Mt 19:3-12 (cf. Gen 2:18-24)

We are familiar with the fluctuations of our emotionality: the person who now makes me lose my head, in a week's time will perhaps strike a nerve. Every morning we get up in a different mood; after a while the psyche gives opposite signals, then returns to its previous positions.

Obviously the invisible thread of the relationship cannot succeed happily and firmly if the assumptions are only seductive: it will end in an escalation of apathy or arguments.

The Word of God proposes a very wise discernment for engaged couples: the new birth.

A girl will leave her father if in the flamboyant relationship she discovers a prospect of improved security, and even greater fatherhood or protection possibilities; a young man will leave his mother if in the torch of the new relationship he sees a principle of welcome, listening and understanding unknown or superior to his own mother.

New Genesis: this is the unrenounceable vocational perspective, the only one capable of integrating the fatigue of putting oneself on the line and welcoming the idea in two of being able to also step out of one's own positions - even those at the beginning of the relationship.

In falling in love we allow ourselves to be activated and traversed by a mysterious Force that [even beyond the charm of the partner] wants to lead us to a sort of unleashing of hidden energies, in the incessant search for identity-character.

Love originates us, it leads us along a path not without interruptions, which incessantly force us back to the Beginning; to re-choose the values on which we have gambled. Hence, to be born and to begin anew, unexpectedly becoming more and more 'young'.

That flaming torch will make us make extraordinary encounters, first of all in the meaningful direction of the regenerated intimate; thus there will be no more need to capture the spouse, to keep him or her still or close to him or her.

It is the sacred desire that creates us; then - at Two - it becomes even more effectively the substance of what each one is called to be - through steps of happiness that prepare a new origination, a distinct outline and destiny.

All this so that from wave to wave, from birth to birth, and under the stimulus of continuous Dialogue, our essence is fulfilled, allowing the profound Calling by Name to flourish.

Natural complementarity can wear away with age, fatigue, frustrations. On the other hand, a reflection of absolute Love, which postpones and gives vertigo [because it places us in plots outside of time] is a spectacle that shakes, moves and conquers.

Irradiating God who creates (within us and in relationship), reflecting a great unceasing Origin within human unity, makes us be together - in two but with ourselves present, and be-With our Root.

An innate Source that does not express itself in straitjackets or in an identification: it gives meaning and breath even to the secondary, the repetitive and everyday that undermines - and seems to want to undermine - us in disenchantment.

If the idea of the Principle is always at home, it will no longer be necessary for the bark of everyday life to change, nor for too many situations to change: it is that glimpse of Eternity that makes one re-born into the (personal but complete) human project of Genesis.

It is a Presence... and a Source that generates, and the Life Horizon of the One who puts Himself into things... that changes so much of our little things.

The Action of the One who gives birth to the ancient and new radiance of the soul makes us grow and be born again, to be both with ourselves and more firmly together.

The Family becomes a small 'domestic church' from which 'the new citizens of human society are born' (Lumen Gentium no.11).

It thus manifests and unfolds the icon of a God who does not express Himself rigidly, but in creating.

Thanks to Parents who are able to second the "vocation proper to each one", in the new beginnings and in the rush of successive sprouts and buds each sapling "will leave his father and mother".

To internalise and live the message:

What more has the church experience given you in understanding the man-woman relationship? What about communion and autonomy?

Complementarity

The first man was man and woman together. He was a total being and lived in a state of harmony. Following a transgression of the prohibition, he split into two. After this separation, man and woman felt incomplete, lonely, and felt the need to regain their initial state of plenitude. The Dogon myth thus remarkably translates the idea of complementarity between man and woman.

(Albertine Tshibilondi Ngoyi)

Cooperation

The cooperation of man and woman at the time of storing grains, sowing and growing cotton, has the same meaning as spinning and weaving, symbols of love.

(Dogon oral tradition, Mali)

Truth: You and I

Truth is not at all what I have. It is not at all what you have. It is what unites us in suffering, in joy. It is what unites us in our union, in the pain and pleasure we give birth to. Neither I nor You. And me and You. Our common work, permanent amazement. Its name is Wisdom.

(Irénée Guilane Dioh)

Woman

The African woman is neither a reflection of man nor a slave. She feels no need to imitate man in order to express her personality. She secures an original civilisation with her work, her personal genius, her concerns, her language and her customs. It has not allowed itself to be colonised by man and the prestige of male civilisation.

(Albertine Tshibilondi Ngoyi)

Legalistic conception and hardness of heart

(Mt 19:3-12)

The polemic with the fanatics of the law emphasises the need for a new messianic community, which overcomes the exclusively legalistic moral conception.

The theme chosen by the Pharisees lent itself to challenging Jesus on the ideal of love.

The marriage law of the time required the wife to make herself the husband's property.

So in any case, divorce reverberated against the woman, always seen as an inferior being.

In the society of the time, macho domination and marginalisation of the weak were established situations.

In order to protect the woman's own freedom (Deut 24:1-4), the law required that the fed-up husband [even for a trifle or whim] should write a divorce 'letter' anyway, sanctioning her freedom.

Unlike Roman society, the wife did not have the same right: a social plague, which obscured her dignity. In practice, she was like an object and a slave even in her own home.

But in creating the human being, this was not the Creator's intent. So Jesus removed privileges - even domestic privileges - demanding maximum equality of rights and duties.

He knew that the apostles themselves preferred not to marry than to renounce the exclusivity of leadership, even if only to scapegoat: "If the man's situation with the woman is like this, it is not good to marry" (Mt 19:10).

The Master does not allow the dominion of the strong over the weak; therefore man must lose his hegemony over woman.

The new law is love, and love does not allow possessions, emotional exploitation, fixed chains of command.

Both marriage and celibacy are choices that recognise the value of the Person. Awe-inspiring options for the sake of the Kingdom of God - not in the service of any compromise, supremacy, or other vested interests.

The divine plan for humanity is transparent, broad and generous. The marriage union itself - without being bound by domination or sector - is called to express the goal of fullness.

The stronger does not buy the weaker in property, but [shading from those rigid positions, without hypocrisy and field compromises] both enrich each other - with fairness and even in the divergences, taken as advanced points of a proposal of growth and expansion.

Christ demands a new approach to ethics [once 'jurisdiction-based'], now marked by primary values. This is beyond regulations, which seek to adapt to order... perhaps curbing our parodies, or mediocrity.

Thus Christ's teaching here appeals to the divine creative Act that in the nature of a person has engrained a capacity for gift and growth - and that cannot be regulated by contract clauses, nor subjected to conditioning and subjection.

The seed of love must be entrusted to the earth, even muddy soil; aware of one's own weakness and the power of other providential forces.

Even with steep or uncertain ground, if one does not rush into artificial prejudices (or lamentations of ingratitude) the very interweaving of the roots will genuinely produce its flowering.

In such a spontaneous, non-subordinate energetic current, a different self-denial will be built - where the given fact from being regular becomes an overcoming that unleashes other virtues or views.

Here, the step of Faith builds persons and communities, completing them (without too much acceleration, or imperial restrictions). For a Love that unceasingly originates us.

The Family thus becomes a 'little domestic Church' because it is both autonomous and inclusive; without nomenclature, compromises, masks, gags or straitjackets.

Then complementarity lived authentically - without externalities - can go beyond the casuistry of ordinances: it has good personal and social outcomes, evoking the very Presence of God in the world.

The Church cannot be indifferent to the separation of spouses and to divorce, facing the break-up of homes and the consequences for the children that divorce causes. If they are to be instructed and educated, children need extremely precise and concrete reference points, in other words parents who are determined and reliable who contribute in quite another way to their upbringing. Nor, it is this principle that the practice of divorce is undermining and jeopardizing with the so-called "extended" family that multiplies "father" and "mother" figures and explains why today the majority of those who feel "orphans" are not children without parents but children who have too many. This situation, with the inevitable interference and the intersection of relationships, cannot but give rise to inner conflict and confusion, contributing to creating and impressing upon children an erroneous typology of the family, which in a certain sense can be compared to cohabitation, because of its precariousness. 

The Church is firmly convinced that the true solution to the current problems that husbands and wives encounter and that weaken their union lies in a return to the stable Christian family, an environment of mutual trust, reciprocal giving, respect for freedom and education in social life. It is important to remember that: "the love of the spouses requires, of its very nature, the unity and indissolubility of the spouses' community of persons, which embraces their entire life" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 1644). In fact, Jesus said clearly "what therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder" (Mk 10: 9) and added, "whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery" (Mk 10: 11-12). With all the understanding that the Church can show in these situations, there are no spouses of the second marriage but only of the first: this is an irregular and dangerous situation which it is necessary to resolve, in fidelity to Christ and with the help of a priest, finding a possible way to save all those involved. 

To help families, I urge you to propose to them with conviction the virtues of the Holy Family: prayer, the cornerstone of every domestic hearth faithful to its own identity and mission; hard work, the backbone of every mature and responsible marriage; silence, the foundation of every free and effective activity. In this way, I encourage your priests and the pastoral centres of your dioceses to accompany families, so that they are not disappointed or seduced by certain relativistic lifestyles that the cinema and other forms of media promote. I trust in the witness of those families that draw their energy from the sacrament of marriage; with them it becomes possible to overcome the trial that befalls them, to be able to forgive an offence, to accept a suffering child, to illumine the life of the other, even if he or she is weak or disabled, through the beauty of love. It is on the basis of families such as these that the fabric of society must be restored.

[Pope Benedict, Audience to the Bishops of Brazil 25 September 2009]

1. The family in the modern world, as much as and perhaps more than any other institution, has been beset by the many profound and rapid changes that have affected society and culture. Many families are living this situation in fidelity to those values that constitute the foundation of the institution of the family. Others have become uncertain and bewildered over their role or even doubtful and almost unaware of the ultimate meaning and truth of conjugal and family life. Finally, there are others who are hindered by various situations of injustice in the realization of their fundamental rights.

Knowing that marriage and the family constitute one of the most precious of human values, the Church wishes to speak and offer her help to those who are already aware of the value of marriage and the family and seek to live it faithfully, to those who are uncertain and anxious and searching for the truth, and to those who are unjustly impeded from living freely their family lives. Supporting the first, illuminating the second and assisting the others, the Church offers her services to every person who wonders about the destiny of marriage and the family.

In a particular way the Church addresses the young, who are beginning their journey towards marriage and family life, for the purpose of presenting them with new horizons, helping them to discover the beauty and grandeur of the vocation to love and the service of life.

[Pope John Paul II, Familiaris Consortio]

This Sunday’s Gospel reading (cf. Mk 10:2-16) offers us Jesus’ words on marriage. The passage opens with the provocation of the Pharisees who ask Jesus if it is “lawful for a man to divorce his wife”, as the Law of Moses provides (cf. vv. 2-4). Jesus firstly, with the wisdom and authority that come to him from the Father, puts the Mosaic prescription into perspective, saying: “For your hardness of heart he” — that is, the ancient legislator — “wrote you this commandment” (v. 5). Thus it is a concession that is needed to mend the flaws created by our selfishness, but it does not correspond to the Creator’s original intention.

And here, Jesus again takes up the Book of Genesis: “from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female’. ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one’” (vv. 6-8). And he concludes: “What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder” (v. 9). In the Creator’s original plan, it is not that a man marries a woman and, if things do not go well, he repudiates her. No. Rather, the man and the woman are called to recognize each other, to complete each other, to help each other in marriage.

This teaching of Jesus is very clear and defends the dignity of marriage as a union of love which implies fidelity. What allows the spouses to remain united in marriage is a love of mutual giving supported by Christ’s grace. However, if in the spouses, individual interests, one’s own satisfaction prevails, then their union cannot endure.

And the Gospel passage itself reminds us, with great realism, that man and woman, called to experience a relationship of love, may regretfully behave in a way that places it in crisis. Jesus does not admit all that can lead to the failure of the relationship. He does so in order to confirm God’s plan, in which the power and beauty of the human relationship emerge. The Church, on the one hand, does not tire of confirming the beauty of the family as it was consigned to us by Scripture and by Tradition; at the same time, she strives to make her maternal closeness tangibly felt by those who experience relationships that are broken or that continue in a difficult and trying way. 

God’s way of acting with his unfaithful people — that is, with us — teaches us that wounded love can be healed by God through mercy and forgiveness. For this reason in these situations, the Church is not asked to express immediately and only condemnation. On the contrary, before so many painful marital failures, she feels called to show love, charity and mercy, in order to lead wounded and lost hearts back to God.

Let us invoke the Virgin Mary, that she help married couples to always live and renew their union, beginning with God’s original Gift.

[Pope Francis, Angelus 7 October 2018]

(Mk 9:41-50)

In language typical of Oriental liveliness, Jesus' exhortations to coexistence overturn the hierarchy between the powerful and the weak.

In religions we find droves of outcasts who cannot access the trappings of pyramid devotion.

On the contrary, those who, like Jesus, are able to give everything, must not forget the small gestures, which speak of a 'non-exemplary gratuitousness' that is therefore authentic [limited in the day-to-day].

It is this coming to meet in ordinary life - little praised - that enhances the climate and does not push the weak to resentment, and evil.

The new ‘doctrine’ of Jesus is wise and aimed at making decisions.  And it doesn’t lose enthusiasm; indeed, it already makes us experience the same quality of Life as the Eternal, moving away from what corrupts.

Those who are completely absorbed in “the great” and do not notice the details, never have a sense of the value of things, and sooner or later they will end up despising everything.

Jesus identifies with us (v.41) because he lives there: we are his real, incarnate Victory.

A stumbling block or even just a small stone in the shoe (v.42) leads the «mikròi» away from the path of Faith.

The «incipients» - in fact, those with little energy and relationships - are starting to take their first steps... they are still out of interest cartels.

Those who pretend and put themselves in the wrong way, or give dull and bad testimony, however, have more in store than a pebble: a grindstone around their neck and an unworthy end [deadly existence: v.42].

Not because God makes pay, but because they throw their lives away and ruin others, who finally walk away in repugnance - while the sharing adventure could be wonderful for everyone.

The choice - if there is one - is radical, or no longer convinces. And the smell that is released is worse than stinking (v.43).

Instead, the community in which joy is experienced is like that pinch of sapidity and wisdom that makes people's spontaneous vital wave full - beautiful.

It was customary in the religions of the empire to think this, even in the name of the law... so what is the difference?

«Having salt in ourselves» (v.50) means that in Christ we can give minimal and usual things that tone and ‘taste’ capable of transmitting to others the flavor of a life as saved - starting ‘from inside’.

In the culture of the ancient Middle East, «salt» was related to God and therefore also had a religious importance: a symbol of durability [for preserving food] and courage [flavor, seasoning, purification].

Salt had the power to cast out demons, which corrupted life and gave off stench. For this reason it was widely used in religious sacrifices and in establishing Alliances.

In short, the salt was a guarantee of genuine durability.

But the salt of 'sons' is only... humanising wholeness, simple Love of neighbour, and the ability to correspond to one's own Vocation.

If it were not there, the very character of life in Christ would disappear.

Therefore the «salt pact» is essential for credibility, for the announcement, for the standard of living; for the very survival of the communities, and their unmistakable touch.

No other defense work from the outside - inquisition, prevention or repression - can guarantee the survival of the Church.

For our human, spiritual and life progress, Jesus takes sides perhaps not as we would expect - because no one is given the exclusivity.

[Thursday 7th wk. in O.T.  February 27, 2025]

(Mk 9:38-43.45.47-48)

The concept of closure and inquisition

(Mk 9:38-40)

It is not strange that the Holy Inquisition arose in the time of an absent ecclesiology.

The sickness of caste - always prone to kidnapping Jesus - and the sense of absolute monopoly... were already temptations of the first communities, particularly of the leading Apostles.

The super Apostles pretended to fix the typology of church members, including authorisations, deferences, characteristics.

On the other hand - albeit in simplicity - there is no trivial criterion that gives the imprimatur of being able to discriminate 'faithful' and 'not'.

It applies: how much does the Person of the Son of Man count for our lives and in our daily choices?

Feeling - or not - a friend to anyone who is committed to annihilating evil (perhaps by resorting to his free way of perceiving God) makes us reflect even today.

Are we only on the threshold of a journey in the Spirit? The sign of a de facto separation from God's plan for woman and man is perhaps concealed by epidermal expressions.

We have probably not properly understood that every step of liberation - wherever it comes from - brings us closer to the Father and also humanises our heads.

The leaven of the Pharisees and Herod (Mk 8:14) also leads Christ's direct disciples to a sealed mentality - according to which if someone "is not of ours" ("did not follow us" v.38) he must be marginalised.

The difference between religiosity and Faith: there is no longer any need to adhere to a recognised way of thinking or be a member of an official club.

Spiritual wisdom and Openness are the same thing. Every vital gesture opens up happy possibilities: being "drawn to God" is all of this.

In order to do good (casting out demons, v.38) it is not the badge (e.g. the name on the Baptism register) or being confirmed in exclusive circles that counts.

In the personal adventure of genuine Faith, there is no monopoly - not even for the Apostle John. No one is qualified to judge in the name of the assembly!

Holiness as separation concerns the criteria, the mentality, the concatenation of principles (or their reversal): not the election-predestination of a 'people of the pure'.

For Christ, what counts is not formal belonging - which tends to homologate - but what to do in the concrete (obviously on a vocational basis and of unrepeatable inclination).

It is not the feeling of being a disciple that counts, but being a disciple in fact. Love for the 'truth' does not exclude, but includes all those with high values (even supernatural ones, which we do not understand).

Authentic adherence is about the good - the only Victory of the people reborn in the Risen One. Work of life that even the official Church is called upon to build, without squeamish attitudes.

On the contrary, we see that precisely the situations outside the lines become a goad: they urge the dull and opaque 'Christians' to become seeds.

The 'community' is not important because it sees itself as such.

The universal call to the promotion of humanity is divine: a wealth that overcomes obstacles, a heritage of joy from wherever it comes.

If relegated and squeezed into filing cabinets, salvation history does not become a life of the saved.

The Mystical Body of the Lord shuns the ideology of power and the opinionated style of manipulators (spiritual grabbers) who imagine they are who knows what.

"But Jesus said, Do not hinder them. For there is no one who does a mighty wonder in my name and immediately afterwards can speak evil of me" (v.39).

To train disciples, Christ does not tickle self-love by setting up a festival or promoting fictions.

With his intimates, the Master does not use diplomatic language (expressions careful not to offend their susceptibility as experts).

The training of disciples is essential to the building of the Kingdom with wide boundaries, primarily mental.

In esoteric religions, there are models. Here no, only charisms, even personal ones - a condition of true love.

We are governed by God alone - the only one who knows what arouses in each one, and where to go.

Jesus is the revelator and pivot of this joyful, unthinkable News: but in the sense of motive and intimate motor, entirely non-external.

The Lord calls the person in a way that seems incomprehensible to others.

Christ marks his Friendship in the lives of believers, as centre and axis. Yet there are so many gestures and sensitivities that the new world arouses, and equally mark his Presence.

Interior education and the challenge of Faith reflected in activities prepare us for daily life, as well as for the great mission.

By training us in the straightforward Word-event, the resigned Messiah conveys his own experience of the Father.

He involves us with incredible and undeserved confidence in the work of evangelisation.

Nor does he tire of repeating what we do not wish to understand.

The Son of Man only commands us to perceive well the reality (Mk 8:27-29) where God's secret lurks (which conformist thinking cannot even begin to imagine: Mk 8:30-35).The Rule only applies to standardised devotion, which always poses more (already ancient) answers than questions.

The standard has no specific weight for the excess of the adventure of Faith.

The imbalance of love is personal: it serenely admits diversity and the eccentric increase of life that follows.

Such is the new awareness of the Mission made in listening, and in respect not only for the intelligence and culture of others, but also for oneself.

Even now in a thousand ways and finally with the help of a wiser ecclesial Magisterium, Providence encourages us to better position ourselves - in support of those excluded from the 'round'.

The work of 'evangelical conversion' comes to us loud and clear, overriding any considerations made from the standpoint of a triumphant Church or ancient right.

No one has a monopoly on Grace, which is why we do not shrink our hearts from canons or fashions.

In the truth of Good, a sense of ownership is out of place. 

To internalise and live the message:

What weight do the material interests, the empty rigidity, or the fleshless fantasies, of those who (without even having a title) ape small hierarchies and fulminate the different with mediocre impersonal sentences have on you?

How do you live the Word: 'He who is not against, is for'?

The relationship with the excluded and their (modest) needs

(Mk 9:41-50)

In language typical of the lively East, Jesus' exhortations to coexistence overturn the hierarchy between the strong and the weak.

In religions, we find droves of marginalised people who cannot access or participate in the set-ups of those who deceive the crowds (even themselves) using pyramid religion.

The cowardice of the wealthy classes produces the hesitation of the voiceless, indefinitely.

In the Church of God - a sign of an alternative society - there must be no doubt, starting with small deprivations.

Especially in the well-structured sphere of roles, the wretched would wait to see (I won't say their hopes for redemption realised, but simply) their modest needs fulfilled, for the sake of justice.

Unfortunately, they are still rather mocked and chastised - by those who fear losing visibility, privileges and roles.

On the contrary, those who, like Jesus, are able to give everything, must not forget the small gestures, which speak of a gratuitousness that is not 'exemplary' and therefore authentic (limited in the day-to-day).

It is this coming together in the summary - little praised - that enhances the climate and does not drive the weak to resentment and evil.

The new 'doctrine' of Jesus is wise and decision-oriented, because it does not lose enthusiasm. On the contrary, it already makes us experience the same quality of life as the Eternal, turning away from that which corrupts.

He who is all about the great and does not notice the detail, never has a sense of the value of things, and sooner or later will end up despising everything.

Jesus identifies with us (v.41) because he inhabits us: we are his real, incarnate Victory.

A stumbling stone or even just in the shoe (v.42) turns the "mikròi" away from the path of Faith.

The 'incipients' - precisely, the ones with little energy and relationships - begin to take their first steps... they are still outside the cliques and the (even internal) ranks.

However, those who pretend and stand in the way, or who give shabby and lousy testimony, have but a stone in store: a millstone around their neck and an unworthy end (deadly existence: v.42).

"Better" than the further mortification of all, from the top of the class forced to live badly.

Not because God makes them pay, but because they throw away their lives and ruin others, who finally turn away, rightly repulsed - while the adventure of sharing could be wonderful for everyone.

This non-sense (to use a euphemism) is the trait that drives crowds to seek a more authentic Christianity than the one lived only in signs, catwalks and formulas, or in the structures provided.

The choice - if there is one - is either radical, or no longer convincing. And the smell that is given off is worse than smelly (v.43).

By dint of professing, many are left without God and without humanity; they do not even realise that there are others - different and legitimate life aspirations (towards themselves well recognised and restrained).

Instead, the community in which one experiences joy is like that pinch of wisdom that makes the spontaneous life wave of people full - beautiful.

Ferment that does not leaven is of no use.

All the more so to the small and shaky ones who approach the Church in order to feel good, or finally no longer exposed to the ludicrousness of society's all external competitions.

An artificial atmosphere, good only to reduce the defenceless to silence, despised and reduced to obedience - and which makes a mockery of acceptance.

This was customary in the religions of the empire, even in the name of 'divine' law... so what is the difference?"Having salt in ourselves" (v.50) means that in Christ we are made capable of giving to the smallest and most ordinary things that hue and taste capable of transmitting also to our neighbour the flavour of a saved life - starting from "within".

In the culture of the ancient Middle East, salt was related to God and therefore also had religious importance: a symbol of durability (to preserve food) and of courage (savouriness, seasoning, purification).

Salt had the power to drive out demons, which corrupted life and caused stench. That is why it was widely used in cultic sacrifices and in sanctioning 'covenants'.

In short, salt was a guarantee of genuine durability.

But Christian salt is only... love for one's neighbour and the ability to correspond to one's vocation.

Without it, the very character of life in Christ would disappear.

So the 'salt pact' is essential for credibility, for the proclamation, for the standard of living; for the very survival of communities, and their unmistakable touch. 

Listening to the Spirit and to each other thus remains an indispensable ingredient of 'Shalôm'.

No other work of defence from outside - inquisition, prevention or repression - can guarantee the survival of the Church.

Difference between Religion and Faith? The norm, used to promote or legitimise situations (of marginalisation and domination).

For our human, spiritual and whole-life progress, Jesus takes sides (perhaps not as one would expect) - because no one is given exclusivity.

To internalise the message:

In your community, it is the little ones who have to conform to the big ones and their circles... or vice versa, is there serious listening to the new ones with low energy and relationships, shaky and maladjusted?

Once again, therefore, let us look to Christ as a model of humility and of giving freely: let us learn from him patience in temptation, meekness in offence, obedience to God in suffering, in the hope that the One who has invited us will say to us: "Friend, go up higher" (cf. Lk 14: 10). Indeed, the true good is being close to him. St Louis IX, King of France […] put into practice what is written in the Book of Sirach: "The greater you are, the more you must humble yourself; so you will find favour in the sight of the Lord" (3: 18). This is what the King wrote in his "Spiritual Testament to his son": "If the Lord grant you some prosperity, not only must you humbly thank him but take care not to become worse by boasting or in any other way, make sure, that is, that you do not come into conflict with God or offend him with his own gifts" (cf. Acta Sanctorum Augusti 5 [1868], 546).

[Pope Benedict, Angelus 29 August 2010]

The Church asks for forgiveness for the sins of her sons

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

1. "Blessed are you, O Lord, the God of our fathers.... For we have sinned and transgressed by departing from you, and we have done every kind of evil. Your commandments we have not heeded or observed" (Dn 3: 26, 29-30). This is how the Jews prayed after the Exile (cf. also Bar 2: 11-13), accepting responsibility for the sins committed by their fathers. The Church imitates their example and also asks forgiveness for the historical sins of her children.

In our century, in fact, the Second Vatican Council gave an important impetus to the Church's renewal, so that as a community of the saved she might become an ever more vivid image of Jesus' message to the world. Faithful to the teaching of the most recent Council, the Church is more and more aware that she can offer the world a consistent witness to the Lord only through the continual purification of her members. Therefore, "at once holy and always in need of purification, [she] follows constantly the path of penance and renewal" (Lumen gentium, n. 8).

2. Recognition of the community implications of sin spurs the Church to ask forgiveness for the "historical" sins of her children. She is prompted to do this by the valuable opportunity offered by the Great Jubilee of the Year 2000 which, following the teaching of the Second Vatican Council, intends to turn a new page of history by overcoming the obstacles that still divide human beings and Christians in particular.

In my Apostolic Letter Tertio millennio adveniente, I therefore asked that at the end of this second millennium "the Church should become more fully conscious of the sinfulness of her children, recalling all those times in history when they departed from the spirit of Christ and his Gospel and, instead of offering to the world the witness of a life inspired by the values of faith, indulged in ways of thinking and acting which were truly forms of counter-witness and scandal" (Tertio millennio adveniente, n. 33).

3. The recognition of historical sins presupposes taking a stand in relation to events as they really happened and which only a serene and complete historical reconstruction can reveal. On the other hand, the judging of historical events cannot prescind from a realistic study of the conditioning caused by individual cultural contexts, before attributing specific moral responsibilities to individuals.

The Church is certainly not afraid of the truth that emerges from history and is ready to acknowledge mistakes wherever they have been identified, especially when they involve the respect that is owed to individuals and communities. She is inclined to mistrust generalizations that excuse or condemn various historical periods. She entrusts the investigation of the past to patient, honest, scholarly reconstruction, free from confessional or ideological prejudices, regarding both the accusations brought against her and the wrongs she has suffered.

When they have been established by serious historical research, the Church feels it her duty to acknowledge the sins of her members and to ask God and her brethren to forgive them. This request for pardon must not be understoood as an expression of false humility or as a denial of her 2,000-year history, which is certainly richly deserving in the areas of charity, culture and holiness. Instead she responds to a necessary requirement of the truth, which, in addition to the positive aspects, recognizes the human limitations and weaknesses of the various generations of Christ's disciples.

4. The approach of the Jubilee calls attention to certain types of sin, past and present, for which we particularly need to ask the Father's mercy.

I am thinking first of all of the painful reality of the division among Christians. The wounds of the past, certainly not without sins on both sides, continue to scandalize the world. A second act of repentance concerns the acquiescence given to intolerance and even the use of violence in the service of truth (cf. Tertio millennio adveniente, n. 35). Although many acted here in good faith, it was certainly not evangelical to think that the truth should be imposed by force. Then there is the lack of discernment by many Christians in situations where basic human rights were violated. The request for forgiveness applies to whatever should have been done or was passed over in silence because of weakness or bad judgement, to what was done or said hesitantly or inappropriately.

On this and other points "the consideration of mitigating factors does not exonerate the Church from the obligation to express profound regret for the weaknesses of so many of her sons and daughters who sullied her face, preventing her from fully mirroring the image of her crucified Lord, the supreme witness of patient love and of humble meekness" (ibid.).

Thus the penitent attitude of the Church in our time, on the threshold of the third millennium, is not intended as a convenient historical revisionism, which at any rate would be as suspect as it is useless. Instead, it turns our gaze to the past and to the recognition of sins, so that they will serve as a lesson for a future of ever clearer witness.

[Pope John Paul II, General Audience 1 September 1999]

And then in the Gospel there is Jesus’ exhortation : instead of judging everything and everyone, let us be attentive to  ourselves! Indeed, the risk is to be inflexible towards others and indulgent towards ourselves. And Jesus urges us not to make a deal with evil, with striking images: “If something in you causes you to sin, cut it off!” (cf. vv. 43-48). If something harms you, cut it off! He does not say, “If something is a reason for scandal, stop, think about it, improve a bit…”. No: “Cut it off! Immediately! Jesus is radical in this, demanding, but for our own good, like a good doctor. Every cut, every pruning, is so we can grow better and bear fruit in love.

Let us then ask ourselves: what is in me that is contrary to the Gospel? What, in concrete terms, does Jesus want me to cut out of my life?

Let us pray to the Immaculate Virgin, that she may help us be welcoming towards others and vigilant over ourselves.

[Pope Francis, Angelus 26 September 2021]

May the Lord bless us and may the Virgin protect us!

7th Sunday of Ordinary Time Year C (23 February 2025)

Reading from the First Book of Samuel (26,2.7-9.12-13.22-23)

Saul was the first king of the people of Israel, around 1040 BC. The texts say that "no son of Israel was more handsome than he, and he surpassed from the shoulder upwards anyone else of the people" (1 Sam 9:2). He was a peasant from a simple family in the tribe of Benjamin, chosen by God and anointed king by the prophet Samuel, who initially hesitated because he distrusted monarchy in general, but had to obey God. Saul was anointed with oil and bore the title 'messiah'.  After a good start, Saul unfortunately proved Samuel's worst fears right: his personal pleasure, love of power and war prevailed over loyalty to the covenant. It was so bad that, without waiting for the end of his reign, Samuel, at God's command, set out to find his successor and chose David, the little shepherd from Bethlehem, the eighth son of Jesse. David was received into Saul's court and gradually became a skilful war leader, whose achievements were the talk of the town. One day, Saul heard the popular song that circulated everywhere: "Saul has slain his thousand, and David his ten thousand" (1 Sam 18:7) and was seized with jealousy that became so fierce towards David that he went mad. David had to flee several times to save himself, but contrary to Saul's suspicions, David never failed in his loyalty to the king. In the episode narrated here, it is Saul who takes the initiative: the three thousand men spoken of were gathered by him for the sole purpose of satisfying his hatred for David. "Saul went down into the wilderness of Zif with three thousand chosen men of Israel to seek David" (v. 2) and his intention was clear: to eliminate him as soon as possible. But the situation is reversed in David's favour: during the night David enters Saul's camp and finds everyone asleep, thus a favourable opportunity to kill him. Abisai, David's bodyguard, has no doubts and offers to kill him: 'Today God has put your enemy in your hands. Let me therefore nail him to the ground with my spear in one stroke and I will not add the second" (v 8). David surprises everyone, including Saul, who can hardly believe his eyes when he sees the proof that David has spared him. Two questions arise: why did David spare the one who wanted his death? The only reason is respect for God's choice: "I would not stretch out my hand against the messiah of the Lord" (v.11).  Why does the Bible recount this episode? There are certainly several reasons. Firstly, the sacred author wants to paint a portrait of David: respectful of God's will and magnanimous, refusing vengeance and understanding that Providence never manifests itself by simply delivering the enemy into one's own hands. Secondly, because the reigning king is untouchable and it should not be forgotten that this account was written in the court of Solomon, who had every interest in passing on this teaching. Finally, this text represents a stage in the biblical story, a moment in God's pedagogy: before learning to love all men, one must begin by finding some good reason to love some of them. David spares a dangerous enemy because he was, in his time, God's chosen one. The last stage will be to understand that every man is to be respected everywhere because the image of God is marked in him. We are all created in the image and likeness of God.

*Psalm 102 (103) 1-2, 3-4, 8. 10. 12-13

This psalm is encountered several times in the three liturgical years and we can admire the parallelism of the verses, a kind of alternation of verses that answer each other. It would be good to recite or sing it in two voices, line by line or in two alternating choirs. First chorus: "Bless the Lord, my soul" ... Second chorus: "May all that is in me bless his holy name" ... First chorus: "He forgives all your sins ... Second chorus: "He does not treat us according to our sins". And so on. Another characteristic is the joyful tone of the thanksgiving. The expression 'Bless the Lord, my soul' is repeated as an inclusion in the first and last verses of the psalm. Of all the blessings, the verses chosen for this Sunday insist on God's forgiveness: "He forgives all your faults... Merciful and gracious is the Lord, slow to anger and great in love; he does not treat us according to our sins nor repay us according to our faults. As far as the east is from the west, so he turns away our faults from us." Several times we have noted this: one of the great discoveries of the Bible is that God is only love and forgiveness. And that is precisely why he is so different from us and constantly surprises us. When the prophet Isaiah says: "My thoughts are not your thoughts, says God; your ways are not my ways" (55:6-8), he invites us to seek the Lord while he is being found, to call upon him while he is near. He invites the ungodly to forsake his way and the perverse man his thoughts, and adds: 'Return to the Lord who will have mercy on him, to our God who graciously forgives' - and adds - 'because my thoughts are not your thoughts'. Precisely the conjunction 'because' gives meaning to the whole sentence: it is precisely his inexhaustible mercy that makes the difference between God and us. Some five hundred years before Christ, it was already understood that God's forgiveness is unconditional and precedes all our prayers or repentance. God's forgiveness is not a punctual act, an event, but is its very essence. However, it is only we who can freely make the gesture of going to receive this forgiveness of God and renew the Covenant; he will never force us and so we go to him with confidence, we take the necessary step to enter into God's forgiveness that is already acquired. On closer inspection, this is a discovery that goes back to very ancient times. When Nathan announced God's forgiveness to King David, who had just gotten rid of his lover's husband, Bathsheba, David in truth had not yet had time to express the slightest repentance.  After reminding him of all the benefits with which God had filled him, the prophet added: "And if this were little, I would add still more" (2 Sam 12:8). Here is the meaning of the word forgiveness, made up of two syllables that it is good to separate "for - gift" to indicate the perfect gift, a gift beyond offence and beyond ingratitude; it is the covenant always offered despite infidelity. Forgiving those who have wronged us means continuing, in spite of everything, to offer them a covenant, a relationship of love or friendship; it means accepting to see that person again, to extend our hand to them, to welcome them at our table or in our home anyway; it means risking a smile; it means refusing to hate and to take revenge. However, this does not mean forgetting. We often hear people say: I can forgive but I will never forget. In reality, these are two completely different things. Forgiveness is neither forgetting nor erasing what has happened because nothing will erase it, whether it is good or bad. There are offences that can never be forgotten because the irreparable has happened. It is precisely this that gives greatness and gravity to our human lives: if a wipe-out could erase everything, what would be the point of acting well? We could do anything. Forgiveness therefore does not erase the past, but opens up the future. It breaks the chains of guilt, brings inner liberation and allows us to start again. When David had Bathsheba's husband killed, nothing could repair the evil committed. But David, forgiven, was able to raise his head again and try not to do evil any more. When parents forgive the murderer of one of their children, it does not mean that they forget the crime committed, but it is precisely in their grief that they find the strength to forgive, and forgiveness becomes a profoundly liberating act for themselves. Those who are forgiven will never again be innocent, but they can raise their heads again. Without arriving at such serious crimes, everyday life is marked by more or less serious acts that sow injustice or pain. By forgiving and receiving forgiveness we stop looking at the past and turn our gaze to the future. This is how it is in our relationship with God since no one can claim to be innocent, but we are all forgiven sinners.

*Second Reading from the First Epistle of St Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians (15:45-49)

St Paul's meditation on Christ's resurrection and ours continues and is addressed to Christians of Greek origin who would like to have a clear and precise answer on the resurrection of the flesh, when and how it will take place. Paul has already explained last Sunday that the resurrection is an article of faith whereby not believing in the resurrection of the dead means not believing in the resurrection of Christ either. Now he addresses the question: How do the dead rise and with what body do they return? In truth he acknowledges that he does not know what the resurrected will look like, but what he can say with certainty is that our resurrected body will be completely different from our earthly one. If we consider that Jesus who appeared after the resurrection was not immediately recognised by his disciples and Mary Magdalene mistook him for the gardener, this shows that he was the same and, at the same time, completely different. Paul distinguished an animal body from a spiritual body, and the expression spiritual body surprised his listeners who knew the Greek distinction between body and soul. However, being Jewish, he knew that Jewish thought never contrasts the body and the soul, and his Jewish training led him instead to contrast two types of behaviour: that of the earthly man and that of the spiritual man, inaugurated by the Messiah. In every man, God has insufflated a breath of life that makes him capable of spiritual life, but he still remains an earthly man. Only in the Messiah fully dwells the very Spirit of God, which guides his every action. To argue, Paul refers to Genesis, in which he reads the vocation of mankind, but does not interpret it historically. For him, Adam is a type of man or, rather, a type of behaviour. This reading may seem unusual to us, but we must get used to reading the creation texts in Genesis not as an account of events, but as accounts of vocation. By creating humanity (Adam is a collective name), God calls it to an extraordinary destiny. Adam, the earthly being, is called to become the temple of God's Spirit. And it must be remembered that in the Bible, Creation is not considered an event of the past because the Bible speaks much more of God the Creator than of Creation; it speaks of our relationship with God: we were created by Him, we depend on Him, we are suspended from His breath and it is not about the past, but about the future. The act of creation is presented to us as a project still in progress: in the two accounts of creation, man has a role to play. "Be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it" in the first account (Gen 1:28). "The LORD God took man and put him in the garden of Eden to till it and keep it" in the second account (Gen 2:15). And this task concerns all of us, since Adam is a collective name representing the whole of humanity. Our vocation, Genesis goes on to say, is to be the image of God, that is, inhabited by the very Spirit of God. "God said, Let us make man in our image, in our likeness...God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him, male and female he created them." (Gen 1:26-27). Adam is also the type of man who does not respond to his calling; he allowed himself to be influenced by the serpent, who instilled in him, like a poison, distrust of God. This is what Paul calls earthly behaviour, like the serpent crawling on the ground. Jesus Christ, the new Adam, on the other hand, allows himself to be guided only by the Spirit of God. In this way, he fulfils the vocation of every man, i.e. of Adam; this is the meaning of Paul's sentence: "Brothers, the first man, Adam, became a living being but the last Adam (i.e. Christ) became a life-giving spirit."

The message is clear: Adam's behaviour leads to death, Christ's behaviour leads to life. However, we are constantly torn between these two behaviours, between heaven and earth, and we can make Paul's expression our own when he cries out: 'Wretched man that I am! I do not do the good that I want, but do the evil that I do not want." (Rom 7:24, 19). In other words, the individual and collective history of all mankind is a long journey to allow ourselves to be inhabited more and more by the Spirit of God.  Paul writes: "The first man from earth is made of earth, the second man is from heaven. As the earthly man is, so are those of the earth; and as the heavenly man is, so are the heavenly". And St John observes: 'Beloved, even now we are children of God, but what we shall be has not yet been revealed. We know, however, that when he is revealed, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is." (1 John 3:2). The perfect image of God in Jesus Christ, the apostles saw it on the face of Christ during the Transfiguration.

Note: the serpent crawling on the ground tempts mankind (Adam - adam man related to adamah earth, is not the name of a person but indicates the whole of mankind made of earth Gn1,26-27) and the name of the serpent is nahash a word that can mean either serpent or the dragon of Revelation: Gn3,15; Rev 12)

*From the Gospel according to Luke (6:27-38)

"Be merciful as your Father is merciful" and you will then be children of the Most High, for he is good to the ungrateful and the wicked.  This is the programme of every Christian, it is our vocation. The entire Bible appears as the story of man's conversion as he gradually learns to master his own violence. It is certainly not an easy process, but God is patient, because, as St Peter says, one day is like a thousand years and a thousand years like one day (cf. 2 Pet 3:8) and he educates his people with such patience, as we read in Deuteronomy: "As a man corrects his son, so the Lord your God corrects you" (Deut 8:5). This slow eradication of violence from the human heart is expressed figuratively as early as the book of Genesis: violence is presented as a form of animality. Let us take the account of the Garden of Eden: God had invited Adam to name the animals, to symbolise his superiority over all creatures. God had in fact conceived Adam as the king of creation: "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. Dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, over the cattle, over all the wild beasts, and over all the reptiles that creep upon the earth" (Gen 1:26). And Adam himself had recognised that he was different, that he was superior: "Man gave a name to all the animals, to the birds of the air, and to all the wild beasts; but for man he found no helper to match him" (Gen 2:20). Man did not find his equal. But two chapters later, we find the story of Cain and Abel. At the moment when Cain is seized with a mad desire to kill, God says to him: "Sin is crouching (like a beast) at your door. It lurks, but you must master it' (Gen 4:7). And starting from this first murder, the biblical text shows the proliferation of vengeance (Gen 4:1-26). From the very first chapters of the Bible, violence is thus recognised: it exists, but it is unmasked and compared to an animal. Man no longer deserves to be called man when he is violent. The biblical texts thus embark on the arduous path of converting the human heart. On this path, we can distinguish stages. Let us pause on the first: "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" (Ex 21:24). In response to the terrible boast of Lamech (Gen 4:23), great-grandson of Cain, who gloried in killing men and children to avenge simple scratches, the Law introduced a first limit: a single tooth for a tooth, and not the whole jaw; a single life for a life, and not a whole village in retaliation. The law of retaliation thus already represented significant progress, even if it still seems insufficient today. The pedagogy of the prophets constantly addresses the problem of violence, but comes up against a great psychological difficulty: the man who agrees not to take revenge fears losing his honour. The biblical texts then show man that his true honour lies elsewhere: it consists precisely in resembling God, who is 'good to the ungrateful and the wicked'. Jesus' discourse, which we read this Sunday, represents the last stage of this education: from the law of retaliation we have moved on to the invitation to gentleness, to disinterestedness, to perfect gratuitousness. He insists: twice, at the beginning and at the end, he says "Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you"... "Love your enemies, do good and lend without hoping for anything in return". And so the ending surprises us a little: up to this point, although it was not easy, at least it was logical. God is merciful and invites us to imitate him. But here the last lines seem to change tone: 'Do not judge and you will not be judged; do not condemn and you will not be condemned. Forgive and you will be forgiven. Give and it will be given to you: a good measure, pressed down, shaken and overflowing will be poured into your lap, for with the measure with which you measure, it will be measured to you in return' (Lk 6:37-38). Have we returned to a logic of 'quid pro quo'? Of course not! Jesus is simply pointing out to us here a very reassuring path: in order not to fear being judged, simply do not judge or condemn others. Judge actions, but never people. Establish a climate of benevolence. In this way, fraternal relations will never be broken. As for the phrase: "Your reward will be great and you will be children of the Most High", it expresses the wonderment experienced by those who conform to the Christian ideal of meekness and forgiveness. It is the profound transformation that takes place in them: for they have opened the door to the Spirit of God, and he dwells in them and inspires them more and more. Little by little they see the promise formulated by the prophet Ezekiel fulfilled in them: "I will give you a new heart, I will put a new spirit within you; I will take away from you the heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh." (Ez 36:26).

+Giovanni D'Ercole

Summary on request: Short commentary.

Reading from the First Book of Samuel (26.2.7-9.12-13.22-23)

Saul was the first king of the people of Israel, around 1040 B.C. He was a peasant from a simple family of the tribe of Benjamin, chosen by God and anointed king by the prophet Samuel, who initially hesitated because he distrusted monarchy in general, but had to obey God. After a good start, Saul unfortunately proved Samuel's worst fears right: his personal pleasure, love of power and war prevailed over loyalty to the Covenant. It was so bad that, without waiting for the end of his reign, Samuel, at God's command, set out to find his successor and chose David, the little shepherd from Bethlehem, the eighth son of Jesse. David was received into Saul's court and gradually became a skilful war leader, whose achievements were the talk of the town. One day, Saul heard the popular song that circulated everywhere: "Saul has slain his thousand, and David his ten thousand" (1 Sam 18:7) and was seized with jealousy that became so fierce towards David that he went mad. David had to flee several times to save himself, but contrary to Saul's suspicions, David never failed in his loyalty to the king. In the episode narrated here, it is Saul who takes the initiative: the three thousand men spoken of were gathered by him for the sole purpose of satisfying his hatred for David. "Saul went down into the wilderness of Zif with three thousand chosen men of Israel to search for David" (v 2) and his intention was clear: to eliminate him as soon as possible. But the situation is reversed in David's favour: during the night David enters Saul's camp and finds everyone asleep, thus a favourable opportunity to kill him. Abisai, David's bodyguard, has no doubts and offers to kill him: 'Today God has put your enemy in your hands. Let me therefore nail him to the ground with my spear in one stroke and I will not add the second" (v 8). David surprises everyone, including Saul, who can hardly believe his eyes when he sees the proof that David has spared him. Two questions arise: why did David spare the one who wanted his death? The only reason is respect for God's choice: "I would not stretch out my hand against the messiah of the Lord" (v.11).  The sacred author wants to outline the portrait of David: respectful of God's will and magnanimous, who refuses revenge and understands that Providence never manifests itself by simply delivering the enemy into one's own hands. Secondly, because the reigning king is untouchable and it should not be forgotten that this account was written in the court of Solomon, who had every interest in passing on this teaching. Finally, this text represents a stage in the biblical story, a moment in God's pedagogy: before learning to love all men, one must begin to find some good reason to love some, and David spares a dangerous enemy because as king he is God's chosen one. The last stage will be to understand that every man is to be respected because we are all created in the image and likeness of God.

*Psalm 102 (103) 1-2, 3-4, 8. 10. 12-13

This psalm would be good to recite or sing in two voices, in two alternating choirs. First chorus: "Bless the Lord, my soul"... Second chorus: "Let all that is in me bless his holy name"... First chorus: "He forgives all your sins... Second chorus: "He does not treat us according to our sins". And so on. Another characteristic is the joyful tone of the thanksgiving. The expression 'Bless the Lord, my soul' is repeated as an inclusion in the first and last verses of the psalm. Of all the benefits, the verses chosen for this Sunday insist on God's forgiveness: "For he forgives all your faults... Merciful and gracious is the Lord, slow to anger and great in love; he does not deal with us according to our sins, nor repay us according to our faults... "for my thoughts are not your thoughts". Precisely the conjunction 'because' gives meaning to the whole sentence: it is precisely his inexhaustible mercy that makes the difference between God and us. Some five hundred years before Christ, it was already understood that God's forgiveness is unconditional and precedes all our prayers or repentance. God's forgiveness is not a punctual act, an event, but is its very essence. However, it is only we who can freely make the gesture of going to receive this forgiveness of God and renew the Covenant; He will never force us and so we go to Him with confidence, we take the necessary step to enter into God's forgiveness that is already acquired. On closer inspection, this is a discovery that goes back to very ancient times. When Nathan announced God's forgiveness to King David, who had just gotten rid of his lover's husband, Bathsheba, David in truth had not yet had time to express the slightest repentance.  After reminding him of all the benefits with which God had filled him, the prophet added: "And if this were little, I would add still more" (2 Sam 12:8). Here is the meaning of the word forgiveness, made up of two syllables that it is good to separate "for - gift" to indicate the perfect gift, a gift beyond offence and beyond ingratitude; it is the covenant always offered despite infidelity. Forgiving those who have wronged us means continuing, in spite of everything, to offer them a covenant, a relationship of love or friendship; it means refusing to hate and to take revenge. However, this does not mean forgetting. We often hear people say: I can forgive but I will never forget. In reality, these are two completely different things. Forgiveness is not a blank slate. There are offences that can never be forgotten, because the irreparable has happened. It is precisely this that lends greatness and gravity to our human lives: if a wipe-out could erase everything, what would be the point of acting well? We could do anything. Forgiveness therefore does not erase the past, but opens up the future. It breaks the chains of guilt, brings inner liberation and allows us to start again. When David had Bathsheba's husband killed, nothing could repair the evil committed. But David, forgiven, was able to raise his head again and try not to do evil any more. When parents forgive the murderer of one of their children, it does not mean that they forget the crime committed, but it is precisely in their grief that they find the strength to forgive, and forgiveness becomes a profoundly liberating act for themselves. Those who are forgiven will never again be innocent, but they can raise their heads again. Without arriving at such serious crimes, everyday life is marked by more or less serious acts that sow injustice or pain. By forgiving and receiving forgiveness we stop looking at the past and turn our gaze to the future. This is how it is in our relationship with God since no one can claim to be innocent, but we are all forgiven sinners.

*Second Reading from the First Epistle of St Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians (15:45-49)

St Paul's meditation on Christ's resurrection and ours continues and is addressed to Christians of Greek origin who would like to have a clear and precise answer on the resurrection of the flesh, when and how it will take place. Paul has already explained last Sunday that the resurrection is an article of faith whereby not believing in the resurrection of the dead means not believing in the resurrection of Christ either. Now he addresses the question: How do the dead rise and with what body do they return? In truth he acknowledges that he does not know what the resurrected will look like, but what he can say with certainty is that our resurrected body will be completely different from our earthly one. If we consider that Jesus who appeared after the resurrection was not immediately recognised by his disciples and Mary Magdalene mistook him for the gardener, this shows that he was the same and, at the same time, completely different. Paul distinguished an animal body from a spiritual body, and the expression spiritual body surprised his listeners who knew the Greek distinction between body and soul. However, being Jewish, he knew that Jewish thought never contrasts the body and the soul, and his Jewish training led him instead to contrast two types of behaviour: that of the earthly man and that of the spiritual man, inaugurated by the Messiah. In every man, God has insufflated a breath of life that makes him capable of spiritual life, but he still remains an earthly man. In order to argue, Paul refers to Genesis and sees Adam as a type of behaviour because the creation account in Genesis is not an account of events, but the account of a vocation. By creating humanity (Adam is a collective name), God calls it to an extraordinary destiny. Adam, the earthly being, is called to become the temple of God's Spirit. And it must be remembered that in the Bible, Creation is not seen as an event of the past, but speaks of our relationship with God: we were created by Him, we depend on Him, we are suspended from His breath and it is not about the past, but about the future. The creative act is presented to us as a project still in progress: in the two accounts of creation, man has a role to play. "Be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it" (Gen 1:28). "The LORD God took man and put him in the garden of Eden that he might cultivate it and keep it" (Gen 2:15). And this task concerns all of us, since Adam is a collective name representing the whole of humanity. Our vocation, Genesis goes on to say, is to be the image of God, that is, inhabited by the very Spirit of God. "God said, Let us make man in our image, in our likeness...God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him, male and female he created them." (Gen 1:26-27). Adam is also the type of man who does not respond to his calling; he allowed himself to be influenced by the serpent, who instilled in him, like a poison, distrust of God. This is what Paul calls earthly behaviour, like the serpent crawling on the ground. Jesus Christ, the new Adam, on the other hand, allows himself to be guided only by the Spirit of God. In this way, he fulfils the vocation of every man, i.e. of Adam; this is the meaning of Paul's sentence: "Brothers, the first man, Adam, became a living being but the last Adam (i.e. Christ) became a life-giving spirit."

The message is clear: Adam's behaviour leads to death, Christ's behaviour leads to life. However, we are constantly torn between these two behaviours, between heaven and earth, and we can make Paul's expression our own when he cries out: 'Wretched man that I am! I do not do the good that I want, but do the evil that I do not want." (Rom 7:24, 19). In other words, the individual and collective history of all mankind is a long journey to allow ourselves to be inhabited more and more by the Spirit of God.  Paul writes: "The first man from earth is made of earth, the second man is from heaven. As the earthly man is, so are those of the earth; and as the heavenly man is, so are the heavenly. 

*From the Gospel according to Luke (6:27-38)

"Be merciful as your Father is merciful" and then you will be children of the Most High, for he is good to the ungrateful and the wicked.  This is the programme of every Christian, it is our vocation. The entire Bible appears as the story of man's conversion as he gradually learns to master his own violence. It is certainly not an easy process, but God is patient and educates his people with such patience. This slow eradication of violence from the human heart is expressed figuratively as early as the book of Genesis: violence is presented as a form of animality. God had invited Adam to name the animals, to symbolise his superiority over all creatures.  And Adam himself had recognised that he was different, superior, and did not find his equal. But next we find the story of Cain and Abel. At the moment when Cain is seized with a mad desire to kill, God says to him: "Sin is crouching (like a beast) at your door. It lurks, but you must master it' (Gen 4:7). And starting from this first murder, the biblical text shows the proliferation of vengeance (Gen 4:1-26). From the very first chapters of the Bible, violence is thus recognised: it exists, but it is unmasked and compared to an animal. Man no longer deserves to be called man when he is violent. The biblical texts thus embark on the arduous path of converting the human heart. On this path, we can distinguish stages. Let us pause on the first: "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" (Ex 21:24). In response to the terrible boast of Lamech (Gen 4:23), great-grandson of Cain, who gloried in killing men and children to avenge simple scratches, the Law introduced a first limit: a single tooth for a tooth, and not the whole jaw; a single life for a life, and not a whole village in retaliation. The law of retaliation thus already represented significant progress, even if it still seems insufficient today. The pedagogy of the prophets constantly addresses the problem of violence, but comes up against a great psychological difficulty: the man who agrees not to take revenge fears losing his honour. The biblical texts then show man that his true honour lies elsewhere: it consists precisely in resembling God, who is 'good to the ungrateful and the wicked'. Jesus' discourse, which we read this Sunday, represents the last stage of this education: from the law of retaliation we have moved on to the invitation to gentleness, to disinterestedness, to perfect gratuitousness. He insists: twice, at the beginning and at the end, he says 'Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you'.... God is merciful and invites us to imitate him. But here the last lines seem to change tone: 'Do not judge and you will not be judged; do not condemn and you will not be condemned. Forgive and you will be forgiven. Give and you will be given (Lk 6:37-38). Are we perhaps back to a logic of 'quid pro quo'? Of course not! Jesus is simply pointing out to us here a very reassuring path: to not fear being judged, simply do not judge or condemn others. Judge actions, but never people. Establish a climate of benevolence. In this way, fraternal relations will never be broken.

+Giovanni D'Ercole