 |
|||||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
November 2002 Homilies Envisioning the Christian Community By: Msgr. Lope C. Robredillo November 3, 2002 In face of today's global terrorism, spiraling cost of electric power, frequent kidnappings and proliferation of
illegal drugs, hoodlums in robes, and other gargantuan problems, how is one to envision the country that Filipinos can live in with dignity? Not so long ago, on July 22, 2002 to be exact, President Macapagal-Arroyo, in
her State of the Nation Address, described the vision of her administration in terms of a "strong republic, " and by this she meant one that "takes care of the people and takes care of their future," built on the foundation of
"citizens with rewarding jobs paying decent wages." To build the foundation, she would generate investments and jobs by addressing the problems of graft and corruption, peace and order, and high power rates. In an
editorial, "Small steps," that treats of the President's SONA, the PDI (7/24/02) writer observes that these working agenda are a little more than reflex reactions to major problems identified by businessmen and independent
observers. He faults the administration for being unable "to see any problems unless others point them out. No wonder, it cannot offer any fresh insights into what ails the nation." However much one agrees with the
editorialist's critique, one cannot dispute that what we envision for the future of our country is a reflex reaction to what we identify as inconsistent with what a republic ought to be. Today's Gospel hardly
qualifies as a State of the Community Address, but there is no doubt that like the SONA of President Arroyo, it provides us a glimpse of how Jesus and the early Church envisioned the Christian community. If the President saw the
republic against the current problems, so Matthew's portrayal of the Christian community uses as foil what is perceived to be the imperfections of Judaism known to his community. In particular, he outlines practices of the
Judaism of the Pharisees and scribes that have no place in the community. (Of course, it must be admitted that from the point of view of biblical scholarship, this description of the Judaism of the Pharisees must be seen as a
caricature. but can be maintained, being too real in our experience, as a portrait of what the community ought not to be.) These practices are contained in the three woes. The Jesus of Matthew accused the Pharisees and
the scribes of separating their religious belief from everyday life: "Their words are bold, but their deeds are few. They bind up heavy loads, hard to carry, to lay on men's shoulders, while they themselves will not lift a
finger to budge them" (Matt 23:4). He accused them of ostentation: "All their works are performed to bed seen. They widen their phylacteries and wear huge tassels" (Matt 23:5). Finally, he accused them of seeking
first places in the assembly, and honor in society: "They are fond of places of honor at banquets and front seats in synagogues, of marks of respect in public and of being called Rabbi" (Matt 23:6). For Matthew, these
practices veer away from the nature of a true people of God. They are religious aberrations. What, then, ought to exist in a true community of God? For Matthew, religious practices must flow from a
correct understanding of the nature of the community. The Christian community ought to be a family of God—it is a community under the fatherhood of God, and no one can exercise that role: "Do not call anyone on earth your
father. Only one is your father, the One in heaven" (Matt 23:9). One implication of this description is that the family is a brotherhood and sisterhood of women and men. This means that the community is not to be seen
as primarily an institution that stresses organization and structures. On the contrary, what seems to be important is the relationship within the community. Because God alone is father, all the rest are brothers and
sisters to one another. As such, it can be described as a fraternity or sorority of equals, since all members form one body in which they share the same dignity. They may be numerous, but the fatherhood of God makes
them one family, and their being all children of the same God establishes equality in dignity. Which is why St Paul describes the Christian community as a family of co-equals: "There does not exist among you Jew
or Greek, slave of freeman, male or female. All are one in Christ Jesus" (Gal 3:28). Differences in nationality, social status, and gender can create social tension, but because Christians have been born in baptism, and
incorporated into Christ, their belonging to the body overcomes these tensions. Vatican II seems to echo this self-understanding when it speaks of the Church's mission: "By virtue of her mission on shed on the whole world the
radiance of the gospel message, and to unify under one Spirit all men of whatever nation, race or culture, the Church stands forth as a sign of that brotherliness which allows honest dialogue and invigorates it. Such a
mission requires in the first place that we foster within the Church herself mutual esteem, reverence, and harmony, through the full recognition of lawful diversity. Thus all those who compose the People of God, both pastors
and the general faithful, can engage in dialogue with ever abounding fruitfulness. For the bonds which unite the faithful are mightier than anything which divides them" (Gaudium et spes, 92). In place of
these polarities and tensions, what ought to characterize the Christian community is service: "The greatest among you will be the one who serves the rest. Whoever exalts himself shall be humbled, but whoever humbles himself
shall be exalted" (Matt 23:11-12). Of course, Jesus himself is the model of service. Referring to himself on the issue of authority and power, Jesus said: "Such is the case with the Son of Man who has come not to be
served, but to serve, to give his own life as a ransom for the many" (Matt 20:28). This self-understanding of the Christian community is enshrined at the Second Vatican Council: "Inspired by no earthly ambition, the Church
seeks but a solitary goal: to carry forward the work of Christ Himself under the lead of the befriending Spirit. And Christ entered this world to give witness to the truth, to rescue and not to sit in judgment, to serve and
not to be served" (Gaudium et spes, 3). In this understanding, the community is encouraged to look beyond its internal affairs, to be involved in making the world a better place to live in by proclaiming, through its
life of service, Jesus' vision of the Kingdom of God where there is peace, justice and forgiveness. Preparing for the Ultimate Community By: Msgr. Lope C. Robredillo November 10, 2002 When Fahrakorb Rikkiatgym, the Thai challenger in the International Boxing Federation (IBF) super bantamweight
division, climbed up the ring at the RMC stadium in Davao City last October 26, 2002, he packed a record of 33 straight wins, 22 by knockouts, and 2 losses. Confident that he could snatch the crown from Manny Pacquiao, he
hoped, it was said, to return to Thailand with the title as a gift to his king and his people. What he did not know was that the lone reigning Filipino world boxing champion was very much in shape and well honed, swearing in
fact that he was ready for the gory. No soon than the first round began than a right ram, which could have been mistaken for a set-up jab, landed on the bewildered Thai, mercilessly sending him to the floor. Seconds
later, another blitzkrieg of punches was unleashed and floored the poor challenger, and after he was able to get up, another power-packed punch proved difficult to absorb. Before the first round was finished, the goner was
flat on the floor, and had to be rushed to the hospital. Pacquiao is of course known for his lethal left, but it was claimed that for two months he perfected his right punch, and its awesome impact was more than enough to
retain the crown. Obviously, Rikkiatgym did not watch the right hand of the Filipino champion; or if he did, he was not prepared enough. That is why he suffered a stunning defeat. A similar lesson is presented in
today's Gospel—one who does not watch, or does not prepare himself adequately at the coming of the Son of Man will suffer exclusion from the victory of the Christian community. In view of the delay of Christ's arrival, the proper
attitude of the Christian is constant readiness and vigilance. Matthew stresses this point in the parable of the Ten Virgins (Matt 25:1-12). If one assumes that Jesus told this story, the parable may have referred to
the imminent but unpredictable arrival of the Kingdom of God. Seen in this perspective, it must have taught that those who accept Jesus' message about the coming of the Kingdom will have access to it when it finally comes,
but for those who rejected it, it will be too late for them to realize that they will not be given entry. But as we find it in the Gospel, it is an allegory that the Church applied to those who follow Jesus in their watchful
expectation of Jesus' return. In this allegory, the ten virgins—the first five foolish, the second wise—are supposed to represent Christians in the community, some of whom are ill-prepared, the others well prepared for the
parousia; the bridegroom is Christ, the Son of Man; the return of the bridegroom is the second coming of Christ; the delay in his coming is the postponement of the parousia; and the wedding feast is the messianic banquet. In
trying to emphasize the need of vigilance, Matthew warns us about the fate of the five foolish virgins. Since they were not ready for the moment when the groom arrived, they were excluded from the wedding banquet, in much the
same way that Rikkiatgym failed to get the crown, as he did not watch Pacquiao's right hand. In effect, the parable is about practical wisdom—what is a Christian ought to do, as the Son of Man is delayed in his arrival?
That one needs this practical wisdom to be saved is the point of the First Reading: "She hastens to make herself known in anticipation of men's desire; he who watches for her at dawn shall not be disappointed, for he shall find her
at the gate" (Wisd 6:13-14). If one possesses this wisdom, it is certain that he will survive the last judgment. When this time comes, God will bring forth with him from the dead the wise believers who have fallen
asleep. At the sound of the archangel's voice and God's trumpet, they will rise first, and the wise who are still living will be caught up with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air—an event that born-against
Christians call "rapture" (1 Thess 4:16-17). But this is an apocalyptic imagery that cannot be taken literally; but what this means to us is that the wise believer is assured that he will be restored in the Christian
community, now transformed into a perfect one, in fellowship and love. It is Matthew's wish that the members of the Christian community on earth should not be excluded from this fellowship at the end of time. They should be
wise enough to be in a permanent state of readiness for the arrival of the Son of Man. For this reason, he presents us model of Christian behavior the five wise virgins who never ran out of oil. Unlike the foolish ones
who, in bringing their torches to meet the bridegroom, brought no oil along, the wise virgins, sensible as they were, took flasks of oil. Because of the long wait for the bridegroom, the foolish ones realized later that their
torches used up the oil they contained. For Matthew, a sensible Christian should not run out of oil. By what is meant by oil? The popular suggestion is that this refers to good works. Comparison is often
made with the guest without a wedding garment in the parable of the wedding banquet (Matt 22:11-14) and the five foolish virgins without oil, and what is lacking in both is supposed to be good works. Of course, the theme of
good works is not foreign to Matthew. In the Sermon on the Mount, Christians are exhorted to let their light shine so that people will see their good works and glorify their father in heaven (Matt 5:16). But as Garland
suggests, it might be more consistent with Matthew's theology to take oil not allegorically but parabolically. Since the main point of the story is that the foolish virgins were not ready when the great moment finally came,
Matthew could have identified the oil not simply with the performance of good works, but with the tireless doing of other obligations—abstinence from bad behavior (15:19), love for enemies (5:44), love of other Christians (24:12),
forgiveness of others (18:21-35), unhesitating faith (21:21), loyalty to Jesus (10:32), and love for God (22:37). In other words, the parable is basically an exhortation on living out the Christian faith. Only those who
live out their faith in every circumstance of their lives keep their eyes open (Matt 25:13). In the parable, the five wise virgins represent them. Of course, the problem of division in the Christian community between
those who live out and those who do not is a reality. Today, the Church sees the flourishing of various faith communities and movements, where members take seriously their Christian faith and obligations, but one is afraid
that enthusiasm might easily wane. In the 1960s, the Cursillo movement took the Philippines as if by storm; one found the movement in almost every parish. Today, they are few and far between. Indeed, for many,
being Christian may not be more than just a name. If Christian faith finds its communal _expression in the Sunday Eucharist, one wonders about the percentage of the baptized who really go to Mass and who fulfill their other
Christian obligations. Wrong Investment
By: Msgr. Lope C. Robredillo November 17, 2002 "Parisian Life" is a 110-year-old painting of Juan Luna's, depicting a woman in a café, on the right side of which are Juan Luna himself, Jose Rizal
and Ariston Bautista Lin in a huddle. Last October 27, 2002, it was auctioned off by Christie's auction house in Hongkong where the painting was the second top selling lot, and Winston Garcia, GSIS president and general
manager, won the bid at P46 million, but the GSIS would have to pay a premium of 10% of the final bid price. When GSIS won the bid, Garcia was quoted to have said that we were buying not a masterpiece but a piece of
Philippine history. But he got a lot of flak. Sen. Manuel Villar said that while Garcia's objective may have been noble, the welfare of the GSIS members should have been his primary consideration. According to
Sen. Teresa Aquino-Oreta, the GSIS should have funneled a hefty part of the money to the members in the form of more benefits, if indeed it was awash in money. Complained Bayan Muna
Rep. Crispin Beltran: "For years, members have been demanding better services and increased package of benefits from the GSIS. But what they give us are questionable investments, behest loans and 'barya-baryang'
yearly dividends which are not even commensurate to the amounts we have contributed." For many, the people's money in the GSIS was not invested in a right place. Which reminds us of the third servant in
today's parable of the silver pieces: he placed his master's money in the wrong place. But that is going ahead of the story's point. To begin with, the parable, like last Sunday's, is clearly allegorical, although as
Jesus himself told it, it probably had a different point. Most likely, it was intended for the Jewish religious authorities, such as the scribes and the Pharisees, who like the third servant, were so much concerned with the
preservation of the religious tradition they had been entrusted with that they refused to hear the new message that Jesus brought. But this main point has given way to allegorization. As it stands in Matthew, the
master's invitation "Come, share your master's joy" (Matt 25:21b) obviously refers to the messianic banquet in the Kingdom of God. The servants (v 14b et passim) stand for Christians who, through baptism, accept
Christ as their master. The silver pieces (v 15) represent the faith that God gives them through baptism. And the "going away" and the long absence of the master (v 15b, 19a) refer to the journey of Christ to heaven and
his physical absence from the world. His coming home (V 19) is the parousia, the second coming of the Lord. The early Church moralized the parable with the addition of the saying, "Those who have will get more until
they grow rich, while those who have not will lose even the little they have" (v 29). Concerned with the coming eschatological event, it is now a parable of judgment. While it is true that in this
allegorization the story revolves around the three servants to whom the master disbursed his silver pieces, it gives far greater attention on the third servant. In the dialogue between the master and this servant, the former
sharply rebuked the latter for his failure to do something with the silver pieces entrusted to him. This unproductive servant is held up as an bad example of one who, having been entrusted with capital, was more concerned
about himself and thus about keeping the money intact—an attitude which, in Matthew's redaction, shows his lazy and sterile life. Because his desire was security, however false, he was unable to obey the master in a very
creative way, unlike the two other servants who made capital gains. If Matthew dwells at length on this lazy and unproductive servant, it is because the parable is meant to teach us that the gift of faith given to us at
Baptism must grow while we await Jesus' second coming so that, upon his return, we can give a good account on what we have done to the faith we received. This growth of faith is our creative response to the offer God has
given us, while living in the period between now and Christ's arrival at the end of time. What does this mean? Like the first servants who having received five thousand silver pieces went to invest it and made
another five, so we must be believers whose faith grows and bears fruit. Or, if we look at the parable as an allegory on the membership of the Kingdom at the end-time, we are supposed to work out our salvation in the same way
that the first two servants invested the master's money. Of course, salvation is God's grace (Titus
3:5), but our part is to make a creative and proper response to it. In the second reading (1Thess 5:16), Paul expresses this in terms of being "awake and sober" (v 6)—"We who live by day must be alert, putting on faith and love as breastplate" (v 7). A productive faith is one that bears fruit in love. Thus Paul: "Your love must be sincere. Detest what is evil, cling to what is good. Love one another with the affection of brothers. Anticipate each other in showing respect. Do not grow slack but be fervent in spirit; he whom you serve is the Lord" (
Rom 12:9-11). The first reading makes the same emphasis when it speaks of works: "Give her a reward for her labors, and let her works praise her at the city gates" (Prov
31:31). Of course, Paul himself makes a laconic _expression of the growth of faith in love, when he says that in Christ what counts is "only faith that expresses itself in love" (Gal 5:6). If the master
was harsh with the third servant because he was concerned only with his own security, this implies that the growth of faith must benefit others. This brings to mind James' assertion about unproductive faith: "If a brother or
a sister has nothing to wear and no food for the day and you say to him, 'Goodbye and good luck! Keep warm and well fed', but do not meet their bodily needs, what good is that? So it is with faith that does nothing in
practice. It is thoroughly lifeless" (Jas
2:14-17). Obviously, the parable stresses that like any gift, faith, no matter how small, is precious, and has to bear fruit for others. Which brings us back to the "Parisian Life." One wonders, then, whether by buying the Luna painting, the GSIS was obedient to the mission of the institution in a creative way. No one disputes that the work of art was priceless, that its proper home should be the Philippines. But whether it was the GSIS that should buy the painting for P50.6 million, and whether it made a good creative and productive investment of the people's hard-earned money, that is what is being disputed. At the end time, Jesus would dispute, too, the way the gift of faith has been invested—whether it grew, or it simply became fossilized.
Wrong Treatment By: Msgr. Lope C. Robredillo November 24, 2002 Last March 21, 2002,
Vice-President Teofisto Guingona was in Monterrey, Mexico where he delivered a speech on poverty at the United Nations International Conference on Financing for Development. Hours later, Guingona, who represented President
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, was in a luncheon tendered by the governor of the state of Nuevo Leon for 150 heads of state, to which he had been invited. While seated at table no. 5 of the dining hall of the Centro de Arte de
Monterey, he was told that there had been a mistake, and his name was not on the guest list, despite the fact that upon arrival at the hall, he presented his formal invitation. He left in a huff, and ordered the Department of
Foreign Affairs to file a protest. Said Guingona: "I called our department for them to inform the Mexican government that the slur approximating insult, for whatever reason, was in effect directed not only at me but mainly to
our government, to our nation, our people for whom I stood. Reason and justice therefore demands that an apology, if at all, should come from the Mexican government herself, asking indulgence for the breach from our
government." Some countries virtually condemned the Mexican insult. The Thai and Brunei delegations did not attend the State Dinner in protest of the terrible discourtesy. If Mexico was condemned for her
treatment of the representative of the Philippine government, so at the end of time, people will be condemned on the basis of their treatment of Jesus' representatives. This is the main point that the parable of the sheep and
the goats or of the last judgment in today's Gospel is trying to convey. But before developing this theme, let us first examine the parable. Doubtless, this goes back to Jesus himself, and in its original setting, the
story is about the Kingdom of God, more specifically, about the act of separation in the end-time, much like the parable of the wheat and tares (Matt 13:24-30) and the good and the bad fish (Matt
13:47-50). When it was used in the early Church, the parable became an allegory of the last judgment, as the shepherd came to be identified with the king (v 40). Matthew is probably responsible for the addition of apocalyptic features to the parable, as when he speaks of the coming in glory of the Son of Man who is identified with the king. But as it stands in Matthew, how is one to understand it? Many exegetes think that the parable has two fundamental questions that influence one's interpretation: who are the nations being judged, and who are "the least of the brothers". According to one interpretation, it is really about judgment of Christians on the basis of their attitude toward the needy members of the Christian community.
But in recent years, Liberation Theology popularized an interpretation that sees it as a judgment of all persons—Jews, Christians, pagans, grounding on their treatment of any person in need, both Christians and
non-Christians. Says Gustavo Gutierrez in his A Theology of Liberation: "Our encounter with the Lord occurs in our encounter with others, especially in the encounter with those whose human features have been disfigured
by oppression, despoliation, and alienation… The salvation of humanity passes through them; they are the bearers of the meaning of history and 'inherit the Kingdom' (James
2:5). Our attitude towards them, or rather our commitment to them, will indicate whether or not we are directing our existence in conformity with the will of the Father." In other words, all individuals and nations will be judged on the basis of their attitude toward the poor, the deprived, the oppressed and the marginal. This goes beyond the traditional corporal works of mercy under which rubric the acts toward others have been placed, for, in this theology, working on the side of justice for the poor is an essential task of salvation. Some groups even interpreted this to mean that faith is not necessary for salvation, not even the Church, since all that one needs is preferential option for the poor.
However attractive such an interpretation, it is not consistent, though, with the theology of Matthew. If one reads the whole gospel, he will notice, as Donald Senior points out, that Matthew envisages three
forms of judgment: first, the leaders of Israel will be held accountable for their rejection of Jesus and his message (Matt 23); second, the Christian community and its leaders will be judged on the basis of their response to God's
offer in Jesus (Matt 24-25); and third, the nations to which the mission of the Church is directed, will be convicted on their refusal to accept the messengers and their message (Matt
25:31-46)—which is the Gospel today. These different forms of judgment may be compared with Paul's teaching in Romans 2:5-10 (see also 1 Pet 4:17). In other words, the basic question that the parable addresses
is this: How shall non-Christians share in the Kingdom of God? For Matthew, the Gentiles will be judged according to how they responded to the proclaimers of the Gospel, namely, the disciples of Jesus. They are, for
Matthew, the "least brothers" of Jesus (Matt 10:42; 11:11; 18:6; 10,14). The reason for interpreting this parable as a judgment on non-Christians is that when Matthew speaks of nations, he usually means the Gentiles (
Matt 4:15; 6:32; 10:5, etc.) Moreover, in the Gospel, they are pictured as ignorant of Jesus: "Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or away from home or naked or ill or in prison and not attend to your needs?" (
Matt 25:44; see also vv 37-39). Hunger, thirst, nakedness and imprisonment—these refer to the sufferings of the disciples who proclaim Jesus' message of salvation. At the beginning of this essay, we noted
that the snub done to Vice-President Guingona was an insult to the Philippine government. Because she shabbily treated our representative, Mexico actually insulted our country. She is ill-qualified therefore to join the
family of decent nations—this is what the diplomatic issue that emerged virtually means. Similarly, one who does not treat well the representative of Jesus is hardly qualified to join the family of God, for in point of fact,
he rejects Jesus himself. The same thought is found elsewhere in Matthew: "He who welcomes you welcomes me, and he who welcomes me welcomes him who sent me" (Matt 10:40). Underlying this logic is the shaliach
principle according to which the rejection or acceptance of an envoy involves the rejection or acceptance of the sender, and in this principle, such acceptance or rejection will be validated on judgment day. Clearly, the situation-in-life that this parable presupposes is the missionary activity of the disciples. But at the present moment, this means that nations and individuals will share in the Kingdom of God on the basis of their attitude toward the Church, the proclaimer and sacrament of Jesus.*
|
|||||||||||||
HOME
| CBCP News
| Bishops
| Jurisdictions | Commissions | |
|||||||||||||