Sons, little dogs, demons and free movement

(Mk 7:24-30)

Jesus discovered the will of the Father in the events of life. The same is true for the growth of awareness of the first communities, which carried no small prejudices, at least until the third generation of believers (inclusive) - as witnessed by the Synoptics.

Religious law prevented dealing with foreigners and people of other ethnicities, borders or cultures. At first, Jesus [i.e.: He in the first communities, His mystical Body] seems not to want to care (v.27).

But after helping the crowds and his own to emancipate themselves from the prison of the norms of purity (vv.14-23) Christ breaks out of conformist ways of experiencing God.

He even exoduses himself from the national and racial territories that then sequestered the life-bloods - thus overcoming sacred preconceptions.

The Son's singular initiatives arise on the basis of a wholly personal experience of the divine, of a Father munificent in bestowing without conditions.

Provident and unequal from the stingy God of religions: the latter discordant from creatures, alien, and (incomprehensibly) habitual.

The Lord himself helps us in his story to experience the transcendent in even summary life. Thus, to get out of the contrived doctrinal ways that cage existence [territory, customs, ideology, belonging of various kinds - even 'internal'].

With an unusual gimmick, the young Rabbi tries to open up the Judaizing mentality, crossing borders.

The intent is to make us develop his own Faith. It promoted diverse existence, and outside of traditional myopia could thus find astounding adherences.

No boundary fences, no obstacles ... can contain our will to live: we want to feed not on pride (or resistance) but on love at risk, not debased - and express ourselves completely.

Even dialogue with a woman not of his people was a 'thought' alien to the mentality of the crowds of the time - alien even to the conceptions of the first two generations of believers, in this respect still entrenched and mixed with idols.

But there was a whole people of strangers [the mestizo 'woman' and her spiritual 'descendants'] who felt they had no future. And this challenged the many apriorisms of the time.

In short, even the church of Mk had not fully grasped the meaning of the 'bread of the children' - all available to be “recognised”.

Because of atavistic rivalries, ancient peoples used to call foreigners by the derogatory appellation 'dog', synonymous with impudence, meanness and ignoble baseness.

They were widespread misgivings about the sense of human brotherhood - from primitive vision [and not only, in the age of access].

The Lord's harsh sentence (v.27) reflects a comparison from poor areas and family life, where pets and youth once abounded.

There was still a difference between 'children' generated by hearing the Word of God and those who adjusted themselves “by scent”.

But although no one denied sustenance to the 'children' in order to give it to the 'dogs' around - the latter at least had the right to the crumbs that fell on the ground.

In fact, the text speaks of 'little dogs' [kynaría-kynaríois] as pets loved by the very young and who easily fed them leftovers during meals.

In a sense, they belonged to 'the house'.

For the different and distant - even the misunderstood - it is not a problem to resort to Jesus instinctively; on the contrary, they would be content with the scraps.

According to this, the community of the sons should not lack bodily nourishment and wisdom food for anyone (Mk 6:42-44).

However, the old-timers, who considered themselves family members of entitlement and asserted registry rights, sulked and in the assemblies pretended not to allow everyone to partake of the communion, the Eucharistic grains, the gifts of the festive kingdom.

But thanks to the appeal of the Gospels [quite different from the exaggerated imperial or legionary 'evangelical' proclamations] the dominion of demons (v.29) - so alive in all the various forms of religiosity at the time in Rome - was coming to an end.

According to Mark, there should be no obsession, chain, or preconception that can take away our direction of progress and energy, so that with extreme freedom we are enabled to work and open ourselves to the needs of others, even pagans (Mk 6:45a).

Thus a debate arises in the Roman fraternities about the conditions of community membership.

What is the position of converts from paganism? Do they have the right to participate in the breaking of the Bread without prior doctrine-discipline? Is there or is there not a break with the observant tradition?

Mark emphasises that we have no pre-emption: the principle of universal salvation is the attitude of Faith; not a right.

The community of the baptised is not allowed to live on rent. The gospel is open, it goes beyond the biblical priority of the chosen people.

The reason for any exception is sensitive love, which has the freedom to yield, which becomes the only principle of belonging.

The condition of membership in the new people of God is Faith in the heart and not in the blood or in the head, nor in the discipline that distances us from ourselves, God and others.

Faith: a new principle, which shatters every illusion of exclusivity.

With the Father, in the Son, it is no longer a matter of mortifying oneself, depending, striving and struggling, in order to stand before one another.

Legal purity is insufficient (vv.1-23), indeed now it is the person even of disconcerting origins - formerly an outsider - who emerges 'victorious' from the fight with the Lord.

Spousal entrustment is appreciable everywhere, by anyone: foundational Eros gushing from every soul, and not bound to repertoires. It overcomes any particularism.

Of course, it has its criteria - but they are essential: transparency, freshness, tension towards unity, overcoming conditions and taboos; value of the person; secret empathy of energies.

The Gospel passage traces a whole path of adherence to Christ.

Those who are far away can approach and even start from the popular - inconvenient - idea that Jesus is the expected 'Son of David' [cf. parallel Mt 15:22]: a military commander and ruler who was supposed to seize power, subjugate the nations, ensure the golden age, himself fulfil the prescriptions of the Law as if he were a Model, and impose their observance on all.

The starting point of the journey may be a miserable glimmer, a beginning that perhaps does not promise much. In fact, in this specific case, it is decidedly confusing: the Master does not answer (Mt 15:23).

The title affixed to Him has nothing to do with God, nor does it concern the authentic Firstborn. He is not a powerful Messiah - a predatory, homologated image - but a servant.

It makes no sense even to ask Him for "Mercy" (Mt 15:22)! Indeed - let's face it - despite the superficial ritual habits we have, here Christ seems quite angry (v.23).

This is not the healthy relationship with the Lord: He does not chastise or enjoy being begged by the needy.

Rather, He educates as He does a friend, brother or parent; and He does not grant graces by lottery, or miracles by sympathy and protection, or favours by territory - like pagan gods.

That image is totally deviant, but it is a bogus figure that comes out of the very "insiders" (Mt 15:23-24), who would have nothing to object to [cf. again v.23].

Indeed, their own catechesis is the source of it: the title "son of David" sounds strange, on the lips of a pagan.

Even today, this homologising paternalistic idea - of inculcated guilt - tends to drive away those who seek an amiable companion.

The priority for 'Israel' is acknowledged by Jesus because it is precisely the eldest sons who must be converted to a new Face of the first God of Sinai - still valued Lawgiver and Judge, instead of Creator and Redeemer of our intelligence and freedom.

[Albeit in a good-natured way, they unfortunately continue to spread it, as a sullen notary, since pre-catechism].

Jesus distances himself from those who make claims and at the same time divert the souls of the needy who seek him.

Then, in spiritual terms, no one can boast a right to anything: the truly sacred Gifts do not derive from any selective election relationship, nor even clientelistic [of the buying and selling kind].

So, to become intimate with Christ... can one be content with the Eucharistic 'crumbs' - i.e. 'minimal salvation'?

Can one be satisfied with the mere crumbs that fall from the table of the supponent closed in small schemes (Mk 7:27-28)?

Certainly, because it is Faith that saves (Mk 7:28-29a), not a grand gesture or a long habit in the disciplines of the arcane - nor a code of purity.

The authentic Lord only says:

"By this Word, go" (v.29) - i.e. proceed to the joy of a full life, transmissible to an "offspring" not destined for torment or premature death.

And without the judgement of others, the one with the usual deceptive tares of inadequacy, on your back.

Thanks to Him we are not introduced into a perfunctory religious practice, but into a Relationship that is chiselled over time (vv.25-30).

How to orient oneself?

Instead of the narrow Law, it is the Gospel that fully empowers us.

As if we were "little dogs" (vv.27-28) that seek life and nourishment, instinctively proceeding [by "sniffing"] along unexplored paths. And that according to character, inclination, Calling by Name, appeal to other secret forces.

In short, all men - although still far from an explicit adherence to faith - are inhabited by this knowledge that is at once personal and primordial, that gives immediate and infallible direction.

So, in simplicity, shall we too, in order to find the Way. 

In fact, Faith has no nationality, and is the only valid language-relationship-trajectory for communication between God and woman and man.

It is universal; it crosses time, denominational and even religious borders.

Commenting on the Tao Te Ching (LVIII), Master Wang Pi states:

"He who rules well has no form or name, he does not initiate administrations. The various categories divide and separate, that is why the people are fragmented'.

Master Ho-shang Kung adds:

"When the ruler is liberal, the people are united in wealth and satiety: people love each other and get along well".

Today it is about sharing the minutiae and fragments of the 'more' we in the West inherited from past generations.

A very instructive and affluent 'more'; lavishly bestowed, yet received without 'anything too much' [ne quid nimis] nor much merit or risk (as 'good Christians...').

And respecting in everything the nomenclature of the veterans, of the cordate and the powerful - always disinclined to real coexistence.

Christ, on the other hand, is sapiential food for free circulation; not impeded food, to be kept locked in tabernacles.

His virtue is now understood only outside the sacristies - from far and wide (vv.24-25) - where even a minuet of bread makes one trust and rise, in sharing.

To break the Eucharist as source and summit is to proclaim it a Gift not to be held back or kept intact, but rather to be exposed and distributed without moralising.

To share that Food is to participate in the root of existence, what we have and are; the yardstick of what we proclaim, believe and practise.

Sadly, not infrequently the strangers and dissimilar are hungrier for the true Manna from Heaven.

Saturated to the point of nausea - and perhaps still unable to comprehend its meaning - why experience the shared Nourishment [perhaps with little regard for its meaning] as a problem and fear?

To internalise and live the message:

If not of 'your people', do you at least want to talk to them - even if veterans, inner clubs and regulars forbid it?

Don't you think the synodal path is a good opportunity to review abstract positions?

Do you know of any ecclesial parishes that do not give outsiders a chance?

Do you know people hurt by exclusions? What do you do, silence-consent?

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

This […] Gospel passage begins by indicating the district to which Jesus was going: Tyre and Sidon, to the north-west of Galilee, a pagan land. And it was here that he met a Canaanite woman who spoke to him, asking him to heal her daughter who was possessed by a demon (cf. Mt 15:22).

In her supplication we can already discern the beginning of a journey of faith, which in her conversation with the divine Teacher grows and becomes stronger.

The woman was not afraid to cry to Jesus “Have mercy on me”, an expression that recurs in the Psalms (cf. 50:1), she calls him “Lord” and “Son of David” (cf. Mt 15:22), thus showing a firm hope of being heard. What was the Lord’s attitude to this cry of anguish from a pagan woman?

Jesus’ silence may seem disconcerting, to the point that it prompted the disciples to intervene, but it was not a question of insensitivity to this woman’s sorrow. St Augustine rightly commented: “Christ showed himself indifferent to her, not in order to refuse her his mercy but rather to inflame her desire for it” (Sermo 77, 1: PL 38, 483).

The apparent aloofness of Jesus who said: “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (v. 24), did not discourage the Canaanite woman who persisted: “Lord, help me” (v. 25). And she did not even desist when she received an answer that would seem to have extinguished any hope: “it is not fair to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs” (v. 26). She had no wish to take anything from anyone; in her simplicity and humility a little was enough for her, crumbs sufficed, no more than a look, a kind word from the Son of God. And Jesus was struck with admiration for an answer of such great faith and said to her: “Be it done for you as you desire” (v. 28).

Dear friends, we too are called to grow in faith, to open ourselves in order to welcome God’s gift freely, to have trust and also to cry to Jesus “give us faith, help us to find the way!”. This is the way that Jesus made his disciples take, as well as the Canaanite woman and men and women of every epoch and nation and each one of us.

Faith opens us to knowing and welcoming the real identity of Jesus, his newness and oneness, his word, as a source of life, in order to live a personal relationship with him. Knowledge of the faith grows, it grows with the desire to find the way and in the end it is a gift of God who does not reveal himself to us as an abstract thing without a face or a name, because faith responds to a Person who wants to enter into a relationship of deep love with us and to involve our whole life.

For this reason our heart must undergo the experience of conversion every day, every day it must see us changing from people withdrawn into themselves to people who are open to God’s action, spiritual people (cf. 1 Cor 2:13-14), who let themselves be called into question by the Lord’s word and open their life to his Love.

Dear brothers and sisters, let us therefore nourish our faith every day with deep attention to the word of God, with the celebration of the Sacraments, with personal prayer as a “cry” to him, and with charity to our neighbour.

Let us invoke the intercession of the Virgin Mary, whom we shall contemplate tomorrow in her glorious Assumption into Heaven in body and soul, so that she may help us proclaim and witness with our lives to the joy of having encountered the Lord.

[Pope Benedict, Angelus 14 August 2011]

6. Particularly touching is the episode of the Canaanite woman, who did not cease to ask Jesus' help for her daughter who was "cruelly tormented by a demon". When the Canaanite woman prostrated herself before Jesus to ask him for help, he replied: 'It is not good to take the bread of the children to throw it to the little dogs' (this was a reminder of the ethnic diversity between Israelites and Canaanites, which Jesus, son of David, could not ignore in his practical behaviour, but to which he alluded in a methodological function to provoke faith). And here the woman intuitively comes to an unusual act of faith and humility. She says: 'It is true, Lord . . . but even little dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table'. Faced with such a humble, gracious and confident word, Jesus replies: 'Woman, truly great is your faith! May it be done to you as you wish" (cf. Mt 15:21-28).

It is an event difficult to forget, especially when one thinks of the countless 'Canaanites' of every time, country, colour and social condition, who reach out their hand to ask for understanding and help in their needs!

[Pope John Paul II, General Audience 16 December 1987]

This […] Gospel (see Mt 15:21-28) describes the meeting between Jesus and the Canaanite woman. Jesus is to the north of Galilee, in foreign territory. The woman was not Jewish, she was Canaanite. Jesus is there to spend some time with His disciples away from the crowds, from the crowds whose numbers are always growing. And behold, a woman approached Him seeking help for her sick daughter: “Have mercy on me, Lord!” (v. 22). It is the cry that is born out of a life marked by suffering, from the sense of the helplessness of a mamma who sees her daughter tormented by evil who cannot be healed; she cannot heal her. Jesus initially ignores her, but this mother insists; she insists, even when the Master says to the disciples that His mission is directed only to “the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (v. 24) and not to the pagans. She continues to beg Him, and at that point, He puts her to the test, citing a proverb. It’s a bit…this seems almost a bit cruel, but she puts her to the test: “It is not fair to take the children’s food and throw it to the dogs” (v. 26). And right away, the woman, quick, anguished, responds: “Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table” (v. 27).

And with these words, that mother shows that she has perceived the goodness of the Most High God present in Jesus who is open to any of His creatures necessities. And this wisdom, filled with trust, touches Jesus’s heart and provokes words of admiration: “Woman, great is your faith! Let it be done for you as you wish” (v. 28). What type of faith is great? Great faith is that which brings its own story, marked even by wounds, and brings it to the Lord’s feet asking Him to heal them, to give them meaning.

Each one of us has our own story and it is not always a story “of export”, it is not always a clean story… Many times it is a difficult story, with a lot of pain, many misfortunes and many sins. What do I do with my story? Do I hide it? No! We must bring it before the Lord. “Lord, if You will it, you can heal me!” This is what this woman teaches us, this wonderful mother: the courage to bring our own painful story before God, before Jesus, to touch God’s tenderness, Jesus’s tenderness. Let’s try this story, this prayer: let each one of us think of his or her own story. There are always ugly things in a story, always. Let us go to Jesus, knock on Jesus’s heart and say to Him: “Lord, if You will it, you can heal me!” And we can do this if we always have the face of Jesus before us, if we understand what Christ’s heart is like, what Jesus’s heart is like: a heart that feels compassion, that bears our pains, that bears our sins, our mistakes, our failures. But it is a heart that love us like that, as we are, without make-up: He loves us like that. “Lord, if You will it, you can heal me!” This is why it is necessary to understand Jesus, to be familiar with Jesus. I always go back to the advice that I give you: always carry a small pocket-size Gospel and read a passage every day. There you will find Jesus as He is, as He presents Himself; you will find Jesus who loves us, who loves us a lot, who tremendously wants our well-being. Let us remember the prayer: “Lord, if You will it, you can heal me!” A beautiful prayer. Carry the Gospel: in your purse, in your pocket and even on your mobile phone, to look at. May the Lord help us, all of us, to pray this beautiful prayer, that a pagan woman teaches us: not a Christian woman, not a Jewish woman, a pagan woman.

May the Virgin Mary intercede with her prayer so that the joy of faith might grow in every baptized person as well as the desire to communicate it through a consistent witness of life, that she give us the courage to approach Jesus and to say to Him: “Lord, if You will it, you can heal me!”

[Pope Francis, Angelus 16 August 2020]

Purity, impudity and misrepresented holiness

(Mk 7,14-23)

The Lord is for a comprehensive humanization. But in ancient cultures the mythical vision of the world led people to appreciate any reality starting from the category of ‘holiness’ as ‘detachment’.

The purity laws indicated the conditions necessary to stand before God and feel good in His presence - but in fact always dismayed, because [obviously] not totally complying.

At Mk’s time some converted Jews believed they could abandon the ancient customs and get closer to the pagans; others were of the opposite opinion: it would have been like rejecting substantial parts of the Torah.

In fact, the evangelist emphasizes that the problem is «in the Home» (v.17) that is, in the Church. Fraternity where the Master who came to free us from artificial obsessions, wasn’t yet understood.

Christ must insist on his teaching, now not addressed to strangers but to disciples [precisely] incapable of «understanding» (vv.14.18).

In this way, the Gospel rejects the distinction between the religious sphere of life and "contaminated" daily arrangement; a source of corruption. But normal, ground, harsh reality - therefore assessed distant from the ‘divine’.

Quintessence that vice versa does not intend to subjugate anyone.

The active presence of a new Order abolishes legal prescriptions and shifts the center of morality of our acts.

Here the teaching of Jesus is recalled: impurity does not come from outside [that is, from external to the inside]. That’s not the threat.

The realities of the world are never wicked and unsuitable - not even by the worship.

They become an abomination only by passing through decisions that are sacrilegious, because block life. And detachments that barbarize.

There is no sacred and profane in itself.

Mystery and Beatitude come into the world exclusively through the channel of dialogue and encounter with respect for intelligence, personal soul, and differing cultures. Not by pursuing entities of merit, nor misrepresented bottlenecks.

Here formal legalism kills the expansion of life and ideals: “impure” is what poisons the existence and spontaneous realization of people, their relationships, and creation itself.

Jesus frees the crowd of the voiceless and lost from the obsession of torments and fears, from always being on the defensive.

We are called to love the limits: they are the ground of preparatory energies of the real flowering -  impulses and signs of our ‘task in the world’ according to the Newness of God.

Every Exodus values alternatives.

And we find the realization, the meaning of life, and gradually greater completeness, indeed by meeting our opposite sides.

We are not called to stare in one direction. There are others.

Anyone who intimidates the "inadequate" woman and brother threatens the life of the cosmos and makes the most sensitive and attentive people self-doubtful.

It is the imperfections that make us new, exceptional, unique!

Let’s therefore learn not to feel dismay at the fact that ‘we are not’ religiously "successful" - but Firstfruits!

[Wednesday 5th wk. in O.T.  February 11, 2026]

Purity, impurity and holiness misrepresented

(Mk 7:14-23)

The Church has retained faith in the goodness of creation; it does not view nature, society, and the Father's concrete work in a negative light, as is unfortunately advocated in certain squeamish mentalities (in a devout key).

Neither does he believe that to feel saved, there are instruments or zones of refuge that one only needs to use, enjoy, or reach out to. The Lord is for an all-round humanisation.

In ancient cultures, the religious and mythical view of the world led people to appreciate any reality from the category of holiness as detachment and separateness - even inaccessibility.

Purity laws indicated the conditions necessary to stand before God and feel good in his presence - but in fact always dismayed, because (obviously) not totally fulfilled.

One could not present oneself where the person was, or on any occasion and in any way - but according to rules related to food, contact, dress, recommended times of prayer; and so on.

In the context of Achaemenid rule, in order to enhance identity, rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem, and maintain their class, the priests accentuated purity norms and sacrificial obligations, repeatedly manipulating the meaning, contexts, and postulates of Scripture.

Obviously, a substantial part of the offerings thus inflated remained with the class that performed the rites.

All this, at the expense of a flattened conception of the propitiatory and (supposedly) thaumaturgical cultic style, which invested every aspect of people's ordinary lives.

A multitude enslaved by the imposed vision - childish in itself - algid perhaps, but swampy and irritating.

At the time of Mk some Jewish converts believed they could abandon the ancient customs and approach the pagans; others were of the opposite opinion: it would be like rejecting substantial parts of the Torah [e.g. Lev 11-16 and 17ff].

In fact Mk emphasises that the problem is "in the house" (v.17 Greek text: inside the house) i.e. in the Church and among its intimates [the CEI translation reads in "a" house].

A place where paradoxically we still do not understand the Master [!] who came to free us from invented and contrived obsessions.

Christ must insist in his teaching, now not addressed to strangers, but precisely to the habitués, incapable - unlike the crowds - of "understanding" (v.14) even the rudiments of spiritual things.

In order to educate the stubborn ones still "devoid of intellect" (v.18) who consider themselves masters, he does not go to just any dwelling place, but precisely to the place where, unfortunately, expectations are cultivated that are sometimes far removed from the people (vv.14.17).

The evangelist rejects the distinction between the religious sphere of life and a 'contaminated' daily set-up; a source of corruption. But normal, trivial, summary - for this reason assessed as distant from the 'divine'.

Quintessence that conversely does not intend to subjugate anyone.

Prescriptions remain insufficient to give us access to God: they are but symbols, trajectories, and images.

The active presence of a new Order abolishes legal prescriptions, and shifts the centre of the morality of our acts.

Here we recall Jesus' teaching: impurity does not come from without [i.e. from outside to inside].

It is not the threat to the life of the woman, the man, and the community, according to God's trickless design.

The realities of the world are never wicked and unfit - not even for worship.

They only become obnoxious by passing through decisions that are sacrilegious, because they block life. And detachments that barbarianise.

The canonicity of the bigot and the cassock has nothing to do with divinisation, which conversely rhymes with what is concretely humanising.

The debate on the pure and the impure should not be placed on the level of things [e.g. food that goes to the stomach] but of behaviour, which starts and goes to the heart. A place that is not always serene and well 'ordered'.

There are no sacred apriorisms: it is not enough that a place, a house, objects, a person, etc. have been legitimised by ceremonies. have been legitimised by ceremonies or even exchanges, for them to become untouchable, honest and eminent.

In this way, there is no sacred and profane in itself.

Mystery and bliss come into the world exclusively through the channel of dialogue and encounter with respect for intelligence, personal souls, and differing cultures. Not through entities of merit, nor through misrepresented straits.

Sanctification is linked to conduct. And in cases of consistency, even to the failure, anguish, and frustrations that result from demanding field choices.

These are decisions that jeopardise, and sometimes ridicule us in comparison with, the custom of compulsory authentication - where it sometimes seems necessary to avoid life. Or you are 'nobody'.

Here, formal legalism unfortunately kills any expansion of resources and ideals. 

In short, impure is that which poisons the spontaneous existence and realisation of people, their relationships, and creation itself.

Yet it is imperfections that make us new, exceptional, unique!

Jesus opens up a new Way to bring all of us imperfect people closer to God, to others even far away, and to ourselves - without puritanical exclusions.

When, for example, we do not accept ourselves as we are - inside, or in the field, not welcoming the different and the opposite - because in common opinion 'it is not right', we risk transforming dissatisfaction into an atmosphere of intimate nagging.

Even the religious sense of impurity will lead us from unrest to disaster.

But outside the commitment to friendship with ourselves, with created things, and the spirit of fraternity, of conviviality of contraries, the fear of contamination is unfounded.

On the contrary, we are called to love limits: they are the ground, even broken and impudent, of preparatory energies for real flowering.

They are primordial impulses and signs of our task in the world according to God's newness.

Every Exodus values alternatives.

And we find fulfilment, the meaning of life, as well as gradually greater completeness, by encountering precisely our opposite sides.

Anyone who intimidates the 'inadequate' brother threatens the life of the cosmos and makes the very people who are most sensitive and attentive distrustful.

Jesus frees the crowd of the voiceless, the lost, from the obsession of apprehensions and fears, from always being on the defensive.

We are not called to fixate on one direction. There are others.

Let us therefore learn not to feel dismay that we are not religiously 'successful' - but Firstfruits!

To internalise and live the message:

What do you think makes you presentable in society? In what sense are you impeccable - because you are embellished and conform to opinion?

Does being a 'child' and 'firstfruit' make you defensive or does it restore your desire to live to the full?

The Evangelist Mark reports the following words of Jesus, which are inserted within the debate at that time regarding what is pure and impure: “There is nothing outside a man which by going into him can defile him; but the things which come out of a man are what defile him … What comes out of a man is what defiles a man. For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts” (Mk 7, 14-15, 20-21). Beyond the immediate question concerning food, we can detect in the reaction of the Pharisees a permanent temptation within man: to situate the origin of evil in an exterior cause. Many modern ideologies deep down have this presupposition: since injustice comes “from outside,” in order for justice to reign, it is sufficient to remove the exterior causes that prevent it being achieved. This way of thinking – Jesus warns – is ingenuous and shortsighted. Injustice, the fruit of evil, does not have exclusively external roots; its origin lies in the human heart, where the seeds are found of a mysterious cooperation with evil. With bitterness the Psalmist recognises this: “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me” (Ps 51,7). Indeed, man is weakened by an intense influence, which wounds his capacity to enter into communion with the other. By nature, he is open to sharing freely, but he finds in his being a strange force of gravity that makes him turn in and affirm himself above and against others: this is egoism, the result of original sin. Adam and Eve, seduced by Satan’s lie, snatching the mysterious fruit against the divine command, replaced the logic of trusting in Love with that of suspicion and competition; the logic of receiving and trustfully expecting from the Other with anxiously seizing and doing on one’s own (cf. Gn 3, 1-6), experiencing, as a consequence, a sense of disquiet and uncertainty. How can man free himself from this selfish influence and open himself to love?

[Pope Benedict, Message for Lent 2010]

Old Testament Tradition and the New Meaning of Purity

1. An indispensable complement to the words pronounced by Christ in the Sermon on the Mount on which we have centred the cycle of our present reflections must be the analysis of purity. When Christ, in explaining the proper meaning of the commandment "Thou shalt not commit adultery", made reference to the inner man, he specified at the same time the fundamental dimension of purity, with which the mutual relations between man and woman in and out of marriage are to be marked. The words: 'But I say to you, whoever looks at a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart' (Mt 5:27-28) express what is contrary to purity. At the same time, these words demand the purity that in the Sermon on the Mount is included in the statement of the beatitudes: "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God" (Mt 5:8). In this way Christ addresses an appeal to the human heart: he invites it, not accuses it, as we have already made clear above.

2. Christ sees in the heart, in man's innermost being, the source of purity - but also of moral impurity - in the fundamental and most generic meaning of the word. This is confirmed, for example, by his reply to the Pharisees, scandalised by the fact that his disciples "transgress the tradition of the ancients, for they do not wash their hands when they take food" (Mt 15:2). Jesus then said to those present: "Not what goes into the mouth makes a man unclean, but what comes out of the mouth makes a man unclean" (Mt 15:11). To his disciples, however, answering Peter's question, he explained these words thus: "...what comes out of the mouth comes from the heart. This makes a man unclean. For from the heart come evil intentions, murders, adulteries, prostitutions, thefts, false witness, blasphemies. These are the things that make a man unclean, but eating without washing one's hands does not make a man unclean" (cf. Mt 15:18-20; cf. Mk 7:20-23).

When we say "purity", "pure", in the first meaning of these terms, we indicate that which contrasts with uncleanness. 'Soiling' means 'make unclean', 'pollute'. This refers to the different spheres of the physical world. We speak, for example, of a 'dirty street', a 'dirty room', we also speak of 'polluted air'. Likewise, man can also be 'unclean' when his body is not clean. To remove the filthiness of the body, it must be washed. In the Old Testament tradition, great importance was attached to ritual ablutions, e.g. washing one's hands before eating, which is mentioned in the quoted text. Numerous and detailed prescriptions concerned the ablutions of the body in relation to sexual impurity, understood in an exclusively physiological sense, which we mentioned earlier (cf. Lev 15 ). According to the state of medical science at the time, the various ablutions could correspond to hygienic prescriptions. Insofar as they were imposed in the name of God and contained in the Sacred Books of the Old Covenant legislation, the observance of them acquired, indirectly, a religious significance; they were ritual ablutions and, in the life of the man of the Old Covenant, they served ritual "purity".

3. In relation to the aforementioned legal-religious tradition of the Old Covenant, an erroneous way of understanding moral purity(1) was formed. It was often understood in an exclusively outward and 'material' manner. In any case, there was an explicit tendency towards such an interpretation. Christ radically opposes it: nothing makes man unclean "from the outside", no "material" filthiness makes man impure in a moral, that is to say, inner sense. No ablution, not even ritual, is suitable in itself to produce moral purity. This has its exclusive source within man: it comes from the heart. It is probable that the respective Old Testament prescriptions (those, for example, found in Leviticus) (Lev 15:16-24; 18:1ff; 12:1-5) served not only for hygienic purposes, but also to attribute a certain dimension of interiority to what is corporeal and sexual in the human person. In any case, Christ was very careful not to link purity in the moral (ethical) sense with physiology and related organic processes. In the light of the words of Matthew 15:18-20, quoted above, none of the aspects of sexual "uncleanness", in the strictly somatic, biophysiological sense, enters per se into the definition of purity or impurity in the moral (ethical) sense.

4. The above statement ( Mt 15:18-20 ) is especially important for semantic reasons. In speaking of purity in the moral sense, i.e. the virtue of purity, we make use of an analogy, according to which moral evil is compared precisely to uncleanness. Certainly, this analogy has been part of the sphere of ethical concepts since the earliest times. Christ takes it up and confirms it in its full extent: 'What comes out of the mouth comes from the heart. This makes a man unclean'. Here Christ speaks of every moral evil, every sin, i.e. transgressions of the various commandments, and enumerates "evil intentions, murders, adulteries, prostitutions, thefts, false witness, blasphemies", without limiting himself to a specific kind of sin. It follows that the concept of 'purity' and 'impurity' in the moral sense is first and foremost a general concept, not a specific one: hence every moral good is a manifestation of purity, and every moral evil is a manifestation of impurity. The statement in Matthew 15:18-20 does not restrict purity to a single area of morality, i.e. to that connected with the commandment 'Thou shalt not commit adultery' and 'Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife', i.e. to that which concerns the mutual relations between man and woman, linked to the body and its concupiscence. Similarly, we can also understand the beatitude of the Sermon on the Mount, addressed to men who are 'pure in heart', both in a generic and more specific sense. Only the eventual contexts will allow us to delimit and specify this meaning.

5. The broader and more general meaning of purity is also present in the letters of St Paul, in which we shall gradually identify the contexts that explicitly restrict the meaning of purity to the "somatic" and "sexual" sphere, i.e. to that meaning that we can grasp from the words pronounced by Christ in the Sermon on the Mount on concupiscence, which is already expressed in "looking at the woman", and is equated with "adultery committed in the heart" (cf. Mt 5:27-28 ).

St Paul is not the author of the words on triple concupiscence. They are, as we know, found in the first letter of John. It can, however, be said that analogous to what for John ( 1 Jn 2:16-17 ) is the opposition within man between God and the world (between what comes "from the Father" and what comes "from the world") - an opposition that arises in the heart and penetrates into the actions of man as "concupiscence of the eyes, concupiscence of the flesh and pride of life" - St Paul notes another contradiction in the Christian: the opposition and at the same time the tension between the "flesh" and the "Spirit" (written with a capital letter, i.e. the Holy Spirit): "I say to you therefore, walk according to the Spirit, and you will not be led to satisfy the desires of the flesh; for the flesh has desires contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit has desires contrary to the flesh; these things are opposed to each other, so that you do not do what you would" ( Gal 5:16-17 ). It follows that life 'according to the flesh' is in opposition to life 'according to the Spirit'. "For those who live according to the flesh, think about the things of the flesh; but those who live according to the Spirit, about the things of the Spirit" ( Rom 8:5 ).

In the following analyses we will try to show that purity - the purity of heart, of which Christ spoke in the Sermon on the Mount - is properly realised in life "according to the Spirit".

[Pope John Paul II, General Audience 10 December 1980]

The Gospel for today’s liturgy shows a few scribes and Pharisees amazed by Jesus’ attitude. They are scandalized because his disciples pick up food without first performing the traditional ritual ablutions. They think among themselves: “This way of doing things is contrary to the religious practice” (cf. Mk 7:2-5).

We too could ask ourselves: why do Jesus and his disciples disregard these traditions? After all, they are not bad things, but good ritual habits, simple cleansing before eating.  Why is Jesus  not concerned with this? Because for him it is important to bring faith back to its centre. We see it repeatedly in the Gospel: this bringing faith back to the centre. And to avoid a risk, which applies to those scribes as well as to us: to observe outward formalities, putting the heart and  faith in the background. Many times we too “put makeup” on our soul. Outward formality and not the heart of faith: this is a risk. It is the risk of a religiosity of appearances : looking good on the outside, while neglecting to purify the heart. There is always the temptation to “deal with God” with some outward devotion, but Jesus does not settle for this worship. Jesus does not want outward appearances, he wants a faith that touches the heart.

 In fact, immediately afterwards, he calls the people back to speak a great truth: “there is nothing outside  a man which by going into him can defile him; but the things which come out of a man are what defile him” (v. 15). Rather, it is “from within, out of the heart” (v. 21) that evil things are born. These words are revolutionary, because in the mindset of the time, it was thought that certain foods or external contacts would make one impure. Jesus reverses the perspective: it is not what comes from the outside that is harmful, but rather, what is born from within.

Dear brothers and sisters, this also pertains to us. We often think that evil comes mainly from the outside: from other people’s conduct, from those who think badly of us, from society. How often we blame others, society, the world, for everything that happens to us! It is always the fault of “others”: it is the fault of people, of those who govern, of misfortune, and so on. It seems that problems always come from the outside. And we spend time assigning blame; but spending time blaming others is wasting time. We become angry, bitter and keep God away from our heart. Like those people in the Gospel, who complain, who are scandalized, who cause controversy and do not welcome Jesus. One cannot be truly religious while complaining: complaining poisons, it leads you to anger, to resentment and to sadness, that of the heart, which closes the door to God.

Let us ask the Lord today to free us from blaming others — like children: “No, it wasn’t me! It’s the other one, the other one…”. Let us ask in prayer for the grace not to waste time polluting the world with complaints, because this is not Christian. Jesus instead invites us to look at life and the world starting from our heart. If we look inside ourselves, we will find almost all that we despise outside. And if, with sincerity,  we will ask God to purify our heart, then indeed we will be starting to make the world cleaner. Because there is an infallible way to defeat evil: by starting to conquer it within yourself. The first Fathers of the Church, the monks, when they were asked: “What is the path of holiness, how should I begin”? The first step, they used to say, was to blame oneself: blame yourself. Blaming ourselves. How many of us, during the day, in a moment of  the day or a moment in the week, are able to blame ourselves within? “Yes, this one did this to me, the other one … that one, a  barbarity…”. But me? Do I do the same thing, or do I do it this way.... It is wisdom: learning to blame yourself. Try to do it, it will do you good. It does me good, when I manage to do so, but it is good for us, it is good for everyone.

May the Virgin Mary, who changed history through the purity of her heart, help us to purify our own, by overcoming first and foremost the vice of blaming others and complaining about everything.

[Pope Francis, Angelus 29 August 2021]

Traditions and ideal order

(Mk 7:1-13)

Religiosity can deceive the ideal order; the life of Faith promotes it, relying on a perfection and purity derived simply from the human dimension - of common sense and awareness.

This is how the world is improved and redeemed: by uniting with the Father’ Shekhinah; not perched in a fort, as if we were in a den.

And the full adventure, beyond borders, in the Spirit, makes us feel beautiful inside, instead of sick to be cured; indeed, capable of giving space to the magic of the Divine in ourselves and in relationships.

Without ever feeling besieged, ‘sons’ spontaneously react to events - with countless personalizing charitable initiatives, unrelated to any habit, chain, nomenclature.

Under the Herods dynasty the sense of the clan and the community were crumbling.

Due to survival problems, families were forced to close in on themselves, loosen ties, think about their own needs.

This closure was reinforced by the forms of devotion of the time in every respect. In vv.10-12 we see an incredible example of this: those who dedicated their inheritance to the Temple could leave their parents without help!

Offence and offering: injustice and normative behaviour - a strange connection, in the apparent form of an exemplary accent.

Compliance with the purity rules was a factor of ordinary marginalization for many people.

It was precisely the miserable who were regarded as ignorant and cursed species, because they were unable to fulfil; as a result, they were unable to receive the consolating blessing promised to Abraham.

A daily dripping that undermined the profound meaning of existing together.

In particular, ablutions were a kind of rite during which a “satisfying” gap between the sacred and the profane was celebrated - in detachment from people and situations considered impure.

Staying out of the supposed filth, none of the sick could ever be relieved.

So the rules were not a source of peace, but of slavery. Extending a charitable hand would even be sacrilegious.

In short, inhuman trifles were placed before the Law itself, nullifying its understanding spirit [fraternity that would have accentuated the enthusiasm of existing].

Placed in that context, people only embraced paths they already knew.

Woman and man lost the sense of their multifaceted existence. And life without the "opposites" weakened the Exodus of the whole people.

«Artfully you cancel the commandment of God, to observe your tradition» (Mk 7:9).

Jesus could not tolerate the closed world of conformist religiosity being bent and used to annihilate relationships.

This is why the control of the Pharisees is opposed by the freedom of the disciples (v.2), who refuse to obey that which does not make sense for concrete life - where visible love feeds ideal love.

The Master and Lord teaches that true worship is Closeness. In this way, there is a stage and a whole new order in the groove of the Word, which conquers all external links to the interiority.

Authentic 'ecstasy' is the 'purity of benefiting all' - not the self-satisfaction of the perfection model.

[Tuesday 5th wk. in O.T.  February 10, 2026]