21st Sunday Year C - Homily 6

 Homily 6 - 2022

Today’s First Reading from Isaiah is quite challenging. Isaiah looked forward to a time in the undefined future when Gentiles, considered till then by virtually all Jews as outsiders, excluded, ritually impure, even “the enemy”, would stream to Jerusalem and the virtually unthinkable would happen: some of “them” God would make priests and Levites to serve in the Jewish Temple. Radical thinking! God is truly a God of surprises!

Today’s Gospel, too, presents its few surprises. The initial question seemed harmless enough: “Will there be only a few saved?” A simple “Yes” or “No” may have been enough. But not with Jesus. He wanted people to think through things themselves. He talked about a “narrow door”. He said many would “not succeed”. But Jesus did not say how big was “many” or what might be the criteria for entry; though he did rule out the value of a merely superficial relationship with him.

To stir their thinking even more, he surprisingly said that many of the most unlikely “possibles” would “take their places at the feast in the kingdom of God”. What can we be certain of? The God of surprises again! Jesus then added cryptically, “there are those now last who will be first, and those now first who will be last” — but again added nothing about the criteria that would determine who were “first” and who were “last”. Can anyone confidently claim the “moral high-ground”?

Against this background I would like to make some comments regarding the recent news that you may have heard about the formation of a “break-away” diocese in the Australian Anglican Church, spurred by obviously deep differences of opinion on the contested issue of gay-marriage. The Anglican experience raises the question of how decisions are reached on issues where people’s attitudes are divided.

We are familiar with Parliamentary procedure where new legislation is preceded by consultation and discussion; sometimes amendments are suggested; finally the proposed legislation is accepted or rejected by a democratic vote, with the majority preference winning the day and the minority voices losing. The system sounds fair; but it often leaves a dissatisfied, hurting minority, with minimal commitment, or none, to the decision reached.

I am not sure, but I think that Anglican Synods may adopt a comparable democratic procedure. It seems that those who opposed the recent choice regarding same-sex marriage were left highly dissatisfied and hurting, with such a depth of opposition to the decision reached that they decided to form the new diocese specifically for themselves.

A somewhat similar dilemma seemed to face us in the Catholic Church on the occasion of the recent Plenary Council. Suggestions about the priestly ordination of women, and also other issues connected with homosexuality figured in the reports of the local consultations sent by parishes to the organising committee. People are still nowhere near unanimous in their attitudes which many feel very strongly.

Of recent years Pope Francis has been calling the Church to adopt what he calls a synodal approach to decision making. However, he sees that synodal approach quite differently from the way that I think was adopted in the Anglican Synod. The Plenary Council adopted Francis’ model.

Among the points of Francis’ sense of synodality are the following: The aim of the Council was not simply to determine what the majority of participants wanted on each issue [and so have “winners” and “losers”]; but to face the more difficult task of determining what all participants could honestly agree to and accept as the deliberately discerned guidance of God’s Spirit expressed in the will of the whole gathering — even when it fell short, perhaps far short, of their personal preference. For each one, it would express not what “I” want but what “we” want.

In the preliminary discussions in mixed groups participants were encouraged to state courageously what they personally thought and felt, and equally to listen carefully and respectfully to what others thought and felt — and to seek always the common ground. Division was in this way avoided; commitment was given; and participants generally were content to have achieved, if not the ideal, certainly the currently possible.

Homily 6b [St Vincent de Paul celebration]

[St Vincent de Paul Society members - Hamilton 21st August 2022]

I would like to share a few thoughts with you this morning in the hope that you might find them helpful. The main source I shall draw from will be the countless “examinations of conscience” I have made over the years, and a few of the things I have learnt from them.

First of all, I hope I believe that God loves me because God is good, and I hope that God relates to everyone else in the world from the same starting point with the same love. God is not complex. Divinity is the mystery of utter simplicity. My sense is that God has only one way of loving — one size fits all.

Fortunately God’s love is always unconditional; it never changes and it never ceases, even for a moment. It is eternal. It is infinite. It accommodates the whole creation.

I also don’t like the old catechism answer I learnt that declared that God made me “to know him, love him and serve him”. I would prefer, “to know him, and to love him by loving and serving others”. Jesus insisted that he came not to be served by us but to serve us. The direction of God’s love is always outward. God gets involved in the mess of our lives and in the mess of other people’s lives.

We don’t need to put on our best suits when we encounter God, and our grammar need not be faultless. God wants to get close enough for us to get soaked through in his love. I like the way that Pope Francis suggests that we get “the smell of the sheep”, that our parishes [and your groups] should be like “field hospitals” —commissioned by Jesus to heal. But there is no shortage of mud and mess.

May I also suggest that you think about not so much praying to God for your clients, but that you pray that God so saturate you that you change, and that your love for them grows ever stronger and purer and more practical.

I also think that the lesser people’s ability to say thanks, or the greater their propensity to exploit your goodness, the greater is their need for real care, respect and love.

Finally, try not to get discouraged — with clients or each other. What matters is not visible success, but tangible love.

Thank you for all you are doing!