23rd Sunday in Ordinary Time Year A 2020

This Sunday, we still operate within the boundary of leadership and servanthood. Two weeks ago, we charted the rise in Peter’s primacy and last week witnessed his misstep in interpreting the mission of Jesus. While the Lord corrected Peter, He did not invalidate the authority granted to him. So today, we grapple with the notion of fallibility as we enter into the ethical terrain that is derived from the authority of Peter and is also an expression of the service rendered by his office. In Church practice, this is termed as the spiritual works of mercy. 

 

Traditionally, there were 7 of them. Now Pope Francis has added the 8th which concerns the care for the environment. Broadly speaking, our spiritual duties include but are not exclusive to instructing the ignorant, counselling the doubtful and the focus of this week, admonishing the sinner. How to correct a sinner and on what authority does one do it? 

 

Firstly, one does it through credibility. Take the log out of your eye before you try to remove the splinter from your brother’s eye. All the more in a media-saturated society, integrity is identified with credibility. Ask Nancy Pelosi now made even more famous by her hairdo. Some people query how one could shut down the personal grooming industry in California yet insisted on having one’s hair done by a salon and not wearing a mask at that? She claimed it was a set-up, but many saw it as hypocritical. 

 

That being said, and despite the merits of clearing the log out of one’s eye, we need to acknowledge that credibility is more than believability or even integrity because it is linked to veracity or truth. Although, “street creds” is important before one makes a judgement, it does not mean that one needs to be a Snow White before calling out a truth. For even the Devil can state the truth. This so-called “hypocrisy” test, that is, the fear that one is not “pure enough” before correcting another may have contributed to the moral confusion and darkness of our time. 

 

“Who am I to judge?” gives the impression that one has to achieve a Jesus-like aura of “non-judgementalism” before passing remarks, forgetting that whilst Jesus did not judge the woman of ill-repute, He did judge her sin. Moral truth is independent of how I feel, and it remains a fact that a truth is true even if nobody were living it. For example, Cosmas is unfaithful to his wife but advises Damian to treat his wife well. Cosmas’ infidelity does not nullify the truth that one should well-treat a spouse. 

 

Apart from this credibility test, we also face another kind of barrier. Currently, we are unwilling captives of this resounding echo-chamber of groupthink and thought policing. In this prison of approved narratives, everyone is corralled to think in a particular way that to behave otherwise invites censorship and ostracisation which is akin to social suicide. 

 

Nevertheless, in this season of woke awareness, cancel culture, hate speech, identity politics, how does one engage in fraternal correction? For example, if we accept our Judeo-Christian tradition, there are clearly sinful behaviours which are now viewed as lifestyle choices. There is a subtle but systematic sanctification of evil and vilification of good. Watch Lucifer, the Devil is godly. Or notice our current terminologies. For example, prostitutes are supposed to be called sex-workers—not hookers or sluts. In other words, the “abnormal” is touted as the “new normal”. Perhaps you understand why I have consistently described the present arrangement as the “new abnormal” because the phrase “new normal” carries with it an amoral connotation. The effect is to normalise what is abnormal. Needless to say, given that the “new normal” has become the acceptable narrative, fraternal correction will be labelled as hate speech. Anyone who dares to call out a “sin” will be marked as narrow minded, #bigoted. 

 

We need to break out of this prison of “if I am not perfect, I must shut up” or the fear of being tagged because fraternal correction belongs to the disposition of one’s love for the neighbour. It pertains to our common good because we are not solitary creature. Man is communitarian by nature, and admonishing a sinner has nothing to do with moral superiority. The love that is demanded of us is not emotional—the kind which is “touchy-feely”. In this therapeutic era, the word “love” may have lost its force because everything is reduced to feeling good. As indicated before, “I am good” and “I feel good” are not always synonymous. “I feel good” does not necessarily follow “I am good”. Does it ever feel good to admit that you were wrong, especially when you were so sure that you were right? If the word “love” has lost its meaning, maybe “charity” is more appropriate because it requires that one rolls up the sleeves. 

 

Charity or love belongs to the will and it requires us to speak up. We can certainly retreat into the trenches or security of groupthink. There, we will be condemned to shout above the din in order to confirm our own belief. Perhaps this was the warning of Benedict XVI that the poisonous fruit of relativism is the destruction of the moral order for humanity. Our moral order is not and cannot be of our making or determination. It must be based on revealed Truth who is ultimately a person, Jesus Christ. Since faith is not scientific, as it cannot hold up in the court of “reason”, consigning Him to the margins of “personal belief” will translate into “Don’t bring your faith into the public square”, “Keep your religion out of my womb” or “My body my choice”. That being said, our “new normal” is possibly one of the expressions of the long retreat into the bubble of “solitary” anti-social behaviour. 

 

The title of Benedict XVI’s encyclical can help us here: Caritas in veritate. Love in truth means that truth must always be spoken with love. It does not consist of “banging” people as if we own the truth. In this respect, the other spiritual works of mercy kick in for us. They entail patiently bearing those who wrong us and also to forgive offences. Here, this is not victim signalling but rather that anyone who wants to stand with the Son of God, he or she must be prepared to face rejection. 

 

In a painfully confusing world, Christians have a responsibility of proclaiming the Truth that goes beyond “I, me and myself”. Jesus Christ is more than my personal ideas, opinions and views. Our duty is not to be policemen or women but rather to point to Jesus, His discipleship and His mission in the world. As people of the Truth, we must recognise that the truth is not a possession but rather something which commands our loyalty to the point that we be willing to lay our lives for Him. 

 

To speak as truthfully as we can and know how to are both acts of charity as well as justice. Stating the truth is love because it aims at the good of the sinner. It is justice because it directed to highlighting the effects of sin on society. While charity and justice require that we speak with prudence and compassion, what is at the heart of fraternal correction is actually our integrity. It requires us to bridge the gap between what we say and what we do. In politics, that gap between word and deed is called BS. Integrity and holiness are two sides of a coin because the gap in holiness between speech and action is called? Sin—lying, cheating, dishonesty, etc. Thus, for the disciple, fraternal correction is a responsibility and is not about being right. The authority of Peter, as Pope St Gregory the Great signed himself, as the “Servant of the Servants of God”, is in the service of Truth, who is Jesus Christ. In fraternal correction, we help each other grow both in personal and communal holiness because our discipleship and mission are intended for a life in eternity with the Trinity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Holiness is proclaiming the Truth as we engage in fraternal correction.

23rd Sunday in Ordinary Time Year A

The central theme today deals with fraternal correction. It is not an easy thing to do because people don’t like to be corrected but more so people do not like to correct others. I would like to explore why this is so and perhaps see how we can embrace this sacred duty enjoined upon us by Christ Himself—to correct and be corrected.

First of all, it’s not easy to deal with diversity. For example, how many of us believe that all religions are the same? One hears enough of the idea that every religion just represents a different pathway to the same God. Here, the intention is not to debate the veracity of the statement that all religions are the same but to note that the idea or statement shows an inability to handle diversity. If that were so, we might also face the same difficulty with regards to fraternal correction. This inability to deal constructively with diversity is translated into: “We all believe that everyone’s opinion is right. Let’s not be judgemental”.

The difficulty we encounter with fraternal correction points to us the challenge we face with regard to what is right and good. If every opinion is to be tolerated because we need to respect people, the question is, “How can we act in a good and right way”? Every opinion to be accepted means that we do not know what is truth. Therefore, “doing” good is not good enough because we need to know what is right and good before we can do it. Knowing what is right and good leads us to know the truth. Therefore, to say that everyone has the right to be right is not saying anything at all. In fact, it makes living even more difficult.

The Doxology we sing might give us a clue. “Through Him, with Him and in Him”... it comes from the Greek word “Doxa” which, apart from the meaning of “opinion”, also means “right worship”, that is to give glory to God. To be “orthodox” means “to know and practice the right way in which God wants to be glorified.” This “right way” implied that some ways are wrong ways, even if we were to show respect to the persons who hold them.

That there is truth cannot be doubted. People often say, “Don’t judge” because we are tolerant and this “do-not-judge” attitude extends only to areas concerning sexual preferences or life issues like contraception, abortion or euthanasia. However, when an MP makes a statement against a particular race, people are up in arms against your man. This is proof that the exercise of knowing the truth is selective.

Some things are just not right which means that there are truths to be known and we can know the truth because Christ is the Truth. Christ taught the Truth and He continues to teach us through the Church and speaks to us through our conscience. Conscience is not integrity, sincerity or preference. One can kill with sincerity and conscience is not involved. Conscience is a hard, objective thing—a challenge to self, a call to conversion, and a sign of humility. In this case, it means that one must really listen carefully to the teachings of the Church. The Church and conscience are not mutually exclusive.

In the matter of fraternal correction, we are pointing to some standard of behaviour which should command us. It is truth’s ability to compel us to behave rightly. And here, Christ Himself offers practical help to us. We are not dealing with the issue of “forgiveness” but on how to approach an erring member of one’s community. Christ says, firstly, do it in private, then before a few and finally before the whole community. Failure to convince a person leads to excommunication.

It sounds drastic but in reality, fraternal correction is an exercise of love. Our Lord offers practical help but what He is not saying is that fraternal correction can only be an exercise of love. St Paul in the second reading calls it simply a “debt of mutual love”. Sometimes we think that keeping quiet is part of that mutual love. But it is not. Parents with young children have this tendency of keeping quiet. A child is naughty and they think that “disciplining punishment” does not fit in with today’s enlightened child care. As it were, one is to show greater patience. The problem arises when the parent can no longer tolerate the nonsense. He or she hits out at the child. Ultimately, the child sees not the fact that he or she has done wrong but only the anger of the parents. Knowing something is wrong and keeping quiet is tantamount to allowing someone to destroy himself. Thus, correction requires courage and involves risk. Risk that your action might be misinterpreted. However, it does not mean that we go out of the way to “repay the debt of mutual love” by pointing out people’s fault. Many suffer from self-righteousness.

Nobody likes to correct. The attitude we ought to take, if we do not want to reduce morality to “my standard”, is fraternal correction is an exercise of love for our brothers and sisters. The basis of one’s correction is not so much “I am right” but because “I love you”.

Nobody likes to be corrected. So a good attitude is to never go away without thinking about it. The basis to receive correction is “Let me see if there is truth in what you say”. Ultimately, we must be guided by the love of the Truth who is Christ Himself.