27th
Sunday in Ordinary Time
Gn 2:18-24
Ps 128
Heb 2:9-11
Mk 10:2-16
Certain readings present particular challenges to a priest. The readings for this 27th Sunday in Ordinary
Time are an example. Father has several
options.
1. Do a bad Shecky Green imitation and
tell a few jokes.
2. Decide it would be a good Sunday for
the deacon to preach.
3. Ramble on about politics.
4. Plunge in.
The Gospel is a
perfect illustration of the first thing one hears on day one in Scripture
101: “One cannot understand or
appreciate the New Testament without knowing the Old.” That explains why Old Testament is offered in
the fall semester and New Testament in the winter.
In today’s Gospel Jesus directly quotes the creation story
from the second chapter of Genesis, today's first reading. This is only one of many times He cites
Torah as the basis for his teaching.
Where do we go from here?
The commentary on today's gospel by Jesuit Fathers Donahue
and Harrington begins: “In the context
of the journey narrative Mark presents Jesus’ radical teachings on marriage and
divorce.” Radical is the key word. This teaching on divorce is as radical,
challenging, and difficult today as it was when Jesus defeated the Pharisees'
cynical challenge. The reasons for
Jesus' teaching being seen as radical have changed but the radical nature
persists. This radical nature is the
best evidence that these are, in fact, His words
In Ancient Near East society marriages were arranged for
financial and social reasons. After the
couple was engaged they got to know each other under supervision before the
woman moved into the man’s—or his father’s—home. This is plainly laid out in the first chapter
of Matthew that describes Joseph’s plan to divorce Mary quietly. The marriage ceremony itself involved signing
legal documents.
In their attempt to trap Jesus into giving deviant teaching
on marriage and divorce, the Pharisees alluded to two texts in Deuteronomy regarding
divorce. Jesus, on his part, cited more ancient teaching from Genesis, part of
which was proclaimed here, as expressing God’s original plan: “and
the two shall become one flesh.” Then He elaborated and extended the
teaching: “Therefore, what God has
joined together, no human must separate.”
Just fifteen days ago, I repeated this charge after the giving of
consent at the nuptial Mass of a former student in Gladwyne, PA. It was a
solemn moment. In the Ancient Near East
divorce was the exclusive prerogative of the husband. The procedure was simple. The husband gave his wife a certificate of
divorce and sent her away. She was now
free to marry someone else. Donahue and
Harrington again, “In a society in which divorce was widely accepted and the
controversial issue was the grounds for divorce Jesus’ teaching about no
divorce went against custom and the cultural grain.” Truly, the more things change the more the
stay the same.
The early Church struggled with the question of divorce as
mightily as we do today. There is Paul’s
advice to those who found themselves in “mixed marriages.” And the “exceptive
clauses” found in Matthew which permit divorce
for porneia or,
what is translated as, unchastity. Now,
if you want to have some fun with a bunch of scripture scholars, ask them over
drinks exactly what porneia
means. Like the American Express ads,
Priceless. We continue to struggle with the question of divorce today. Commentators ask challenging questions about
Jesus’ teaching:
“Is it an ideal to strive for, a challenge to be faced, an
extreme example, or divine law?”
“Which part of the New Testament evidence is more important:
Jesus’ absolute prohibition or the exceptions introduced by Paul and Matthew?”
“How is Jesus’ teaching best actualized?”
There are marriages that should and must end. Many of those never should have been entered
into in the first place. One doesn’t
have to be a psychiatrist to recognize that though it does help. One of the saddest, and most infuriating,
examples of misusing and abusing Church teaching on divorce comes from
Spencer Tracy.
Spencer Tracy carried on a twenty-five year long adulterous
affair with Katherine Hepburn. The
adultery continued until his death. His
death also ended his 44 year-long marriage to his Episcopalian wife. As several sources confirm he wouldn’t
divorce her because of his QUOTE staunch Catholicism UNQUOTE. Apparently adultery posed no problem to that
staunch Catholicism. A challenge today
is those who see this, and other stories like it, as great romantic epics,
when, in fact, they are merely tawdry affairs.
There were two options for this Gospel. The short versions ends with the teaching on
divorce. The longer form includes the passage about children. It is appropriate to continue the reading
because of the comment on the nature of power and the Kingdom of Heaven.
“Whoever does not accept the Kingdom of God like a child will not enter it.”
Children in the Ancient Near East had no social standing
whatsoever. They were possessions without
influence or rights. In contrast to 21st
century America their whims did not rule family life. Whenever Jesus uses a child as an
illustration He is not presenting childhood in the modern romantic ideal as
innocent, unspoiled, dewy-eyed—think Hummel figurine. Rather, He is emphasizing that social
standing, wealth, and power have nothing to do with the Kingdom of Heaven.
He who has the most toys when he dies has no advantage over
the one who never had a toy during life.
If the relentless pursuit of those toys damaged or scandalized others,
think Bernie Madoff or Spencer Tracy, the ultimate result is damning.
The
responsorial psalm describes the ideal:
Blessed
are you who fear the LORD,
who walk in his ways!
For you shall eat the fruit of your handiwork;
blessed shall you be, and favored .
who walk in his ways!
For you shall eat the fruit of your handiwork;
blessed shall you be, and favored .
May the Lord bless us all the days of our lives.
No comments:
Post a Comment