Where Peter is

Twenty First Sunday in Ordinary Time Year A

In a popular caricature of first encounters with an alien race, the spokesperson of the extraterrestrials would usually make this request to the first contingent of humans they meet, a request that simply wishes to cut through all the bureaucratic red-tape: “Take me to your leader.” It’s ludicrous and even comedic because any human being can tell you that there is no single individual or body which can claim to be the sole leader of the entire human race. For us Catholics, however, the Pope comes close to being this.

“Ubi Petrus Ibi Ecclesia,” “Where Peter is, there is the Church”, is the famous quote from St Ambrose of Milan. This statement makes an important claim; in fact, an undeniably outrageous claim. It is saying “without the papacy, there is no Church.” Though many would contest and reject the veracity of this claim from without and even within the Church, popular culture has accorded him a special role, a caricature at best. One such popular image is that St Peter stands as a sort of gatekeeper (“or perhaps, even a goal keeper), guarding the Pearly Gates, the entrance to the heavenly realm – a seemingly ignoble job. Though hardly accurate, the image is derived from the gospel passage we just heard today, where our Lord bestows special prerogatives on Peter.

First, St Peter is given a new name, which in Scripture denotes a change in status or position. Our Lord spoke Aramaic and would have given Simon the Aramaic name Kepha (Rock) which is “Petra” in Greek and “Peter” in English. The Greek “petra” is feminine so the masculine “Petros” was adopted. If “Petra” refers to a rock, “petros” can refer to a little pebble. This has often been the contention of Protestants who see this title not as something honourable but a subtle insult, a diminuent of his status. Protestants argue that Christ is the only foundation (1 Cor 3:11) and to claim otherwise would be blasphemy. There is, however, no distinction in Aramaic, between Kepha the “Rock” and Kepha, the Apostle Peter, upon which Jesus would build his Church. Peter is Kepha, He is the rock. In fact, Syriac Christians, who continue to use Aramaic in their scriptures and liturgy, also claim that Jesus, the Rock of Salvation, conferred his own name and title on Peter. This must simply be the greatest honour accorded to any man.

Having been conferred a new title and name, St Peter is also given the metaphorical keys by Christ. We see the tradition of conferral of keys as symbolising the conferral of authority in the first reading. The significance of this passage in Isaiah is made clear in the gospel. As Jesus, the new King of Israel, re-establishes the Davidic throne He appoints Peter to the office of royal steward to rule “over the house” of His kingdom. As the steward of Christ’s kingdom, Peter is given the authority to bind and loose. These are keys not of any earthly palace but of heaven itself, which is another way of saying that the issue is linked to salvation. Of course, this entails more than the simpleton’s job of opening heaven’s door to the faithful. The keys were understood to represent legislative and judicial powers. These powers, Christ now transfers here to Peter. To say that St Peter has the key means he can declare certain things to be lawful and others unlawful; to prohibit or to permit, to excommunicate and lift the excommunication (as we had seen recently), to teach and to govern with the authority of Christ. In all this, he acts with the authority and power of Christ!

But the authority of the King, officially conferred here on his steward, does not end with the death of the steward. Our Lord would not have missed filling up this gaping loophole. The office of a royal steward was a hereditary position. Familiar with their history, the Jews certainly understood that the office of Peter would be filled by successors as was the royal steward’s office in Judah. The steward may die, but the office continues. In the case of the popes, they have received the keys through apostolic succession, one of the four defining marks of the Church. That is why the keys remain a prominent symbol in the coat of arms of every Pope.

The authority and the power of the Petrine Office, that is the office of St Peter in Christ’s kingdom, which is now handed down to his successors, the popes, is not just a point of contention with the Protestants who clearly reject it but has also become a scandal of sorts for Catholics. Irony has it that the rock, the foundation of our Church, has in fact become a stumbling block to critics, dissenters and persons who often treat their personal opinions as dogmas. In a world that prizes democracy, individualism, and personal autonomy, the Catholic teaching on the papacy often strikes many as outdated and dictatorial. Why should one man in Rome hold such authority over the universal Church? A belief popularly held by many is that no one individual should have unfettered powers of decision.

To the objectors who argue that this reading of scripture and tradition makes the Pope a dictator, we only have to look at the Second Reading from St Paul’s letter to the Romans: “How rich are the depths of God – how deep his wisdom and knowledge – and how impossible to penetrate his motives or understand his methods!” It would be pure hubris on our part to believe that we are wiser than God in such matters. Ultimately, in rejecting the authority of Peter and that of the Popes, one inadvertently but necessarily rejects the testimony of Scripture and in doing so we reject the authority of Christ; because Peter is his choice. Throughout Scriptures, we see God’s choices of leadership often been called into question because these do not conform to our own criteria of suitability for a candidate. In fact, God often chooses the least likely to succeed – the youngest or the oldest, the frailest, the most insignificant, the candidate most likely to fail. The papacy, similarly, is part of God’s mysterious plan, not human politics. Throughout history, popes have been sinners like us—some great saints, others (mostly) flawed. The choice of God often highlights his absolute sovereignty and gratuitousness, rather than a decision based on the extraordinary qualities of the candidate.

Let us not forget that it is Christ who builds the Church and not Peter. And therefore, the primacy of Peter is a primacy willed by God and not created by men, even though we are quite capable of choosing the wrong candidate.

If you have any confusion in your mind where that Church is, when faced with all those conflicting voices that inevitably always sound sincere and credible when claiming to speak the Truth, our Lord assures us, “I give you a marker, a beacon – look for Peter.” Peter will be a point of stability, a guarantee and an assurance that the Church will not be fazed even when everything shifts. In a market place filled with various ideological options and a countless multitude of opinions, where the search for certainty and stability is often frustrated, the Papacy provides us with clear direction. Where do I find the fullness of the Lord? Where do I find His Mystical Body, and not just a body that I have constructed? Then we only need go back his words, “On this rock, I will build my church.” “Where Peter is there is the Church.” Of course, the Holy Father remains utterly human, he sins as you and I sin. He may have opinions as we do. But when he teaches in his office as Pope, we can have confidence that Christ speaks definitively through him. He is indeed a gift from God, a sign of hope. In a fragmented world, this points to the one Lord, one faith, one baptism. May the Church, founded on this rock, shine as a beacon of truth and charity.

Guess how much?

Seventeenth Sunday in Ordinary Time Year A

One of my favourite comedians is Hong Kong born and now USA based Jimmy O. Yang. One of his most poignant jokes which had me rolling in laughter while nodding my head in agreement is his observation that while most people in the West brag about how much money they spend, Asians love to brag about how little they pay. This best describes my usual exchanges with Fr Bona on my latest acquisition on the Shopee app. After showing him the item I will gleefully ask, “Guess how much?” The cheaper the item, the bigger the boast. Fr Bona will then roll his eyes in disgust because of his disdain for my predilection for cheap bargains.

If what Jimmy Yang says is true about Asians, most would be rolling their eyes in disbelief after hearing the two parables of our Lord. Instead of paying below market prices, the protagonists of the two tales make the seemingly imprudent decision of paying not just “full price,” but over and above their actual value. The protagonists in both stories are willing to part with their entire wealth, possession and everything they own just to buy an item without consulting an expert assessor to determine if this is a good “buy.”

Some measure of risk is to be expected in any endeavour, but this seemingly impulsive decision and action seems altogether preposterous in the eyes of any right-minded person, more so if you happen to be Asian. But both these imaginary characters are convinced that the value of the item which they desire and seek to possess far exceeds anything else which they treasure and possess. Their decision is not governed by the common sense question, “how much am I willing to give up?” The only question which matters is “how much more do I gain?” The point which our Lord is trying to make is that the kingdom of God is so valuable that losing everything on earth, but getting the kingdom, is a happy trade-off.

The apostle Paul expresses this very idea in Philippians 3:7-8, ‘Whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ.”

The point here is not that you have to buy the kingdom or barter for the kingdom or negotiate for the kingdom or work hard to earn entry into the kingdom. The kingdom of heaven which is Matthew’s Jewish euphemism to express the same idea found in the other synoptic gospels - the Kingdom of God - is received without pay. The Kingdom of God is not a geographical location or domain. It primarily speaks of God’s reign or rule, not just in the universe but more importantly in your hearts, the place where man expresses his freedom. For God to reign in our hearts, it is something which we must assent to. He cannot and will not compel us and that is why it is hidden until discovered through our repentance and conversion.

And so, it is priceless in that the kingdom is not for sale. No amount of wealth or sacrifice would be enough to buy it. So the point here is that the people who wish to receive the kingdom, should treasure it more than everything else. Yes, you don’t buy it. You can’t buy salvation. You get it freely because you want it more than you want anything else. In other words, there is a condition for having the kingdom—for having God as king and sovereign ruler of your entire life —but the condition is not wealth or power or intelligence or eminence or the amount of good works and devotion you rock up. The condition is that you prize the kingdom more than you prize anything else. For God to rule in your life, you must desire it above all else! You must hand over the keys to your heart. The point of selling everything in this parable is simply to show where your heart is. “Where your treasure is, there your heart will be also” (Matthew 6:21).

This is the reason why every Christian, just like Solomon in the first reading, must desire and seek out the wisdom necessary to discern between what is good and evil, what is of value and what is valueless, what is authentic and what is false. Discernment is the ability to see beneath the surface. It helps you spot the difference between a pretty lie and a hard truth. Without discernment, we would always find it impossible to discover the hidden treasure and pearl of great value which is the Kingdom of God. Instead we will be desiring for all the things that distract and lead us away from that goal.

But discernment is just the first step. This must ultimately lead to action. Knowing what is right is not enough. You must also obey and do what is right. What good is it to know the truth if we fail to act accordingly? This was the problem of Solomon. He was praised and admired for his God-given wisdom, even by unbelievers. But not putting that wisdom into practice led to his eventual downfall and his wayward life. Solomon is biblical proof that even true discernment can give way to a destructive self-delusion. Disobedience inevitably undermines discernment. The only way to guard against that is to be doers of the Word and not hearers only. Notice that the two protagonists in our Lord’s parable did not just give a correct appraisal of the value of the objects they discovered. They immediately took action by selling everything they owned to buy those prized objects. There is no use in admiring something from a distance but then hesitate to take action because the decision appears too costly.

Both discernment and acting upon it are essential. But we must do so cheerfully and not regard it as overly burdensome. Notice that the man in the first parable was not driven by cold duty. We are told by the Lord that he “goes off happy!” He happily disposes all his wealth to buy the field where the treasure is buried. He did not complain about having to give up everything to acquire that field. All that he did, he did so willingly and joyfully. That is how we welcome God’s Kingdom, His rule into our lives. The only way we can surrender to Him is to do it joyfully and willingly after having recognise that He is the greatest and most prized treasure in our lives. We do it because we want to and not because we were forced to. That’s the big difference. The loss of earthly things for the sake of the kingdom is not sad. It is not sad when we have Jesus. It is a blessed privilege. Why were the martyrs in the past willing to give up everything including life itself? Here is the answer: For the joy of it.

We live in a world that has been inundated and saturated with information, technology, science and the wonders of AI. But there is something which the world’s most advanced AI cannot do. It cannot help us discern what is of value and what is not. Only our Father in heaven can reveal such mysteries to us who are mere children. Discernment, therefore, requires docility instead of stubbornness, obedience instead of reckless disobedience, self-conquest instead of prideful self-determination. In a world of competing allures and possibilities, may we discern wisely and recognise the immense worth of the Kingdom of Heaven and joyfully take decisive action, gladly letting go of lesser things to secure it. Once our hearts are captured, we will not begrudgingly give up everything but instead do it happily because we know that it is a happy trade. Let us share the gospel of Christ while asking: “Guess how much?” And then enthusiastically tell our hearer, “It’s priceless but free!”

Long live Christ the King

Solemnity of Christ the King of the Universe Year C

Twice this year, a loosed coalition of anti-Trump groups funded by globalist billionaires and endorsed by the opposition Democratic Party organised nationwide rallies in many cities across the United States under the common banner of “No Kings.” They were claiming that the man in the White House, which many refused to acknowledge as their president, who won the 2024 presidential election which many of them denied, is a pretentious tyrannical dictator, in other words, an unelected king! But there is irony in their chants and claims.

It’s wild how the same people chanting “No Kings” are the first to bow to every new trend, influencer, or ideology that tells them what to think, what to post, and what to believe. The truth is everyone serves something. The only question is who sits on the throne of your heart.

You can reject authority all you want, but it doesn’t change reality. There is a King. He doesn’t need your vote, your approval, or your permission. His name is Jesus. And unlike the kings of this world, here is a king whose throne is the cross, whose crown is made of thorns, whose soldiers do not fight for Him but mock Him, whose courtiers abandon Him, deny Him and even betray Him. The scene which we just heard in the gospel portrays this stark contrast between this King, whom we today acclaim as the King of Kings and the Lord of the Universe, and all the monarchs that have ever ruled in human history.

The “No Kings” crowd says they’re free, but their chains are just invisible. They worship self, culture, and chaos. Meanwhile, the King they reject is the only one who actually died to set them free. You can shout “No Kings” all day long, but one day, every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.

Many have stood up for their faith in this King and have died martyrs. They would rather die as faithful subjects of this Divine King than to bend their knee to some earthly ruler who demands absolute obedience to the point of suppressing faith in any religion or God.

One of these men is a saintly and faithful bishop. This year marks the 25th anniversary of Cardinal Kung's death. Cardinal Ignatius Pin-Mei Kung was the Bishop of the Catholic Diocese of Shanghai and the unofficial leader of the Underground Catholic Church in China for decades. He was consecrated bishop just after the Chinese Communist Party had taken over China. Certainly, not the best of time for the faith. In defiance of the CCP, Bishop Kung personally supervised members of the Legion of Mary to train catechists to pass on the faith when all the priests were gone.

In 1952, Bishop Kung declared that year to be a Marian Year in Shanghai, during which there was to be uninterrupted round-the-clock recitation of the rosary in front of a statue of Our Lady of Fatima which toured all the parishes of Shanghai. The holy statue finally arrived at Christ the King Church where a major arrest of the priests had just taken place only a month before. Bishop Kung led the Rosary there while hundreds of armed police looked on. At the end of the Rosary Bishop Kung prayed: "Holy Mother, we do not ask you for a miracle. We do not beg you to stop the persecutions. But we beg you to support us who are very weak."

Between 1951 and 1955 all foreign priests and religious sisters were deported from China, sometimes after time in prison. Chinese bishops, priests, sisters and legionaries were typically arrested, subject to public humiliation, brainwashing sessions, torture, and sent to labour camps for long periods (often more than 20 years) or simply executed. Not all Catholics remained faithful.

Bishop Kung was arrested along with more than 200 priests and other Catholics on 8 September, 1955, the Feast of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary. He was subjected to a mob "struggle session" (an orchestrated denunciation by a baying crowd which sometimes becomes violent) in the old Dog Racing Stadium in Shanghai. Thousands were ordered to attend and to hear the Bishop's public confession of his “crimes". With his hands tied behind his back, wearing a Chinese pajama suit and a conical dunce cap (the parody of a mitre), the 5-foot tall Bishop was pushed forward to the microphone to confess. To the shock of the security police, they heard a righteous loud cry of "Long live Christ the King, long live the Pope" from the Bishop. The crowd responded immediately, "Long live Christ the King, long live Bishop Kung". For his defiant faith, Bishop Kung spent a total of thirty years in prison with long periods in isolation holding firmly to that very belief that Christ is King.

Though we continue to face opposition, persecution and hostility, wishing to silence our voices and destroy our faith, with Bishop Kung we persist in praying to Christ the King and His Blessed Mother: “we do not ask you for a miracle. We do not beg you to stop the persecutions. But we beg you to support us who are very weak."

So, let the crowds chant “No kings.” Let their slogans rise like smoke from a fire they cannot control. Let their fists shake at a heaven they pretend not to believe in. Kings and politicians may shake and tremble at their baying. But there is a throne that does not tremble. A crown that never dulls. A King who does not campaign for allegiance, nor bend to the will of the blood-thirsty mob. His robe carries the marks of His own blood. His hands bear wounds earned for traitors. His eyes see through the shouting into the ache beneath it. He is Jesus Christ. Crucified. Risen! Reigning! Victorious!

We do not serve an idea. We serve a King. A living King. A ruling King. A returning King. Every crown will fall. Every kingdom will fade. Every chant will break against the unshakable throne of Jesus Christ. And in the end, there will not be silence. There will be song. While the chants of the haters fill the streets, another sound rises from the rooms of our homes and the pews of our churches. Knees touch the floor. Heads bow low. Words rise like incense into the night, uttering with conviction: “My King. My Lord and my God!"

Finding Power in Powerlessness

Feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross

Power is as intoxicating as any drug we know of, perhaps even more potent than most. To those who are powerless, power promises redemption, a means to improve one’s position, to undo the injustices we face, to climb out of the rut we find ourselves trapped in. For those in power, the one thing they fear most is the loss of power. It would mean the loss of security, the loss of livelihood, the loss of public esteem or even worse, the loss of their lives. Dictators often do not fare well when they are overthrown in a coup. But today, we are confronted by the most radical inversion of how we should view power. The cross paradoxically shows us how true power is rooted in abject powerlessness.

Throughout the annals history, the cross remains a sign of contradiction – it is both an unthinkable disgrace and yet a potent source of grace. It has inspired confidence in armies to march into battle and others to sue for peace; it has been used as a palpable symbol of power as well as powerlessness. And so, it is both despised as well as coveted by one human power or another. The cross was invented by the Persians and then adopted by the Romans as one of the cruelest and most frightening instruments of torture and execution to instil fear among subjects. Constantine used it as a talisman of power in the civil war with his brother and the Persians claimed it as their greatest battle trophy over the Byzantines.

So, how is the cross a symbol of power and powerlessness? The symbolism of power hidden in the cross is often lost on us and is only revealed as a mystery of revelation. The Cross represents the Sovereign authority of God and His providence. This is certainly difficult to comprehend. Yet, what seems to us to be failure is, in God’s eyes, the victory of sacrificial love. It is on the cross, that Christ receives the highest exaltation from God, ironically, at the moment He suffered the greatest humiliation at the hands of men. As Christ was lifted up on the Cross, now by means of the Cross, He lifts up humanity, and indeed all creation. As today’s gospel reminds us, “for God sent his Son into the world not to condemn the world, but so that through him the world might be saved”. The Cross possesses the power to forgive sins, the power to heal consciences and human hearts.

But paradoxically, the cross is also a symbol and an instrument of powerlessness. For a brief moment, the Son of God gave up His access to the powers of the universe and submitted Himself to the power of men so that He could die at our hands. On the wood of the cross, the most powerful being in the universe chose to be powerless. The Lutheran theologian and martyr, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, describes the profound significance of this moment, “God allows himself to be edged out of the world and onto the cross. God is weak and powerless in the world, and that is exactly the way, the only way, in which he can be with us and help us.” So what God has done is that He took an instrument of evil, an instrument that brings death and transformed it so that it gives life, brings goodness and healing, and that’s what we hear the Lord saying about Himself, “When I am lifted up, as Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, then I will give life.” Just as Moses uses the symbol of Israel’s bane, the serpent, as a visible sign of God’s healing, our Lord similarly uses the cross as an instrument of healing, life and salvation.

The power and the powerlessness of the cross provide us with the necessary lens to view our own suffering, our daily crosses. St John Paul II, who prophetically wrote his first encyclical on Suffering, and would later suffer that fate in the last years of his pontificate, uses the cross to formulate his answer to man’s perennial dilemma – Why do we have to suffer. The saintly Pope stated, with piercing simplicity, that the answer has "been given by God to man in the cross of Jesus Christ." Each of us is called to "share in that suffering through which the Redemption was accomplished." Through His only begotten Son, God "has confirmed His desire to act especially through suffering, which is man's weakness and emptying of self, and He wishes to make His power known precisely in this weakness and emptying of self."

And this is the way we experience God’s power here on earth, sometimes to our great frustration, and this is the way that Jesus was deemed powerful during His lifetime. The gospels make this clear. Jesus was born powerless, and He died helpless on a cross. Yet both His birth and His death show the kind of power on which we can ultimately build our lives. The cross of Christ, therefore, teaches us that we can find power in weakness, in that which makes us vulnerable and even seemingly powerless.

Perhaps, what makes it so difficult to accept the good news of the cross, is that we are stubbornly holding on to power; we want to have a “sense of control.” Henri Nouwen writes, “What makes the temptation of power so seemingly irresistible? Maybe it is that power offers an easy substitute for the hard task of love. It seems easier to be God than to love God, easier to control people than to love people, easier to own life than to love life.” Most of us fear our powerlessness in the face of illness and death. We would like to retain an element of control, even though we realise that dying often involves the very opposite: a total loss of control, over our muscles, our emotions, our minds, our bowels and our very lives, as our human framework succumbs to powerful disintegrative forces.

Even when those disintegrative forces become extreme and our suffering may seem overwhelming, however, an important spiritual journey always remains open for us. This path is a "road less traveled," a path that, unexpectedly, enables us to achieve genuine control in the face of suffering and even death. The hallmark of this path is the personal decision to accept our sufferings, actively laying down our life on behalf of others by embracing the particular kind of death God has ordained for us, patterning our choice on the choice consciously made by Jesus Christ. As no one had ever done before, Jesus charted the path of love-driven sacrifice, choosing to lay down His life for His friends. He was no mere victim in the sense of being a passive and unwilling participant in His own suffering and death. He was in control. He was powerful even in His apparent powerlessness. No one could possibly take His life from Him, unless He chose to lay it down.

To the Romans, it may have been an instrument of torture or execution, to Constantine it may have been an amulet of power, to the Persians a trophy of conquest, but to us Christians, it is the very symbol of Christ’s victory over darkness, death, sin and the devil. Therefore, as the entrance antiphon exhorts us, “We should glory in the Cross of Our Lord Jesus Christ, in whom is our salvation, life and resurrection, through whom we are saved and delivered.”

We are prophets of a future not our own

Fourteenth Sunday in Ordinary Time Year C

There is irony in the mission which our Lord entrusted to His disciples. On the one hand, He does not soften the blow by assuring them that the mission will be easy. In fact, He tells them from the outset that they will be sent into hostile territory where they will inevitably face opposition, sometimes subtle and sometimes explicit: “I am sending you out like lambs among wolves.” The contrast couldn’t be more stark.

Sheep are prey animals, what more when you are a young lamb. Sheep are defenceless. They can’t fight, so they can only flee or huddle together when threatened. Their best chance of survival is to stay close to the larger flock and under the care of a shepherd who serves as their personal bodyguard. Leaving the flock would only mean certain death. And yet, it is our Lord who commands them to leave the safety of His pastoral care and venture out in the wide world on their own. The imagery invokes this frightening prospect – they will be easy prey for predators.

And this is what our Lord promises will precisely happen to us. We are not sent out into a Christian friendly world and we should not live under the illusion that we would be warmly welcomed. It will be a world hostile to our values, indignant to our presence and in clear opposition to what we stand for. Using the image of a wolf or perhaps even a wolf pack in contrast to us hapless lambs is meant to highlight the risks of our adventure.

But instead of equipping ourselves with necessary weapons which would ensure our safety, like a big stick or being armed to the hilt like Rambo, we should go forth unencumbered by things which would provide us with additional security. Our presence in the world should be one of innocence, wishing no offence on anyone and yet treated by others as offensive just by existing. Furthermore, our message should be a simple one: “Peace to this house!” No warning of retaliation to any potential threat like: “If you touch me, you will be obliterated!”

“Peace be to this house!” The Hebrew term sālom', or shalom (or the longer greeting “Shalom eleichem”), is typically translated as "peace" and was used in ancient greetings and farewells as of today, much as the Arabic “Assalamualaikum”. Shalom can mean the opposite of war, but it also refers to completeness, soundness, and welfare; it includes a sense of calm security in circumstances and relationships. In an Israelite context, wishing someone shalom means to say, "May God be with you." For ultimately, such peace could only be attained when one’s will was in total harmony with the will of God, when our thinking is aligned with His.

Our Lord doesn’t stop here. He seems to micromanage the entire adventure of these disciples. They were to take nothing with them–no money, no change of clothes, no itinerary. There is to be an urgency to their mission - no extra time to exchange pleasantries with people on the road. And when they enter a town, they were to accept hospitality from the first person who offered it. They shouldn’t be picky with regard to their accommodation or look around for better housing. But then our Lord adds this practical advice. When they encounter hostility, our Lord instructed them to just leave and shake off the dust from their feet while doing so. When people reject us and our message, He gives us permission to depart with no regrets. This assignment is rather amazing from a modern perspective. Do you know any person who would set out on a trip with no luggage, no money (or credit cards), no schedule, no clear strategy, and no host organisation or family to greet them at their destination? That’s a crazy way to travel, right? Sorry, but in this case, it was the Lord’s way to do missions.

But what is more surprising is the brevity and the simplicity of the message which they were to proclaim: “The kingdom of God is very near to you.” What or who precisely is this Kingdom? In terms of a succinct explanation, no one does it better than Pope Benedict XVI of happy memory who wrote: “the Kingdom is not a thing, it is not a geographical dominion like worldly kingdoms. It is a person; it is He… By the way in which He speaks of the Kingdom of God, Jesus leads men to realise the overwhelming fact that in Him God Himself is present among them, that He is God’s presence.” (Pope Benedict, Jesus of Nazareth, Part 1)

When, the disciples returned to give a report of their successes, our Lord’s answer that He saw Satan fall is an important corrective to their skewed understanding. Satan fell not because of the disciples’ efforts. It was not something which had just happened. The fall of Satan before time was witnessed by our Lord who existed before time. In fact, it is the Lord who caused the fall of Satan and his minions. It is the Lord who has established His own kingdom, whereas we His disciples, are merely invited to share in His victory and the benefits thereof. If Christ had not won the victory, our efforts would be futile. Ultimately, there is no reason to boast of what we’ve done. Rather, should we be given an opportunity to boast, we should boast of what the Lord has done for us. This is precisely what St Paul tells us to do in the second reading: “the only thing I can boast about is the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom the world is crucified to me, and I to the world.”

Our mission is best summarised in the beautiful prayer written by Fr Ken Untener and attributed to martyred Archbishop of San Salvador, St Oscar Romero:

“It helps, now and then, to step back and take a long view. The kingdom is not only beyond our efforts, it is even beyond our vision. We accomplish in our lifetime only a tiny fraction of the magnificent enterprise that is God's work. Nothing we do is complete, which is a way of saying that the Kingdom always lies beyond us. No statement says all that could be said. No prayer fully expresses our faith. No confession brings perfection. No pastoral visit brings wholeness. No program accomplishes the Church's mission. No set of goals and objectives includes everything”.

“This is what we are about. We plant the seeds that one day will grow. We water seeds already planted, knowing that they hold future promise. We lay foundations that will need further development. We provide yeast that produces far beyond our capabilities. We cannot do everything, and there is a sense of liberation in realising that. This enables us to do something, and to do it very well. It may be incomplete, but it is a beginning, a step along the way, an opportunity for the Lord's grace to enter and do the rest.

We may never see the end results, but that is the difference between the master builder and the worker. We are workers, not master builders; ministers, not messiahs. We are prophets of a future not our own.”

Think and Feel with the Church

Fourth Sunday of Easter Year C
Good Shepherd Sunday
Pilgrimage 13 - (Anticipated Mass in Lisbon)

As we come to the end of our pilgrimage, I would like to thank all of you for being good sheep that have listened attentively and obediently to the voice of your shepherd. Some would call it blind docility. Others would call it basic survival skills. Whatever may have been the reason for your exquisite cooperation, it has been a blessing and a privilege to have guided you through this entire journey of faith and discovery. We are thankful that we have lost no one on this trip.

What has been the secret of us staying safe, staying focused, staying on the right path? Our Lord provides us with the answer: “The sheep that belong to me listen to my voice.” Listening is at the heart of the Christian life. But if we wish to listen, we should start with obeying. Obedience comes from the Latin “to listen” (obedire). Obedience, according to St Augustine, is “the mother and guardian of all other virtues.” It ensures a life of goodness because it entails hearing and following God, the source of all goodness. This obedience is not for some in the Church but for all, from the child kneeling in the pew to the Pope presiding in Rome.

God alone is this obedience owed and given, but it is given to God through the Church because God gives Himself to us through the Church. Here is where many begin to engage in hypocritical casuistry. Some would claim that they are obedient to God but not to men, like the Pope or bishops, or man-made institutions like the Church. But God places us in a Church as a part of the body where Christ is the head, and we are the parts. This is why our Lord chose not to appear to Thomas in the gospel of Divine Mercy Sunday until he was prepared to return to the community of believers, the Church. As much as the Church is maligned and judged for the failures of her shepherds and members, there is no denying that our Lord instituted the Church to be the redemptive tool of the world, to continue to shepherd His flock, with Him as the Head and the body, with all its different parts working together to bring redemption to the world.

One phrase that captures this principle of listening to the voice of the Shepherd through His Church is, “to think with the Church;” or, in St Ignatius of Loyola’s formulation, sentire cum ecclesia. “Sentire”, of course, is not simply “to think,” which in English is often meant in a cold, rational way. Other words that are used to translate sentire are sense, feel, and perceive. “Feel” is a great translation that can also carry connotations of “think” except that “feel” can also imply the lack of rational thought.

What does it really mean to “think with the Church”? For one thing, thinking with the Church means giving a unique respect to our bishops and to the Pope. A filial love for our shepherds is a necessary expression of wanting to listen intimately to the voice of the Good Shepherd. We must, however, acknowledge that sometimes shepherds speak with their own voices rather than with that of Christ and the Holy Spirit. And this is the reason why confusion, heresy and even schism can break the unity of the Church and disrupt her mission.

We must, therefore, make a distinction between what is and is not meant to think and feel with the Church. First, it might be helpful to describe what the Church is not. The lay faithful are not pawns who are to take marching orders from their priests and bishops, nor bishops from the Pope. The Church is not a secret organisation where information (or revelation) is possessed in full only at the top and then is distributed selectively and imperfectly throughout. To think with the Church does not mean “to let the Church think for you.” Discernment is required.

But discernment without a guide or standard may lead us to error, that is to substitute Christ’s teachings with our own personal opinions. This, then, is precisely why the Magisterium, the teaching authority of the Church as a guardian and servant of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, is so necessary if one desires to think with the Church. Magisterial interventions serve to guarantee the Church’s unity in the truth of the Lord. They aid her to ‘abide in the truth’ in the face of the arbitrary character of changeable opinions and are an expression of obedience to the Word of God. The Magisterium exists precisely for the purpose of ensuring that the Church can authoritatively distinguish what derives from faith and what is merely an opinion. Even Popes and bishops must submit to the Magisterium as faithful servants as much as they are the very teachers whose teaching authority flows therefrom.

Episcopal and papal authority depends on obedience to what has been revealed and handed down by means of the Holy Spirit. To be a teacher of the faith is first and foremost to be a learner of it. Though bishops and the Pope have specific teaching roles, the whole Church is a listening Church, a learning Church and so the whole Church is the teaching Church. Our mission is to conform to what has been taught so that we in turn may be true teachers of the word. A person ceases to be a teacher of the faith when he ceases to let himself be instructed by universal tradition. Our teaching must be shaped by our obedience to universal tradition and never by our own ideas, by our own standing, or by our own times. This is what it means to listen to the Good Shepherd instead of talking or shouting over Him.

During his papacy, Pope Francis proposed that we follow the synodal path of becoming a listening church. That is indeed a noble idea. But to be truly listening, we must first be ready to listen to our Lord who has spoken through scripture and Tradition through the ages. If not, we will end up listening to the spirit of the world, instead of the Spirit of Christ and be misled ourselves and in turn lead others astray. We can have a listening Church only if we have an obeying Church. Obey; listen; proclaim. God has spoken; our task is to hear that Word and speak from it. We are not to speak from our times but to our times from God’s Word. Only then, can we be assured of being partakers of eternal life and not be lost.

As we depart from Lisbon for home, continue to listen carefully to the voice of the Shepherd in whatever situation you may find yourself. You came here as pilgrims. You will leave here as missionaries bringing the good news of Jesus Christ with you to the ends of the earth. But first, let us start with our neighbourhood and parish!

Christ is King!

Solemnity of Christ the King Year B

The declaration that “Christ is King” seems innocent enough for us Catholics, albeit somewhat hackneyed. But this has not been the case in America’s highly polarised political climate. On the one side you have people saying this is an affirmation of the Christian faith and a desire to not give in to secular culture. On the other side, you have people saying the phrase Christ is king is antisemitic, or expresses contempt for Jewish people, as the gospels seem to lay the blame on them for killing Jesus, although the actual executioner is Pontius Pilate as we had heard in today’s gospel. And in the weeks leading up to the highly contested presidential elections in the United States, the statement has been construed by those on the left as a pro-Trump dog whistle.

It is obvious that the title has political connotations. It is for this reason that the Jewish leaders brought our Lord before the Roman authorities on charges of treason. In the Empire, only Caesar was truly sovereign and all other client puppet rulers within his domain would have to seek his mandate before they could claim any title or authority. Since the Sanhedrin, the Jewish High Council, was unable to impose capital punishment under their religious blaspheme laws, getting the Romans to adjudicate the case and pass the death penalty was the only option. So, the “crime” of Jesus had to be elevated from a religious sin into a political high crime of treason.

When our Lord was given an opportunity by Pilate to refute the charges of claiming to be “king”, He in fact confirmed the title when the question was put to Him: “Are you the king of the Jews?” And after clarifying that His “kingdom is not of this world,” our Lord proceeds to unequivocally declare: “Yes, I am a king. I was born for this, I came into the world for this: to bear witness to the truth; and all who are on the side of truth listen to my voice.” For having affirmed the truth of His kingship instead of denying it, our Lord was condemned to die by crucifixion. He could have lied even when it was inconvenient and politically incorrect to state the truth. He could have protested that it was all a misunderstanding, but He didn’t.

So, for those who clutch their pearls whenever they hear this statement as an anti-Semitic and right-wing slogan, here are some salient truths which is bound to trigger you, rather than lower the temperature: The good news is that Jesus Christ is really king. But He’s also a Jew and in fact hailed as “King of Jews,” the very charge written on the titulus placed on the cross. So, it is an oxymoron to claim that an esteemed royal Jewish title given to a Jew would be anti-Semitic. In fact, this feast was inaugurated by Pope Pius XI as the Church’s challenge to the secularist fascist regimes which were not just anti-semites but also anti-Christian.

It is also important to remember that the “Jesus is King of the Jews” language would have been self-evidently a kind of joke, making fun of both Jesus and his fellow Jews under Roman occupation. The joke is that a king on the throne of David would not be drowning in his own blood, helplessly fixed to a Roman cross. To call him that would make a cruel point not just to any future insurrectionist but to the hopes of Jewish people generally—No one is coming to liberate us. Caesar is king and will remain king. Furthermore, the motives of Pilate’s soldiers in applying the “Christ is king” imagery was even clearer. The purple cloak and the crown of thorns were meant to be a parody—as the Roman soldiers sarcastically saluted Jesus, yelling, “Hail, king of the Jews!” (Mark 15:18). They mocked Jesus both for His alleged claim to kingship and for His Jewishness, both seen as being beneath the majesty of Roman power.

But Jesus is not making any claims to the Roman imperial throne. He has no desire to do so. Our Lord Jesus Christ is not a true and better Caesar. His kingship is something altogether different, in fact, it is not of this world. That’s because the kingdom of God is not a capstone of the aspirations and power games of this present order; it’s a repudiation of them.

If the kingdom of God were about external conformity, tribal membership, or “winning” in the sense that we define it, Jesus could have embraced all of that from the crowds around Him or would have trained His closest associates to become a more effective group of insurgents. The kingdom of God cannot be understood or articulated without seeing that the Crucifixion is not a plot obstacle on a hero’s journey. The way of the Cross is, in fact, the Way to victory and glory, while the way of Caesar leads to death and humiliation. The Cross is indeed our Lord’s true throne. Pope Pius XI taught that Christ the King “has dominion over all creatures, a dominion not seized by violence nor usurped, but His by essence and by nature.” The cross is not what robbed us of our king but in fact, gave us a king.

At a recently concluded Pax Liturgica Meeting in Rome, which went for the most part unnoticed because it was eclipsed by the hyped Synod on Synodality, Cardinal Gerhard Müller warned against bishops betraying their divine mission by relativising doctrine and failing to uphold the orthodox faith. "We must not give in to the following suggestion: If you want to reach people today and be loved by all, then, just like Pilate, leave the truth aside, then you will be spared persecution, suffering, the cross and death! Secularly speaking, the power of politics, media and banks is the safe side, while the truth defies contradiction, and promises suffering with Christ, the crucified Saviour of the world."

So, by declaring that Christ is King is not a triumphalist slogan weaponised against others but a humble acknowledgement that God comes first, above every political movement, above every economic option, above every ideological agenda, above every expression of our narcissistic world-view. To declare that Christ is King is not the symptom of a diseased mind but actually its antidote. To declare that Christ is King is not a refutation of the cross, but, the embrace of it!

Being redeemed in Christ is the antidote for toxic social dynamics. Rather than gaslighting, we have truth; in place of narcissism, there is humility; instead of manipulation, there is a guileless spirit; in place of helplessness and powerlessness, there is the armour of God; rather than oppression, there is deliverance; instead of exhaustion and exploitation, we are made new. So, let us not be abashed or ashamed of declaring with whole-hearted conviction: Christ is King!

Sin should never be tolerated

Twenty Sixth Sunday in Ordinary Time Year B

Tolerance is a highly valued attribute in today’s culture, perhaps seen as its greatest virtue. According to this value system, the only thing which cannot be tolerated is an intolerant person. This is why Christianity, the Church and our set of moral teachings are most frequently vilified because they are perceived by the world’s magnanimous standards as rigidly intolerant. Should anyone in the Church have the audacity of proposing a set of moral norms to us, they would most likely be met with this question: “who are you to judge?”

Today’s passage is made up of two sections which provide us with what seems to be opposite ends of a spectrum. The first part seems to have an extremely tolerant and inclusive Jesus reprimanding His own disciples for their narrow-minded intolerance. However, our Lord in the second part launches into this vitriolic diatribe against those who cause scandals and in fact, even condemns them to destruction and hell fire should they fall into error. So, how do we make sense of this bi-polarity? Is our Lord Jesus the model of tolerance or intolerance? I believe the question is misguided. Our Lord is neither the epitome of tolerance or intolerance. Tolerance has nothing to do with His actions. Context is needed in reading both sections.

Let’s begin with the first section. Pay close attention to the words used by the Apostle John in his complaint to the Lord: “Master, we saw a man who is not one of us casting out devils in your name; and because he was not one of us we tried to stop him.” Take note that this man who is the subject of John’s complaint is being accused of not being “one of us,” the “us” here specifically referring to the Twelve Apostles who had been chosen and commissioned by the Lord to preach and cast out demons. There is no indication that this man is not one of our Lord’s followers; he could very well have been a disciple or follower of the Lord, as is evidenced by the fact that this man casts out demons using the name of Jesus and not his own nor by any other power. It would appear that the Apostles, or at least John, thought that this authority was exclusively theirs and they had a monopoly over these matters. They had forgotten that their authority is derived from the Lord who can choose to share it with anyone whom He chooses.

A similar situation is narrated in the first reading, where it is Joshua who complains to Moses that two men who were not part of the original group of seventy elders were now exercising the authority of prophecy. Moses answered him, “Are you jealous on my account? If only the whole people of the Lord were prophets, and the Lord gave his Spirit to them all!” This is an important reminder that the Spirit of God blows where He wills and who are we to put limits on His actions. We should be rejoicing at God's generosity rather than complain out of jealousy if He chooses to favour others. Although we must respect the freedom of God to give what He wills where He wills it, there must also be prudent discernment of spirits to ascertain whether the origin of such action or teaching is the Holy Spirit or from some other source. As St Paul reminds us in 1 Thes 5:21-22, “But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good; abstain from every form of evil.”

In the case of the gospel, our Lord provides us with a criterion of discernment: “no one who works a miracle in my name is likely to speak evil of me. Anyone who is not against us is for us.” Is our Lord advocating some form of indifferentism, that all religions, all philosophies and all churches are the same and equal paths to salvation? Notice that our Lord is not asking His disciples to accept, include and tolerate all and sundry. Blind tolerance is not the objective of the Church. Those who are the enemies of truth, the enemies of the teachings of Christ and His Church, those who serve values opposed to ours, can never be accepted nor tolerated. To tolerate such behaviour would be to work against the very mission of Christ and the commission given to the Church. It is for this reason that heresy (erroneous or false teaching), apostasy (total renunciation of the Catholic Faith) and schism (disobedience against the legitimate authority of the Church) are met with the harshest of penalties - excommunication. One cannot claim to be “with us”, if the person or persons are clearly working “against us.” For this reason, we cannot shake hands with a false gospel or cooperate with those who would lead the flock astray.

This becomes clear in the second half of the passage. Those who are in fact working against the Body of the Christ, leading others astray are to be met with zero tolerance. Don’t take it from me. Listen to what the Lord Himself had to say: “anyone who is an obstacle to bring down one of these little ones who have faith, would be better thrown into the sea with a great millstone round his neck.” The word translated as “obstacle” is “skandalon” in Greek, which literally means “to trip up, to make someone fall.” This is what scandals do - they cause others to sin. Our Lord reserved His harshest condemnation for such a scenario - it is better that they meet with a Mafia-like execution than to continue leading others into error. Traditionally, this is reflected in the Latin maxim “error non habet ius,” “error has no rights!”

The irony we see in today’s world is that maximum tolerance is accorded to all forms of depraved behaviour where sexual sins are often presented as legitimate alternative life styles which need to be recognised and celebrated. Today’s society applauds itself for being highly enlightened and open-minded and that those who would take offence with such behaviour and lifestyles are the ones who should be opposed for their rigidity and bigotry.

Rather than construing the last few statements of our Lord in today’s passage as evidence of our Lord advocating some form of hudud punishment in the form of bodily mutilation, we need to recognise the ecclesial and symbolic meaning of His words. If St Paul describes the Church as the Body of Christ, what we are seeing here is the fundamental basis for the penalty of excommunication. Excommunication excludes the offender from taking part in the Eucharist or other sacraments and from the exercise of any ecclesiastical office, ministry, or function. On the face of it, it sounds unreasonably harsh. But we need to remember that excommunication is meant to be corrective and remedial, rather than punitive. By the penalty of excommunication, the Church does not condemn anyone. Rather it is a teaching tool - it is meant to emphasise the seriousness of certain sins or offences that cuts a person off from sacramental grace. Without this warning, the person may be deluded to continue in his or her error and wrongdoing.

Certainly, there are many things which we must learn to endure - the quirks and idiosyncrasies of others. God knows we have our own annoying traits which others have to put up with for the most part. But there is something which cannot be tolerated and should never be tolerated even in the name of being nice and peaceable - it is sin. Sin corrupts not only our lives but the community. But just like God, we must show forbearance and mercy to the sinner with the hope and expectation of his repentance. If we truly love our neighbour, then it is our fundamental duty where possible to reach out and lead him or her to the truth and to righteousness. We do so not because we are envious or judgmental. Charity demands we do something to stop the rot and prevent the person from being "thrown into hell where their worm does not die nor their fire go out." Let us never forget that it is not our reputation but the salvation of every soul which is at stake.

A New Authority

Fourth Sunday in Ordinary Time Year B

“Don’t put words into my mouth” is a popular way of deflecting accusations by arguing that you have been misquoted, that your original speech has been embellished by words which do not reflect your original intent. Under these circumstances, you would not appreciate any extrapolation by others. The original words and context are always the best, or as they would say, “from the horse’s mouth.”

Despite our insistence on others keeping faithful to what we had originally said, we always appreciate novelty in speech. Innovation excites. Repetition bores. Sometimes, the truth does not matter especially when it hurts and does not work in our favour. The more fanciful the story, the more entertaining. That is why the best gossips and rumours are often the most incredulous. Who wants to know the boring truth, when you have the make-believe version that is much juicier?

Our readings today reverse the above cultural trends.

Instead of innovating with our own words and ideas, the first reading seeks to look for an ideal prophet following the archetype of Moses, someone who speaks God’s words and not his own. In fact, only God has every right to demand that we do not put words in His mouth and claim to speak on His behalf when He has not spoken these words at all. “All they have spoken is well said. I will raise up a prophet like yourself for them from their own brothers; I will put my words into his mouth and he shall tell them all I command him. The man who does not listen to my words that he speaks in my name, shall be held answerable to me for it. But the prophet who presumes to say in my name a thing I have not commanded him to say, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die.” The Lord promises to raise up another leader like Moses, a prophecy which can only be fulfilled perfectly in the person of Jesus.

In the second reading, we are reminded by St Paul that words are not sufficient in witnessing the gospel of the Kingdom. It must be matched by actions and a particular value-based lifestyle. This is why St Paul advocates the celibate life. He does so not because he believes that marriage is bad and that the conjugal life is somewhat evil. He does so because celibacy, just like marriage, is also a sign of the life of the Kingdom. Celibacy does not make sense unless the values of the Kingdom of God fill the celibate’s whole horizon.

Finally, we have a miracle story in the gospel where our Lord exorcises a man possessed with an evil spirit in the synagogue. The crowds seem impressed by our Lord’s teachings, because “unlike the scribes, he taught them with authority.” St Mark does not elaborate any further as to the meaning of this term: “authority.” We often believe that “authority” and “power” are interchangeable. Yes, although there is intersection between the two concepts, one does not immediately imply the other. Persons with authority can be made powerless and those with power may not have authority.

The original Greek used by the evangelist would help us make more sense of the differences between these two words. The Greek word for power is dunamis, from which we derive the English dynamite. Our Lord had power as evidenced by His power to perform healing miracles, raise the dead, calm storms and cast out demons. But the unclean spirits likewise had power over the humans and the animals which they possessed. The difference between our Lord and the demons is that the former had authority (exousia) to exercise that power, while the demons did not. Exousia or authority points to limits, accountability, ministry and jurisdiction. Our Lord possessed authority by virtue of His identity - being the Son of God - an identity and authority which even the demons recognised and feared. Notice that the demons did not acknowledge the authority of the scribes, Pharisees and religious establishment. In the case of our Lord Jesus, He possessed both authority and power. The demons possessed their subjects with power but without authority.

Likewise, in modern times, many people are no respecters of authority, viewing it as tyrannical and old fashioned. They fail to recognise that without authority, without true limits, jurisdiction and accountability, everything descends into sheer abuse of power. Nothing exists in a vacuum. When we reject legitimate and rightful authority, we become an authority unto ourselves. My favourite definition of a Pharisee reflects this irony - a Pharisee sees a law when there is none and breaks a law when there is one.

It is authority which links our Lord’s deeds with His words, and this is the reason why the crowds commented that our Lord teaches with authority even though they had just witnessed an exorcism, for they saw both our Lord’s teachings and His deeds are united by their common source - authority - “he gives orders even to unclean spirits and they obey him.”

One last point needs to be raised when it comes to the truth of the Word of God. The crowds also declared this after having seen our Lord’s authority over demons: “Here is a teaching that is ‘new’”. Is novelty the benchmark for truth? Modernist would argue that it is so. In their efforts to revise the teachings of Christ, the Word of God and the traditional teachings of the Church, they argue that the only criterion which matters is that all these must be in synch with the values of modern times, values which are constantly shifting and expanding, what we call “new!” What they fail to recognise is that the hallmark of Christianity is not novelty but fidelity. We will be judged not by how the Church gets in “with the times,” but how she is more perfectly faithful as a Bride of Christ, whom St Augustine calls “O Beauty, Ever Ancient Ever New.” It is Christ who makes the teachings of the Church new, not us.

Preaching in all its forms is indispensable to the Church’s mission given to her by Jesus Christ: “Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you” (Matthew 28:16-20). Such preaching cannot just be a car salesman’s pitch, rooted in half truths. It cannot just be one that tickles the imagination of our audience and entertains them with innovation and creativity. It must always be done with the authority given to us by the Lord through the Holy Spirit and not spring from self-appointment. Finally, preaching must lead others to be conformed to Christ and not to the world. The world may demand what is popular and effective but only Christ’s teachings are going to get us to heaven.

The Myth of Pastoral Charity

Solemnity of Christ the King Year A

There has been heated discussion of late as to whether one could depart from settled doctrine and revealed truth in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition by citing the all-encompassing tag phrase of modern times - pastoral charity. In other words, some would argue that the controversial moral issues of our times, including blessing same sex marriages and admitting women into holy orders, would be non-issues if we shift away from focusing on orthodoxy - right teaching - and start focusing more on orthopraxis - right practice based on pastoral charity. So, what exactly is pastoral charity? Can it be so powerful that it can justify the setting aside of truth in the name of kindness and solicitude? It is interesting that we can find our answer in today’s reading.

Let’s first examine the word “pastoral,” which comes from the Latin “pastor,” which means shepherd. The first reading gives us an excellent exposition of the work of the Shepherd King who is God. The Old Testament prophecy of Ezekiel that God will judge “between sheep and sheep, between rams and he-goats” is fulfilled in our Lord’s parable in the gospel. Although the element of judgment is found in both readings, Ezekiel’s prophecy broadens the scope of the shepherd king’s job:
He will keep all, and not just some, of his sheep in view;
He will rescue them whenever they have been scattered in mist and darkness;
He will pasture them and show them where to rest;
He will “look for the lost one, bring back the stray, bandage the wounded and make the weak strong;
He shall watch over the fat and healthy (I guess in our day and age, these two categories point to different categories at both ends of a spectrum);
Then the Lord makes this promise: “I shall be a true shepherd to them.”

When we examine the roles of the shepherd, we notice that it does not include making his sheep happy or contented in their delusion. In fact, the work of the shepherd is to challenge that very delusion and falsehood of their choices which will lead them astray in the first place. The Shepherd does not leave them to their own devices. He goes in search of them. He restores them to their home. He heals those who are wounded instead of allowing the wounds caused by sin to fester and threaten the life of the sheep. This is what it means to be “pastoral.” The shepherd is not just contented in making his sheep feel good. He challenges them so that they strive to be good, in fact, to be the best version of themselves.

How about the second word in this popular expression commonly used by many in these times - charity? For that, we must turn to the gospel. The parable of judgment in the gospel moves away from these images of the shepherd king and now seems to draw us into the narrative by ascribing to us the very responsibilities which the Shepherd King has promised to undertake. The Shepherd King is not abdicating His responsibility and authority but expecting us to act in imitation of Him. We must imitate Him in charity.

The description of the Last Judgment in the twenty-fifth chapter of St. Matthew's Gospel would shock many people if they were to read it. The principles in accordance with which Christ will pronounce sentence are inescapably clear. Did you feed and clothe the poor for My sake, He will ask, because you recognised Me in them? If you have done so, you will certainly be saved. If you have neglected to do so, you will be condemned for all eternity. Christ does not ask about anything else, because everything else is subordinate to the precept of charity. Where there is charity, everything else follows. Where charity is lacking there is nothing else because Christianity is synonymous with charity. Charity, says St. Paul, “is the bond of perfection.” (Col. 3:14)

Our eternal salvation depends on our charity. But it must be charity in action, not merely in words. “He who has the goods of this world,” says St. John, “and sees his brother in need and closes his heart to him, how does the love of God abide in him?” (1st Epistle of St. John, 3:17) Charity must be expressed in almsgiving and good works, for otherwise it would be a matter of idle talk which would be powerless to save us.

Secondly, pastoral charity which ignores or, worse, contradicts God’s revealed truth is not charity, but pseudo-charity. Such abuse of one’s pastoral role would be the greatest affront to the queen of virtues. Kindness or tenderness have their place, but when they degenerate into confirming the faithful in the commission of mortally sinful acts become a cruel caricature of the love a pastor of the Church owes to sinners when they come to him.

Thirdly, our almsgiving should not be dictated simply by natural feelings of compassion, however, nor by mere philanthropy. It should be pre-eminently a religious act, springing from supernatural motives. Because we see the person of Christ in the poor man, we should love and help him as we should our Divine Redeemer, of Whose Mystical Body he is a suffering member. This is real Christian charity.

There is one act of charity which we can all perform, even if we are poor. We can pray for those who never pray, for hardened sinners, for heretics, for those who persecute the Church, for the Missions, for the sick and dying, and for the souls in Purgatory. And for the laity, it is of utmost importance to pray for your leaders – the Pope, our bishops and priests – that they may be “true shepherds” and not false ones who lead their flock astray.

On this feast, when we remember our youth, let us also be mindful of the Church which we wish to bequeath to them on behalf of Christ the King. In wanting the best for them and future generations of Catholics, let us not delude ourselves into thinking that we can “rebuild” the Church, because we may end up, in our hubris, remaking her in our image and likeness, a false bride, instead of the “spotless bride of the spotless Lamb” (Catechism of the Catholic Church 796). Let us never forget that it is Christ who makes the Church, who renews the Church and reforms the Church. We are in Christ grafted as a branch onto the vine, and Christ is in us, feeding, making, and renewing us. Our battle cry isn’t “Yes, we can. Yes, we can!” but “Christus vincit! Christus regnat! Christus imperat!” “Christ conquers, Christ reigns, Christ commands.” He alone shall be the true Shepherd to us all!

Greatness, Humility and Authority

Thirty First Sunday in Ordinary Time Year A

Today’s readings, especially the first and the gospel, are painful passages to read and meditate. Not for you but for me as a priest. Both readings contain a list of stinging indictments against corrupt religious leaders who should have known better but are guilty of dereliction of duty and misplaced priorities.

The priests of Malachi’s day doctored the message of God which they were entrusted to transmit to their people. They wanted to be more popular with the people than faithful to God’s Word. They catered to itching ears and told folks what they wanted to hear, not necessarily what they needed to hear. And since they had deceived publicly, they were rebuked publicly. And so, Malachi accuses the priestly class of his times with these offences:
They do not listen to God;
They do not glorify His name;
They have strayed from their way;
They have caused many to stumble by their teachings;
They have destroyed the covenant of Levi;
They have not kept to the path;
They have showed partiality in their administration.

For the above reasons God will send His curse upon them and curse their very blessing. To prove to the people the error of their teaching, God will bring on them a public disgrace - He will make them “contemptible and vile in the eyes of the whole people.” A fitting repayment for their infidelity.

The harshness of Malachi’s prophetic words is outmatched by the diatribe which our Lord heaps on the scribes and Pharisees, the religious leaders of His time. Our Lord’s rant against the Pharisees’ ostentatious dressing and certain cultural norms of honour could easily be applied to the Catholic Church and serve as the perfect foundation for any ad hominem anti-clerical attack on the Catholic hierarchy, or so many think. For aren’t Catholic clergy known for dressing up in flowing robes (or as Pope Francis is fond of saying, “grandmother’s lace”), having seats of honour in churches and even social functions? Aren’t our priests simply addressed as “Father”?

Although this is not meant as a general apologia for the Catholic hierarchy, it is good to understand what our Lord meant in His scathing attack of the scribes and the Pharisees and how any superficial application of the text to support our own prejudices, would be the greatest injustice done to our Lord’s teachings. It would be literally taking His words and twisting their meaning to suit our agenda.

It is clear that our Lord was attacking the hypocrisy and self-aggrandising attitude of the religious leaders of His time. He was not making a statement about fashion styles (broader phylacteries and longer tassels, or in today’s modern update “lacey albs”) nor was He attacking the cultural norms of giving places of honour to honoured guests. Let’s be honest, hypocrisy and self-aggrandisement are not a malady that is exclusive to clerics but can infect anyone. Whenever we make show of our status or our outward practices to win men’s admiration, we are as guilty as the Pharisees and scribes described in today’s gospel.

Likewise, when it comes to calling anyone “teacher” or “father,” our Lord’s admonition is against the false assumption of any kind of title or mark of respect for self-glorification, thus detracting from the primacy of God’s authority, in a very real way putting oneself in God’s place. Our Lord was not outlawing the title “father” in legitimate usage. He Himself referred to the prodigal son’s parent as a father and quoted the commandment “Honour your father and your mother.” And He did not correct those who called Him “Rabbi” or “Master.”

Likewise, St Paul was unaware of any prohibition of the spiritual use of the title "father," telling the Corinthians: “I became your father in Christ Jesus through the Gospel” (1 Corinthians 4:15), and speaking of his relationship with Timothy said that “as a child with a father he has served along with me in the cause of the Gospel.” (Philippians 2:22) The spiritual use of father was not questioned in the Church for centuries, and Jesus’ words were never invoked to cause question or concern about the practice. Early teachers and revered spiritual guides were known as Fathers of the Church. Even the Pope is known as “Holy Father.”

At the end of the day, if our criticisms are confined to attacks on dressing, cultural practices and titles, it would only expose our superficiality. We seem to be focusing on the externals and ignoring what is fundamentally interior to a person. Wouldn’t that be an apt description of one of the major sins of the Pharisees? Although we can judge the external behaviour of another, none of us can or are qualified, to judge their intent. Our Lord could do this because He is God. Let us not flatter ourselves by thinking that we are on par with Him and can therefore do the same.

Ultimately, the key is found in the last few lines of today’s passage. And so, our Lord exhorts us to follow this standard: “The greatest among you must be your servant. Anyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and anyone who humbles himself will be exalted.” This is a standard not just meant for leaders, though they should take special heed of this, but for everyone.

It is one thing to see how a general application of our Lord’s criticism can apply to everyone, clergy, religious or laity. But as I had mentioned at the start, we priests must take heed of both Malachi’s warnings and that of our Lord’s since a greater responsibility is attached to those who are entrusted with the authority to teach and lead the people. Pope St Gregory’s words in one of his homilies remain relevant today, “We can speak only with a heavy heart of so few labourers for such a great harvest, for although there are many to hear the good news there are only a few to preach it. Look about you and see how full the world is of priests, yet in God’s harvest a labourer is rarely to be found; for although we have accepted the priestly office, we do not fulfil its demands.”

“Beloved brothers, consider what has been said: Pray the Lord of the harvest to send labourers into his harvest. Pray for us so that we may have the strength to work on your behalf, that our tongue may not grow weary of exhortation, and that after we have accepted the office of preaching, our silence may not condemn us before the just judge.” So, the next time you offer up a prayer, remember to pray for us unworthy priests, bishops and the Holy Father, the Pope.

Give to God what belongs to God

Twenty Ninth Sunday in Ordinary Time Year A

When you are a Catholic priest, most people often think that you are a walking encyclopaedia, which is a myth. It is just that we have learnt how to “wing it.” Once in a while, I’m presented with a gotcha question, a sort of Catch 22 situation, that is intended to be a trap. The price of pretending to be Mr Know-It-All. Here’s the dilemma - you will get into trouble if you give the right but unpopular answer, but you would also most likely be caught for being insincere if you give the polite answer, albeit the wrong one. It always seems to be an arbitrary choice between speaking the truth and lose friends or tell a lie, to escape trouble, although you may risk being found out eventually.

In today’s gospel, an alliance of Pharisees and Herodians, who were traditional enemies, ganged up to set a trap for the Lord. Notice how they attempt to butter up the Lord with flattery and insincere praise before springing the trap: “Master, we know that you are an honest man and teach the way of God in an honest way, and that you are not afraid of anyone, because a man’s rank means nothing to you. Tell us your opinion, then.” Despite their insincerity, their description of the Lord is accurate and valid. Our Lord Jesus is not only “an honest man” or a teacher who teaches “the way of God in an honest way,” He is the Way, the Truth and the Life. For us mortals, honesty is a virtue. For Christ, Truth is His very nature.

After stating that our Lord is an honest man of God who does not pander to the crowds, they introduce their Catch 22 scenario, “Master … Is it permissible to pay taxes to Caesar or not?” What is this tax due to Caesar? To a 21st century reader who often complains about being subjected to a myriad of taxes, from income tax to service taxes, the people who lived during our Lord’s time would have also laboured under various taxes. There was the temple tax which amounted to half a shekel levied upon every Jew, 20 years and above. There was the income tax: one percent of one’s income was to be given to Rome, and then, the ground tax or property tax: one tenth of all grain and one fifth of all oil and wine were to be paid in kind or in coinage to Rome. Finally, to further humiliate the colonised, there was the poll tax: a denarius or a day’s wage was to be paid to Rome by all men ages 14-65 and all women ages 12-65, to remind them of their subjugated status. The tax referred here as being due to Caesar would most likely belong to the last category of taxes - the poll tax.

A rejection by Jesus of the poll tax would have been reported as treason to Rome. On the other hand, if Jesus had agreed to pay it, the Pharisees would have accused Him of betraying His own people, since it would be acquiescing their continued subjugation under Roman rule. Furthermore, anyone dealing with the coin could also be accused of blasphemy and idolatry because the coin displayed an image of Caesar who is a self-proclaimed god. Discerning a plot of entrapment, our Lord cuts through the hypocrisy and political differences to the very heart of the matter, “Give back to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and to God what belongs to God.”

This saying does three crucial things. First, it acknowledges that Caesar, denoting any public authority, does have rights; that a difference does exist between the concerns of God and the concerns of Caesar. But second, our Lord desacralises – in effect, He demotes – Caesar by suggesting that Caesar has no rights over those things that belong to God. Caesar is not god. Our politicians and government are not gods. Only God is God. And thirdly, the Lord remains silent about what exactly belongs to either God or Caesar. Figuring all that out belongs to us. Now, this can be hard work because no detailed map exists because while human nature doesn’t change, human circumstances change all the time.

This saying provides us with a framework for how we should think about religion and the state even today. The Lord reminds us that Caesar does have rights. Scripture tells us that we owe secular leaders our respect and prayers; respect for the law; obedience to proper authority; and service to the common good. But it’s a rather modest list of duties. And we need to remember that “respect” for Caesar does not mean subservience, or silence, or inaction, or excuse-making or acquiescence to grave evil. Sometimes, Christians suffer from a phony unwillingness to offend civil authority that poses as prudence and good manners, but in truth, this is only a guise for cowardice. It is true that human beings owe each other respect and appropriate courtesy, but we also owe each other the truth!

In fact, the more we reflect on today’s passage, the more we realise that everything important about human life belongs not to Caesar but to God: our intellect, our talents, our free will, the people we love, Truth, the beauty and goodness in the world, our soul, our moral integrity and of course, our hope for Eternal Life. These are the things worth struggling to ennoble and defend, and none of them came from Caesar or anyone or any government who succeeded him. We owe civil authority our respect and appropriate obedience. However, that obedience is limited by what belongs to God. In reality, all belongs to God and nothing — at least nothing permanent and important — belongs to Caesar. Why? Because just as the coin bears the stamp of Caesar’s image, we bear the stamp of God’s image in baptism. We belong to God, and only to God.

All of us, Christians and non-Christians are called to be honest and persons of integrity, to speak truth even to those in power. But more than anything else, we Christians must proclaim the truth about Christ. Pope Benedict once gave this powerful exhortation to a group of pilgrims to Rome: "We cannot stoop to compromises with the love of Christ, his Word, the Truth. The Truth is the Truth and there is no compromise. Christian life requires, so to speak, the daily "martyrdom" of fidelity to the Gospel - that is the courage to let Christ grow in us and direct our thinking and our actions.” So, give to God what belongs to God … which is everything.

You are Peter

Twenty First Sunday in Ordinary Time Year A

If you are an avid follower of the Catholic blogosphere, you would certainly get the impression that the Catholic Church is deeply polarised and is spiralling completely out of control. There was a time when you would dismiss all negative commentaries as conspiracy theories and that there is no reason to panic. But today, you would find it hard to allay their fears and anxiety. As many of you may know, we are heading into another critical moment with speculations and anxiety building up about the outcome of the greatly touted Synod on Synodality, with rumours that women ordination, married priesthood, same sex marriages are on their way in. The entire Synodal process, though praised by marginalised voices as allowing them to air their views, seems to have rendered our bishops impotent - with one commentator claiming that the bishops have been reduced to “note-takers, not teachers; recording secretaries, not guarantors of orthodoxy; messenger boys, not apostolic leaders.”

In the middle of this storm is the figure of Pope Francis. Borrowing the cliched line in the Spider-Man movie, with great power comes great responsibility. Shouldn’t he be assuming the bulk of responsibility for this seeming mess? Many today would like to see him take a more proactive role to clean up the mess they see in the Church.

For those who fall on either side of the divide, whether you are an avid Pope Francis fan or against his policies or those who sit at the sidelines watching the ensuing mayhem and internal conflict unfold, it is good to remember that the office of the Pope, who is the visible guarantor of unity within the Church, has always been a controversial and divisive one, especially during major crises in the Church’s long history. During tumultuous periods of the Church’s history, the great schism between the East and the West, during the time of the anti-popes, and in the aftermath of the Protestant Reformation, the Pope has been at the very centre of controversy and division. Some see papal authority as an overreached while others view him as the anti-Christ. Has St Peter’s successor finally fallen on the wrong side of God’s plan of salvation?

It is good to return to what our Lord said in today’s passage. “You are Peter and on this rock I will build my Church. And the gates of the underworld can never hold out against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven: whatever you bind on earth shall be considered bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth shall be considered loosed in heaven.” Earlier, Peter had made a definitive declaration that Jesus is the Messiah of Jewish expectation and the Son of the Living God. In return, Jesus issues His own declaration that Peter is to be the foundation of a new and messianic temple known as the Church.

The dialogue begins with our Lord asking for a public poll: “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” Isn’t that often the way we define ourselves or rate personalities? Modern politicians often believe that the polls hold the truth. But are any of these polls conclusive? Just like real life, the opinion polls about the Lord are divided. There is no consensus as to the identity of Jesus, because His identity is the subject of revelation and not public opinion: “it was not flesh and blood that revealed this to you but my Father in heaven.” It is good to remember this when we wish to make an assessment about the papacy.

Our Lord then puts His own disciples on the spot and calls them to give a direct answer rather than relying on third party polls. This is a risky thing for both our Lord and His disciples. The disciples may not wish to end up offending our Lord by giving the wrong answer, and they could always hide behind the opinion of others. But St Peter makes this firm declaration of faith: “You are the Christ … the Son of the living God.” Peter did not only risk being humiliated by our Lord for giving the wrong answer but far more grievously, he risked being accused of blasphemy for calling Jesus “the Son of God.” But the response of Peter stands out amid the cacophony of conflicting opinions.

Just as Peter declares Jesus to be the “Messiah” and the “son of the Living God,” Jesus now returns the favour and declares Simon to be Peter, in Greek “Petros” or “Petra.” The title announces Peter’s unique role in God’s plan: “You are Peter and on this rock I will build my Church. And the gates of the underworld can never hold out against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven…” The Jewish expectation of the messiah was that he, like the original son of David (Solomon), would rebuild the Temple of the Lord. Rabbinical Judaism also believed that the foundation stone of the Temple capped off the shaft leading down to the netherworld. So, Peter is now given a comparable role in the living temple built by the Messiah, the Church, as the capstone or “rock” which seals off the forces of evil. Our Lord also entrusts Peter with the keys of the Kingdom. In the first reading, the possessor of the keys was the chief steward of the king; he was the senior official who held the most powerful government position in Israel under the king.

So, Peter and his successors were meant to be impregnable bulwark against the forces of evil and the gatekeeper who will ensure who gets into or is excluded, from the Kingdom. So, does our current crisis warrant that we question the words and promises of our Lord in today’s passage? Should the words of our Lord be read in a contingent way? Our answer must be a definite no and this answer is deeply rooted in our faith in Jesus Christ. Papal flaws are an opportunity to understand what the papacy really means, not to abandon it (or the Church).

What most Catholics fail to recognise is that throughout its 2000 years history, the Catholic Church has always been threatened with the risk of capsizing and many popes in the past and in present times have been subject to scrutiny and criticisms, some unfounded while others have some basis in reality. And yet, with all the odds stacked against these two institutions, both have somehow miraculously remained afloat! Saint Ambrose said: “The Church is like the moon; it may wane, but never be destroyed; it may be darkened, but it can never disappear.” When the Church is in greatest need, Christ comes to its help by miracles, or by raising up saintly men to strengthen and purify it. Yes, the Lord does not, and will not abandon His Church because the Lord always keeps His promises.

This is the meaning of the doctrine of “indefectibility”, a term which does not speak of the Church’s lack of defects but confesses that, despite all its many weaknesses and failures, Christ is faithful to His promise that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. The Church's indefectibility, therefore, means that she now is and will always remain the institution of salvation, founded by Christ.

So please, my fellow Catholics, the proper response when reading headlines about the corruption or destruction of the Church due to the mismanagement by her leaders is not panic or rage or despair. Rather, we should never cease or slack in praying for our Holy Father, the successor of St Peter, and for the unity of the episcopate, the successors of the Apostles. Let us continue to hold firm to the promise of our Lord: “You are Peter and on this rock I will build my Church. And the gates of the underworld can never hold out against it.”