20th Sunday Year C

Homily 5 - 2022

Towards the end of his public life, Jesus could see that he was heading for execution. Jerusalem with its religious power centre would be dangerous. Yet he believed that his mission to share with everyone his conviction of the non-negotiability of loving everywhere and in all situations required him to do it. “I have come to bring fire to the earth”, he said, the fire of love [what else?]; and he deeply longed for it to start burning. He knew that the opposition awaiting him from the priestly and aristocratic leadership would overwhelm him in a sea of violence; but what else could he do? To remain true to himself, and to his understanding of his Father-God, he had to persevere in his resolve. In fact, he yearned to give them the chance still to convert that he had been offering to everyone, for the sake of their ultimate peace and happiness — though he knew that his offer could ultimately lead to his own death. “There is a baptism I must still receive, and how great is my distress till it is over.” He was right.

Jesus wanted to warn his disciples that, in a sin-scarred world, any message of practical love and peace would paradoxically, though often, lead to division and conflict. Jesus foresaw family conflicts. Perhaps we could add, even in the Church.

Could that be a good thing — or is it inevitably bad? Pope Francis recently warned us to expect disagreement in the Church. We are all individuals; we are all sin-scarred; none of us has a monopoly on truth — untested assumptions, human fallibility. Disagreeing has the potential to lead both parties to a fuller insight into the truth. The Gospel itself records an incident in Jesus’ life where he disagreed with the request of a pagan Syro-Phoenician woman to heal her daughter. Jesus’ sensed that his mission was confined to fellow-Jews only. She contradicted this, and, by some quick thinking, helped him to see that he could fruitfully reach out to both without compromise. Jesus changed through the confrontation.

The problem with us is that, given again that we are all sin-scarred, disagreement can lead to hostility — and a hardening of the battle-lines. Sadly it is leading the Church currently to polarise: left versus right, conservative versus liberal, us versus them.

But disagreement need not lead to hostility. They are different. Disagreement is a factor of judgment, of the mind. If another’s belief or behaviour is different from ours, disagreement is inevitable, and sometimes necessary. Disagreement, however, benefits from being explored further, opening up the possibility for one or both disputants to grasp more of the truth — or to agree to disagree.

Hostility is a factor of the heart. It is not a thought, but a feeling, an emotion, an attitude — often spontaneous, habitual and nearly universal.

Disagreement, however, need not trigger hostility. The feeling may be strongly felt, but actual hostility is chosen. Its expression can be controlled by the will. To gain such self-control, however, hostility needs first to be recognised; and that supposes deliberately cultivated self-knowledge. Control also assumes motivation fired by a clear respect for everyone’s god-given dignity, including one’s own. Finally, people need inner strength and freedom if they are to refrain from expressing their hostility.

Given the increasing polarisation happening in society and in the Church, we need to prioritise without delay our growth in self-knowledge by regular and deliberate practice. We need to learn honestly to respect everyone’s human dignity. We need finally to work at deepening our freedom to distinguish habitual feelings from considered choices.

God who is love works with us in this!