Love is sacrificial

Twenty Seventh Sunday in Ordinary Time Year B

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

These three simple truths are as follows:

God made humanity male and female.

God intended marriage to be a permanent commitment for life.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In His Name

Twenty Sixth Sunday in Ordinary Time Year B

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The face of Greatness

Twenty Fifth Sunday in Ordinary Time Year B

The behaviour of the Lord’s disciples, is both pitiful and amusing. Once again, He attempts to prepare them for what lies ahead by spelling it out clearly: “The Son of Man will be delivered into the hands of men; they will put him to death; and three days after he has been put to death he will rise again.” This is the second time our Lord speaks to them of His passion and yet, they remain confounded but were too ashamed to seek clarification. Perhaps, they did not want a repeat of what happened to Peter when our Lord publicly and harshly rebuked him. Or perhaps they were terrified that their worst fears might be confirmed - that our Lord will die as He had predicted.

There is deep irony in the disciples’ misplaced attention. Our Lord had barely finished describing His humiliating and excruciating death, and they are already conspiring to grab some glory of their own. We can only imagine what they were thinking as our Lord repeated His disturbing prediction. “We healed people in your name. We hung with you when others rejected you. We handed out the bread and fish to the 5,000. Don’t we deserve a little more than everyone else?” It’s ironic, foolish, and entitled thinking but it’s also outrageous and tragic.

But perhaps there is a little more understanding this time round. The fact that they were in the midst of discussing who is the greatest, may suggest that they were preparing for a succession plan - who will take over the mantle of leadership after our Lord’s departure? And in their simple but not so unreasonable reasoning, they believed that the most important criterion is this - the one who possesses all the necessary qualities to step into those massive shoes of our Lord - in other words, the one who is the greatest among them.

As they argued about the proper criteria which greatness is to be measured, they failed to see that our Lord had already shown them the example of greatness demonstrated by His own willingness to accept the cross - and they had totally missed this because their definition of greatness would have excluded failure, defeat, and humiliation. Suffering wasn’t on their checklist. They found this confusing and even offensive. Christ had just emphasised the reality of His death, and that His followers must follow Him, but these images of powerlessness and sacrifice have had little impact on the disciples’ values. They are grasping for power and status in the kingdom of heaven, whilst avoiding the cross.

Instead of hearing our Lord talk about His death and redefining greatness in terms of sacrifice — in terms of coming in last, for the sake of love — they are still fighting to be first. But our Lord had to remind them, “If anyone wants to be first, he must make himself last of all and servant of all”. This flies against the common understanding of greatness which entails priority or superiority over others. Great men are expected to have more influence, prestige and power over ordinary folks.

Instead, our Lord turns human thinking on its head: the only way for a Christian to be great is to put oneself last in priority. And this is not just a pious thought but must be expressed in concrete action - one must become a servant of all. In both the ancient and modern world, meekness and even humility are not seen as natural ingredients for success but rather, signs of weakness. The powerful expect to be served and showered with honour and only the weak end up shamefully having to serve others. But according to our Lord, true greatness will often engender weakness, surrender, defeat, and even death.

How would true Greatness look like? We have seen it as St John attests: “We are declaring to you what we have seen and heard, so that you too may share our life. Our life is shared with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ” (1 John 1:3). Jesus Christ is the face of greatness! When true Greatness came into our world, He was born in a stable and laid in a feeding trough for animals. He walked from town to town without a home, without a place to stay. He made some headlines with His message and miracles, but He made many more enemies. When the Son of God came, calling lowly fishermen to be His disciples, He kneeled and washed their filthy, undeserving feet. The King of kings — the greatest of all time — humbled Himself to the point of death, even the most shameful, painful kind of death. True Greatness lost His life in love for us. And true Greatness was revealed and glorified, not defeated at that grave.

Greatness, He says, belongs only to those who humble themselves like a child. The word for “child” in Aramaic and Greek, can also mean servant. So, the discussion on disciple servant-hood naturally transitions into disciple child-likeness. Our Lord is not claiming that children are naturally humble. What our Lord is emphasising is the objective reality of childhood. Adults are not expected to listen to children; it is children who are expected to listen and obey the adults. While adults teach and command, the child’s duty is to listen and obey. Children rely almost entirely on adults to survive, their lot is that of dependence, not independence. Likewise, Christians must cast off dreams of power or status, and like a child, learn to listen and obey and admit their ultimate dependence on God for all things.

But our Lord is not only using the child as a model for discipleship but also to explain the object of our service. We do not only show hospitality and serve the powerful and the rich, those who can reward us with favours or who can spare us their disfavours. Our Lord tells us: “Anyone who welcomes one of these little children in my name, welcomes me; and anyone who welcomes me welcomes not me but the one who sent me.” In other words, we have responsibilities toward those who seem the most helpless or inconsequential, those who are unable to repay us. In welcoming them, we are also welcoming the Lord and the One who sent Him. By according the respect and dignity to the powerless, the disciples are offering great honour to God.

Such principles are entirely at odds with the world’s way of doing things. So many around us are motivated by a desire to get ahead of the next guy. The VIPs get priority and enjoy privileges over the common folk. The underlings are meant to serve their superiors and not the other way round. And yet, our Lord teaches us otherwise: “If anyone wants to be first, he must make himself last of all and servant of all.” If you aspire to be great, give yourself to the small, mundane, easily over-looked needs around you, especially of the powerless and the voiceless. Always remember that authority is about service, not about gaining power. Expect no special privileges or benefits for being a Christian; instead, remember that your duty is to serve.

Renounce yourself

Twenty Fourth Sunday in Ordinary Time Year B

St Peter’s confession of faith is not only the turning point in St Mark’s gospel narrative but also a turning point in his relationship with the Lord. The disciple’s identity and mission pivots on the identity and mission of the Lord. To follow Him, which is to say to imitate Him, requires that they first know who He is. But to grasp that Jesus is the Messiah, is not the same as understanding what it means to be the Messiah. What the Lord does or must do, they must follow. Here, we see a breakthrough, a burst of light, a moment of enlightenment. But with every breakthrough there must be resistance, and with light, comes the shadow cast by darkness. On the one hand, Peter, the representative of all disciples, gets it but moments later we realise that he still has much to learn, to grow in both understanding and commitment.

Instead of looking at the famous exchange between St Peter and our Lord, I would like to lead you to consider the teaching of our Lord in the last part of today’s passage. It was precisely Peter’s gross misunderstanding of this teaching, which got him into trouble.

The saying of our Lord here is perhaps one of His most ironic and paradoxical. Whenever we wish to win people to a cause, a party or a club, we point out the advantages they would gain should they join our group. No sane person would paint a dark sombre picture of your organisation and expect to get long lines queuing up to sign up. When our Lord wanted people to follow Him, He said some very strange words: "If anyone wants to be a follower of mine, let him renounce himself and take up his cross and follow me."

The path to discipleship, therefore, requires three specific actions: self-renunciation, taking up one’s cross and following Christ.

Renouncing oneself seems counter-intuitive. Isn’t the goal of each person self-realisation, which is to maximise your potential and find the best version of yourself rather than to reject self? Over the centuries, we are offered an entire list of advice on how to advance ourselves. The man bent on pleasure says: "Enjoy yourself'”. The teacher says: "Educate yourself'”. The artist says: "Express yourself'”. The philosopher says: "Know yourself'”. The millennial says: “Be yourself”. But Christ says: "Renounce yourself'”.

In a modern culture that prizes individualism, perhaps one fear looms largest when we hear the call to “renounce yourself”: the fear that we will lose everything. We will be deprived of everything that makes me, “me”. Our dreams will be trashed, our desires blunted, our personality erased. We will become one more drop in a sea of endless grey.

But these fears have no basis. Our Lord assures us that when you deny yourself, you will not lose yourself. On the contrary, you will find yourself. Renouncing ourselves as the Lord’s disciples, will not diminish us. In fact, we will get a surprising upgrade. The life we find on the other side of self-denial may look far different from the life we’ve always known. But it will not — it cannot — be worse. It is a life where we gain a hundredfold more than we are ever willing to give up (Mark 10:30). It is a life with Jesus: maker of all beauty, redeemer of all brokenness, fountain of all joy. What is being renounced is not our best self, but the fallen untamed self that seeks after its own pleasure and selfish goals, the self which leads to destruction rather than salvation. When we renounce this part of ourselves, we are saying “no” to the devil: “Get behind me, Satan,” and we are saying “yes” to Christ and the salvation He offers.

After renouncing self, the Lord invites us to take up our cross. A cross is never a burden when it is taken up willingly. The problem is that we erroneously label so many things in life as crosses - when they are merely annoyances or inconveniences or things which we don’t like. What is worse than the rejection of the cross is the trivialising of the cross. Many people interpret a “cross” as some burden they must carry in their lives: a strained relationship, a thankless job, a physical illness. With self-pitying pride, they say, “That’s my cross.” When everything appears to be a cross, the real cross we must carry for Christ’s sake loses its value.

The cross which our Lord carried to Calvary, the cross on which He was nailed to and died upon, is no mere symbol. It was real. Though some Christians were privileged to be martyred in the same manner, most of us will not see this kind of death. But the point is clear. The cross represents death, not just mere inconveniences or hardships, or even a person or situation in your life. To take up your cross is the readiness to surrender everything and die to oneself, in following the Lord. Here’s the clue that distinguishes the cross from other false substitutes. The cross has to be taken up freely and willingly. This is what the Suffering Servant in Isaiah’s prophecy, which we heard in the first reading, does. He is not a reluctant victim but rather one who willingly accepts the abuse that is heaped on him, “I offered my back to those who struck me… I did not cover my face against insult and spittle.” It cannot be forced upon us. We can, therefore, choose to flee from it or choose to bear it as a trophy, a badge of honour, because we are now sharing in what the Lord endured for us.

The last part of the formula to become a disciple of Christ is found in these two familiar words, “follow me.” These two words together form a command found thirteen times in the Gospels. The words mean, immediate detachment from personal interests and attachment to Christ. “Follow Me” is a call to imitation. To be a Christian means to be of Christ, to be like Christ, to be configured to Christ, in that His identity and mission become ours. We become an “alter Christus,” “another Christ.”  But “follow me” is also a call to obedience. It is no mere invitation, but an imperative command. Those who heard the words of Jesus immediately left everything to follow Him. It was a costly decision for them. There is no genuine Christianity without obedience to Christ. The rich young man heard the call and realised that Jesus was his rightful Lord and Master, but he refused to follow Him. The true disciple does.

Giving the right answer is just the first piece of a puzzle. Living the right life is what completes it. This was the lesson St Peter had to learn and which each of us disciple-wannabes, must take to heart. The call to discipleship is radical and ultimately intertwined with the cross. The cross of our Lord Jesus is inseparable from the life of a Christian. We cannot claim to want to follow Christ if we are unwilling to renounce ourselves, take up our crosses and follow Him on the Way, which He has set for us. It goes without saying that Christ and the cross, are a package deal. But, instead of seeing it as a burden to endure, a peril to flee from or a curse which we cannot avoid, recognise the cross as the only way to salvation. There can be no resurrection if there was no cross. As St. Rose of Lima said, “Apart from the cross there is no other ladder by which we may get to heaven.” Such is the power of the cross we embrace.

Ephphatha!

Twenty Third Sunday in Ordinary Time Year B

Being a deaf and mute person would have been a double handicap in any ordinary society. Much of social interaction and communication and in fact all aspects of life, education, work, entertainment, religious worship, heavily depend on one’s ability to hear and speak. Technology, sign language skills and interpreters may help mitigate some of the obstacles to communication, but it is clear that in a normal hearing and speaking society, the deaf and the mute are grossly disadvantaged.

In today’s passage, we have this man who was both deaf and had a speech impediment. He was not just cut off from the rest of society by his inability to communicate, but would have also been considered an outcast in the highly ritualistic and auditory Jewish community. The most fundamental commandment incorporated into the daily prayers of a Jew begins with these words, “Shema, O Israel” or “Hear O Israel” (Deut 6:4-5), but for a deaf person, these words would have made no sense whatsoever as he is unable to heed the call to listen to God. The rite of passage for a child as he passes into adulthood would be determined by his ability to read the Torah and proclaim it in the community thus qualifying him to be called “Bar Mitzvah” or a “Son of the Law/ Commandments” but once again, a mute person would have to remain perpetually infantilised as he is unable to read and proclaim the words of the Torah.

But wait – I forgot to mention that this deaf and mute man hails from the Gentile territory of the Decapolis, so it is likely that he is a Gentile and not a Jew. His disabilities not only accentuate his marginalised position but is also symbolic of it. Like this deaf man, the Gentiles too are disqualified from being “Sons of the Law”.

You may recall that this is not our Lord’s first recorded excursion to this Gentile territory. The last time He had visited the area, it didn’t go well. He had healed the Gerasene demoniac and the reception He received was entirely different from the one He was experiencing now. What should have been a show of victory on His part, turned out to be a disaster. Instead of impressing the local population, they chased Him out of the area. We can only speculate their reason for doing so: perhaps due to the financial loss of losing an entire herd of swine or that our Lord’s action had disrupted the status quo which they had grown accustomed too. But there is a flicker of hope in that story. Our Lord did something which He had never done before when healing others on Jewish territory. He commissioned the liberated former demoniac to be His emissary, His first Gentile “apostle.” And it could have been the work of this man that had produced a less hostile and more hospitable crowd, which brought this deaf and mute man to our Lord.

“Mogilalos”, the Greek term used to describe the deaf man's condition, appears only in one other place in the Bible, which helps us to see that this gospel passage is a fulfilment text: Isaiah 35: 5-6. Isaiah 35 follows a series of oracles in which the prophet proclaims judgment against nations and cities including Tyre (chap. 23), Jerusalem (chap. 28), and Edom (chap. 34). After the destruction of these lands, Isaiah 35 explains, there will be a great restoration accompanied by everlasting holiness and joy. Among the wonders to occur are the healing of the deaf and mute, those who suffered the condition of mogilalos. Originally, the Isaian text refers to the joyful return home of the Jews after their exile in Babylon, but St Mark is now hinting that the Gentiles too are now co-heirs of the same blessing. By healing the deaf and mute man in a pagan territory, our Lord proved that the era of restoration had come, salvation was at hand, and that God would be restoring all things through His Son.

Most of our Lord’s miracles were performed publicly but this one is unique, in that our Lord takes this man aside away from the crowds. There is a poignant intimacy in this private encounter. Our Lord then performs the healing not just by uttering a formula as in other cases but speaking in some form of sign language to this deaf-mute in no less than seven different actions. After taking him aside, our Lord puts His fingers into the man’s ears, spits, touch his tongue, gaze up to heaven, groans and says to him, “Ephphatha!” A signature feature of St Mark’s gospel is the retention of certain Aramaic words.

This healing illustrates once again, the sacramental quality of the body - its ability to be a visible sign and instrument of divine grace - and the fact that our Lord’s work of salvation involves the whole human being, soul and body. The strange foreign sounding word, “Ephphatha”, that came from the lips of Jesus in His very own language, can still be heard and pronounced in churches today every time we pray that a person be enlightened with the gift of faith, and emboldened to proclaim it. As Christ removed the impediments that would have prevented this man from becoming a Son of the Law, through baptism, He removes the obstacles that would keep us from becoming sons and daughters of God.

It is not surprising to see how the Ephphatha rite has been incorporated into the catechumenal ministry or Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults (RCIA) because there are so many parallels between the story of the healing of the deaf-mute and the coming into the faith of a person seeking baptism. St Ambrose, as early as in the 4th century, gives us a glimpse as to how the rite of signing the senses was used as a pre-baptismal preparation: “Open then your ears. Enjoy the fragrance of eternal life, breathed on you by means of the sacraments. We explained this to you as we celebrated the mystery of “the opening” when we said: Ephphatha, that is, be opened [Mark 7:34]. Everyone who was to come for the grace of baptism had to understand what he was to be asked, and must remember what he was to answer.”

The deaf-mute man who needs healing is an unbeliever just as the enquirer. He is brought by others - much as a catechumen is accompanied by sponsors. They ask for hand-laying, just as is practiced in the exorcisms of the scrutinies. Our Lord takes the man apart from the crowd, just as catechumenal formation takes place apart from the community. Our Lord works the miracle through actions and words, just as how we celebrate sacraments. And the man who was once deemed disqualified from rendering worship to God because of his impediments, was restored to a condition where he can now participate fully in the sacred assembly.

Like all healings in the gospels, the physical cure of the deaf and mute man is real, but also has a deeper spiritual significance. The relationship between the inability to speak and deafness, pictures some of sin's effects. Those who are deaf to the Word of God will have great difficulty speaking properly of spiritual matters. God designed human beings not only with physical senses but also with marvellous spiritual capacities to see, hear and relate to Him. These interior faculties were disabled by original sin, causing a severe communication breakdown between God and humanity. Our Lord’s healing of people who are deaf, blind and lame, is a sign of His restoration of humanity to the fullness of life and communion with our Creator. Now by the grace of Christ, we are able to hear God’s voice in our hearts, sing His praises, and proclaim His mighty deeds to all nations. Let us not behave as if we are still spiritually deaf and mute.

Preserving the fire of Tradition

Twenty Second Sunday in Ordinary Time Year B

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We will serve the Lord

Twenty-First Sunday in Ordinary Time Year B

A pivotal moment in my discernment to the priesthood took place during the 30 days Ignatian retreat I had to undergo before my final year of formation. Prior to this, my entire seminary formation had been marked by hesitancy, uncertainty and fear, with this question constantly troubling me: am I really called to be a priest? Although I knew I had the answer given to me on many occasions, though not in the manner of a “St Paul on the Road to Damascus” moment, I still had my doubts especially when I thought of my parents and their future well-being and the enormity of the task and responsibilities set out before me.

Back to the story of my 30 days retreat experience. To state that it was life-changing and foundational to my final decision is an understatement. On one particular dark night near the end of the retreat, not a physical description but a spiritual reference to the condition of my soul, I was assailed once again by a flurry of emotions, deeply troubling doubts and fears. After battling with my inner demons and imagined scenarios of the future, I decided that very night to return home the next morning and proceed straight from the airport to Bukit Nenas to meet the Archbishop and tell him of my decision to leave the seminary, give up the priesthood and return home. I finally went to sleep, exhausted. But in the morning, as I woke up, there was no trace of the heaviness that I had experienced the night before. In fact, my resolve became so much clearer and stronger. I was convinced: whatever the challenges, “I will serve the Lord!”

I believe that many would share a similar faith-story - it is often about having to make a decision to go forward, or backward. This too is the theme of our first reading and the gospel today.

In the first reading, Joshua, the successor of Moses, gathered all the tribes together at Shechem. He had led them in a campaign of conquest, and had divided up the land among the different tribes. These were the same tribes of Israel who had been recalcitrant and complaining a lot during their sojourn in the wilderness as Moses led them forth from Egypt. At this juncture, Joshua did not wish to assume that he had their undivided allegiance. This was the moment to test their mettle, the moment of decision and he wasn’t going to force their hand.

The challenge was: were they going to move into the future with the God who had brought them out of Egypt and into the promised land, or were they going to choose the old gods of their ancestors or maybe the local gods of the land they had conquered?  Joshua was not going to presume that he knew their answer and so he laid out this choice before them. If they were willing to follow the Lord, they would need to renew the covenantal promises with the Lord, the covenant which was entered into with their ancestors. Such renewal was necessary because their ancestors had shown themselves to be a rebellious people, breaking covenant with God on many occasions during the Exodus. As he waited for the people’s response, Joshua unhesitatingly declares: “as for me and my house (family), we will serve the Lord.”

This scene at Shechem is put in parallel to today’s gospel reading because Joshua challenged the Israelites to make up their minds whether or not they intended to remain loyal to the Lord, in the same way our Lord Jesus challenges the disciples, at the end of the Bread of Life discourse, to see if they would accept His teachings and continue to follow Him. Once again, we are witnessing a tense moment of decision. Many decided to walk away but St Peter and others remained, declaring: “Lord, who shall we go to? You have the message of eternal life, and we believe; we know that you are the Holy One of God.”

The similarity between the two stories does not only highlight a challenge to loyalty, but specifically to covenant loyalty, since the Eucharist is the new and everlasting covenant which our Lord sealed at the Last Supper and by His death on the cross. As the people of Israel were given the choice to accept or reject the old covenant, our Lord is providing His disciples with the choice of accepting His Eucharistic teaching or rejecting it, if they find it intolerable.

This is what our Lord had said in the discourse on the Bread of Life and which is what the Church teaches about the Eucharist, and this is what we must accept as truth before we can worthily participate in the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and receive Holy Communion:

Jesus is the Bread of Life that has come down from heaven;

No one who comes to Him will ever hunger; no one who believes in Him will ever thirst.

The bread that He shall give is His flesh, for the life of the world.

If you do not eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink His blood, you have no life in you.

Anyone who does eat His flesh and drink His blood has eternal life, and He shall raise that person up on the last day.

For His flesh is real food and His blood is real drink.

Whoever eats His flesh and drinks His blood lives in Him and He lives in that person.

This is why we answer “Amen” at Holy Communion, just before we receive it. “Amen” is often translated as “so be it,” an assent to the statement which precedes it. So, when we say “Amen” in response to the words uttered by the priest or extraordinary minister of holy communion, “the Body of Christ,” we are practically saying that we agree - we believe this to be true – the host that we are about to consume is truly, really, and substantially the Body and Blood of Christ, soul and divinity.

But the assent is not just an assent of faith but a commitment to action. Tertullian, a 3rd century North African theologian, applied the Latin term sacramentum to the rites of baptism and Eucharist. Sacramentum referred to the oath of allegiance that soldiers made to the Roman emperor to serve him, even with their life. At this time in the Church’s history, persecutions were common enough to make baptism into Christ a commitment that could mean dying for the faith. Thus, saying “Amen” to the sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ serves as a Catholic pledge of allegiance to follow Christ. It is literally saying, “Yes, I will serve the Lord! Yes, I will die for this truth!”

So, saying “Amen,” means you assent to your faith, with your head and heart and will. Not only are you saying that you believe in the real presence but that you are also committing yourselves to living and acting as Jesus did, and you continue to do. Make no mistake, do not receive holy communion lightly and take it as a harmless ritual. Whenever, you stand at the threshold of receiving holy communion, you are asked to renew your commitment to believe in the Lord and His teachings, to love Him and serve Him with your entire being because He is “the Holy One of God” who offers us “the message of eternal life” and “the Bread of Life that has come down from heaven.”