skip to main |
skip to sidebar
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 God’s word is eternal life but somehow that word mediated when through the Church does seem a bit outdated or even stupid.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.
