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.

Fidelity not popularity

Fourteenth Sunday in Ordinary Time Year B

There is much talk these days about the spirit of Synodality, that the Synodal way is the way the Church must progress and move forward. One could simply describe it as the culture and attitude of different members of the Body of Christ walking together and attentively and effectively listening to each other. Most people would agree that it is a good thing to have more listening, to have ears closer to the ground, to the real issues and struggles of the people, to be able to empathise with the challenges and problems people are facing.

But there is also much disagreement as to what Synodality in practice entails. There is much misunderstanding as to what is the end game. Someone cynically gave this mischievous definition: “journeying together without a destination.” The concept begs the following questions: Is it a Parliament where people get to vote on critical issues including norms of morality and doctrine? Would sensus fidelium be reduced to public opinion where the position of the majority will rule the day? Is it all about brainstorming ideas and sentiments and then try to merge and synthesise these positions, even opposing ones, into a single all-inclusive corporate mission statement?

The answer to every one of these questions must be a clear and definite “no”! Synodality can never mean a popularity contest, neither can it entail blurring the lines between good and evil, truth and falsehood. The Church does not and cannot march along with the drumbeat of the world. We simply cannot subvert the Church and her scripture and tradition-based teachings, in order to please the world.

Certainly, we cannot ignore the world, and that’s why it’s a mistake to entrench ourselves in the past and enter into a time sealed cocoon, insulated from what is happening around us. However, we must never forget that we are in the world, but we are not of the world. This is what the readings today wish to emphasise. To be prophetic is not just being a contrarian, objecting to every mainstream opinion or dissenting with the establishment. To be truly prophetic means learning to live in the world while not being of the world. It is a call to be faithful to God’s Word while learning to communicate that Word to a world that lacks a vocabulary to understand. It is having our feet firmly planted on the ground but with our eyes constantly gazing heavenward. It is an amphibious existence.

In the first reading, we have the call of the prophet Ezekiel. This serves as a prelude to the gospel where our Lord Jesus likens the people’s reception of Him as how their ancestors treated the prophet. From the very beginning, God is laying out the difficult task and mission of the prophet. A prophet is not simply someone who foretells the future. The task of a prophet is to tell people how God sees things, for the prophet sees things as God sees them. This directness of vision is not always popular, for we don’t always like being told home truths about ourselves. The truth about ourselves is often unwelcomed, particularly when it involves criticism and demands change. But the ministry of the prophet is not dependent on the people’s reception or lack of it but rather on the call to be faithful to the mission which has been entrusted to him by God. As God tells Ezekiel: “Whether they listen or not, this set of rebels shall know there is a prophet among them.”

Our Lord in the gospel also reminds us that we should not expect a warm welcome from those who seem closest to us, especially when we choose to stand by the side of truth rather than along party or sectarian lines. As He so rightly pointed out: “A prophet is only despised in his own country, among his own relations and in his own house.”

As much as we often measure the success of our efforts by the extent of their approval, this should never be our yardstick. When it comes to our Christian witnessing, fidelity and not popularity should be the benchmark. In fact, the more faithful we are to the cause of Christ and His message, the more opposition, ridicule and even persecution would we receive at the hands of our audience. This seems counterintuitive. We would be so much more motivated when we receive positive appraisal from others. But here’s the secret which St Paul shares with us in the second reading - God assures us: “My grace is enough for you: my power is at its best in weakness.” It is for this reason that we can make our weaknesses our special boast and be content with all kinds of hardship because as St Paul rightly puts it: “For it is when I am weak that I am strong.”

Yes, we are called to a Synodal way in which we recognise that we are fellow companions on a journey. But it is a Synodal way that has a direction rather than listless wandering and an ever-changing goal post depending on the latest fads and mainstream opinions. Our direction is that whatever we do or say, our goal is to get to heaven and not settle for some transient earthly utopia that promises big things but delivers little.

We must be committed to a Synodal way that is not dictated by the complaints and erroneous ideas or sinful preferences of the unfaithful, but rather, a call to listen to and follow the Only One who matters, our Lord Jesus, no matter how unpopular His teachings may be. Synodality is a call to deeper fidelity and not a substitute for it. We must do what is pleasing to the Lord rather than seek external validation from our peers and contemporaries.

Yes, being Synodal means change, but not in the way of changing the gospel or the teachings of the Church to suit our every whim and fancy but rather to humbly acknowledge our sinfulness and undergo repentance and conversion that will lead us to a deeper and more challenging commitment to follow Christ. We must remember that our goal is not to sneak into heaven by the skin of our teeth, but to be transformed in Christ, even on earth. Yes, we must be transformed in Christ – and not into another rival of Christ. This is the ideal.

Finally, it is good to be guided by the wise words of St Ignatius of Antioch: “Our task is not one of producing persuasive propaganda; Christianity shows its greatness when it is hated by the world.”

The Truth isn't Nice

Twenty-First Sunday in Ordinary Time Year C

Many Christians, including Catholics (perhaps more so), actually believe that they are pretty good Christians and are guaranteed a place in heaven, since they are baptised (or as Catholics are fond of proudly but inaccurately stating: “born Catholic”). But the painful truth is that their version of the faith is very often one which is undemanding, customised according to their personal preferences, the dumb-down, no frills, bare minimum light version of the original.

The core teaching of this soft version of Christianity or Catholicism is the gospel of nice or ‘Moralistic Therapeutic Deism’, as one author coins it. Instead of a suffering Christ on the cross, the jovial image of Santa Claus or even a cuddly Care Bear has taken over as potent symbols of this new religion. The gospel of niceness has seeped into our own Christian culture and it has become indiscernible from the real thing. We are often too nice to say no, to question others’ opinions, to critique others’ decisions or to point out the obvious. We let people get away with stuff that is blatantly incorrect or wrong-headed, immoral or illegal, or sinful – we make excuses by being nice about it. We complain when canon law or liturgical rubrics are cited or implemented. In such a religious system, the following words and concepts are taboo and have been expunged from our vocabulary – sin, moral evil, and of course, “hell!” A God who is the personification of niceness will never tolerate hell! Never!

Here are some core beliefs of this new politically correct religion:

1. God wants people to be good, nice, and fair to each other.

2. The central goal of life is to be happy and to feel good about oneself.

3. God is not involved in my life except when I need God to resolve a problem.

4. Since no one is really bad, and sin doesn’t really exist, everyone gets to go to heaven.

So, does hell exist? In the Gospel today someone asked the Lord, “Lord, will only a few people be saved?” This is a topic most Catholics are concerned about as well. It is a difficult subject to think about and we would rather not think about it if we can. Many Catholics believe everyone will go to heaven, and that there isn’t such a thing as hell. They believe that God is loving, forgiving, merciful and would never send anyone to hell. This view, however, is simply a personal opinion! It is not based on the catechism or the scriptures, which is most evident in today’s Gospel. In fact, this belief is called the sin of presumption.

Our Lord avoided a simple straightforward answer. And this wasn’t because He felt uncomfortable with the topic as modern people would. Instead, He began to lay out the high demands of discipleship, which is a way of stating that we should never take salvation for granted. He answered the question by saying that we should strive to enter through the narrow gate and adds this sobering but significant footnote, “many will try to enter and will not succeed.” The reason for this would be that many would prefer the easier and more convenient path. As Yogi bear would often exclaim, “why do more when you can do less?”

But our Lord lays out for us a choice between two paths in life. The first is the difficult path that leads to the narrow gate and ultimately to Eternal Life. The second is the broad and easy path which leads to the wide gate and a destructive end. It is a popular error of our time to believe that it does not matter which road one takes. What’s toxic about the denial of hell is that it suggests that God doesn’t much care what we do in this life as long as everyone’s enjoying it. That’s not Christianity, that’s hedonism, the worship of enjoyment and fun.

The ‘narrow door’ which the Lord speaks of, flies in the face of the core tenets of Moral Therapeutic Deism. It is a reminder that Christianity is not a ‘free for all’ ideology. It implies that there are boundaries, there are heavy demands, there are consequences to our actions, that living according to God’s commandments would mean that one must be open to admonishment. It suggests that one should not take salvation for granted and that damnation is very real for those who choose not to go through the ‘narrow door.’ Our Lord knew that “nice people” (or at least they thought so) would have Him crucified because what He taught them would not be deemed sufficiently “nice.” Our Lord went to the cross not because He was nice or He wasn’t, that is immaterial. He willingly accepted death on the cross because He loved His people “to the end”. Love is the ultimate criterion, and not whether people get offended or not.

In the final analysis, the gospel of niceness won’t do. It isn’t salvific. It isn’t Jesus’ message. In other words, it’s a false religion that makes us feel good about ourselves – the gospel of ‘shiok sendiri’. Admit it; part of the appeal of a gospel of niceness is that it makes us feel good about ourselves. This often translates into the gospel of comfort and convenience – we know that we have subscribed to it when we complain about the uncomfortable pews, the temperature in the Church, the inconvenience of parking and of course, the long services and homilies. If the gospel is that niceness is the solution, then we’ve missed the point. Niceness won’t save you. Comfort and convenience won’t save you. In fact, the only thing the easy and soft gospel of niceness will do is to ease you into hell. You won’t know what hit you till it’s too late. On the other hand, the life, suffering, death, burial, and resurrection of a crucified Christ will be our salvation. Anything else is an idol and a false gospel.

The Gospel of Christ, paid by His own blood on the cross, is demanding. It demands that we make the ultimate sacrifice by turning our backs on wealth, power and popularity, comfort and convenience, the false gods that have become the defining elements in our lives. It demands that we burn our bridges when we have resolved to follow Jesus on the road to Calvary. It demands that we store treasures in heaven where it cannot be stolen or suffer the ravages of destruction. It demands that we avoid seeking honour among men, but strive to become rich in the sight of God. It demands passage through the narrow door. It demands that we expose the lies which Moralistic Therapeutic Deism peddles.

Charity covers a multitude of sins; but it does not call evil good; it does not give excuses for inconsistencies; it does not hide the inconvenient truth with a dressed-up lie. Crookedness and worldliness are still crookedness and worldliness, sin remains sin even if you choose to sugar-coat it. In the final analysis, it is not love nor is it broad-mindedness, when we allow people to follow their own erroneous ways, paths that may ultimately lead them to destruction. It is always the loving thing to help people choose the narrow and hard path, which will remain unpopular, because the Cross will never be a popular option, but it is most necessary for our salvation.

Love demands judgement

Eighth Sunday in Ordinary Time Year C

Fr Bonaventure and I take frequent jibes at each other, with criticisms ranging from external appearances to annoying personal quirks. I guess it’s the price we pay for staying together and it keeps Brother Jonathan entertained with our daily Laurel-and-Hardy antics. Married couples would know what I am talking about. At close proximity, every wrinkle would look like a ridge of the Grand Canyon, a blemish like a black wormhole in deep space and a mole like the planet Jupiter. Of course, this is all hyperbole.

We often protest at how others are being judgmental. We hate being judged. But the truth is that, everyone expresses some form of judgmentalism. Accusing someone else of being judgmental merely exposes our own judgmentalism. Aren’t we judging the other when we accuse them of being judgmental? Of course, many of us are fond of excusing ourselves. It’s always “Rules for Thee, but not for me!” But the bigger question should be: “Can we judge without being judgmental?” And the answer is “we most certainly can and we should”.

Firstly, we make judgments all the time. It’s part of being human. If I see water falling from the sky, I make a judgment, “It’s raining.” If I see an attractive girl, I make a judgment, “Wow! She’s really beautiful!” When we choose which outfit to wear for the day, we are making a judgment. All this is stating the obvious, of course. But we also make judgments with regards to what we consider “good” or “bad” for us or even for others. I don’t smoke because I know it’s bad for my health. That’s a judgment. When you see your young child run into the street, you will stop her for fear that she may get run over by a car. That’s making a judgment. But let’s take this a step further. If I see my friend’s husband sleeping around with other women (provided that I have clear proof and not just making a conjecture), can I make a judgment that this is not good for his marriage and family, and that it is not morally good for him too? Can adultery ever be a good thing or is it neutral? And if it is always a bad thing, wouldn’t that be making a judgment?

It is clear from these few examples, that making a judgment is something necessary and is essentially what makes us human. However, though we may make judgments about things, situations and a person’s actions and words, we are in no position to judge their motive or the interior of a person, the heart. Only God can make that judgment. Our Holy Father, Pope Francis gives us an important reminder, “Each person’s situation before God and their life in grace are mysteries which no one can fully know from without.”

Today, we live in a culture that promotes and preaches non-judgmentalism, by which they mean one can never impose one’s own set of morality on another. We would agree that we should not be judgmental, if this means not judging someone’s intention or soul, as we were privy to this. But to choose to suspend all judgment is simply wrong. Judgment is necessary especially when love demands it. And this is love: to will the good of another. Being free of sin and on the road to salvation is the ultimate “good” for the other. Sitting back and saying nothing, however, is not the loving thing to do. Indifference does not equal love. We can be nice and polite to people who make bad choices. We may even tolerate their decisions. But do we really “love” them? In the end, such a mentality of “tolerance” encourages us to be unconcerned about the people around us and neglect our responsibilities toward them.

But that’s not how our Lord lived. Our Lord was anything but indifferent to others. He didn’t say, “who am I to judge? … whatever works for them … different strokes for different folks!” Saying that our Lord never came to judge is one of the most grievous but popular false caricatures of Him. In a way, we are choosing to make Jesus in our image and likeness so that we may justify our actions and make ourselves feel better about our behaviour and lifestyle.

On the contrary, our Lord shows us the two essential sides of love, a soft side of mercy, compassion, and acceptance, and a firm side that constantly calls us to conversion. Truth is not the antithesis of Love or vice versa. Charity seeks truth and truth serves charity. On the one hand, our Lord loved everyone, even in their weaknesses – He came for sinners. On the other hand, our Lord persistently challenged people to repent from evil. And He did this because He loved them and knew they would be happiest when they live according to God’s plan. And that is why admonishing the sinner is a spiritual act of mercy, and not meanness.

At the end of last week’s Gospel, our Lord challenged us: “Be compassionate as your Father in Heaven is compassionate!” True compassion must always be at the heart of judging. That is why it is so important that we recognise and address the plank in our own eye before taking issue with the splinter in our brother’s eye. Our Lord is not asking us to disqualify ourselves from making any judgment, since no one is perfect. Our Lord is setting out a vision of the integrity between what we are and what we say. Being judgmental is actually being inconsistent. We claim the right to judge others but we refuse to be judged. If we face the truth about ourselves (the so-called “plank” in the eye) and acknowledge our own daily struggles with sin, we are less likely to set ourselves up in judgment over others in a “judgmental” sort of a way. If we recognise how much we need God’s mercy, then our hearts will be much more compassionate when we encounter other people’s faults. St Bernard tells us that, “if you have eyes for the shortcomings of your neighbour and not for your own, no feeling of mercy will arise in you but rather indignation. You will be more ready to judge than to help, to crush in the spirit of anger than to instruct in the spirit of gentleness.”

We are called to be judges, but all too often we are unfit to judge. But nevertheless, we must judge between good and evil; we cannot shirk our duties to correct error and to rebuke sin in others. In fact, our Lord gave us an important cue with regards to making judgments – “every tree can be told by its own fruit” which repeats a theme found in the first reading. We can and we should judge, but if we are to judge, we do so based on the actions and words of the other rather than presume that we can read minds and hearts. If we are to judge, let us first judge ourselves. And just as we are called to correct, we must also be open to correction ourselves. Above all, if we are to judge, let us do so with compassion and love, “in the spirit of gentleness”, knowing that all of us would have to meet our Lord on the Last Day, who sits in judgment over both the living and the dead, and He will judge us by using the same measure which we have applied to others.

Is there more?

 Fifth Sunday in Ordinary Time Year B

The words of Job in the first reading, spoken after he had lost everything - his children, his home, his wealth and his friends - and as he sits on a dung heap ruminating in self-pity, can resonate with so many of us as we are similarly weighed down by the drudgery of our daily routine. A bitter irony of modern life is just when computers and robots should give people more time for creativity and relaxation, the opposite is often the case for many, a continued life of drudgery.

To paraphrase Job’s rhetorical question, “is there more to life than this?” What is the purpose of life? If drudgery stems from finding no purpose in our work, in our relationships or even in our existence, finding purpose in life would be its antidote. This is the reason why people experience listlessness and boredom in life. When they no longer see a purpose for what they are doing - whether it is in the form of better remuneration, or reciprocated love, or positive appraisal from others, or greater power and influence - they lose interest.

Today, both St Paul and our Lord in the gospel we’ve just read, spell out the purpose for our Christian life - it is to preach the gospel and work for the salvation of souls. And unlike other kinds of work, the work of evangelisation, as St Paul reminds us “is a duty which has been laid on” us; “it is a responsibility which has been put into (our) hands.”

In the gospel reading, we find our Lord being pressed by His own disciples to resume the work of performing miracles, healing the sick and delivering the possessed from demonic affliction. It is a tiring job, to say the least. But this is not the reason why our Lord refuses to accede to His disciples’ request and meet people’s expectations. He is ultimately guided by a higher purpose: “Let us go elsewhere, to the neighbouring country towns, so that I can preach there too, because that is why I came.”

Our Lord could have been tempted to continue His works of healing and attending to the needs of the crowd, but this would only be an excuse to become more popular. Staying to meet the needs of the people would only be an excuse for meeting His own need for recognition and love. But He understood that His mission laid elsewhere, even though this may prove to be unpopular with His disciples and the crowds.

As Christians, how do we stay motivated? Our Lord provides us with three essential coordinates to stay focused on our goal and remain steadfast in our resolve.

The first coordinate is that the will of God must always be our starting point and our point of reference. All other things are constantly in flux - health, relationships, work, emotions - but only one thing remains constant - it is God. As St Teresa of Avila wisely puts it: “all things passes, only God remains.” Since God is the eternal constant, the anchor and safe harbour we possess in this tumultuous sea of life, He must be the measure of everything we do and say.

In this light, we must remember that it is never enough to do good, even if it is good done to and for others. The starting point cannot just be the needs of the other; the starting point cannot just be our assessment of what is convenient or expedient; the starting point cannot just be based on the opinions of the masses, even if it may be that of the majority. Ultimately, we must always choose to do what God wants of us. This criterion points to God’s mission and vocation for us. Sometimes, doing what God wants of us can be unpopular and may even go against our personal likes and interests.

The second coordinate is that of prayer. Note that our Lord went off into the hills to pray. How can we possibly know the will of God unless we are also persons rooted in prayer? Prayer is the life-giving link between God and His people. Prayer provides us with a moral compass and direction in life. Prayer ensures that we are not lost in the mess of activism nor allow ourselves to be distracted and tempted by the competing voices of the world and self. Prayer helps us to purify our motives and intentions so that we may not deceive ourselves into believing that we are acting in the interests of others, whereas it is our own interests which are being advanced.

The last point is that all our activities must ultimately be orientated to work for the salvation of souls. Today, very little is often said about salvation, what more salvation of souls. Too often, the Christian message has been reduced to some ‘feel good’ gospel which provides a mixture of pop psychology and spirituality for our earthly lives. And during a pandemic, safety seems to have replaced salvation. But, if one were to recall the answer to the second question contained in the old Penny Catechism, one will be reminded that salvation is man’s ultimate purpose – we are created by God “to know Him, love Him and serve Him and be with Him in Paradise forever.”

The last canon of the Code of Canon Law, canon 1752 has often been erroneously cited as the ‘pastoral canon’, a perfect excuse to dispense with every rule, restriction, prohibition and responsibility laid out in the Code. Any simple reading of canon 1752 will tell you that this canon has no intention of doing this. If one were to study this canon, one may be surprised to see that the word ‘pastoral’ or ‘pastoral reasons’ does not appear at all. Fr Dominic is fond of saying that when we priests cite this canon or “pastoral reasons” to break the law, the real motive is not “pastoral reasons,” but “Pastor’s reasons.” This is what the canon actually says: that “the salvation of souls, which must always be the supreme law in the Church, is to be kept before one’s eyes.’ St. Paul in today’s second reading affirms this truth by telling his readers that he deliberately chose to be “all things to all men” so that “some may be saved.”

It is not enough to choose to help people who are in need. We may just be providing temporary relief. It is not enough that we are able to provide some human solution to poverty, because we will always have the poor in a society which remains indifferent to injustice. Ultimately, the objective of salvation must come to play in every important decision that we make. Salvation must be the ultimate criteria for us offering to help those in need, the sick, the poor, the despondent and the lost. No form of human altruism can be an adequate substitute for salvation.

Very often we are tempted to forget this important mission of ours – to preach the gospel of salvation and give glory to God in all matters. We are more concerned with what others think of us – we want to be crowd-pleasers. We are more concerned with what makes us happy – even if that happiness is only temporary – whether it is in the form of riches, popularity, power or convenience. If our life purpose is based on these factors rather than on the will of God, we will soon find ourselves disillusioned and tired. Only by living and doing things according to God’s will can we truly escape from drudgery.

For God or Caesar?

Twenty-Ninth Sunday in Ordinary Time Year A

Just as our Lord was subjected to numerous interrogations by His detractors, many of us had witnessed a similar interrogation of Amy Coney Barret, the newest candidate for the position of Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States. She was primarily drilled on the role and influence of her Catholic faith in her jurisprudence. One of her interrogators had earlier made this assertion, “the dogma lives loudly within you, and that’s of concern.” What was being called into question was her ultimate allegiance – would she choose God over Caesar? Would her allegiance to the state be compromised by her faith in God?

Let’s look at our Lord’s answer in today’s gospel. The enemies of our Lord, before asking Him His opinion, begin their questioning with a piece of false flattery, “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.” Instead of acknowledging His moral and doctrinal authority, the Pharisees were actually challenging it. The Pharisees believed that they, alone, were the authoritative interpreters of Jewish law. By appealing to Jesus' authority to interpret God's law, the questioners hoped to force Jesus into a corner by answering the question. If He taught that it was not lawful under Jewish Law to pay taxes to Caesar, He would be committing treason. If He agreed that it was lawful to pay such taxes, He would lose credibility with the Jewish people who hated the Romans and their taxes, a humiliating sign of their subjugation. It was a Catch 22 meant to trap our Lord: either answer would have condemned Him.

Our Lord immediately recognises the trap. Instead of jumping into the political discussion, our Lord raises it to a theological one. He curiously requests to see the coin. We need to remember that it is not necessary for our Lord to possess the coin to answer their question. He could certainly respond without seeing the coin. The denarius, minted with the image of the emperor, was truly the emperor’s currency and property. It was also a major instrument of imperial propaganda. The inscription proclaimed that the emperor is the “Worshipful Son of the God, Augustus”. It imposes the cult of emperor worship and his sovereignty upon all who transact with it. Either consciously or inadvertently, they were acknowledging that he is the son of God.

The questioners' quickness to produce the coin at our Lord’s request exposes their hypocrisy. The coin being in their possession implies that they routinely used it, whereas Jesus did not. Moreover, this episode takes place in the Temple, and by producing the coin, the questioners reveal their religious hypocrisy – they bring a profane and idolatrous item, a pagan currency, with a graven image, into the sacred precinct of the Temple.

After seeing the coin, Jesus then poses a two-part counter-question, “Whose head is this? Whose name?" This harkens to two central provisions in the Torah. The first commandment (or the second) prohibits worship of anyone or anything but God, and it also forbids crafting any image of a false god for adoration, God demands the exclusive allegiance of His people. Second, our Lord is alluding to the Shema. The Shema is the most important prayer a pious Jew can say. It commences with the words, “Hear (Shema), O Israel, the Lord is our God — the Lord alone.” This opening line stresses Israel's worship of God to the exclusion of all other gods. The Prophet Isaiah in the first reading reiterates this declaration of faith, “I am the Lord, unrivalled; there is no other God besides me.” The head or image of Caesar on the coin clearly violated all these provisions.

Having understood the scriptural background of this passage, we can see how this is a most richly ironic passage. In this deeply ironic scene, we have the Son of God and the High Priest of Peace, newly-proclaimed by His people to be a King, holding the tiny silver coin of a king who claims to be the son of a god and the high priest of Roman peace. The whole question raised by the Pharisees of whether one should pay taxes to the state dissolves into triviality in the face of the One who stands before them. Caesar, the pretender king and son of God, can never hope to hold up a torch to the true King and Only Begotten Son of God, Jesus Christ, our Lord and Saviour.

Finally, our Lord tells His interrogators, “Give back to Caesar what belongs to Caesar – and to God what belongs to God.” This cryptic response begs the question: What belongs to God and what belongs to Caesar? In the Hebrew tradition, everything rightfully belonged to God, even mankind, since we were made in the image and likeness of God. Our Lord is reminding His interrogators that we owe God exclusive allegiance and total love and worship. The problem is that the emperor also made similar claims, as does the modern state. But Caesar is not God. It is true that we owe civil authority our respect and obedience but that obedience is limited by what belongs to God. It must never be forgotten that all things belong to God, even Caesar’s.

Several principles can be drawn from this last axiom of our Lord:

First, all political leaders draw their authority from God.  We owe no leader any submission or cooperation in the pursuit of grave evil.  In fact, we have the duty to change bad laws and resist grave evil in our public life, through non-violent actions, such as exercising our right to vote.

Second, in democracies, we elect public servants, not messiahs. We have been having a slew of poor to horrendously corrupt leaders. If the current claims of a certain politician are true, we may be witnessing another historic moment in an already politically historic year – three Prime Ministers in the course of a single year. Although we must demand the highest standards from our elected (and sometimes unelected) leaders, let’s stop treating our politicians as messiahs.

Thirdly, as words and platitudes are useless if not translated into action, it doesn’t matter what we claim to believe in, if we’re unwilling to act on our beliefs. Our faith is not just one confined to the temple as if God is just confined to the Temple. Our faith permeates every aspect of our lives because all things belong to God and we should give back to God what belongs to Him.

As Archbishop Chaput taught, “We serve Caesar best by serving God first. We honour our nation best by living our Catholic faith honestly and vigorously, and bringing it without apology into the public square.  We’re citizens of heaven first.  But just as God so loved the world that he sent his only Son, so the glory and irony of the Christian life is this:  The more faithfully we love God, the more truly we serve the world.” To the question, “Will our faith in God compromise our duties to the state?”, our answer is an unequivocal “No!” By being better citizens of the Kingdom of God, Christians do not become poorer but better citizens of the kingdoms of this world.

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.”

Seek Wisdom not just Knowledge

Seventeenth Ordinary Sunday Year A

We are bombarded with information like never before, due to the internet. Research is made easy with Google search engine and Wikipedia. But the real setback and downside of this informational deluge is that we are unable to separate the wheat from the darnel, the true from the false. We have more information than we can ever process at our finger-tips, but little wisdom. In fact, wisdom can be shattered by too much information.

That begs the question, what is wisdom? In Greek, the New Testament word for wisdom is ‘Sophia’. To be wise to a Greek meant to understand a concept, to analyse something. That's not the word in Hebrew. The word in Hebrew is ‘chakam’. The concept of wisdom in the Old Testament is a form of practical knowledge – How do we make correct choices in life? Biblical wisdom is not simply factual knowledge or information. Neither is it some clever opinion. Rather, it is being able to see things as they really are and make the right decisions. Wisdom helps us to distinguish Truth from falsehood, the good from the bad. This was the kind of wisdom that King Solomon had asked for – the ability to grasp the mind of God, His Laws and to distinguish good from evil. Strangely, this is the same knowledge coveted by Adam and Eve, and which they attempted to steal from Eden. They failed to recognise that they already had this gift at their disposal. They only had to listen to God and trust Him. God would tell them what is good and what is evil. Such wisdom was God’s to give, not for them to steal.

The two parables in today’s gospel, the parable of the hidden treasure and the pearl of great price, give us several insights into Wisdom. First, the parables highlight the incomparable value of Wisdom. A single-hearted response is demanded of the one who finds the Kingdom of Heaven. Both protagonists didn’t haggle over price. They didn’t complain about the cost. On the contrary, they made their transactions joyfully, because what both men stood to gain was so tremendous that it made any cost, any sacrifice, insignificant in comparison. In the eyes of the world, their actions would have been regarded as foolishness. Only Wisdom would show that they had made the most significant investment of their lives.

Secondly, the parables teach us that Wisdom is never easily accessible. In both parables, the treasures are hidden, they are not easily accessible, they are sacred. In today’s society, the idea of mystery and ‘hiddenness’ is often associated with elitism. Most people demand accessibility. The problem is that accessibility is often mistaken for banality. In our effort to ensure accessibility to all and sundry, we have chosen to lower the bar that was set by our Lord Himself. Our catechism becomes dumbed-down, our liturgies are replaced with entertainment, our homilies become nothing more than stating the obvious.  On the contrary, our faith and worship seek to express the mystery of the holy and the eternal, and not just what is current and transitory. When a mystery becomes totally comprehensible, it ceases to be sacred. When a treasure is no longer hidden, it ceases to have value. Familiarity breeds contempt.

The parables also remind us that the most valuable thing in life demands sacrifice. Both of these parables involve men who had to make great sacrifices, selling everything that they had to obtain their treasures. Salvation comes at a heavy cost; it came at the cost of our Saviour’s life.  Unfortunately, our generation is a generation that wants everything easy. We want to enjoy all the blessings of the kingdom, but we don’t want to do anything, we don’t want to give anything, and we certainly don’t want to sacrifice anything. Even though great sacrifice is required, it is never a burden. Holy Wisdom will help us appreciate that the Kingdom is always a source of Joy. Notice the joy of the discovery, as well as the joy of parting with one’s possessions to acquire that treasure or the pearl of great price. These men do not just sell everything they have, but they do so with exuberant joy. There is no regret in their actions. Perhaps the real test of a disciple’s commitment is not so much whether he is willing to make sacrifices for our Lord, but whether he is able to make those sacrifices joyfully, without complaining.

Finally, Wisdom is not just a philosophical concept nor practical knowledge on how we should live our lives. In fact, Scriptures would eventually speak of wisdom as a personified attribute of God. Wisdom is a person. Christ Himself is the “power and wisdom of God” (1 Cor 1:24). Christ is the Perfection and the Incarnation of Wisdom. St Irenaeus reminds us that Christ himself “is the treasure hidden within Scriptures” and according to St Augustine, He is the pearl of great price. That is why for those who have discovered that He is their true treasure and the pearl of incomparable price, other things in this world cease to have value in their eyes. As St Paul puts it, “because of the supreme advantage of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, I count everything else as loss. For Him I have accepted the loss of all other things, and look on them all as filth if only I can gain Christ.” (Philippians 3:8)

To Tolerate or Not?

Sixteenth Sunday in Ordinary Time Year A

There is a wonderful legend of how Abraham offered hospitality to a visitor, as was his custom each day. But on that day, it was a fire worshipper, presumably a Zoroastrian (who if you were to fact-check, does not actually worship fire). Of course, his guest’s identity had remained a secret until the moment when Abraham asked him to offer prayers of thanksgiving for the meal. The ‘cat was out of the bag’ when the guest began to pray in his own fashion. Abraham flew into a rage and threw him out of his tent. When Abraham had composed himself and began to pray, God spoke to him: “I had tolerated this man who does not worship me for all the years of his life and showed him hospitality. Could you not tolerate him for one night?”

Tolerance is not such a difficult word to understand. Tolerance is allowing something or someone to just be. Yes, we all believe that there must be some level of tolerance to get along in a society of people with disparate viewpoints, ideas, religions and cultures. But it is alarming to note that we are living in an increasingly intolerant society.

The irony is that this growing intolerance is often not brought about by our stereotypical bigoted close-minded conservatives. Surely there are many intolerant people to be found among conservatives. But today, intolerance largely comes from progressive people who wish to create a utopian ideal of a world where everything and everyone should be tolerated, except those who disagree with their vision or methods. They have to be “cancelled.”

Let’s be clear, as Christians, some things should always be tolerated and other things should never be tolerated. Persistent unrepentant sin should never be tolerated. Why should we be so intolerant to sin? Sin is like a cancer that, if left untreated, leads to death. It is never merciful or charitable to tolerate sin. In fact, it is a lack of mercy and love, if we choose to allow sin to fester and grow without challenging it. As St Paul wrote to the Christians in Rome, “What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?” (Romans 6:1, 2).

If sin is never to be tolerated, how about sinners? Here’s the amazing thing - sinners should always be tolerated. Why? Well, people can, and they do change. They may have done many bad things in their lives but they need not be defined by these bad things for the rest of their lives. Their condition is not irredeemable. That’s the power of grace and repentance. Every saint has a past and every sinner can have a different future.

All sinners have the potential of becoming saints. We must believe that people can change. This is an important truth that we must hold on to and even defend because we should never forget that we are all sinners who have sinned and would most likely continue to sin. When we look at how Jesus interacted with sinners who were in need of salvation, we learn that tolerance toward sinners was the key to how He reached out to them. Until a sinner dies, there is always hope for repentance, there is always hope for conversion, there is always hope for salvation.

This is the message of hope that we find in today’s parable. The parable of the wheat and the darnel reminds us that our families, our communities, our society and even our Church will always be a mixture of good and bad. On this side of heaven, nothing is perfect. The more astonishing truth is that the good and the bad that we see around us also resides within each of us. Before we try to rid society and the world completely of the evil we see, we should begin with ourselves. Let me assure you that this is a life-long project. I should know. I’m still working on my issues with the grace of God.

Throughout our lives we must strive against the evil that not only surrounds us but that which lurks within our hearts. We must never resign ourselves to sin or retreat from the battle. Although we must constantly strive against evil, let us not be deluded to think that we will be able to rid ourselves completely of all sin and our propensity to sin, or that we can create a perfect Utopian society. We need to remember that Utopia does not exist because, save for Jesus Christ and His mother Mary, the world is made up of imperfect individuals. In fact, the word Utopia comes from two Greek words which means, no place.

God tolerates sinners, God tolerates us and all our nonsense while we are alive, not because He tolerates or even approves of sin. He tolerates us because in His wisdom, love and mercy, He knows that there is always hope for us to turn from our wicked ways and turn to Him in love and repentance. That’s the gift of human freedom. In the Second Reading, we are told that the Holy Spirit “comes to help us in our weakness.”

The Psalmist tells us that the Lord is “good and forgiving,” but make no mistake, He is also a God of Justice. There will be a day of reckoning, a day of judgment. God may tolerate our countless mistakes while we are alive, but He will not tolerate sin a day longer after death. Let us, therefore, not go to our graves stubbornly clinging on to sin, because at the appointed harvest time, God will say to the reapers: “First collect the darnel and tie it in bundles to be burnt, then gather the wheat into my barn.” May we find ourselves among the wheat at that appointed day, instead of being bundled with the darnel.

Where God is honoured, not man

Solemnity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, King of the Universe

Recently, I’ve been following a Taiwanese miniseries playing on the HBO Channel – The Teenage Psychic. I know – the name sounds “cheesy” and the plotline, perhaps, even ‘cheesier’. The protagonist is a teenage school girl, who also happens to work as a temple medium, a psychic who communicates with the spirit world. In its second season, we are witnessing a growing rivalry between our heroine’s guardian and care-giver, and his techno-savvy brother, both of them owners and operators of temples based on entirely different philosophies – the former runs a conventional traditional temple dedicated to a pantheon of Taoist deities and his techno-savvy younger brother operates a digital age New Age Spirituality centre – no stuffy incense smoke nor scary effigies – a modern religion for the modern man.

The rivalry between the two brothers escalates when one of the disciples of the former, the brother with the traditional temple, chooses to defect to his brother’s camp. When questioned by the younger brother on the reason for his defection, the disciple says that he wishes to move on with the times. The techno-savvy brother makes this poignant point by explaining the fundamental difference between his centre and his brother’s temple. He writes the Chinese character for ‘god’ or ‘deity’ and explains that in his brother’s more traditional temple, it is the gods who are honoured, the gods who are placated and it is the gods who matter. But in his popular and modern set-up, after writing the character for ‘man,’ he explains that the success of his enterprise is due to the fact that people are at the centre – “We cater to people’s needs, to their wants. The gods have nothing to do with it.”

This astute observation is why we are celebrating today’s feast. The Feast of Christ the King, originally celebrated on the last day of October, was established by Pope Pius XI in 1925 as an antidote to secularism; a way of life where man believes himself to be at the centre, which leaves God out of his thinking and living and organises his life as if God did not exist. In Quas Primas, the encyclical of Pope Pius XI that established this feast, the venerable pope noted that “the majority of men had thrust Jesus Christ and his holy law out of their lives; that these had no place either in private affairs or in politics.” In the aftermath of what was called the Great War, society found itself on the brink of disaster. Most predominantly Catholic countries had fallen under anti-Catholic secularist regimes. Christian Europe could no longer claim to be Christian as a consequence of the widespread destruction engineered and inspired by the French Revolution and later by the Enlightenment. Orthodox Christian Russia had fallen under the Bolsheviks and their communist ideology. What united all these states and their governments was their common belief and conviction that the political and economic solutions they offered actually catered to the needs and wants of the people. God or Christ have nothing to do with it.

This, of course, is contrary to what the Church teaches. Pope Pius XI writes that “as long as individuals and states refused to submit to the rule of our Saviour, there would be no really hopeful prospect of a lasting peace among nations. Men must look for the peace of Christ in the Kingdom of Christ.” There can be no real peace or salvation, if God is not part of the equation.

Unfortunately, there are so many who reject the kingship of our Lord Jesus Christ because it seems outdated and alien. We live in a democratic age, and democracy, for all of its strengths, can also make people deaf to the language of faith. Alexis de Tocqueville, the famous French political historian, described the difference between democratic man, and all of human history before the democratic age, as the difference between “two distinct humanities.” Democratic man instinctively distrusts any form of inequality, privilege or hierarchy. All legitimacy in a democracy flows from the sovereign individual and the state he helps create. But the Church makes a very different claim. The Church humbly recognises that her authority, indeed her very existence, flows not from human machinations and projects but mystically from the very side of our Crucified and Risen Lord, who reigns supreme from the throne of His cross. 

For centuries, men have deluded themselves by thinking that they could determine their destinies apart from God. Power over the natural world, seemingly granted by science and new technology, fed human vanity and man’s illusions of security. We think that we can call the shots. This is the extent of our delusion: we want to be gods but we’re not.  We want to create ourselves and our world, but we can’t. We see God and religion as threats to our power and sovereignty and Man will not tolerate any rivals. What we forget is that one little virus, one drunk driver, one “freak” accident, is all it takes to end our plans.

Unfortunately, the idea of man dethroning God is not just exclusive to a secular unbelieving world. Many within the Church today, in their quest to make the Church more relevant and trendy, have chosen to dethrone Him by placing man at the centre of religion. Just like the point made by the techno-savvy guru in the miniseries, God is no longer honoured, God is no longer placated, God is no longer pleased. It is easy to give in to a style of religion which is popular, a religion which claims to cater to the needs and wants of its constituents, a religion that follows and imitates the latest fad, a religion where man is at the centre. But such a religion is a false religion. A false religion is a scheme of making God available to man for man’s glory, and plans where God is dethroned and robbed of His glory. Such religion cannot save.

Such is the description given of the Antichrist in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. “Before Christ's second coming the Church must pass through a final trial that will shake the faith of many believers. The persecution that accompanies her pilgrimage on earth will unveil the “mystery of iniquity” in the form of a religious deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth. The supreme religious deception is that of the Antichrist, a pseudo-messianism by which man glorifies himself in place of God and of his Messiah come in the flesh.” (CCC 695) The thing that makes the Antichrist the Antichrist is not that he openly hates Jesus Christ — that’s a given — but that he offers a brilliant fake version of the Christian gospel. It would appear that the Church is indeed presently wrapped and blinded by this “mystery of iniquity” as she struggles with a myriad of troubles: sexual abuse, financial corruption, doctrinal relativism, homosexuality, threats of schisms and heresies and the doubts of the faithful who see the Church’s enemies even in their midst.

Man-made and man-centred religions always seek to reach salvation through human effort. In his hubris, man believes that he can save the world without any assistance from God. But true Christianity preaches, “May it never be that I should boast, except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world” (Gal. 6:14). Here at the cross, we see both a wondrous and scandalously mind-boggling coronation. The cross strips us of our pride and puts all our hope in the merits of the Saviour. In Him alone, the One who reigns from the throne of the cross, will we find our hope and salvation. And so, despite the violence of the attacks that the Church must continue to weather, she will not die. That is the promise of the Lord, and His words are infallible. If we wish to weather the storm, we must “bend the knee” to the King of Kings. We must renew our devotion. We must never cease to pray and cry out to God in supplication for the Church, her shepherds and the world. We must attest once again through our prayers, our deeds, our very being, that our sole purpose is to honour God and please Him, not man. Long Live Christ the King!