of doing for us. We want to be in control.
While we may want to direct our destiny, still we can never save ourselves. The Israelites and Bartimaeus are lessons to learn. They mirror our need for God and His salvation.
Finally, Bartimaeus asked to see. Sight or vision is not merely a physical faculty but it also to have the eyes of faith, that is, to see what is proper. Our notion of vision is basically that of an ability or capacity to see. Fair enough? But is that the function of sight? Perhaps a question might just clarify this for us. We have fundamentally become a pornographic generation. It is so because smut is acceptable, accessible, affordable and anonymous. Consider these two options. Between being blind and being able to watch porn, which would you choose? The correct answer should be: I choose to be blind rather than to offend God with the faculty of seeing.
In the case of Bartimaeus, there appears to be no difference between seeing and not seeing. He was blind and yet he already recognised Jesus. So if we cry out like the blind beggar, then our desire, that is, what we most need, is to see Jesus our Lord so that we can be saved. As we inch closer to Jesus, we grow deeper in the awareness of His presence in the lives of others, most especially in the lives of those who are poor and outside the ambit of our vision, the vision of society.
The themes of the last few weeks seem to coalesce together this Sunday. There was the disciples’ discussion that centred on who the greatest would be. The previous Sunday Jesus lamented on how tough it is for those with possessions and riches to enter the Kingdom of heaven.
Today two brothers compete to sit on either side of Jesus. The context for all these exchanges and teachings that follow remains the impending Passion that Jesus will face. For Christians, the road to triumph must always be preceded by Calvary. In other words, there is no glory without suffering but the disciples seemed to suffer from selective hearing. While they zoomed in on the victory, Christ continued to point to the reality of His Passion.
The 1st Reading shines a spotlight on the Passion of the Suffering Servant. Like a Holy Week’s Good Friday follow-up, our iniquities are laid upon Him and we are saved by His Passion. In the midst of trials and tribulations, the Responsorial Psalm assures us that no one, most especially the servant who trusts in God, will be forsaken.
Interestingly for us is our take on or understanding of power and the glory that accompanies it. For Jesus, suffering comes with the territory of power. For us, we are enamoured by power’s control and capability, that is, the power to command and move things. Within this perspective, power is equated with dominion. For example, there are laws but how often have they been swept away because the one who has power decreed otherwise, giving the impression that the powerful are above the laws.
Poets are perhaps like the little boy who can see the Emperor or power for its nakedness. The two siblings who sought coveted positions believed that prominence will grant them dominion over the rest. Shakespeare could have set them right. “Uneasy is the head that wears a crown”. But Jesus goes a step further. Now, instead of supremacy, He equates superiority with service, meaning that it is a privilege to serve rather than to be served and the greatest distinction of one’s service comes from bearing suffering on account of another. A good illustration is whenever Americans encounter a member of the arm services, they have this tradition of saying “Thank you for your service.” Whether they support a war or not, the soldiers who have had their limbs blown off are taking one for the team.
If we think about it, all personal power must come to an end. In fact, power is ephemeral or fleeting, none more obvious than in the “after” or the lame-duck period that we are familiar with. The best case in point is President Biden. He is the most apt figure that “nature abhors a vacuum”. As soon as he exhibited public frailty, the power players behind him started plotting and manoeuvring to rid him. Now he is nothing more than a shadow of his past. Every king or anyone who has powers knows that at the end, there will be others who rule over him or her. Rightly so in the post-Resurrection scene by the Sea of Galilee, Jesus told Peter that in the end, people will lead him to where he would rather not go.
If power is fleeting, then power’s greatest expression should never be to dominate but to expend itself for the greatest good and that is to serve. Jesus told the disciples in John’s Gospel that the most profound love one has is to lay down one’s life. This magnificent expression of Christianity renders the words “love, power and service” interchangeable.
If we are powerful, how should we love or serve?
In general, our ruling elites are an embarrassment. A consolation is that our country is not special as if we have a monopoly of the most corrupt politicians in the world. In every corner of the cosmos, the scenario is repeated. Instead of serving, the ruling class has no difficulties with selfishness, concerned only with their own welfare and enriching themselves.
To serve is not alien to us. The truth is that the third leg of the human economy today stands on services provided. Some island economies geared towards tourism even depend entirely on the service industry. Airlines, banks and hotels are prime instances of this third sector of the economy. The challenge is to decouple service from fiducial consideration. At present, excellent service comes with a price. You get what you pay for.
But we are familiar with the excellent service that comes from our dedication to Christ. Catholic hospitals and schools were built upon the example of Christ’s hospitality. It was possible at one time to render free services because missionary brothers and sisters gave their entire lives to orders or institutions that provided gratuitous services. They drew their inspiration from their King who lived as a servant.
The decoupling between power and prominence in Jesus Christ is seen as strength and service, or better still, the strength to serve. He uses His power and authority always for others and never for His personal gain. A true leader serves others and never himself or herself knowing that the reward for him or her cannot be supplied by this world.
In a culture bent on self-promotion, the Gospel proposes a better option to the need for recognition. Who better to acknowledge us than God the Father? It is to Him we turn and from Him we receive the fullest affirmation. For Jesus, assured and secured in the Father’s embrace, the service of the vulnerable became the true expression of power. The reward promised for those who lay down their lives can only be claimed beyond this life. Lest we feel insecure and uncertain with this truth, we only have to look to Christ in Whom the instrument of shame and subjugation has become the source of strength and life. He who laid down His life for others became the Lord and Saviour of all humankind. In the Cross be my glory ever!
Do you sometimes think that the Church is stupid? For many of us, the experience of Church is basically immediate which means that the parish staff or the priest/s. When parishioners are at odds with the parish office or the priest/s, for them, that is the Church. But do you think that God is stupid? The answer is possibly no because we are God-fearing. Nobody wants to cross His path, just in case.
Today, someone walked up to Jesus to ask the question of eternal life. God’s word is eternal life but somehow that word mediated when through the Church does seem a bit outdated or even stupid. For example, last week, Jesus did not mince His words. He told the Pharisees outright that God had intended for marriage to be permanent but the Pharisees had been waffling with the teaching to suit their needs. They are not alone because many of us feel that “No divorce” sounds rather out-dated and dumb.
In the Gospel, Jesus proposed to the young man to sell all his possessions and to follow Him. We all know the outcome of the invitation. If we listen attentively to the 1st Reading and the Responsorial Psalm, they may strike a chord with some of us personally because we are living in a wealth-soaked society. It might not feel that way but not a few amongst us have enough money to last a couple of life-times. Now, imagine Jesus who directed the young man now telling you who have more than enough to leave everything behind and to follow Him. In the context of the 1st Reading and the Psalm, wisdom is needed when it comes to our relationship with mammon, possession and wealth.
Wealth and riches are not bad in themselves. In the OT, riches are considered blessings from God. They represent God’s benevolence. Our problem is not too much wealth. Rather our challenge is sharing. In that way, wealth and riches can and do enslave us. In inviting the young man to leave everything behind, Christ did not make of poverty or divestment of possession an end in itself. Two words come to mind and they are love and tension.
Jesus looked at the young man with love. Here, love is not soft. It is not indulgence or a condonation of our weakness. The 2nd Reading speaks of a double-edged sword which we can apply to the word “love”. Indulgently, we all want to be loved. But a two-edged sword would also mean we are to love as well. It is not easy to love in the fullest sense of the word. The love that Jesus had for the young man comes from a place of realisation and understanding. He knows that we struggle to maintain the balance, that is, everyone grapples and wrestles with the tension between having and not having. This is exemplified in two scriptural experiences. First, the temptation in the desert. Second, the welcome extended by Moses and Jesus in last week’s Readings.
Man does not live on bread alone. In His hunger, Jesus was taunted by Satan to turn stones to bread, He replied that Man does not live on bread alone. Christ was not saying that we do not need food because He knows that in order to worship God, we need strength provided by nourishment. After all, we are not angels but earthly creatures. The retort of Christ to Satan was simply that food is not and should never be our God.
Likewise we should be more welcoming, as we heard last week where Moses and Christ showed hospitality. But the slogan “all are welcome” can be deceptive because we know that not everyone is welcome. At least, not a terrorist, for example. True welcome is to love sinners but also to reject sins. The rule of engagement in wars is a good expression of this of proper welcome. We respect the enemy captured and treat him well even if we stand on opposite sides. True charity does not condone obstinacy or stubborn resolution in sinning. We protect ourselves against serial killers or rapists.
We are brought back to the central truth that following Jesus on earth is filled with challenges, most especially when it comes to wealth and possession. The Franciscans themselves were racked by this struggle. Immediately after the death of St Francis of Assisi, his followers clashed on the form of poverty they should embrace with regard to possession. It was not a pretty picture for them but it shows how hard it is for us to deal with possessions.
Detachment has never been a rejection or a repudiation of creation. Detachment signals one’s desire to cling onto Christ alone. On a recent pilgrimage, my luggage weighed about 12kg. I was proud of myself but during the journey, it became clear that I had two shirts and one trousers too many. What weighed down the bag were the small items which came from the thoughts of “I might need this or I might need that”. A pilgrimage is where one learns the meaning of true detachment because one’s luggage can be burdened by the weight of our attachments.
The lesson this Sunday is centred on our relationship with material possessions and wealth. The truth is we have too many wants but only a few needs. All of us Lazada, Shopee, Temu and Shein experts know this. Of late, we have been focussing on climate change and the need to adjust our lifestyle. Indeed, we should care for our common home, that is, show concern for the environment. It is a serious call by no less than the Holy Father. But like every follower of Christ we also know that this is not our permanent home. Is it precious? Yes, it is. Is it permanent? Never. That is the difference. It is wisdom to know where our permanent home is and none of our possessions or wealth can ever follow there. After all, Jesus did proclaim on the Mount: Blessed are the poor, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
We make a sharp turn to the family this Sunday. Fortuitously the South Johore Vicariate is also focussing on the family. What goes into the creation of the family? The first is marriage. A marriage establishes a family. The second is children. Children are fruits of a marital union.
These two aspects that form a family are fraught with difficulties. In certain places, the word “woman” is already a problem. How to define who or what a woman is has become highly controversial. In fact, the challenge is to delineate what marriage is and even the Bible is not “helpful”. Through Sacred Scriptures, we know that God established the human family through the bond of marriage between a man and a woman. Presently, this definition is being challenged. What about the union between two women or two men?
Difficulties arise because people are emotionally attached to their definition. For example, “Children completes the marital union”. In itself, such a statement speaks of openness to life but when a person, for example, like Taylor Swift, heard that, she proceeded to label herself a “Childless cat lady” as she endorsed Kamala Harris. Definitions can be emotional pitfalls. Here in our country the word for God is also an emotive issue and considered dangerous.
The focus of such a simple statement that “children completes the marital union” should be seen in the word “union”. It means that the union between a man and woman must be open to life. It is true that this statement may affect some couples because they remain childless after marriage. From biblical times until now, we have no idea why some women are unable to conceive or why some men are sterile. However, technologically, we have developed fertility practices to help infertile women to conceive. Progress is amazing but the challenge is that we do not sufficiently discern between possible and permissible technologies.
A reason that the definition of marriage has become problematic is because current technology permits the fertility industries to hire wombs to gestate and bear children. When wombs can be rented, the very union between a man and a woman is dissolved since wombs can be rented. A corollary to the rentable womb is that the definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman is also loosened. Since ova can be purchased, then two men may now be so-called married and have a family.
As we slide down the path of absolute “diversity”, meaning that almost everything possible (with the exception of rape, murder and child sexual abuse) should be allowed, it might not be long before preaching a homily on marriage based on the age-old Catholic teaching be labelled as hate speech.
Yet, in the Gospel today, Christ did categorically teach that there is to be no divorce. How do we reconcile His teaching on marriage? An angle to take is to recall how “marriage” as a sacrament is related to God’s relationship with humanity and to refresh a look on the priesthood of the Catholic Church.
Marriage as a natural phenomenon represents the covenant between God and humanity. For two baptised, the covenant is sacramentalised because it symbolises the union between Christ and the Church. Through the relationship between a man and a woman, children, the fruits of this particular union, are signs of the love between Christ and the Church. Christ’s love for the Church is faithful and fruitful. How? He proved that love through the sacrifice of His life. He laid down His life so that the Church might be born. That sacrifice of Christ’s life—giving action or love is witnessed through the couple’s openness to life, that is, to having children. Maybe one can appreciate why the Church has taught that contraception frustrates the life-giving grace of God witnessed through a couple’s sexual union that is open to life.
Further into the sacrament of marriage, we see how Christ can never be unfaithful to His Church. Likewise, the Church is considered pure and holy simply because she is the Bride of Christ. This image of heaven is to be reflected here on earth and thus, amongst all human institutions, the only one which best reflects this reality is the marriage between a man and a woman. We all know how imperfect marriages are but that is the beauty of a life marked by love and sacrifice. We marry never for ourselves but for the other. The most profound love of a man or a woman is to lay down his or her life for a friend. In marriage the closest friend one has is one’s spouse. Sacrificial death is life-giving and children born of a loving couple are fruits of such a love.
We can only make sense of this if we believe that there is heaven and an afterlife. If not, there will always be attempts to tailor God’s perspective according to the reality of earth. Without heaven it is easy to “force” God to behave according to our will. Was that not what Jesus told the Pharisees? You are head-headed and that was why Moses permitted divorce. Christ has not lied on the teaching on marriage and the Church must never shy from voicing a perennial truth for humanity to embrace.
Divorce is not a modern curse. It is humanity’s revolt against God. During the time of Jesus, imagine that all it took was just bad cooking or even body odour to initiate a divorce proceeding. Thus, the Gospel is not a condemnation of our times. Instead it is a challenge to our culture, most especially in the 100 years or so. We seemed to have forgotten the commands of God and the instructions of Christ with regard to marriage, its stability and its effects on civilisation.
Marriage is a good for civilisation. Without marriage, there is no family and without the family, where is civilisation? The recovery and the renewal of the family remains an ongoing task of the Church. Each marriage here is part of that endeavour. If your marriage is good, praise and thank God. If your marriage has been a struggle then look for help and do not wait until it is irretrievably broken down. If you have been hurt by marriage seek healing through the means available—counselling and therapy.
Finally the crisis of the last few decades within the priesthood is a reminder to us. While the celibacy of the Catholic priesthood is a matter of discipline imposed by the Church and it is not a doctrine, in practice, it is related to Christ teaching on the indissolubility of marriage. A priest remains unmarried personally because he is married to the Church, that is to the people of God. When marriages fail for Catholic couples, one can be certain that defection in the priesthood is not far behind.
Christ sends His Disciples into the world. Two Sacraments denotes this one sending—Matrimony and Holy Orders. These two sacraments are complimentary because failure in one weakens the other. On the one hand, the downfall of the priesthood is symptomatic of the dissolution of marriages. Broken marriages undermine the priesthood. On the other hand, the fidelity of the priestly vows encourages the faithful in their marriage. While focusing on the family is crucial, paying attention to the quality formation of the priestly vocation is equally important. Strengthening these two sacramental vocations enriches and energises the Church’s witnessing.
