God is the Author, man isn't

Twenty Second Sunday in Ordinary Time Year B

Being a priest, I must admit that it’s not hard to know what I must do. If I want to know what I must do, I am simply guided by sacred scripture and sacred tradition, the teachings and disciplines of the Church found in canon law, the liturgical rubrics and pastoral directories governing church discipline, structures and practices. The hard part is doing it anyway despite it being unpopular. It’s funny that whenever I do what is required of me, I’m always accused of being “rigid”! Yes, the Church’s laws, rules and rubrics provide clear unambiguous guidance and direction, but they also make room for discernment and exception-making whenever necessary. The hard part is always trying to reinvent the wheel based on personal preferences and feelings, mine as well as others. This is when the point of reference is no longer Christ or the Church, but me. If I should “follow my heart” or that of others, without any reference to Christ or the Church, I would simply be guilty of what the Lord is accusing the Pharisees in today’s gospel: “You put aside the commandment of God to cling to human traditions.”

Too many these days, including many well-intentioned pastors, feel that the teachings of the Church fall into the category of “grey area” and “ambiguity,” thus the teachings of faith and morals are relative to individuals and their respective unique situations. They have problems with doctrinal teachings on contraception, purgatory, and indulgences (just to name a few), all of which are covered and explained clearly in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. And if we should decide to defend these teachings and the laws which flow from them, we are immediately labelled as “rigid” and “seeing everything in black and white,” refusing to acknowledge that people change over the years and so the Church must learn to adapt accordingly. The final argument and last insult would be to insist that Church laws are mere “human regulations” which justifies departing from them. And since they are supposedly “man-made rules,” you can and should dispense with them as how Christ dispensed with the man-made rules and traditions of the scribes and Pharisees in today’s gospel passage. Interesting argument but seriously flawed.

Yes, it is correct to state that many of these rules are man-made, Christ made them and Christ was fully human. It was Christ Himself who instituted the Eucharist: “Do this in memory of Me”, He said at the Last Supper. “Go therefore and baptise”, He said, and it was He who included the Trinitarian baptismal formula in the rite. It was He who taught if someone should divorce his or her spouse and marry another, it would be adultery. Our Lord was the master of creating traditions! But let us not forget this little, often ignored, seldom stressed point – Christ was also fully divine – He was fully God. So, no, though there are man-made rules in the Church just like any human organisation and society, and these rules can technically be changed and have changed over the centuries, there are fundamentally certain rules set in stone, on an unbreakable and indissoluble “stone”, which is to say that they are “immutable,” they remain binding in every age and place and under any circumstances, precisely because God is the author, and man isn’t.

Alright, given the fact that divine laws can’t be changed except by God, how about all the disciplines, canon law, rules and liturgical rubrics of the Church? Aren’t these man-made? Well, just because they are “man-made” doesn’t necessarily empty them of value. Traffic laws, statutory laws, municipal by-laws, school regulations, association rules would equally fall under the same category of being “man-made.” Can you imagine a society or a world that totally departs from any law or regulation and everyone is allowed to make decisions, behave, and act upon their own whims and fancies? If you’ve ever watched one of those apocalyptic movies of a dystopian world in the not-too-distant future, you will have your answer. We will soon descend into a society of anarchy, lawlessness, violence, where justice is merely an illusion and “might is right.” The reason for this is because none of us are as sinless as the Son of God or His immaculately conceived Mother. Laws are not meant to curtail and restrict our freedom. They are meant to ensure that our rights as well as the rights of others are protected so that true freedom may be enjoyed. The Law of Christ as expounded by the Church frees us - it frees from our selfish, self-referential, sin-encrusted egos.

A more careful examination of Christ’s words in today’s passage indicate that He was not condemning human tradition, but those who place human traditions, laws, or demands before true worship of God and His will expressed in the commandments. The problem wasn’t “human traditions” but specifically “human traditions” that obscure the priority of worship and God. Man was made to worship God; it's in our very nature to do so. Every other human activity should either flow from this or should rank second to this. This is what liturgical rubrics hope to achieve. Detailed instructions for both the priest and the congregation are intended to ensure that God is ultimately worshipped and glorified in the liturgy, and not man who is to be entertained. In other words, all these “man-made” rules of the Church which, to some of us, doesn’t seem to be what Christ taught, actually flow from the heart of Christ's teaching. Christ gave us the Church to teach and to guide us; she does so, in part, by teaching us to know God, to love Him and serve Him and through all these, be united with Him in Paradise forever. But when we substitute our own will for this most basic aspect of our humanity, we don't simply fail to do what we ought; we take a step backward and obscure the image of God.

It is often very convenient to denounce Catholic tradition as “man-made” or “human tradition” just because we don’t like it. The hypocrisy of such an accusation is often lost on those who supplant the Church’s tradition, rules and rubrics, with their own interpretation and version. Clericalism, real clericalism and not just the dressed-up version of it (those who wear black cassocks or lacy albs), is the result of choosing to depart from those rules, disciplines and teachings. When we ignore or reject the rules of the Church, we are merely replacing them with our own rules, our so-called “human traditions.” In fact, we are putting “aside the commandment of God to cling to human traditions.” It is not those who keep the rules but those who flagrantly break the rules that are the modern-day Pharisees.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church tells us that Sacred Tradition, rather than a set of “man-made rules” or “human traditions” is “the living memorial of God’s Word.” Pope Benedict XVI explains that Sacred Tradition “is not the transmission of things or words, an assortment of lifeless objects; (but) it is the living stream that links us to the origins, the living stream in which those origins are ever present.” Therefore, we should be putting aside our own arrogant personal preferences and opinions, rather than God’s commandments, and come to acknowledge that it is not stupidity but humility to listen to the voice of the Church because as St Ambrose reminds us, “the Church shines not with her own light, but with the light of Christ. Her light is drawn from the Sun of Justice, so that she can exclaim: ‘It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me’ (Gal 2:20)”.

So be it!

Twenty First Sunday in Ordinary Time Year B

“Amen”, perhaps the most common Hebrew word apart from “Alleluia” used by Catholics. We utter it at the end of every prayer, we insert it in the comments of social media as if it is some kind of religious “like” click, and we utter it before holy communion just after the priest or the extraordinary minister of holy communion holds up the consecrated host and announces, “the Body of Christ.” Our repetition and common usage have certainly resulted in many trivialising the true significance of this simple and yet deeply profound word. Amen means “so be it.” Or another way of saying “it is true” or “I agree.”

Amen is thus an acclamation of faith and commitment, just like how Joshua insisted that the Israelites must renew and restate their commitment to the covenant. He declared openly to the people: “as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord,” which inspired the people to also make their own commitment and promise: “we too will serve the Lord, for He is our God.” In a way, both Joshua and the Israelites were giving their assent of “Amen” to the covenant, undertaking to serve the Lord.

The scene in the first reading is deliberately chosen as a parallel to the gospel. Just as Joshua challenged the Israelites to make up their minds whether or not they intended to remain loyal to the Lord, in the same way our Lord challenges the disciples at the end of the Bread of Life discourse to make up their minds if they wish to stick with Him regardless of the mass exodus of others bailing out when push comes to shove. The similarity is not only a challenge to loyalty, but specifically to covenant loyalty, to not only assent to what He has taught but to His very person. Can they and will they accept the truth that Jesus is indeed the Bread of Life from heaven and unless one eats His flesh and drinks His blood, they will have no part in His life? It is the final ultimatum given to them.

It is clear from today’s passage that many chose to walk away. If the Lord had just met their material needs of having a leader and an endless supply of food, they would have been happy to follow Him. But in matters of faith, unlike a democracy, we don’t get to choose our Messiah. God chooses those whom we need, very seldom not those whom we want. He’s the anointed One of God whom God calls, chooses and sends. Even as our Lord begins to describe the type of Messiah that He is, the people are not able to accept Him on these terms. They find His teachings “intolerable” and refused to accept them.

Over the years, we know of many Catholics, fellow parishioners who have chosen to walk out of church and to walk away from the Catholic faith. There is a myriad of reasons or excuses given. They have been insulted by someone; they have had their requests turned down; certain rules do not square with them; the music for the Masses and the homilies are boring and not engaging. Ultimately, any one of these things are deemed “intolerable,” and so they choose to leave.

Often, as a parish priest, I have been advised and told by others to address their concerns and accede to their requests, to somehow bend backwards, if necessary, to get them to return. Reaching out to those who are lost or who have chosen to walk away must always be a priority as we are called to seek the lost like the good shepherd after the heart of Jesus. But if this means lowering the bar of morality, bending the rules, stifling the teachings of the Church and making exceptions for the sake of friendship alone and nothing else, I too have made my decision and have taken a stand. I will not back down because Jesus did not. He didn’t pull back His challenging words, in fact, He chose to double down! Ultimately, I would work to convince these people to return for only one reason - only Christ, the Holy One of God, the one truly, really and substantially present in the Eucharist, can offer us “the message of eternal life” and “food which endures for eternity”. And if they should return and remain with the Church, that should be the only reason that matters.

You too may be considering leaving for one of many reasons. When people speak of being upset and disappointed with the Church, they are most likely expressing their disappointment and anger with members of the Body of Christ, the Church. This could mean any other person sitting in the pew, or a person serving in the parish or even the priest. But I would like to repeat one important truth which St John Paul II taught in his encyclical “Ecclesia de Eucharistia”: “The Church draws her life from the Eucharist. This truth does not simply express a daily experience of faith, but recapitulates the heart of the mystery of the Church… For the most holy Eucharist contains the Church's entire spiritual wealth: Christ himself, our Passover and living bread.” If you choose to walk away from the Church, you are walking away from Christ.

Today, our Lord is asking you and me the same question He asked Peter: “What about you, do you want to go away too?” Simon Peter answered, ‘Lord, who shall we go to? You have the message of eternal life, and we believe; we know that you are the Holy One of God.’ Thank you, Simon Peter. Thank you for asking the question that matters most. And thank you for giving us the only answer which matters most.

Before we receive our Lord Jesus Christ who is truly, really and substantially present in the Eucharist, we too are given an ultimatum - we are challenged to make an assent of faith, a declaration of our commitment to our Lord and an acceptance of what He tells us as true. Our “Amen” is not a demand that Christ and the Church must comply with our every demand, whim or fancy. Saying “Amen” means that we will accept the Lord on His terms and commit ourselves to transformation just as how bread and wine is changed into the Body and Blood of Christ. “Amen” is saying “I will change!” Saying “Amen,” means we assent to our faith with our head and heart and will, that what we are about to receive is truly, really and substantially the Body of Christ. Not only do we believe in the real presence but we also commit ourselves to living and acting as Jesus did and does. St Augustine tells us: “You reply ‘Amen’ to that which you are, and by replying, you consent... Be a member of the body of Christ so that your ‘Amen’ may be true!”

Love is sacrificial

Twenty Seventh Sunday in Ordinary Time Year B

Today’s gospel proclaims three eternal truths which do not sit well with modern sensibilities. In fact, they may even seem archaic, regressive and inhumane. But the fact that it is our Lord Jesus Christ Himself who speaks it, assures us of their revelatory and eternally relevant character. So rather than suppress or sanitise these truths for fear that they may offend someone or another, it is good to remember this saying which has been commonly but falsely, attributed to St Augustine: “truth is like a lion. You don’t have to defend it. Let it loose. It will defend itself.”

These three simple truths are as follows:

God made humanity male and female.

God intended marriage to be a permanent commitment for life.

God is the author of life and He is unapologetically pro-life.

Having explained that Moses’ permission for couples to divorce was a mere concession due to the unteachability of the people, our Lord then declares that “from the beginning of creation God made them male and female.” This statement should be so obvious, that it shouldn’t require restating or explaining, and yet, in today’s modern gender-bending society, making such a statement could get you “cancelled” for being intolerant and disrespectful to an entire spectrum of make-believe sexual identities.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church boldly teaches: “Everyone, man and woman, should acknowledge and accept his sexual identity. Physical, moral, and spiritual difference and complementarity are oriented toward the goods of marriage and the flourishing of family life. The harmony of the couple and of society depends in part on the way in which the complementarity, needs, and mutual support between the sexes are lived out.” (No. 2333) God is the only One who has the power and authority to define us, and He did so at creation by making us into His “image and likeness”, and it would be arrogance to think that we can redefine ourselves by changing our pronouns or performing mutilating surgery on ourselves so that we can make ourselves into our own skewed image and likeness.

The second truth which our Lord pronounces speaks of the permanence and indissolubility of marriage: “what God has united, man must not divide.” Many modern people believe that such a demand is both harsh and inhumane. Why force two persons, who no longer have feelings for each other, to remain bonded for life? Isn’t this cruel? Would this be condemning them to a life-sentence of misery? The permanence of marriage would seem cruel if we merely view marriage through the lenses of a human contract. With the recognition of human frailty and the unpredictability of future events, all contracts contain exit clauses allowing the parties to part ways. But not marriage!

The bond of marriage is a divinely instituted reality (“what God has united”), not a matter of human convention, and when that bond is created in the life of two Christians, it simply cannot be broken. This bond, is intended by God to symbolise the love of Christ for His Church. Pope Emeritus Benedict wrote: “Marriage is not simply about the relationship of two people to God, it is also a reality of the Church, a sacrament, and it is not for the individuals concerned to decide on its validity, but rather for the Church, into which the individuals are incorporated by faith and baptism.” If we understand anything about the relationship between Christ and His Church, we would understand that it cannot be broken by any power in the universe…A spouse can no more become an ex-spouse than a father can become an ex-father.

The third truth naturally flows from the first two truths: if marriage is a union between a man and a woman and their bond is marked by indissoluble permanence, having children and starting a family would not just be a theological but a logical conclusion. And so, our Lord declares, “Let the little children come to me; do not stop them; for it is to such as these that the kingdom of God belongs.” When God gave man and woman the ability to have sexual intercourse, He tied it with the ability to procreate. This is the reason why same-sex “marriages” cannot be real marriages and why the Church teaches against the use of contraception. Contraception not only breaks the ties between the sexual act and procreation, but also impedes our share in God’s creative love.  Cut off from God, man can never experience true lasting joy.

Love, real love, is sacrificial. If love entails sacrifice, then children would always be regarded as a blessing, the fruit of that love. But this is not what the world tells us. Our culture often teaches us that children are more of a burden than a gift—that families impede our freedom and diminish our finances.  We live in a world where large families are the objects of spectacle and derision, instead of the ordinary consequence of a loving marriage entrusted to God’s providence. Although it may seem, to selfish immature parents, that children bring to an end the romantic phase of their marriage and their personal autonomy, children are actually the gift needed to allow the couple’s love to grow and flourish, to embrace others beyond the two.

Today, the world has no qualms celebrating marriages, civil unions and what they claim to be same-sex marriages. Couples, families spend a life-time’s savings, even prepared to take up loans to fund extravagant celebrations. But the openness to children is rarely celebrated, rarely understood, and rarely supported.  To many, the Church’s teachings on life seem oppressive or old-fashioned.  Many believe that the Church asks too great a sacrifice. But sacrifice is at the heart of love. Love which is not willing to make sacrifices is counterfeit.

Many Catholics today complain and demand that the Catholic Church should change in order that they may feel “more welcomed,” and it is unfortunate, that many well-intentioned pastors also believe that the only way they can be compassionate and pastoral is by affirming their delusions. But Pope Francis warned of those he called “alternativists,” those who, in the Pope’s words, say to themselves, “I’ll enter the Church, but with this idea, with this ideology.” They propose conditions “and their membership in the Church is thereby partial.” They too “have one foot outside the Church; they’re renting the Church” but don’t really experience it… They seek an alternative, because they don’t share the common experience of the Church.”

So, what is needed is not for the Church to change her teachings. She cannot change them. She has no authority to do so because it is our Lord’s teachings. Rather, it is we, who need to change, to die to ourselves, our selfish, self-centred and self-absorbed ways, so that we may conform ourselves more and more to Christ, who shows us the true meaning of love by dying on the cross for us. We are called to continue to proclaim the truth, beauty and goodness of the complementarity of sexes, fidelity of marriage and sanctity of life in a culture which eagerly confuses genders, promotes divorce and engenders a culture of death by promoting abortion.

To all married couples and those who are planning to get married or start a family, do not let fear, anxiety or worry get in the way of you loving each other sacrificially and being open to the children you may receive from God. Do not put a cap on what He wishes to give you. Let Him be the judge of that. Entrust yourselves to the Lord who will provide for all your needs.

In His Name

Twenty Sixth Sunday in Ordinary Time Year B

Who was this itinerant exorcist in today’s passage? We have little information about him apart from what is said about him in John’s complaint: this man is “not one of us,” which means he is not part of the Lord’s band of disciples, or at least, a part of His inner circle, the Twelve. But John at least admits that this man is driving out demons in the Lord’s name.

Apparently, John’s criterion for legitimate ministry is acting under the disciples’ authority, they are the gatekeepers, instead of the Lord. He fails to recognise that their authority and power and that of this perceived “rival” comes from the Lord, who is the source and the foundation of their authority and power. His protest echoes the objection of Joshua in the first reading, who grumbled to Moses that Eldad and Medad were not part of the group to whom Moses imparted his spirit, yet they too received the gift of prophecy.

Although the disciples found fault with this man casting out demons in the Lord’s name because he wasn’t a part of their elite group, our Lord saw nothing wrong with his actions. In fact, our Lord reprimands them and orders them to not stop this man in his ministry: “You must not stop him: no one who works a miracle in my name is likely to speak evil of me.” He is directing His disciples to take an expansive, rather than a restrictive approach toward others who are acting in His name. And the reason is because “anyone who is not against us is for us.” The criterion for acceptance of the ministry of this person is that it is not in opposition to the Lord’s ministry and that of His disciples. But the converse is also true: “whoever is not with me is against me” (Matthew 12:30). In the end, there is no neutral ground in relation to Christ: sooner or later everyone (whether consciously or unconsciously) chooses either to be on His side or to oppose Him.

Some people, including Catholics, take our Lord’s words as justification for religious indifferentism. Religious indifferentism is the heretical belief that all religions have equal value and are equal paths to salvation. This popular notion is so ingrained in our psyche that anyone who makes counter claims concerning the uniqueness of the Catholic Faith or that Jesus is the sole and universal saviour of mankind, would be deemed heretical. In fact, this pernicious belief is quite likely the most widespread heresy of our present age. Though many would never admit that they are proponents of a heresy, we see it hidden in so many common sayings: “You have your beliefs and I have mine;” “It doesn’t matter which religion you belong to. It’s all the same.” So, was our Lord’s words to His disciples in support of this way of thinking?

The key phrase to understand the context of our Lord’s words is “in my Name” or “in Jesus’ name.” This man was not doing it by his own authority. He was not claiming that his ability to exorcise and heal, came from his own resources or from some other deity. His actions pointed back to the Lord. If demons are cast out and people are healed, it is the Lord Jesus’ doing, not his. Our Lord’s words are not meant to give a stamp of approval to religious indifferentism. In fact, it is the very antithesis of religious indifferentism. That if anyone is saved, he or she is saved by Jesus and Jesus alone, no one else can take credit for it. To do something in the Lord’s name is to acknowledge the bankruptcy of our own resources and the adequacy of His grace.

Our Lord had just taught His followers that the criteria needed to become His disciple calls for self-renunciation and sacrifice. They are to reject worldly glory, resist the temptation of making a name for themselves because ultimately, what a disciple does, he does it “in the name” of the Lord. The fact that they felt envious and threatened by this perceived rival to their privileged authority, reveals their true motives. They were selfishly possessive of God’s grace, and rather than rejoicing that others had a share in it, they felt jealous and saw them as rivals. The disciples were doing good works for self-glory. They were doing it to make a name for themselves. Rather than acting in our Lord’s name, they were acting in their own.

Our Lord continues teaching them by saying: “If anyone gives you a cup of water to drink just because you belong to Christ, then I tell you solemnly, he will most certainly not lose his reward.” In a way, this serves as a parallel to last week’s last verse, which spoke of hospitality shown to a child is equivalent to hospitality shown to Christ and the One who sent Christ. In both sayings, what is highlighted is the generosity of God toward all and the great value of simple, humble acts of service and hospitality, regardless of whether such acts are done by persons inside or outside the Church. Note once again, that what is being promoted is not religious indifferentism but that all acts of kindness towards a disciple because of his association with Christ, will be rewarded.

The last part of today’s passage, provides a balanced perspective to our Christian vision of discipleship. If the first part of today’s passage accentuated the need for broad mindedness and inclusiveness regarding the good deeds of others, this last part reminds us that sin should never be tolerated. Goodness and kindness by others can and should always be celebrated, but sin is never to be encouraged. If God can reward someone for his or her good deeds, He will not hesitate to punish someone for their evil deeds. So, our Lord uses a series of hyperbolic analogies, from drowning to bodily mutilation, to emphasis the gravity of sin. These examples may appear barbaric by modern standards, but they are used precisely to illustrate God’s complete abhorrence of sin, whether it be directed to another or to oneself.

The opening and the concluding section of today’s passage reveals to us the nature of God - He is both merciful and just – one does not exclude the other. There is no contradiction. God welcomes and rewards acts of goodness wherever He finds it, and not just among those who claim to know Him or act in His name. As goodness can never be a companion to evil, so too God will not tolerate evil and sin within us. These have deep implications in our own spiritual lives - we too must welcome and celebrate the goodness done by others if in the end it is done for the sake of God who will see to their reward, but we must be constantly on guard against the scandal of evil and sin, and be prepared to take all necessary steps to remove them through sincere repentance, or be prepared to “be thrown into hell where their worm does not die nor their fire go out”.

Preserving the fire of Tradition

Twenty Second Sunday in Ordinary Time Year B

Gustav Mahler, one of the leading composers at the turn of the 20th century, who recognised the tension between tradition and innovation and who attempted to bridge the gap between classical and modern genres of music, once wrote: “Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire.” What he meant by this quote is that, tradition is not remembering the glory of the obsolete good old days in a sentimental way but the passing of our culture, heritage and values, as living and organic things, to the next generation.

Today, our Lord confronts the scribes and Pharisees on the issue of the “traditions of the elders” which our Lord describes in a derogatory way as “human regulations” and “human traditions”. Critics of Catholic Tradition and promoters of theological innovation have often cited the above text to show that our Lord Himself had also condemned traditions as man-made. They accuse promoters and defenders of Catholic Tradition as being sentimentally attached to the past and practising an illogical “worship of the ashes.” But this crass and condescendingly shallow judgment is based on a simplistic reading of the text and their own prejudices. In fact, it is those who promote progressive innovation who are most often enamoured by an unthinking sentimentalism (sola affectibus - “feelings alone matters”) and who are actually the ones guilty of creating human regulations and human tradition through their innovation.

Let’s first consider the context of our Lord’s teaching in today’s passage. What were these so-called “traditions of the elders”? Like any law, the Law of Moses requires interpretation: how, when, for whom and in what circumstances are these regulations to be applied. Over the centuries, an oral tradition of legal interpretations had developed and handed down by generations of leading rabbis.

Originally, the interpretations were just meant to be interpretations of the Law but soon they took on the weight of the Law as well. For the Pharisees, the oral tradition was just as binding as the written Torah. It prescribed numerous and detailed rules of conduct for daily life, so much so, that you needed the special class of scribes who were living depositories of such rules to provide guidance and consultation. This is why the carrying out of these rules had become a burden that sometimes obscured the purpose of the Law. If our modern day ever-evolving SOPs can be a constant cause of befuddlement and fatigue in modern times, can you imagine the pressure and stress it would have given the people of our Lord’s time who had no access to search engines or social media platforms to ensure that they were not in breach of any rules?

The specific point of contention in this passage were the rules regarding ablutions to be performed before eating one’s meal. The scribes and Pharisees complained to the Lord that His disciples were eating with unclean and unwashed hands. In the chapter prior to this (Mark 6:35-44), we had the miracle of the feeding of the multitudes. Perhaps it was our Lord’s miraculous provision of bread in the wilderness (where there was no source of water for people to at least wash their hands) that occasioned this supposed controversy. The pettiness of the Pharisees can be seen in them missing the forest for the trees! The requirement of ritual purity in the Torah, was originally only applicable to the priestly class serving at the altar of the Temple, but the oral tradition developed by the Pharisees had extended this rule to govern the behaviour of all Jews at meals - making every meal a religious act, on par with the Temple sacrifice. Those who failed to observe these additional meticulous rules would be despised by the Pharisees and labelled as accursed and ignorant.

Rather than falling into the trap of validating their terms of reference, our Lord levels a counter charge, challenging the entire shaky edifice of Pharisaic legalism. He accuses them of being hypocrites (literally “stage actors”), people who only pay lip service to their devotion to God - their outward conduct does not correspond with the true state of their hearts. Obsessed with external ritual purity, their hearts and intentions were anything but pure.

Having quoted from the Septuagint version of Isaiah 29:13, our Lord delivers the punchline, which He repeats in two other verses to show emphasis: “You put aside the commandment of God to cling to human traditions.” It is a scathing indictment of His accusers’ whole approach to religion, in which the key contrast is between “God’s” and “man’s.” The will of God is supplanted by the agenda of man.

And this is what Sacred Tradition seeks to guard against – to prevent God’s revelation from being twisted by human machinations seeking to make it more palatable. And this is what innovation actually does – it puts aside the commandment of God to cling to human traditions.  At the end of the day, theological innovation seeks to undo the deposit of faith handed down by our Lord Jesus to the Apostles, to us. To reject Sacred Tradition is to reject Christ’s teaching. Innovation shows up man’s arrogance. When we innovate and attempt to alter the teachings of Christ in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, we are actually claiming to be smarter than the wisdom of God; that God’s revelation and guidance is inadequate for our salvation, and needs to be augmented and completed by our addition, subtraction or amendment.

Although heresies over the centuries can occupy any part of a spectrum of ideas and they may often disagree with each other, there is a consistent theme or action found in each and every one of them. Tertullian puts it this way, “In the Church, the rule of Faith is unalterable, and never to be reformed.” This is because Sacred Tradition is not just something the Church “makes up.” It comes from Christ. It is the full, living gift of Christ to the Apostles, faithfully handed down through each generation. To attempt to change Sacred Tradition would be as ridiculous as attempting to alter Christ. This is what the letter to the Hebrews wishes to caution us: “Remember your leaders, who preached the word of God to you, and as you reflect on the outcome of their lives, imitate their faith. Jesus Christ is the same today as he was yesterday and as he will be for ever. Do not let yourselves be led astray by all sorts of strange doctrines” (Hebrews 13: 7-9). Heretics, according to Tertullian, “vary in their rules; namely, in their confessions of faith. Every one of them thinks he has a right to change and model what he has received according to his own fancy, as the author of the sect composed it according to his own fancy.”

As Christians, what is required of us is fidelity, not novelty. It is ultimately God who makes all things new, we can be assured of this. He does this not by making new things but by making all things new through the power of the Holy Spirit. This is why Sacred Tradition is not just obsolete customs or fossilised teachings, but living and dynamic. Pope Emeritus Benedict reminds us precisely of this, “Tradition is the living river that unites us to the origins, the living river in which the origins are always present, the great river that leads us to the port of eternity. In this living river, the word of the Lord…: “And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age”, is fulfilled again (Matthew 28:20).” It is the fire of this living river of Tradition that must be preserved.

If your brother sins, go and have it out with him

Twenty-Third Sunday in Ordinary Time Year A

It is fashionable nowadays to be “politically correct,” that is, to say nothing which may hurt the feelings of others, and to say everything which affirms their opinion, that is to say what they want to hear regardless of the Truth. Culturally we have become so wary of “judging” or of being labelled “judgmental” that we have become a society in which there is great moral confusion as to right and wrong. Therefore, we generally loath criticising anyone or express disapproval of anything. Everything else seems to matter; people’s opinions about anything and everything seems to matter; people’s feelings seems to matter; but with one exception - Truth doesn’t matter. In fact, truth is often seen as hurtful, violent and inconvenient.

In the midst of this inverted reality world-view, we have the readings for this Sunday which propose as an act of charity and mercy; what is traditionally known as fraternal correction – which is the duty to admonish sinners. In fact, our Lord gives explicit instructions, outlining specific steps for correcting a fellow Christian. To the politically correct mob, what He is suggesting seems totally out of step with modern sensibilities and people’s sensitivities. In fact, Jesus is saying that Truth matters! He is saying that truth is fundamental to love and to community life. Truth is not violence. In fact, it is those who refuse to accept the Truth who would violently choose to silence the voices of those who attempt to correct them.

Even if you believe that truth matters, many would think that minding our own business, and not criticising anyone is a Christian virtue and an expression of love. But is it? St Augustine questions this logic: “You do not care about the wounds of your brother?” You see when your brother and sinner is sinning, they are really hurting, because sin really hurts! So, when we choose to keep silent, that is being more hurtful than speaking the Truth in love. St Augustine says: “By keeping silent you are worse than he is by committing sin.”

Are there occasions when we sometimes hypocritically and sanctimoniously condemn and criticise others while failing to recognise our own faults? Certainly. But should this disqualify us or anyone from correcting our brother or sister out of genuine love for them? In these cases, St. Thomas Aquinas advises: “We do not condemn the other but together weep and help each other to repent.” Though we seldom think of it in this manner, St Thomas reminds us that correction is spiritual almsgiving, an external act of charity. Correcting sinners does not expose one’s lack of love. On the contrary, it is a serious responsibility of love. Individual fraternal correction is ordered to repentance, to lead a brother or sister back to the correct path which leads him or her to Christ. Fraternal correction is, being concerned for their salvation, and working for the salvation of souls should be every Christian’s primary responsibility. Keeping silent, on the other hand, is condemning them (and us) to eternal damnation.

But how should we admonish sinners properly? Before we start correcting everyone on every single thing, it’s good to reflect over these questions: Am I certain that this behaviour is morally wrong or is this merely a difference in opinion? Is there a real necessity for correction or is it one of those things which we can and we should just tolerate? This means that we should not just be “triggered” by everything and anything which annoys us. Perhaps, we need to examine our own predilection for flying off the handle over the slightest trivial matter and work to correct this before we assume that we have the right to correct others.

We should also be prudent enough to choose a suitable opportunity to speak with the person, to listen to his point of view, to have a respectful dialogue with him, if that is possible, so that there is a real possibility that this correction would yield good results. If correction of another is going to be counterproductive or it could make things worse, then it is not prudent to do it. For this, Christian fraternal correction should never assume a patronising method of talking down to the other. Christian correction in order to be Christian should always remain charitable and done with patience, humility, prudence and discretion. That is why the correction must be done in the first place privately, as our Lord suggests because the person confronted has a right to a good name. Only when this fails, would we need to involve others in the community.

When all efforts have been exhausted to reason with the person to mend his ways and the person remains steadfastly arrogant and unrepentant, and weighing the effects of his sins on the larger community, the Church has a pastoral duty, which she exercises out of charity rather than a lack of it, to impose the penalty of excommunication. The purpose of excommunication is not to be a final punishment but rather a means to bring the person to the realisation of the alienating effects of sin and error. Sin cuts us off from God and the community. Excommunication merely makes visible what is actually happening. The purpose of excommunication, just like fraternal correction, is to lead the person to repentance and reconciliation with God and the Church.

Should we blame ourselves when persons do not wish to repent or be reconciled? Well, the first reading assures us that if we have done our job in admonishing the sinner and the person still refuses to repent, then we have fulfilled our obligation, and as the reading promises, we would have “saved our lives” as well as his, if he listens. But the first reading also warns us that if we fail in our duty to admonish the sinner when we have the opportunity to do so, God “will hold you responsible for his death.” We must fraternally correct, not only because Jesus instructs us to, but also because the very salvation of our souls depend upon it!

The best way to practise fraternal correction is by giving good examples and praying for the sinner in question. From our Lord’s last two comments in today’s gospel, we see how the community united in prayer, can really make a difference. Both promises are powerful. In the first promise, the Lord assures us of the power of the unity in prayer - that whatever two ask for, it will be granted. If we take His promise seriously, we will certainly witness amazing changes happening in the lives of individuals and communities, when we are united in prayer.

The second promise assures us of Christ presence when the community is united in His name - wherever two or three are assembled in Jesus’s name, He is in their midst. This is based on a rabbinic maxim: “If two sit side-by-side with the words of the Torah between them, then the Shekinah (God’s visible presence in the world) abides in their midst.” But in today’s text, prayer has replaced the sitting; Jesus Christ, the perfect fulfilment of the Law, takes the place of the Law; and instead of God’s Shekinah, we have the tangible, sacramental, real and substantial presence of our Lord in the Eucharist. For at every Mass, we find ourselves called to sit and dine at the Eucharistic Assembly of the reconciled and witness the final goal of fraternal correction, communion with God and with each other in the Body of Christ. And it is at every Mass, that the Lord challenges us to do this before we walk up to receive Him in Holy Communion, “If your brother does something wrong, go and have it out with him alone.”

Law vs Love

Sixth Sunday in Ordinary Time Year A

I’ve often heard this argument dragged out of the closet to justify any departure from Church laws or teachings, “We have to be pastoral.” By being “pastoral”, according to this antinomian reasoning, is to have the well-being of people as the paramount consideration. ‘What exactly can be considered the “well-being of people?” you may ask. Well, in today’s age, this has often been distilled into people’s personal feelings. So ultimately in this context, being pastoral means not offending anyone or making them feel rejected or unwelcomed. Being pastoral seems to make that it is alright to break every rule, disobey every instruction, or even ignore every doctrinal truth, as long as this keeps people happy.

But this attempt to pit pastoral practice against doctrine and church laws flies against Catholic teaching and Scripture itself. The division between theory and practice of faith is a false dichotomy, because it would mean a division in the mystery of the eternal Word of the Father, who became flesh. Fr Dominic nails it on the head when he tells me that whenever “pastoral reasons” are cited to justify an action, it is actually “pastor’s reasons.” The goal of bending the rules and ignoring doctrinal truths has little to do with the well-being of the people. Often, it betrays the pastor’s own insecurities of losing popularity with his people.

It has always been the teaching of Christianity that the pastoral mission of the Church is ordered to the ultimate end of man, for man’s salvation. In fact, you could say that Church’s doctrinal teachings and her disciplines and laws always have a profound pastoral dimension. Therefore the Latin maxim, salus animarum suprema lex – “the salvation of souls is the supreme law.” Salvation of souls hardly means well-being of persons or affirmation of their feelings. Thus, being pastoral actually means teaching and doing what would ultimately lead to the salvation of the soul. One does not become more “pastoral” by departing from doctrine or church laws. In fact, the word “pastoral” has its origin in the Latin term “pascere” which means “to feed”. Therefore, one becomes truly pastoral by feeding the flock with the life-giving teachings of Christ and His Church and help them abide by the Church’s laws and disciplines, because these provide a clear path to the verdant pastures of salvation. This is precisely what our Lord is saying in today’s gospel.

To those who argue that our Lord chose mercy over the law, that He chose pastoral care over doctrinal truths, that He came to overturn the laws of the old, would either have to be ignorant of the words of our Lord in today’s gospel or would choose to deliberately give them an entirely different spin that radically departs from their original meaning. The Lord says, “Do not imagine that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish them but to complete them.” These words of the Lord can leave us in no doubt that His teaching, however radical to His contemporaries, was not intended to undermine the fundamental moral values enshrined in the Law. Jesus reinforced the commandments as absolute values rooted in the will of God. As such they were not subject to human accommodation. In His own words “not one dot, not one little stroke, shall disappear from the law until its purpose is achieved”.

If we are to understand this seemingly unbending stance on the part of the Lord, we must first consider what was meant when He said that He had come to bring the law to completion, that the law must stand until its purpose was achieved. A superficial and even adolescent caricature of the Law is that it was a rigid restraint limiting man’s freedom to grow and find fulfilment. The biblical understanding of the Law is quite different. The Law was God’s gift to His people. Man was destined to live in harmony with God and creation. Sin frustrated this destiny. The Law, as God’s gift to a sinful people, laid down the path whereby this end was to be achieved. Far from being a restraint upon man, the law was meant to free him of his selfishness and put him on the path to salvation. Sin, on the other hand, which is disobedience at its core - putting one’s own will above the will of the Creator, frustrates man’s destiny. It is in this sense that our Lord came not to abolish the law, but to bring it to completion. Communion with God can only come when we are in harmony with His will as revealed in the commandments.

Our Lord continued by demanding a virtue that goes deeper than that of the Scribes and Pharisees. This is truly a remarkable statement, because in Jesus’ day those very Scribes and Pharisees were considered the most virtuous. Our Lord goes on to show, by means of a series of five “antitheses” (“You have learnt how it was said  . . . but I say this to you”), that His life, and not of these hypocritical religious leaders, was the true fulfillment of the Law. In all these antithesis, our Lord seems virtually to replace the Old Covenant’s Law with a new law. But the new law is nothing other than what is revealed by the ultimate intent of the old law – perfection in imitation of God’s perfection.  In doing so, our Lord actually raised the bar instead of lowering it, by inserting His own standard into the law.  And what is this standard? “Be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matthew 5:48). That is the point of the commandments: whoever wishes to be in a relationship with God must match God’s behaviour and intent. It is God who sets the benchmark, not man. Strangely, the pastoral fallacy practiced by so many well-meaning Catholic leaders often moves in the opposite direction – setting the benchmark at the lowest common denominator - to the point of bottoming out.

If the world tells us that perfection is beyond our reach, our Lord shows us otherwise. Jesus, as the Way, the Truth and the Life, is the fulfilment of that Law. In Him, the purpose of the Law, in communion with God, is fully achieved. He will spend His entire life modeling its ultimate meaning for us, “until its purpose is achieved.” Finally, the Lord accomplishes this purpose by His Death and Resurrection. Thus, we are not being asked to do the impossible, as the first reading explicitly says: “if you wish, you can keep the commandments, to behave faithfully is within your power.” To do God’s will is nothing more than fidelity, to respond in gratitude to what God offers. As the Lord promises in the Book of Deuteronomy (30:11,14), “The command which I enjoin on you today does not exceed your capabilities, it is not unreachable … for my Word is very near you, it is in your heart.”

So, what is required of us is not a change to the rules or the perennial teachings of the Church – but rather the hearts of sinners -  hearts of stone, hearts which refused to obey the commandments of God, had to be changed in order to become hearts of flesh, hearts willing to submit humbly to the laws of God.  

The disciplines, laws and teachings of the Church are not meant to infringe our human freedom; nor are they an impossible and unrelenting burden. This is because these laws, these teachings are that of Christ. They reflect the Truth which Christ brought into the world for its salvation and it is this “Truth which will set you free” (Jn 8:32). No friendly pastoral initiative, no relaxation of laws, no re-spinning of doctrinal truths, can solve man’s ultimate problems. Only Jesus Christ in His fullness, undiluted by our ingenious “pastoral” accommodations, can alleviate the sufferings of our brothers and sisters. The World needs the Truth in its fullness. The World needs Christ, who is the “Way, the Truth and the Life” (Jn 14:6). What it doesn’t need is another ‘clever’ pastoral solution. What it doesn’t need is a counterfeit.