More

Commentary on Sirach 48:1-15

About this passage, the Vatican II Missal states:

“Having read in the Book of Kings the story of the great Elijah, we now read Sirach’s poetic description and praise of this prophet”

It is quite normal in our liturgical readings that, after we have been hearing about one of the great personalities of the Old Testament, there is a final encomium taken from the Book of Sirach (also known as Ecclesiasticus).  We had a similar reading after hearing about David’s life.  These testimonies are taken from a part of the book called “Praises of the Fathers”.  The book is listed among the so-called ‘apochryphal’ books which are not part of the recognised canon in either the Hebrew or Christian Scriptures of other denominations.

The author of Sirach here recalls the great exploits of Elijah, including his triumph over the priests of Baal and his bringing down fire from heaven when the Lord burnt up the sacrifice of Elijah but not that of the priests of Baal.  He was also instrumental in the breaking of a long drought; he raised a dead child to life; and he brought about the destruction of kings (Ahab).

About Elijah, the passage states:

[You] heard rebuke at Sinai
and judgments of vengeance at Horeb…

This seems to refer to the time when Elijah went to the mountain at Horeb and learned that God was not in violence, but in the gentle breeze (“sheer silence” in the NRSVue translation).  This seemed to be a reproof from Yahweh that violent action was not the way Elijah’s enemies were to be dealt with.

Finally, he anointed kings who would do the Lord’s work; he appointed Elisha as his successor; and at the end was taken up to Yahweh in a fiery chariot, the transport of kings.

There is then a subtle reference to his future coming, heralding the arrival of the Messiah:

[You] who were prepared at the appointed time
to calm wrath before it breaks out in fury,
to turn the hearts of parents to their children
and to restore the tribes of Jacob.

The coming of the Messiah will see the inauguration of peace (“My peace I give you…” John 14:27); it will be a time of reconciliation; and it will see the inauguration of a new family embracing not just the tribes of Jacob but the peoples of the whole world.

And yes, says the author in a beautiful turn of phrase:

Happy are those who saw you
and were adorned in love!
For we also shall surely live.

Here there are intimations of immortality.  And those who “were adorned in love” surely means in the love of God.  However, the Hebrew text is unclear and the sentence may apply to Elisha, whose praises immediately follow.

Elisha was filled with the spirit of Elijah.  He wrought many marvels, nothing was beyond his power – even:

…in death his deeds were marvelous…

This refers to a strange event in the Second Book of Kings which took place after Elisha’s death.  Just as a dead man was being buried, a raiding party was seen, so the mourners just threw the dead body into the grave where Elisha was buried and fled.  But, as soon as the man’s body touched Elisha’s bones, the man came to life and stood up (2 Kgs 13:20-21).

Shakespeare has one of his characters say rather cynically that “the evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones”.  Unfortunately that is often the case, but as Christians we might make a special point of remembering the good things that people did in their lifetime, as this reading does.

More

Commentary on 2 Kings 2:1,6-14

Today we move on to the Second Book of Kings and we continue where we left off with the First Book. The division into two books is artificial and no such division is found in the earliest Hebrew bibles. The passage we are reading today acts as an introduction to the story of the prophet Elisha. Today we bring the story of Elijah to a conclusion and see Elisha taking over as his successor.

As Elijah is about to leave to go to the Jordan in obedience to the Lord’s call, he tells Elisha to remain behind. Whether this was said to test Elisha is not clear, but Elisha renewed his commitment as a disciple of Elijah and insisted on following him.

They are followed by fifty fellow-prophets who will be witnesses to what is about to happen by the banks of the Jordan, which the two prophets have now reached. Elijah then takes his cloak, rolls it up and strikes the waters of the river. As with Moses long ago crossing the Red Sea, the water of the river divides to right and left and the two prophets walk across on dry ground.

It is then that Elijah, about to go away, invites Elisha to make a final request. The younger prophet boldly asks to be given a double share of Elijah’s spirit. Elisha was not expressing a desire for a ministry twice as great as Elijah’s, but he was using terms derived from inheritance law to express his desire for a full sharing in Elijah’s ministry. In Jewish society it was normal for the elder son to inherit a double share of his father’s property. So, in making his request, Elisha is asking to be regarded as the genuine heir to Elijah’s prophetic powers and spirit.

Elijah replies that it is a difficult request to honour, for ultimately the giving of such a gift lies with God and not with Elijah. But he promises that there will be a sign given by which Elisha will know whether his request has been granted. And that will be the Lord’s doing and not Elijah’s. God indicates that the request is granted by allowing Elisha to see what is hidden from other human eyes, namely, Elijah being taken up to heaven.

All of a sudden, a chariot of fire with two fiery horses came between the two men and Elijah was taken up in a whirlwind. Elisha alone could see this; a sure sign that his request had been granted. By riding the chariot, a symbol of Israel’s strength, it is clear that Elijah, and not the king, is the Lord’s true representative among his people. And Elijah, like Enoch before him (Gen 5:24), was taken up to heaven bodily without experiencing death; like Moses (Deut 34:4-6), he was taken away outside the promised land.

It was generally believed by later generations that Elijah would return to die the natural death that is the fate of all. And his return was expected to herald the imminent coming of the Messiah. In the Gospel, John the Baptist is seen to fill that role.

Elisha then tore his own clothes in half, perhaps in grief at the loss of his master and perhaps as signifying the end of his former life. He picked up the cloak of Elijah which had fallen off as Elijah was carried away in the chariot, thereby symbolically taking on Elijah’s ministry and mission.

Once again Elisha went back to the River Jordan’s bank. As he had seen Elijah do earlier, he struck the water with Elijah’s cloak while he prayed:

Where is the Lord, the God of Elijah? Where is he?

When he struck the water, it divided to right and left and Elisha crossed over. The power was not in Elisha or in the cloak, but only in the Lord God, of whom the prophet is an agent, but it was also a clear indication that the prophet’s role and powers had been passed on to Elisha.

In crossing the Jordan as Joshua had before him, Elisha is shown to be Elijah’s ‘Joshua’ (Elisha and Joshua are very similar names, Elisha meaning “God saves” and Joshua “The Lord saves”). Elisha would play the role of Joshua (who led the Israelites into the promised land) as Elijah played the role of Moses (who did not get to cross the Jordan).

In this story we can see:

In some way, this applies to each one of us in our relationship with Jesus.

More

Commentary on 1 Kings 21:17-29

Our reading today follows immediately on yesterday. We see Ahab now pay the price for the murder of Naboth.

Ahab has just been told by his wife that Naboth is now dead, so he immediately goes down to the vineyard he coveted so much to take it over. But just then Elijah is receiving instructions from the Lord to go and confront the king in the vineyard. He is given a strong message to pass on to Ahab:

Thus says the Lord: Have you killed and also taken possession? You shall say to him: Thus says the Lord: In the place where dogs licked up the blood of Naboth, dogs will also lick up your blood.

Ahab had not directly killed Naboth, but he had cooperated fully in the murder and theft planned by his wife, and as king, the ultimate responsibility was with him.

In fact, Ahab’s repentance for his actions, which will be mentioned in a moment, brought about a postponement of this prophecy. Instead, it will be the body of his son Joram which will be thrown on the field of Naboth.

More than that, Ahab is told that all his male descendants, free or slave, will be wiped out. Their bodies will either be eaten by dogs or by carrion-eating birds. The body of Jezebel, too, will be eaten by dogs. Elijah is told by God:

Anyone belonging to Ahab who dies in the city the dogs shall eat, and anyone of his who dies in the open country the birds of the air shall eat.

These were terrible indignities as dogs were symbolical of all that was unclean and defiled. We remember the poor man Lazarus in the house of the rich man. The level of Lazarus’ helpless destitution was indicated by dogs coming to lick his sores. He did not even have the strength to drive them away; meanwhile the rich man sat there doing nothing.

As Elijah pronounces God’s sentence, note the similarity with the episode of Nathan and David (where David is accused of the death of Uriah after his adultery with Bathsheba). On each occasion Yahweh defends the helpless against the powerful and, as in the case of David, there is the same reprieve for the repentant offender who is punished only through his son. But there are differences, too. David’s dynasty retains the divine promise, whereas Ahab’s is “consumed”. Nathan remains David’s prophet and blesses Solomon, but Elijah is Ahab’s “enemy”.

In addition to this murder, we are told that Ahab was responsible for all kinds of abominations, connected with the idolatrous practices of the Canaanites, under the pernicious influence of his wife. He became no different from the Amorites, a reference to the idolatrous peoples of Canaan before the Israelites arrived.

To his credit, after hearing the condemnation of Elijah, Ahab deeply repents of what he has done. He rends his garments, puts on sackcloth and walks in the slow steps of the repentant person.

Because of this, the punishments against his family would be postponed until after he died. He was, in fact, killed in battle at Ramoth Gilead and, after his body was brought to Samaria, dogs licked the blood that was being washed from his chariot. His son Joram was killed and the body thrown into Naboth’s field – just as Elijah had foretold.

Reflecting on this story we can say two things. First, our wrongdoings carry with them unavoidable punishments, built into the very nature of evil actions. And second, no matter how serious our faults, God’s compassion and forgiveness awaits those who genuinely repent and change their ways.

More

Commentary on 1 Kings 21:1-16

Today we have the story of Naboth’s vineyard – an example of corrupt and shameless use of power. The main characters are King Ahab and his Sidonian wife, Jezebel. We have seen both of them before and the general impression is that Ahab is weak, while his wife is corrupt and ruthless. It was she who introduced the worship of Baal into Israel and had wanted to avenge the execution of the Baal priests by killing Elijah.

The story begins on a reasonable enough note. King Ahab asks Naboth to exchange his vineyard which adjoins the king’s property for another one or, alternatively, to be given its value in money. This property was in Jezreel, where Ahab had a second palace, in addition to his main one in Samaria.

In spite of his position, the king could not confiscate land. The king’s power in Israel was limited by the Law, so Ahab was unable simply to take over privately held land (as was customary with Canaanite kings, not to mention some kings and governments in our own time!).

Naboth, however, refused because the ownership of the land was a sacred tradition handed down through generations. Naboth’s refusal to dispose of his land was based on the conviction that the land belonged to the Lord and that a perpetual lease had been given to each Israelite family. This was to be jealously preserved as the family’s permanent inheritance in the promised land. (One of the central issues in the ongoing strife between Israelis and Palestinians today is precisely who has prior right to the ownership of the land, especially where outsiders had come in and taken it over.)

Ahab, like many people of power when they do not get their way, went into a sullen depression and refused even to eat. In some ways, of course, his behaviour arose out of his respect – or his fear – of the Law which he did not want to violate.

His wife, Jezebel, however, saw things differently. As a Canaanite, she was not used to seeing kingly power challenged and she satirically mocked her husband’s weakness. “Do you now govern Israel?” – a sarcastic remark of incredulity spoken by one accustomed to the dictatorial practices of Phoenician and Canaanite kings, who would not hesitate a moment to use their power to satisfy personal interests. Something we see all too often even in these times. She tells him:

Get up, eat some food, and be cheerful; I will give you the vineyard of Naboth the Jezreelite.

Writing in the king’s name, she shamelessly sent off letters to the aristocracy and the leaders of the people ordering them to proclaim a fast (as if there had been a national calamity) and to put Naboth on trial (as its cause), accusing him of cursing God and the king, both charges carrying the punishment of death by stoning. In effect, the leaders of the community become collaborators in the crime; they could very well have known or suspected the real circumstances.

In addition, they were told to produce two witnesses (as required by law) to make the charges stick where a capital offence was involved. These men were to give false testimony in order to give a veneer of legality to the proceedings. Naboth was to be accused of cursing both God and king, for which the mandatory sentence was stoning. It seems also that the possessions of those condemned to death went to the king – the main purpose of the whole charade.

It is possible that there may, in fact, have been some form of calamity at the time, such as a drought or famine, which gave Jezebel the excuse to get rid of Naboth. She wanted to create the impression that a disaster threatened the people, a disaster which would only be averted if they would humble themselves before the Lord and remove any person whose sin had brought God’s judgement on them.

Everything was done to the letter as Jezebel, in the name of the king, had ordered. The two witnesses gave their false testimony and Naboth was stoned outside Jezreel, as the law required (recall that Jesus, too, was brought outside the city for his execution). From references in the Second Book of Kings, it seems that Naboth was actually stoned on his own land and his sons were stoned with him. This eliminated the heirs who might make claim to the land, thus leaving it for the king to take over.

With the vineyard now ownerless, Jezebel told her husband, as king, to exercise his right and take it over for himself. The reading ends with Ahab going down to Naboth’s vineyard to take it over but, as we shall see in tomorrow’s reading, there is an unpleasant surprise in store for him.

This story has overtones of the trial and death of Jesus much later on. Jesus himself, in a parable, will tell of tenants who will take over a vineyard and kill the son of the owner. Jesus, too, will be accused of cursing God and the Roman emperor and will be executed – not by stoning but by death on a cross. In his case, too, scoundrels will be brought forward to make charges of blasphemy against God and sacrilege against the Temple. And, like Naboth, the execution will take place outside the city.

We need to be constantly on our guard that people are not falsely accused even if it is ‘only’ a matter of gossip, but even more so if it is a serious matter. And we might ask to what lengths we would be prepared to go simply to have something we want but do not need.

We live, too, in a world where there is a great deal of scapegoating (the ‘blame culture’) and corrupt justice at many levels of public and private life. Let us not be part of it in any way.

More

Commentary on 1 Kings 17:1-6

As stated in the Vatican II Missal:

“Today we begin reading the story of the dramatic man of God, Elijah (9th century BC). The king of the northern kingdom, Ahab, married the pagan, Jezebel.  She introduced pagan cults.  Elijah, chosen by God to battle paganism, announces a lengthy drought as God’s punishment.”

For the next three weeks we are returning to the Books of Kings.  We will be reading from both the First and Second Books.  The readings centre mainly on the great prophet Elijah and also on his successor, Elisha.  Also featuring prominently will be King Ahab and his notorious wife, Jezebel.

What is told here probably belongs to the earlier life of the prophet, and the author takes up the story where it fits into his overall narrative.  It is the description of a serious drought which is seen as a punishment for the introduction into Israel of the worship of Baal.  We are in the reign of King Ahab, who had married Jezebel, a woman from Sidon, and it was through her influence that the king introduced the worship of Baal.  He even built a temple to Baal in Samaria.

All we are told of Elijah’s origins is that he came from Tishbe in Gilead.  Gilead was a region in the northern area on the east side of the Jordan.  The exact location of Tishbe is not now known.  He was being sent by God to oppose vigorously, by word and action, both Baal worship and those engaged in it.

Elijah begins by proclaiming solemnly to King Ahab in the name of the Lord that, until God declares otherwise, there will be a drought in Israel. The reason is clear – it is a punishment for the idolatry of God’s people.

Elijah makes his proclamation in the name of “the God of Israel, before whom I stand”.  This is a technical phrase which indicates someone who stands in the service of a king.  Kings and priests were specially anointed to serve as God’s official representatives and spokespersons with the responsibility to see that their people remained faithful to the covenant and in the service of God.  Since the days of Jeroboam, the northern kingdom had not had such a priest, and its kings had all been unfaithful.

Now in the great religious crisis brought on by Ahab’s promotion of Baal worship, the Lord sent Elijah (and after him Elisha) to serve as his representative (instead of a king and priests), much as Moses had done long ago.  In fact, the author of Kings highlights many similarities between the ministries of Elijah and Moses.

The Lord says to Elijah:

…there shall be neither dew nor rain these years, except by my word.

This form of punishment is significant because, although Baal was seen as a god of fertility and lord of the rain clouds on which that fertility depended, he was powerless against Yahweh’s decision to withhold all rain and moisture.  This will be dramatically emphasised and proved in the scene which brings the drought to an end.

Symbolically, too, Elijah is told to go away from God’s land and hide on the east side of the Jordan.  By this gesture God indicates that he is withdrawing from his people, leaving them isolated from his word (which comes through the prophet) and from his blessings.  The absence of the prophet only confirms God’s separation from his people.  Such symbolic acts by prophets are common in the Old Testament.  The location of the “Wadi Cherith” is not certain.  Possibly it was a gorge formed by one of the northern tributaries to the Yarmuk River.

At the same time, while God’s people in the promised land go thirsty and hungry during the drought that afflicts them, Elijah will drink from the stream in the oasis and, miraculously, ravens will bring him bread in the morning and meat in the evening.  The Lord’s faithful servant was miraculously sustained on the other side of the Jordan (like Israel in the desert in the time of Moses) while Israel in the promised land was going hungry – another clear message to Israel of its vain reliance on Baal.

The fact that Elijah was sustained in a miraculous way apart from living among his own people also demonstrated that the word of God was not dependent on the people, but the people were totally dependent on the word of God. It was not God who had gone back on his covenant promises to his people. It was his people who had violated the covenant by turning their back on him and cultivating the idols of Baal.

Sometimes we think that God has abandoned us but, if we looked more closely, we would find that it is we who have moved away from him.  Our hunger, too, for the most part is a spiritual hunger.  When we are close to him, we can find his presence and his love in every experience that we have.

More

Commentary on James 1:1-11

Today we return to the New Testament and for the next two weeks we will be reading from the Letter of James. There is a refreshing directness about this letter. It does not beat about the bush and pulls no punches in calling Christians to order. The emphasis is very much on ‘doing’ – actions speak louder than words.

The letter is addressed to “the twelve tribes in the dispersion” (or diaspora), that is, to Jewish Christians scattered over the Mediterranean countries. James sends them greetings of joy. In spite of what he is going to say, he is not to be seen as a pourer of cold water.

In today’s reading he makes three related points. First, he begins by addressing his readers as “brothers and sisters”. He does so 15 times in this short letter. He may need to rebuke them, but he does so in a spirit of fraternal love.

He urges his readers to see in their trials as Christians a source of joy:

…because you know that the testing of your faith produces endurance.

We see the same when Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount said:

Blessed [Happy] are you when people revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. (Matt 5:11)

Speaking from his own experience, Paul said the same:

…we also boast in our afflictions, knowing that affliction produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces hope… (Rom 5:3-4)

The trials that James mentions here are those that come from outside. In tomorrow’s reading he will speak of the inner trials of temptation to wrongdoing.

Fr Ron Rolheiser writes:

We don’t want failure, humiliation, sickness, powerlessness, poverty or inferiority of any kind, yet these, more than success and glamour, are what produce character and depth inside us.

Obviously, we do not go out of our way to look for such things but, when they come, their long-term results can be beneficial both for ourselves and others.

We can get upset sometimes when we see the Church attacked or rubbished in the media. Yet experience has shown again and again that nothing strengthens and matures one’s faith than to have it challenged. When things go too easily our faith becomes flabby and weak. The Church is always strongest where it is the object of persecution and attack.

St Ignatius Loyola once said he hoped that the Jesuits would always experience persecution; for him, it was a sign they were doing their job of proclaiming the Gospel. We should not be worried when the Church is attacked, only when it is ignored. Then we really know that the salt has lost its taste.

Second, James tells us to pray for wisdom. Wisdom here is not something abstract and academic. It is not just a vast knowledge of Church doctrine. Rather it is a deep insight into how to live the Gospel and do God’s work. It is the gift to know that, even in suffering and setbacks, the love of God may be guiding and strengthening us. For those who ask, it will be given simply and unreservedly. But it needs to be asked for in faith, that is, with a deep trust that God always wants the best for us.

We are not to be like a wave on the sea driven here and there by the wind. Through our faith and trust, the Letter to the Ephesians tells us:

We must no longer be children, tossed to and fro and blown about by every wind of doctrine by people’s trickery…but speaking the truth in love, we must grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ… (Eph 4:14-15)

This search for wisdom is to be done with confidence, sure that God will give this gift which we need to be followers of Jesus. While it gives us a certain self-confidence, it does not mean that we possess all the truth. But we know what we know and are ready to learn more. The vacillating person will not get anywhere. In times of trial this wisdom is greatly needed so that we can respond in an appropriate way, in truth and love.

Third, James says that the poor man should be aware of his special status in the eyes of God:

Blessed [Happy] are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. (Matt 5:3)

With nothing of their own, their total dependence is on God. Throughout the letter the author reaffirms the teaching of Jesus that worldly prosperity is not necessarily a sign of God’s favour, as the people of the Old Testament and even Jesus’ own disciples tended to believe in their early days with Jesus (see Mark 10:24-26).

Remember also the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31). If all his dependence has been on his material wealth, the Rich Man is really in a lowly position despite his status and power. As such, he “will disappear like a flower in the field” and will leave this world with nothing. The rich man needs to be aware of how vulnerable and weak he is. His wealth can evaporate in the same way the hot midday sun makes the grass and flowers droop in its heat.

The truly rich are not those who have the most, but rather those whose needs are the least. James will have a lot more to say to the poor and the rich as the letter proceeds.

More

Commentary on: Proverbs 31:10-13,19-20,30-31; Matthew 22:34-40

The Gospel passage for the Memorial Mass from Matthew comes immediately after a scene between Jesus and the Sadducees who put what they thought was an unanswerable problem to Jesus.  The question concerned a woman whose husband died without producing a son.  By Jewish law, the widow was expected to marry a brother to produce an heir for the dead brother. 

In the hypothesis presented, there were seven brothers whom the widow married one after the other without any of them producing a child. The unanswerable question: In the next life, which of the brothers is the woman’s husband?  It was no problem at all for the Sadducees who did not believe in an after life, but Jesus did have such a belief, so what answer would he give? 

Jesus replied briefly by saying that, one, there would be no marriage in the next life anyway and two, that part of the Scriptures in which the Sadducees believed speaks of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and, as Jesus says:

He is God not of the dead but of the living. (Matt 22:32)

Following this encounter, some Pharisees who did not like the Sadducees or their beliefs were delighted with how Jesus dealt with them.  They then brought forward a problem of their own.  One of them, who was an expert in the interpretation of the Mosaic Law, asked Jesus:

Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?

Apparently, it was a much discussed question.  There were more than 600 laws and they obviously were not equal in gravity.  But which was the most central?  Jesus replied by citing two passage from the Law, the first from Deuteronomy:

You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. (Deut 6:5)

The second is from Leviticus:

…you shall love your neighbor as yourself… (Lev 19:18)

Was this the answer they were expecting?  And were there two laws here and not just one?

In fact, it is very clear from the rest of the Gospel that there is indeed only one commandment here.  Love of God cannot be separated from love of neighbour.  The only way genuinely to express our deep love of God is through the love and service of every person we encounter.

Frances of Rome observed this commandment to a very high degree.  Although belonging to a privileged class, she was noted for her outstanding care of the poor and sick.

The First Reading is from the very end of the Book of Proverbs.  It describes a wife of outstanding character and the qualities which mark her out.   Just three short passages from the whole section are included in our reading:

A woman of strength who can find?
She is far more precious than jewels.
The heart of her husband trusts in her…

In fact, Frances did take great care of her husband although he was often away for long periods on the battlefield and, when he finally came home, a sick man. Still, she took care of him.

And the second:

She puts her hands to the distaff,
and her hands hold the spindle.
She opens her hand to the poor
and reaches out her hands to the needy.

As already mentioned, Francis herself worked hard, and was outstanding in her care of the poor and the sick.

Finally, she is praised for what really matters: 

Charm is deceitful and beauty is vain,
but a woman who fears the Lord is to be praised.
Give her a share in the fruit of her hands,
and let her works praise her in the city gates.

Frances was likely a charming person and we have no mention of her physical attractiveness, but it is her service of the Lord in the poor and sick for which she is remembered and honoured.

For what will I be most remembered?

More

Frances (Francesca) was born in 1384 of well-off parents in Rome, Italy. At the age of 11, although she wished to be a nun, her parents made her marry Lorenzo Ponziano, a commander of the papal troops. During the ongoing wars between popes and anti-popes, Lorenzo was on the side of the former.

Although the marriage had been arranged by the parents, it proved a happy one and lasted 40 years. This was partly because Lorenzo admired his wife and her sister, Vannozza, and partly because he was away at war so much of the time. We know of three children: Battista who carried on the family name, Evangelista, a very gifted child who died in 1411, and Agnes, who died in 1413, the latter two victims of the plague.

Frances was outstanding for taking care of the poor and the sick. She converted part of the family estate into a hospital, and became widely known among the poor by the nickname la Ceccolella (“the Queen”). She won many rich ladies away from a frivolous life to join her in her work.

On 15 August, 1425, Frances founded the Oblates of Mary, a lay congregation of women attached to the White Benedictine monastery of Santa Maria Nuova. Later, they would become the Benedictine Oblate Congregation of Tor di Specchi, which was approved by Pope Eugene IV on 4 July, 1433. The members led the life of religious, but were not enclosed, nor did they take religious vows. They spent their time in prayer and good works. On the death of her husband, Frances became the superior of the group. They are now known as the Oblates of St Frances of Rome.

In her later years, and with her husband’s agreement, Frances practised celibacy and lived a life of deep contemplation. She had the gift of miracles and ecstasy. She was noted for her humility, her detachment from material things, her obedience and her patience, especially during various family hardships (her husband’s long absences, the captivity of her son Battista in war, the death of her children and the loss of family property).

Eventually, Lorenzo would return, wounded, to his wife’s nursing care, and he died in 1436. Four years later, Frances died on 9 March, 1440, and was buried in the Sta Maria Nova Church. She was canonised by Pope Paul V on 9 May, 1608.

In 1925, Pope Pius XI made her patron of car drivers, because of a legend that an angel used to light the road in front of her when she travelled. She will be remembered as one of the great mystics of the fifteenth century.

More

Commentary on Matthew 13:18-23

In today’s Gospel reading from the Parable of the Kingdom, we find the explanation of the parable of the sower. Perhaps we should say it is an interpretation rather than an explanation. It is presented as coming from Jesus, but it is likely to have come from the tradition of the early Church. There is quite a different emphasis between the original parable and this interpretation. The parable focuses on the sower and the ultimate and inevitable success of his work. The interpretation, however, looks much more at the soil in which the seed falls. The interpretation reflects the experiences of the early Church as it tried to spread the Gospel. The four different kinds of soil are taken to represent four kinds of responses to the Word of God.

The first kind is like the seed on the stony path. The Word of God never even gets started but gets plucked away by the evil influences by which the person is surrounded. In our strongly secular world today it is not easy for the Word to take root with so many competing enticements.

The second kind is like the seed that falls on the rock. The Word of God is received with great enthusiasm; the person becomes a devout and active Christian. But, if obstacles arise which make the living of the Christian life difficult, the person falls away, maybe quickly, maybe gradually. As the Gospel says, the person has no roots; the faith has not gone deep, and so has not been really assimilated. This must have been the case with many in the early Church who enthusiastically embraced Christianity, but when persecution came, abandoned their faith. In our own time, we see this often enough when, for instance, people are removed from a protected environment where it is easy to live the faith to one where the faith is ignored or even ridiculed.

The third kind is like the seed that falls among the briars and brambles. I would suggest that a very large number of us are touched by this category. Anxieties about many things and the lure of material goods can gradually choke off our commitment to the Gospel in its fullness. Our witness becomes seriously compromised and “there is no yield”, that is, we make no real contribution to building the Kingdom and changing the world. We sit on the fence and try to have the best of both worlds; we try to serve God and mammon, which Jesus says is not possible. I am sure many of us have matter for reflection here.

Finally, there is the fourth kind of seed which falls on good soil. This is the one “who hears the message and takes it in”. These people hear the Word, accept the Word, make it their own and it overflows into all they are and do and say. Much fruit for the world comes from such persons.

These four types can still be found and it is for each one of us to determine to which group we belong.

More

Commentary on Luke 6:27-38

For many people, even those who identify themselves as Christians, this may be one of the most difficult passages in the Gospel. It seems to express an idealism that is totally unrealistic and unattainable.

We live today in a world of terrible violence, of murder, of terrorism—the horror of attacks on the innocent, of vicious vendettas often stirred up in the press (especially the tabloids) and internet media, of rampant litigation—suing and counter-suing. Are these things not to be avenged?

Where do Jesus’ words fit in? It is worth noting that the passage begins:

I say to you who are listening…

In order to understand what Jesus is really saying to us, we have to put aside our prejudices and assumptions and really listen to what he is saying. This passage, in particular, is one where we are likely to react emotionally.

Jesus says:

Love your enemies; do good to those who hate you; bless those who curse you; pray for those who mistreat you.

We may feel that to follow this teaching is to try something which is totally beyond our capacity, that it would require a tremendous amount of will-power, and that it would only encourage those people to behave even worse. In the Old Testament hatred of evildoers is presumed to be the right attitude to have. But Jesus is extending love to the enemy and the persecutor.

This is the core of Jesus’ teaching, which he himself practised. The Golden Rule which is sometimes expressed as “Do not do to others what you would not want them do to you” is expressed here in positive terms.

The first big hurdle is the word “love”. For us it is a very emotional word, implying both affection and intimacy. For us, in English, to ‘love’ is most often associated with to ‘be in love with’, to ‘be attracted to’, to ‘desire’. But Jesus is not telling us to be in love with our enemies. He is not even telling us to like them. The Greek verb which the Gospel uses is agapao from which the noun agape comes. Agape [pronounced ‘ah-gah-pay’] is a special kind of love. It is not the physically-expressed love of lovers, nor is it the love of close friends. It is rather an attitude of positive regard towards other people by which I wish for their well-being.

This, in fact, is the love that God has for us. It is a one-sided love in the sense that a return is not expected. God reaches out in infinite love to every single person without exception. God wishes every person to experience that love; God wishes the fullest well-being of every single person. That love of his is often not returned; it is often rejected or ignored.

But it continues unabated, like the father in the story of the prodigal son waiting for his boy to come back. The father continued to love his son even in his lowest moments of debauchery and degradation. It was the same with the people who were nailing Jesus to the cross. He prayed for them—for their being forgiven—and that they might come to a realisation of just what they were doing. In this sense, loving our enemies seems altogether reasonable. And not only not impossible, but really the only thing to do.

Who are our “enemies”? First of all, they are not our enemies in the sense that we hate them or want to harm them. In that sense, a Christian should have no enemies. Rather, enemies are people who are hostile to us. They want to harm us, take revenge on us, even destroy us. There are two ways we can deal with such people. We can set out to do more harm to them, to take revenge on them, or try to wipe them out completely. Or we can try and work to turn them round.

Our problem is that we tend to focus too much on ourselves and our own immediate needs, and overlook the needs of others. To love as God loves is to focus more on others. We can only do this if we have a strong inner sense of security and self-acceptance. Then we are not too worried about what people say about us or do to us.

And then, too, we can turn our attention much more to the one who is hating or harming. We will begin to ask why do they have to act in this way. What is hurting inside them that drives them to such behaviour? Already we are, just by thinking in this way, beginning to care for our enemy and beginning to love him or her. And is not this a much better solution to the problem? To bring peace back into that person’s life and initiate a healing process in them and between them and us.

Jesus is not at all asking us to do something ‘unnatural’. We do not naturally want to hate or be hated. We want to love and to be loved. We see many parts of the world where, for years, there has been a process of hatred and retaliation in a never-ending spiral of vengeance and loss of life. The only way to break this cycle is to follow Jesus’ advice. It is not a lose-lose or lose-win situation; it is a win-win situation where everyone benefits.

Perhaps words of the late St Teresa of Calcutta (Mother Teresa) are appropriate here:

“Love, to be true, has to hurt. I must be willing to give whatever it takes not to harm other people and, in fact, to do good to them. This requires that I be willing to give until it hurts. Otherwise, there is no love in me and I bring injustice, not peace, to those around me.”

To put Jesus’ teaching into effect is not a matter of strengthening our will to do something very difficult, but to change our conventional thinking at the deepest level, to see things his way. Once we do that, it becomes much easier.

Jesus’ application of this teaching has also been the subject of much mockery:

If anyone strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also, and from anyone who takes away your coat do not withhold even your shirt.

We think that in a world where macho reigns, this is just too much! Only wimps would follow Jesus’ advice because they are afraid to do anything else! Our movie ‘heroes’ know what to do in such cases: mow them down, knock them out, blow them up!

Again, it is a question of seeing things from Jesus’, that is, God’s viewpoint. Turning the other cheek, as it is presented here, is not at all an act of weakness. It requires great courage and great inner strength and an awareness that the one who strikes is the one who is really weak. It is easy to lash out at another person by word or act. It is easy to hit back; it is almost an instinctive reaction, but it is not the truly human response.

To hit back is to reduce oneself to the same level as one’s attacker, and it solves nothing in the long run. Deliberately and calmly not to hit back is to refuse (in the words of Canadian-born psychiatrist, Eric Berne) “to play the other person’s game”. It is to break the cycle and change the level of the playing field and move it to a higher level—the level of mutual respect and human dignity.

Jesus set the example when he was struck on the face during his trial. During the whole degradation of the Passion his dignity shines out, in contrast to the pathetic posturings of his judges and tormentors. This was the spirit that guided some leaders like Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, and which is behind all movements devoted to active non-violence.

Jesus lived the example of the principle: ‘Treat others as you would like them to treat you’. You do not want to be hated or struck so you refuse, no matter what happens, to hate or strike another person. He also said:

If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them.

So no, we will not react simply in the way others deal with us. As followers of Christ, we see things in a completely different way and we want to behave differently. We believe that not only do we personally benefit from following Jesus’ way, but that others too will benefit and may even come to our point of view.

Finally, Jesus calls us to follow the model of God himself:

Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.

In Matthew’s Gospel it is written:

Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
(Matt 5;48)

The meaning is the same: our perfection consists in our empathetic reaching out in compassionate agape to every single person. And, through us, the compassion of God can then be experienced by people.

We are not to judge or condemn persons (although we may be asked and required to give an objective and discerned evaluation of a person’s behaviour or fitness for some task or position; behavior does have consequences). And we are to forgive. Then we will not be condemned, and we will in turn receive forgiveness.

The emphasis is on reaching out to others rather than gathering for ourselves, being turned in on our little, insecure selves. Jesus says:

Forgive, and you will be forgiven; give, and it will be given to you.

Jesus put this graphically when he told us to give not only our cloak to someone asking for it but our tunic as well. Given that the poor in those days only had two garments, that would leave the donor totally naked!

But that is the point—the one filled with the spirit of Christ has nothing to lose, nothing of which to be ashamed. Life consists in what we are able to give and not what we can get. Jesus says to us:

…the measure you give will be the measure you get back.

And that, above all, applies to agape-love. Everyone can give an endless supply of that.