Sunday, September 2, 2012

Homily for 21st Sunday in Ordinary Time

Homily for the
21st Sunday
of Ordinary Time
The last couple of weeks have been crazy-busy with photos to process, press releases to write, an issue of the Salesian Bulletin to get to press. So, a week overdue, here's last week's homily.

John 6: 60-69
Aug. 26, 2012
Christian Brothers, Iona College, N.R.
St. Timothy, Greenwich, Conn.

“This saying is hard; who can accept it?” (John 6: 60).

Which saying would that be?  Those who study the Sacred Scriptures are inclined to think that this phrase, this objection from Jesus’ disciples—note that it’s his disciples, those who’ve been following him and listening to his sermons for some time—refers to the 1st part of his discourse on the Bread of Life:  that Jesus’ word, his teaching, is the new manner in which God feeds his people, better and more effective for eternal life than the manna with which Moses fed the Hebrews in the Sinai desert.

They say that because the passage we read last week, vv. 51-58, seems to interrupt the flow between the rest of the discourse and this reaction; i.e., today’s passage follows naturally from vv. 22-51a.

At the same time, the Gospel of John as we have it now does include vv. 51b-58, which apparently is John’s version of the institution of the Holy Eucharist. John doesn’t include the Eucharist in his account of the Last Supper.  And our passage today about some, or even many, of the disciples reacting negatively to Jesus’ teaching can well be taken as a response also to Jesus’ demanding that we eat his flesh and drink his blood if we hope to reach eternal life.

As is very often the case when we read John’s Gospel, it’s not a question of choosing between one interpretation and another; John likes to leave us with both-and.  Both believing that Jesus’ teaching and nourishment surpass those of Moses—that Christianity has surpassed or perfected Judaism, which was THE issue for John’s readers at the end of the 1st century; and believing that the Eucharist is the very Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, are fundamental teaching for John and for the Church.  And both call for our response, our reaction:  “Does this shock you?  Some of you do not believe.  Do you also want to leave?” (6:61,64,67).

Jesus remarks to those who’ve been scandalized by his teaching, “It’s the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail” (6:63).  Recognizing that Jesus’ teaching is Spirit-filled, Peter responds on behalf of the 12:  “Master, to whom shall we go?  You have the words of eternal life.  We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God” (6:68-69).

This seems to be St. John’s version of Peter’s confession of faith, a parallel to the famous scene in Matthew’s Gospel when Peter proclaims:  “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (16:16), which draws Jesus’ response that he’ll build his Church upon Peter, the Rock, and give him the keys to the kingdom of heaven (16:18).  In John that commission to Peter comes after the resurrection, after Peter has recommitted himself to Jesus, and Jesus tells him, “Feed my lambs; tend my sheep” (21:15-17).

Each of us is asked the same fundamental questions.  Do we believe Jesus’ teachings?  Do we truly believe that his words are Spirit-filled; that they are life?  Will we remain with him, or will we walk away because his teachings are hard?

G.K. Chesterton famously observed that Christianity has not been tried and found wanting—in its substance, in its truth; it has been tried and found difficult—to practice.  It does demand of us real commitment:  to Jesus, to what he teaches, to the Church that is his body and that transmits his teaching from one generation to another and interprets that teaching, with his authority, in the context of new ages and new cultures.

A Catholic News Service story on Aug. 17[1] opened with this paragraph:  “The percentage of Catholics practicing their faith is declining almost everywhere around the globe.  Almost all bishops report it, but it’s difficult to prove statistically.”  The story detailed that, based on reports that the bishops of the world submit annually to Rome, a working document has been prepared for the next Synod of Bishops, whose topic will be the new evangelization—or, if you will, the re-evangelization of those peoples and cultures who have fallen away from belief or at least from practice of the faith.  According to this document, the bishops consistently describe “a weakening of faith in Christian communities, a diminished regard for the authority of the magisterium, an individualistic approach to belonging to the Church, a decline in religious practice, and a disengagement in transmitting the faith to new generations.”

That decline in practice and that individualism are pretty evident when we look around:  the numbers of baptisms, first Communions, confirmations, and marriages down; church attendance down; ignorance and even public dissent from basic church teachings—on doctrine, such as whether the Eucharist truly is the Body of Christ or is merely a symbol; on morals, notably about sexual behavior, so-called “gay marriage,” and abortion.  Regularly, we see prominent public figures (politicians, academics, writers, and at least one philanthropist—in the news just a couple of weeks ago[2]) describing themselves as good, practicing Catholics even as they lecture the bishops on what the Church teaches, or should teach if it would just get into the 21st century.  Recently we’ve heard the leading organization of Catholic nuns in our country say, in effect, to the Holy See, “How dare you find fault with how we live as religious and what doctrinal opinions we espouse!”

Even today’s Scripture selections give us a bit of an opportunity to reflect on the “hard teachings” of the Gospel.  You may have observed that the lectionary offers both a long and a short version of the 2d reading—not only here but also in the selections offered for the celebration of marriage, by the way.  That’s because it’s not fashionable nowadays, not politically correct, to take what Paul writes and deal with it head-on.  If it’s the inspired Word of God, then we have to wrestle with it, not ignore it and pretend it’s not there.  Taken as a whole, including the Eastern Mediterranean culture of the 1st century from which Paul was writing, the passage isn’t “male chauvinism” but a hard challenge to all of us to “be subordinate to one another out of reverence for Christ” (Eph 5:21), to be submissive to one another as to Christ, to love one another as Christ loves us—and he loves us enuf that he “handed himself over” for us, gave himself up in death, “to sanctify” us (5:25-26).  Even so should a husband love his wife, and a wife her husband—and a priest love his flock—all striving to foster the sanctity of the others.  “This is a great mystery, but I speak in reference to Christ and the Church” (Eph 5:32)—the last line of the reading.  It’s a mystery—which, by the way, is the Greek word for what Latin calls sacramentum, the precise word that the Vulgate uses in this verse—it’s a mystery that marriage is a reflection of Christ’s love for the Church and the Church’s love for Christ; a mystery that’s hard to live out in practice (as you know better than I do), which is why the permanence of marriage, the openness of marriage at all times to new life, the oneness of marriage (one man, one woman, made one in Christ)—all that is “a hard teaching” that causes some to walk away from the Church, and thus from Christ, who teaches the Church.

If we truly believe with St. Peter and the 12 that Jesus has the words of eternal life, that he is the Holy One of God, then we will read, study, meditate upon, and make our own his words:  the Gospels, the letters of Paul and the other apostles, Revelation; the Old Testament too; and the updating and practical application of all these to contemporary life by the successors of Peter and the 12 in the Church—the Church which remains ever subordinate to Christ her head (Eph 5:23).


               [1] Cindy Wooden, “Statistically speaking: Vatican numbers hint at fading faith practice.”
               [2] Melinda Gates.

No comments: