Liturgical reflection for Sunday 25 Sept, 2011 from Pedro Arrupe Institute, Raia, Goa. Available at http://liturgy.deepenyourfaith.in
26th Sunday Sept 25, 2011 Ez 18:25-28; Phil 2:1-11; Mt 21:28-32 Spiritual Track: Fr. Edwin D'Souza SJ The whole life of Jesus was a constant ‘yes’ to the Father’s will, even when it did cost him his life. We Christians are today called to do the same, to follow Christ by a full ‘yes’ to the promptings of the Spirit in our lives, inspite of all the pressures we face in our modern times. And the sooner we find the secret of living for God, the better will it be for us in every way. St Augustine has this beautiful sentence in his book of ‘Confessions’: “Too late have I loved you, O Beauty ever ancient and ever new, too late have I loved you.” The gospel parable which introduces the theme of conversion begins with a question addressed to the leaders of his time, inviting them to reflect on it and respond. The context is rather polemical: Jesus had just chased the merchants from the temple, and symbolically cursed a fig-tree that was not yielding fruit. The leaders represented by the fig-tree are indignant. They ask Jesus by what right he is acting in this way. Jesus is fully aware that He is about to be rejected by the very men who should have welcomed him. The parable of the two sons depicts two kinds of people in the world. Those who just speak but do not practise, and those whose actions and behaviour are far better than their words and promises. We can identify the two sons thus: the rough sincere son or the polite liar. Here empty words are not enough if they are not backed up by corresponding action. The parable has much in common with that of the prodigal son, and is a clear comment on the rejection of Jesus, of his message and person by the leaders of the Jewish people, and its acceptance by the outcastes of society and the sinners. Here the enemies of the Lord are put on the spot, not to embarrass them, but to bring them to conversion. He simply presents a case and makes them draw their own conclusions. They see the son who promises readily and then goes back on his promise, stands for them. Throughout their history prominent leaders of the Jews had been saying ‘ Yes’ to God and then going back on their promise, but the sinners and tax collectors who at first listen to Him repent and do his will. The Pharisees have always resented His association and weakness for such sinners who had a rough exterior but a good heart, like the Samaritan woman, Zachaeus and the woman who was a sinner. The gospel parable comes alive today and continues to probe and find the Pharisee in our hearts. Like the religious leaders in the time of Jesus, we may think we are so well versed in the practices of our faith that self-righteousness sets in. It is so easy to give a show of the externals of sacrifice, of religion and other practices performed automatically, when words and actions lose their meaning, and we may fail to appreciate the relationship of religious practices to daily life. This was the case during the stay of Mahatma Gandhi in South Africa. He attended Christian services in a church close to his lodging. After some time he made the observation: the congregation did not strike me as being specially religious; they were not really devout or committed, but appeared to be worldly-minded people going to Church for a sort of recreation and according to custom. He who admired Christ and the Sermon on the Mount concluded there was nothing in Christianity which he already did not possess. The Word of God in the parable is relevant for all times, yesterday, today and tomorrow. They remain a challenge to us. With which of the two sons do we identify; the rough sincere son (the sinners turned saints) or the polite liar (the nominal Christians). Scriptural Track: Fr. Ronnie D'Souza SJ The readings of today point in the general direction of taking personal responsibility for one’s actions. In the Old Testament, the Israelites believed that they were often punished because of the sins of their ancestors. The authors of the books of Deuteronomistic History (Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings) for instance, put the blame for the destruction of the Northern and Southern Kingdom squarely on the corrupt Kings and the ruling class, thereby emphasizing collective responsibility for their failures and the state they are in. However these early notions of collective responsibility also included the idea that such responsibility was passed down from generation to generation. Hence, the poor Jews sitting in Exile blamed their fate on the sins of their ancestors – in order to make sense of their suffering and shame. It is in such a context that the Prophet Ezekiel who was among the first people to be deported to Babylon, begins to visit the various Jewish settlements and encourages them not to loose hope. Ezekiel will be one of the first prophets in the Old Testament who begins to emphasize personal responsibility (Chp 18), teaching the Jews that each of them will be punished or rewarded according to his or her fault. Ezekiel helps these exile Jews to begin to make sense of their own situation and problems. The Jews have to first take responsibility for their own actions. He begins to reinterpret their present situation in exile by telling them that they themselves are responsible for it. In spite of their great spiritual heritage from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and in spite of the covenant promised to David, God had punished them because in the end, they had turned away from him. Their previous righteous behavior no longer counted before God (18:25–27). No longer could they blame merely their former Kings and ancestors, they too were equally responsible for the mess they are in. They too were part of the larger structure of corruption and evil which had crept into society – an important lesson for us today as we try and blame our politicians for the corruption in the country. The same theme is echoed in the Gospel parable from Matthew in a situation completely different than that of the exile. Jesus who has finally entered Jerusalem (Mt 21) enters into a confrontation with the ruling class of his time. His action of cleansing the temple (21:12–17) evokes strong protests where his authority is questioned (21:23–27). It is in such a context that he narrates three parables: the parable of the two sons, the parable of the wicked tenants and the parable of the wedding banquet – all aimed against the Chief priest and the Elders who rejected his message in stark contrast to the innocent and unlearned Jews (among whom are counted the tax collectors and the prostitutes which are repeated twice in verses 31 and 32) who accepted Jesus’ message. Matthew is not referring to the later Gentiles who would enter into the Kingdom but rather to the innocent and poor Jews (commonly referred to as the Anawim) who accepted first John’s and then Jesus’ message. For the Matthean community nearly 50 years after Jesus’ death, this parable takes on a different understanding: It explains to them why the reorganized Jews under the Pharisees (after the destruction of the temple) did not accept the Christians and slowly start excluding them from the synagogues. We must remember that Matthew is the only evangelist to report this parable of Jesus, and is probably a midrashic commentary on the previous dispute mentioned in 21:2-27. This same passage would speak later to generations of Christians urging them on to a greater commitment and of taking personal responsibility for their actions and their spiritual lives. No longer does mere external ritualism and cultic behavior count in the new Christian dispensation as opposed to the increasing ritualism of the Pharisees, but obeying the “will of the Father”, which implies automatically “believing in Jesus”. Paul broadens the understanding of personal responsibility in Christian living through his many directives he gives to the Church of Philippi which includes being encouraging, being supportive and being united. However for Paul, the foundation of Christian community living and unity boils down to humility before God modeled on Christ. The Christian emphasis on personal responsibility can go awfully wrong if it is not tempered with humility. As much as we are responsible for our own lives and destiny, we depend totally on God for our salvation and liberation. Dependence on God – the antidote to any form of self-righteousness – is proportional to how much we empty ourselves before God. Paul supports his views by quoting an early important hymn of the Christians and he urges his Christians in Philippi to imitate Christ in this regard – to put on the mind of Christ. For a Christian therefore, taking personal responsibility for one's life implies – emptying oneself just as Christ emptied and humbled himself before the Father. Theological Track: Shannon Pereira SJ The three liturgical readings of today offer us a deep reflection on our daily living. The first text from the book of Ezekiel reflects on individual responsibility; the famous hymn from the Epistle to the Philippians reflects on the solidarity of Christ with us; and the Gospel reading is a reflection on how individual acts must go along with faith. What is the relation between these three readings? And what is its application to our daily life? The reading from Ezekiel is important because historically it is the first to reflect on individual responsibility with regards to the pressure from society. It reflects on how society can lead us astray if it depends purely on the opinions of the strongest. The prophet shows how God looks at the heart of each individual, considers him as a ‘person’ and not just as a simple member of a group or a clan. By ‘person’ I mean someone who “through his understanding and will can decide for or against love … who has an inviolable dignity, because from all eternity God willed, loved, created and redeemed that person and destined him for eternal happiness … and who can perceive others as persons, understand them in their dignity, and love them” (Youth Catechism of the Catholic Church – 56, 280, 58).‘Individual’does not however mean ‘individualism’ to the extreme that solidarity or community living disappears. Prophet Ezekiel did not wish to abolish solidarity or community living but to correct it and to accomplish it by building a society, a family and a community of ‘persons’ related to one another, but who have each their proper responsibility. The Gospel begins: “A man had two sons”. The starting point is similar to the parable of the prodigal son. One understanding of the two sons refers to the Pagans and the Jews. The Pagans refuse the Law but finally convert themselves to Jesus. Whereas the Jews accept the Law, but are not faithful to it. Through this parable, Jesus addresses to all those for whom acts and deeds count more than words. In an act of faith, it is the act which counts, a faith which flows through deeds. Just as in the prodigal son, we cannot forget the father as he plays an important role. He does nothing other than calling for a service. He gives an order. In this call, he leaves a lot of room for freedom on the part of the son. Through his understanding and will, the son is free to decide for or against the call. The son is not imprisoned to respond to the call of the father. Thus, the father is in solidarity with his sons accepting the risk that his call may not be heard, that his love may not be returned. Our heavenly Father extends this call to each one of us today. It is finally in accepting freely this call that we become children of the Father. What does the hymn to the Philippians tell us? It reflects on how Jesus, who was equal to God, in order to be in solidarity with his people, accepts the human condition. And it is through his individual responsibility that he goes even further to accept death on a cross in order to respond to the call of the Father. We see the act of Jesus. He is not imprisoned to respond to the call of the Father. In freely responding to the Father’s call, he becomes a true Son of the Father. The three readings are well integrated. Jesus accomplishes the oracle of Ezekiel. He is at the same time an individual with perfect responsibility and perfect solidarity. He is a perfect ‘person’ who responded to God’s call not in saving his life but in offering his life for his people. Our response to this call of the Father is still hesitant, like that of the two sons in the parable. But the Father takes the risk in giving us time to freely respond to his call. We are all invited to be children of the Father
