(Lk 14:15-24)

Jesus does not compare the Father's Kingdom to a solemn assembly, but to a great Supper!

However, the proposal of festive novelty is rejected. The self-sufficient ones and experienced have other commitments and interests.

The invitation to take part in the Feast was initially addressed to the sons of Israel, who still likened the Messianic times to a Banquet, characterised by gratitude and [internal] fraternity.

In the first communities, the difficulties in broadening the criteria of communion came precisely from converts from Judaism, who by long practice retained the custom of not sharing food with those far away; thus the breaking of the Eucharistic Bread.

Within the framework of their conventions and the sacred norms attested in the Torah (Deut 20:5-7), the behaviour of those refusing the invitation in the parable of the Banquet (vv.18-20) was legitimate from the point of view of the recognised right - not friendship.

It is to accentuate the meaning of the gesture that the master of the feast orders the servants to gather precisely those who were socially excluded from the ancient religion, because they were considered impure: the pagans, the wobblers. Open ones to waiting for.

Christ continues to draw a dividing line between those who advocate an untouchable order and ideals above human reality, and those who, being on the periphery, are always willing to participate in the Feast.

They are not the “all concerned with ritual”, manners, appearance; but with the life they spread.

They do not let themselves be conditioned by privileges, their things, and laws: they give without double-entry.

They accept with natural readiness; rejoicing in reality and not in the distinction between sacred and profane.

They do not think already have the answer, and do not end up being slaves to it.

Jesus' teaching invites not to limit one's affections and not to let one's heart be cluttered by customs, by the particular or current mentalities, by legalistic blocks - or by the 'many things'.

In the assembly of sons, it is not the well provided for [serious, busy people with no time to waste, with too many possessions and invitations to manage] but the petty people... who come to the fore. Despite their poor aptitude.

All this, because characteristic of the Little and beggar is the readiness to cross fences: that which makes them fit to grasp God's summons.

Those who are far away - even if they are on tight corner - fill the Father's House.

‘In society’ the poor man is one of many, but the invitation to [Eucharistic] canteen conveys to him a sense of values that do not suffocate life with pettiness, and ties.

Indeed, the poor man often has a better understanding of divine-human things.

This ever more conscious resemblance to the Son of God is accentuated in the scarcity of ‘adequate means’: scarcity that makes true, that induces others to reflect - remaining unremarkable, incapable of “make lightning”.

Our solidarity is not a matter of sympathy, common interests and esprit de corps, but rather the result of an extended Calling; of one powerful Life circulating in all, respecting their freedom and reality - as well as their phases of change.

Paraphrasing the encyclical Fratelli Tutti [nos.13-15, passim] according to the passage from Lk we must remain careful not to impoverish the life of Faith, turning it into a detached commitment to «cultural colonisation».

If this were the case, even the universal-Catholic horizon of a conviviality of differences would dissolve into an overly normalised, utterly predictable; ultimately deserted invitation.

The entrenched or self-interested rejection of the Banquet would bring with it - as before our eyes - the «further disintegration» of «critical thinking», of action «for justice», of its «paths to integration».

In fact, even ecclesial society can run the risk of «distorting the great words», «risking impoverishment»; thus «reducing itself to the arrogance of the strongest» and to «merely ephemeral marketing recipes, which find in the destruction of the other the most effective resource».

But God's people cannot live in a parallel, disconnected, double world - as if the One Eternal worshipped was a patchwork of wiles, marketing and convenience.

[Tuesday 31st wk. in O.T.  November 5, 2024]

(Lk 14:15-24)

Jesus does not compare the Father's Kingdom to a solemn assembly, but to a great Supper!

However, the proposal of festive novelty is rejected. The self-sufficient and experienced have other commitments and interests...

After the destruction of the Temple, the government of the synagogues was taken over by the Pharisees, who were saved from disaster because their traditionalism had no explicit political-nationalist overtones.

In fact, they believed that the expectation of the Messiah had nothing to do with the struggle against Rome; in this they seemed in tune with the Christians.

But they constantly demanded from their followers the strict fulfilment of the rules that identified the traditional Jewish religion.

After the year 70, this demand led them to an increasingly obsessive condemnation of Jewish converts to the Lord Jesus - and at the end of the century to their expulsion from the synagogues.

The fundamentalist religious leaders thus ended up marginalising even socially the followers of the younger Messiah, guilty of neglecting the distinctions between the customs of Israel and those of other peoples.

In the communities of Lk the situation was less lacerating, but equally alive.

The converts to faith in Christ came for the most part from paganism, who despite differences in cultural background and class, lived here and there [without those purist ideological tares] the ideal of sharing and communion even of goods.

The invitation to take part in the Feast was initially addressed to the children of Israel, who still compared the Messianic times to a great Banquet, characterised by gratitude and (internal) fraternity.

But the difficulties in broadening the criteria of communion came precisely from converts from Judaism, who by long practice retained the custom of not sharing food with those far away; thus the breaking of the Eucharistic Bread.

Within the framework of their customs and the sacred norms attested in the Torah (Deut 20:5-7), the behaviour of those who refuse the invitation in the parable of the Banquet (vv.18-20) was legitimate from the point of view of recognised right - not friendship.

It is to accentuate the meaning of the gesture that the master of the feast orders the servants to gather precisely those who were socially excluded from the ancient religion because they were considered unclean: the pagans. Open to expectation.

Christ continues to draw a dividing line between those who advocate an untouchable order and ideals above human reality, and those who, being on the periphery, are always willing to participate in the Feast.

They are not the 'all concerned with ritual', manners, appearance; but with the life they spread.

They do not let themselves be conditioned by privileges, their things, and laws: they give without double-entry accounts, they accept with natural readiness; they rejoice in reality and not in the distinction between sacred and profane. They do not think they already have the answer, and do not end up being slaves to it.

Jesus' teaching invites us not to limit our affections and not to let our hearts be cluttered by customs, by particular or current mentalities, by legalistic blocks - or by 'many things'.

In the assembly of the children, it is not the well provided for [serious, busy people with no time to lose, with too many possessions and invitations to manage] but the petty people... who come to the fore... despite their meagre aptitudes.

All this, because characteristic of the Little and Pitocchios is the readiness to cross fences: that which makes them fit to grasp God's summons.

The distant - albeit in straits - fill the Father's house.

In society, the poor man is one of many, but the invitation to Mensa conveys to him a sense of values that do not suffocate his life of pettiness, and ties; indeed, the indigent often has a better understanding of divine-human things.

This ever more conscious resemblance to the Son of God is accentuated in the scarcity of 'adequate' means: scarcity that makes true, that induces others to reflect - remaining unremarkable, incapable of making lightning.

This intimate, luminous, transfiguring awareness pales and is extinguished in the vortex of legalisms, of cultural conventions.

It seems to fade in the dizzying multiplication of activities - they do not reform: they make us external and conditioned by the advantages of worldly-sacred, unfortunately monopolistic security.

An obligatory banquet would not be a Banquet... certainly not a Feast, a Gift to be cherished - confused with advantages or perfections [bad interpretation of stubborn observant circles].

This is why many prefer their particular purgatory to the Heaven on Earth that the Father offers.

Our solidarity is not a matter of sympathy, common interests and esprit de corps, but the result of an extended Calling, of one powerful Life circulating in all, respecting their freedom and reality - as well as their phases of change.

Paraphrasing the encyclical Fratelli Tutti (nn.13-15, passim) according to the passage from Luke we must remain careful not to impoverish the life of Faith, turning it into a detached commitment to "cultural colonisation".

If this were the case, even the universal-Catholic horizon of a conviviality of differences would dissolve into an overly normalised, absolutely predictable, ultimately deserted invitation.

The engrossed or interested rejection of the Banquet would bring with it - as before our eyes - the "further disintegration" of "critical thinking", of action "for justice", of its "paths of integration".

Even ecclesial society can in fact run the risk of "distorting the great words", "risking impoverishment"; thus "reducing itself to the arrogance of the strongest" and to "merely ephemeral marketing recipes, which find in the destruction of the other the most effective resource".

But God's people cannot live in a parallel, disconnected, double world - as if the one Eternal worshipped was a patchwork of wiles, marketing and convenience.

To internalise and live the message:

What does the Eucharist convey in your church or group reality? What particular and special invitation does it communicate?

The Feast, the Robe

All called, but with what outfit? Without artifice

Mt 22:1-14 (1-21)

The "wedding garment" (vv.11-12) is a figure of the essential - the indispensable, even the precarious, without frills of refinement.

"Each one of you, therefore, who in the Church has faith in God has already taken part in the wedding feast, but cannot say that he has the wedding garment if he does not keep the grace of Charity" (Homilia 38:9: PL 76:1287). And this robe is symbolically woven of two woods, one at the top and the other at the bottom: love of God and love of neighbour (cf. ibid.,10: PL 76,1288)" (Gregory the Great; Pope Benedict, 9 October 2011).

The Kingdom of God announced by Jesus is different from the one imagined by the rabbis, whose doctrine could admit personal and civic disregard [e.g.: sellers in the temple, barren fig tree, objection to authority, murderous vine-dressers, etc.: Mt 21].

The Banquet preached by the Master is not a Garden of Eden set up for a future in the hereafter, which in the meantime - albeit in flashes - can endure inauthenticity. Rather, it is a direct thread.

His set canteen is the new condition into which the person who trusts his proposal to share is introduced.

There are those who feel satiated, because they believe they already possess enough for a life without too many problems - and so they adapt to any occasion, even a petty one.

This was the situation of the authorities, satisfied with the overabundant religious structure, which seemed to offer just social security, and certainty even before God.

Instead (as if to say): it is not enough to have one's name transcribed in the parish registers, and then present oneself in the rags of ancient life.

Today, the rebirth from the global crisis calls for fundamental options, for radical changes in mentality and reality.

There is a real need to renew 'clothing', that is, to set choices on new values. 

It is appropriate to become plastic again, to remodel ourselves on the Person of Christ, not to reject the changes that stimulate - to the point of building a common life project, and rebuild the world around us.

All are called (v.14), but some have not kept the white garment of Baptism. He has totally changed his outfit, unfortunately - despite in some cases presiding over and defending the institution.

Jesus resumes speaking to the leaders and offends them without half-measures, because he does not compare the Father's kingdom to a liturgical assembly of theirs, those well set up, of great authority, full of artifice... but to a wedding feast, without sacred banners!

In that festive simplicity, in the immediate and joyful frankness of a wedding, there is a human reality characterising the divine condition: the spontaneous Joy of frank relationships, face to face - now lost in the formalisms of habituated religion.

The proposal of festive novelty is, however, rejected. The self-sufficient and experienced (who know better) worship another master: self-interest.

Opportunism cannot be an ingredient of the Sacred: self-interest turns people inward, closes their gaze, makes them one-sided and gloomy.

It consigns the Church to entanglements.

Jesus realised: all that the cunning and messy people were doing was a function of their own profit. In fact they thought of the Kingdom in an elective, already selected (and commercial, usual) way.

As with the labourers of the last hour [Matthew 20:1-16] the only currency for all is Christ himself. But the veterans, who consider themselves first in their class by right, do not care about people's happiness.

So the fate of the prophets was nothing more than the careless outcome of despicable calculations [in Luke 14:18-20 "ordinary" daily duties] which were, however, leading the people to destruction (v.7).

The background of the parable is the friction between converted Jews and converted Gentiles.

Considering themselves chosen - "elect" (v.14) - the former refused to break the Bread, share and put themselves on an equal footing with the latter.

Interestingly, however, it was precisely the faithful servants, push come to shove, who stood out in reverse: they were already recognisable because under any circumstances they were prepared to enter the Banquet 'last'.

In short, the space opened by the self-exclusion of the people called first would not be able to put an 'end' to the efforts of those who have always fought for life and authenticity.

Fruitful trees - Jesus argued, and we see this everywhere today - do not like to prevaricate: they prefer to produce, without opportunist claims or envy.

They take risks, and occupy only the last place; to be close to the uncertain, and encourage them. 

So in v.9 Mt does not speak of going to the crossroads [CEI translation] but to the outlets of the streets [Greek text].

Pope Francis would say: to the existential peripheries, where life is not taken for granted, but always pulsates new. There where one cannot be indifferent.

The Greek term indicates the end of the (reassuring) urban roads and the beginning of the careless and risky paths.

In the Semitic mentality, they were the border of pure territory and the threshold of precarious, contaminated places.

Not only: God's offer of love first brings together the 'wicked' ['wicked': v.10 Greek text] to emphasise that Heaven is not at points.

It is available to the needy, to those who recognise themselves as such.

But everyone can be wicked on the outside, not on the inside: that is, watchful to our brother and diligent.

We are called to abandon neglect and carelessness.

In order not to confuse the Face of God and ruin the lives of the most motivated, a change of mentality is needed within the Church.

A decisive substitution of principles and conveniences, overthrowing every pyramid ideology, of self-interest and power.

By Faith that incorporates us unconditionally to the Bridegroom, the clean and sumptuous dress is always provided by the Master of the House.

But wearing it is the result of a conscious choice, made by us: wanting to "give birth to a new world, where we are all brothers, where there is room for every discarded person" [Fratelli Tutti, no. 278].

That is to say, we will continue to undergo the journey into the parallel world - sometimes even communal - where everything is disconnected and double: the result of bad indoctrination, corrupt options and diabolical motives.

As if the only God worshipped is marketing and convenience.

To internalise and live the message:

What do you consider diabolical and imagine could lead you away from the spiritual path?Do you think of God in a serious way or do you associate him with the joy of a wedding party?

Return to God the image of true humanity. What acronym?

(Mt 22:15-21)

After the expulsion of the sellers from the Temple, the objection on authority, and the parables of the two sons, the murderous vinedressers, and the rejected banquet (all referring to the elite), here is another clash between Jesus and the political and religious leaders - the latter placed behind the scenes.

Jesus (in his) systematically dismantles the traps set by the leaders and experts.

With tried and tested duplicity, they approach Him trying to stroke their self-love (v.16: situations that often occur even to critical witnesses).

The interest of the cunning, however, clashes with the attention of Christ, who is all for the real good of people and respect for the intelligence of things - not for the eagerness of approval or opportunism.

Right in the Temple (Mt 21:23) - the eminent Abode of the one Lord God - these gendarmes provoke the new Rabbi about paying taxes to the Romans (22:17).

We know what was at stake: the accusation of not being a prophet according to divine Right, or (vice versa) that of collaborationism with the occupiers.

The Master does not allow himself to be fooled by the ostentation of closeness to the God of Israel - false because sought outside - and he easily plays them.

In the Temple of Jerusalem, it was forbidden to carry Roman coins, which depicted imperial profiles and insignia (contrary to the Commandment 'Thou shalt not make thyself any image').

He asked for them, however, because indeed he had none. But the very paladins hand him one.... The scene borders on the ridiculous.

Drawing the forbidden coin from the pouch concealed under the cloak, the very leaders reveal their true God: self-interest (well hidden under devout and ostentatious manners, which only act as a screen).

Christ invites us not to allow ourselves to be flattered by the ostentatious duplicity of insignia: what is important is not to deceive people by using pious forms as theatrical masks (v.18 Greek text).

Purity fanatics only live the epidermic angle; and they rely on it: they not infrequently hide well the very material passions they disdain. It does not work with Christ.

Each one is called upon to return to his true lord the indelible image and likeness engraved on him. So let the coin be given back to its master.Woman and man - creatures in whom the image and likeness of God is imprinted - are to return themselves in authenticity, to the Creator (v.21) who dwells in their essence as persons.

Humanity is sealed by much more intimate and natural belonging than those of convenience.

The horizon of friendship to which Jesus introduces us is the whole of humanity:  indeed, he wants to be for everyone the Good Shepherd who lays down his own life (cf. Jn 10: 11), and he stresses this strongly in the discourse on the Good Shepherd who came to reunite everyone, not only the Chosen People but all the dispersed children of God. 

Our own solicitude, therefore, must be universal. We should certainly first take care of those who, like us, believe and live with the Church - it is very important, even in this dimension of universality, that we first see to those faithful who live their "being Church" every day with humility and love -, and yet we must not tire of going out, as the Lord asks us, "to the highways and hedges" (Lk 14: 23) to invite to the banquet that God has prepared those who are not yet acquainted with him or have perhaps preferred not to know him.

[Pope Benedict, address to the CEI, 18 May 2006]

Today more than in the past, the Church's social doctrine must be open to an international outlook, in line with the Second Vatican Council,73 the most recent Encyclicals,74 and particularly in line with the Encyclical which we are commemorating.75 It will not be superfluous therefore to reexamine and further clarify in this light the characteristic themes and guidelines dealt with by the Magisterium in recent years. 

Here I would like to indicate one of them: the option or love of preference for the poor. This is an option, or a special form of primacy in the exercise of Christian charity, to which the whole tradition of the Church bears witness. It affects the life of each Christian inasmuch as he or she seeks to imitate the life of Christ, but it applies equally to our social responsibilities and hence to our manner of living, and to the logical decisions to be made concerning the ownership and use of goods. 

Today, furthermore, given the worldwide dimension which the social question has assumed,76 this love of preference for the poor, and the decisions which it inspires in us, cannot but embrace the immense multitudes of the hungry, the needy, the homeless, those without medical care and, above all, those without hope of a better future. It is impossible not to take account of the existence of these realities. To ignore them would mean becoming like the "rich man" who pretended not to know the beggar Lazarus lying at his gate (cf. Lk 16:19-31).77

Our daily life as well as our decisions in the political and economic fields must be marked by these realities. Likewise the leaders of nations and the heads of international bodies, while they are obliged always to keep in mind the true human dimension as a priority in their development plans, should not forget to give precedence to the phenomenon of growing poverty. Unfortunately, instead of becoming fewer the poor are becoming more numerous, not only in less developed countries but-and this seems no less scandalous-in the more developed ones too. 

It is necessary to state once more the characteristic principle of Christian social doctrine: the goods of this world are originally meant for all.78 The right to private property is valid and necessary, but it does not nullify the value of this principle. Private property, in fact, is under a "social mortgage,"79 which means that it has an intrinsically social function, based upon and justified precisely by the principle of the universal destination of goods. Likewise, in this concern for the poor, one must not overlook that special form of poverty which consists in being deprived of fundamental human rights, in particular the right to religious freedom and also the right to freedom of economic initiative.

[Sollicitudo rei socialis n.42]

(Lk 14:12-14)

Inviting the excluded, without a spirit of interest: the Christian community is open to everyone, especially those who have nothing to offer in return.

The Church cannot be complicit with those who turn the world into a business.

And are we really today finally learning to invite for free, not in an even more interested and mercantile way?

We are well aware that the interweaving of the computational circuits behind our actions is astounding, almost as complex as the very complicated computer circuits.

And someone is also looking for sacralization:

Before exposing ourselves in a work, we weigh with incredible rapidity all the possible relapses, the reactions useful or harmful to our interests.

Even during the course of social action, we recalibrate any changes that produce the desired effect, and at the same time the hoped compensation.

If this doesn’t come, surely we imagine that there must have been a (mechanical) fault somewhere.

If we are not careful, much of our existence is transformed into a cybernetic of interest.

It also happens with God.

Instead, it is Love that conquers the world.

It is the unconditional gift that shakes, moves, conquers; it preludes and reflects the Mystery.

In the transformation of one’s own goods into Encounter, Relationship, intimate Life and of others, the source of Joy gushes forth.

Gaiety of completeness of being, Life of the Trinity itself: different Happiness, without due or expected returns; prelude to Resurrection.

A divine existence, not behind the clouds or at the end of history, but from now on.

No reciprocation is really worth such boundless and real vertigo.

Thus the type of participants in the breaking of Bread in churches - today of an increasingly varied mentality - describes the essence of God.

The ‘polyhedron’ becomes an icon and attribute of the tolerant mercy of the Eternal.

But it is not an external or paternalistic patch; nor is it configured as a rescue of the situation [or remorse of conscience].

The condition of sin does not nullify the plan of salvation. Rather, it emphasizes the personal Exodus and the passion of things.

Different faces and circumstances become sacraments of Grace, Love so open that no human narrowness can close.

Even a non-one-way personal formation is well recalled by the thousand unusual presences of a multipolar world [as an intimate and concrete appeal].

In this way, every heterogeneous aspect is now finally appreciated as an added value, instead of being considered a “carnal” or “impurity” expression.

In short, our attitude as sisters and brothers imitates divine magnanimity: we welcome willingly and freely those who are 'different' and those without great energy or appeal.

Not because we are or they are 'good', but so that we all become good. And by being close, together, in an unforeseen, therefore vital way; overeminent one.

To internalize and live the message:

What does not elevate your relationships? and the complete sense of you?

[Monday 31st wk. in O.T.  November 4, 2024]

Among the many gifts that we buy and receive, let us not forget the true gift: to give each other something of ourselves, to give each other something of our time, to open our time to God. In this way anxiety disappears, joy is born, and the feast is created. During the festive meals of these days let us remember the Lord’s words: "When you give a dinner or a banquet, do not invite those who will invite you in return, but invite those whom no one invites and who are not able to invite you" (cf. Lk 14:12-14). This also means: when you give gifts for Christmas, do not give only to those who will give to you in return, but give to those who receive from no one and who cannot give you anything back. This is what God has done: he invites us to his wedding feast, something which we cannot reciprocate, but can only receive with joy. Let us imitate him! Let us love God and, starting from him, let us also love man, so that, starting from man, we can then rediscover God in a new way!

[Pope Benedict, homily 24 December 2006]

12. Is Justice Enough? 

It is not difficult to see that in the modern world the sense of justice has been reawakening on a vast scale; and without doubt this emphasizes that which goes against justice in relationships between individuals, social groups and "classes," between individual peoples and states, and finally between whole political systems, indeed between what are called "worlds." This deep and varied trend, at the basis of which the contemporary human conscience has placed justice, gives proof of the ethical character of the tensions and struggles pervading the world. 

The Church shares with the people of our time this profound and ardent desire for a life which is just in every aspect, nor does she fail to examine the various aspects of the sort of justice that the life of people and society demands. This is confirmed by the field of Catholic social doctrine, greatly developed in the course of the last century. On the lines of this teaching proceed the education and formation of human consciences in the spirit of justice, and also individual undertakings, especially in the sphere of the apostolate of the laity, which are developing in precisely this spirit. 

And yet, it would be difficult not to notice that very often programs which start from the idea of justice and which ought to assist its fulfillment among individuals, groups and human societies, in practice suffer from distortions. Although they continue to appeal to the idea of justice, nevertheless experience shows that other negative forces have gained the upper hand over justice, such as spite, hatred and even cruelty. In such cases, the desire to annihilate the enemy, limit his freedom, or even force him into total dependence, becomes the fundamental motive for action; and this contrasts with the essence of justice, which by its nature tends to establish equality and harmony between the parties in conflict. This kind of abuse of the idea of justice and the practical distortion of it show how far human action can deviate from justice itself, even when it is being undertaken in the name of justice. Not in vain did Christ challenge His listeners, faithful to the doctrine of the Old Testament, for their attitude which was manifested in the words: An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth."111 This was the form of distortion of justice at that time; and today's forms continue to be modeled on it. It is obvious, in fact, that in the name of an alleged justice (for example, historical justice or class justice) the neighbor is sometimes destroyed, killed, deprived of liberty or stripped of fundamental human rights. The experience of the past and of our own time demonstrates that justice alone is not enough, that it can even lead to the negation and destruction of itself, if that deeper power, which is love, is not allowed to shape human life in its various dimensions. It has been precisely historical experience that, among other things, has led to the formulation of the saying: summum ius, summa iniuria. This statement does not detract from the value of justice and does not minimize the significance of the order that is based upon it; it only indicates, under another aspect, the need to draw from the powers of the spirit which condition the very order of justice, powers which are still more profound. 

The Church, having before her eyes the picture of the generation to which we belong, shares the uneasiness of so many of the people of our time. Moreover, one cannot fail to be worried by the decline of many fundamental values, which constitute an unquestionable good not only for Christian morality but simply for human morality, for moral culture: these values include respect for human life from the moment of conception, respect for marriage in its indissoluble unity, and respect for the stability of the family. Moral permissiveness strikes especially at this most sensitive sphere of life and society. Hand in hand with this go the crisis of truth in human relationships, lack of responsibility for what one says, the purely utilitarian relationship between individual and individual, the loss of a sense of the authentic common good and the ease with which this good is alienated. Finally, there is the "desacralization" that often turns into "dehumanization": the individual and the society for whom nothing is "sacred" suffer moral decay, in spite of appearances.

[Pope John Paul II, Dives in Misericordia]

For salvation there is 'one ticket in'. But with a few caveats. First of all, it is free; and then the holders will surely be women and men who are 'in need of care and healing in body and soul'. It is easy to imagine that in the first places are 'sinners, the poor and the sick', the so-called 'last ones' in short. Celebrating Mass at Santa Marta on Tuesday, 7 November, Pope Francis revived the Gospel image - taken from the passage in Luke (14:15-24) - of the banquet to which the master of the house invites "the poor, the crippled, the blind and the lame" after the refusal of the rich who do not understand the value of the gratuitousness of salvation.

"The Gospel texts we have heard this week, these last days, are framed in a banquet," Francis was quick to point out. It is "the Lord who goes to the house of a leader of the Pharisees to dine and there he is rebuked because he does not do his ablutions". Then, the Pope continued, "during the banquet the Lord advises us not to seek the first places because there is the danger that one who is more important will come and the host will say, 'Give way to this one, move over!' That would be a disgrace."

"The passage continues," said the Pontiff, "with the advice the Lord gives to those who are to be invited to a banquet at home". And he points precisely to "those who cannot give you reciprocation, that is, those who have nothing to give you in return". Here is "the gratuitousness of the banquet". So "when he had finished explaining this, one of the diners - this is today's passage - said to Jesus, 'Blessed is he who takes food in the kingdom of God!'" The Lord "answered him with a parable, without explanation, of this man who gave a great dinner and made many guests". But "the first guests did not want to go to dinner, they cared neither about the dinner nor about the people who were there, nor about the Lord who was inviting them: they cared about other things".

And in fact one after the other they began to apologise, So, the Pope pointed out, 'the first one said to him: "I bought a field"; the other: "I bought five pairs of oxen"; another: "I got married"; but each had his own interest and this interest was greater than the invitation'. The fact is, said Francis, that 'these were attached to the interest: what can I gain? So to a free invitation the answer is: 'I don't care, maybe another day, I'm so busy, I can't go'. "Busy" but for his own "interests: busy like that man who wanted, after the harvest of grain, to make stores to enlarge his possessions. Poor man, he died that night".

These people are attached "to interest to such an extent that" they fall into "a slavery of the spirit" and "are incapable of understanding the gratuitousness of the invitation". But "if one does not understand the gratuitousness of God's invitation, one understands nothing," the Pope warned. God's initiative, in fact, "is always gratuitous: what do you have to pay to go to this banquet? The entrance ticket is to be sick, is to be poor, is to be a sinner". Precisely this 'is the ticket of entry: to be needy both in body and soul'. And 'by need', Francis reiterated, is meant 'needing care, needing healing, needing love'.

"Here," the Pontiff explained, "we see the two attitudes". God's "is always gratuitous: to save God does not charge anything, he is free". And also, Francis added, "we say the word, somewhat abstractly, 'universal'", in the sense that to the servant "the 'angry' master" says: "Go out immediately to the squares, to the streets of the city and bring in the poor, the crippled, the blind, the lame". In Matthew's other version, the master says: "good and bad: all, everyone", because "God's gratuitousness has no limits: everyone, he receives everyone".

"Instead, those who have their own interest," the Pope continued, "do not understand gratuitousness. They are like the son who stayed by his father's side when the youngest left and then, after a long time, he came back poor and the father makes feast and this one does not want to enter that feast, he does not want to enter that feast because he does not understand: "He spent all the money, he spent the inheritance, with the vices, with the sins, you make him feast? And I who am a Catholic, practical, I go to mass every Sunday, I fulfil things, nothing to me?".

The fact is that 'he does not understand the gratuitousness of salvation, he thinks that salvation is the fruit of "I pay and you save me": I pay with this, with this'. Instead "no, salvation is gratuitous". And "if you do not enter into this dynamic of gratuitousness you understand nothing".

Salvation in fact, Francis affirmed, "is a gift from God to which one responds with another gift, the gift of my heart". However, there are those 'who have other interests, when they hear about the gifts: "Yes, it is true, yes, but gifts must be given". And they immediately think: 'Here, I will give this gift and he will give me another one tomorrow and the day after'". Thus there is "always reciprocation".

Instead "the Lord asks nothing in return: only love, faithfulness, as he is love and he is faithful". Because "salvation is not bought, one simply enters the banquet: 'Blessed is he who takes food in the kingdom of God!'". And 'this is salvation'.

In fact, the Pope confided, "I ask myself: what do these people who are unwilling to come to this banquet feel? They feel secure, they feel safe, they feel saved in their own way outside the banquet". And 'they have lost the sense of gratuitousness, they have lost the sense of love and they have lost something greater and more beautiful still, and this is very bad: they have lost the capacity to feel loved'. And, he added, 'when you lose - I am not saying the capacity to love, because that can be recovered - the capacity to feel loved, there is no hope: you have lost everything'.

Moreover, the Pontiff concluded, all this 'makes us think of the words written at the door of Dante's inferno "Leave hope": you have lost everything'. On our part, we must instead look at the master of the house who wants his house to be filled: 'he is so loving that in his gratuitousness he wants to fill the house'. And so "we ask the Lord to save us from losing the capacity to feel loved".

[Pope Francis, S. Marta homily, in L'Osservatore Romano 08/11/2017]

Some days I was in a bar. There were some young people talking about their daily problems, when at a certain point the issue of envy came up.

The discussion on this topic was also taken up by the people who were there and someone joking or not (who knows) expressed: but how do you remove it?

I was reminded of old magical and superstitious practices from when I was a child. Or of all those times I have heard people say in the face of a failure or unfavourable situation: 'I must go and have envy removed'. And not only from simple people, but also from people with a certain degree of culture. As already argued in previous articles, even the man of science has his irrational side.

In the Treccani dictionary under envy we read: 'An unpleasant feeling for a good or quality of others that one would like for oneself, often accompanied by aversion and resentment for the one who possesses it instead'.

It is a feeling we all have and which we refuse to acknowledge because it is often something we are ashamed of. We often believe that this feeling has occult powers and therefore believe that pseudo-magical practices can free us. Nothing could be more illusory.

Melanie Klein wrote the book 'Envy and Gratitude' where she addresses this issue.

This author investigated in depth the first relationship the child has with the mother's breast and then with the mother when it manages to perceive her as a total object. A primary relationship that can also be difficult due to maternal causes: non-acceptance of the baby, difficulties in childbirth, or reluctance to breastfeed. 

But there are also causes that can arise from the baby, and among these is envy, which prevents a good relationship with the breast.

The baby may feel a great deal of anger towards the breast, whether it is perceived as good, i.e. that it satisfies him, or as bad - because it does not satisfy his needs and generates envy because it possesses something he does not have.

And so the infant tries to harm him as he can, by putting his naughty bits in (spitting, urinating, biting, etc.).

In a person a strong presence of envy can damage his way of life, and his relations with others; not because of external causes, but because he cannot understand the good object.

He feels that he has ruined it and made it bad.

He cannot feel its good feelings, and this increases his envy and hatred.

In contrast, the child who is more able to feel love and gratitude for the gift he has received, experiences the good object more.

Consequently, gaining confidence in his own goodness, he will overcome envy and hatred more easily.

The person suffering from envy can hardly enjoy the joys of life, because the relationship with the mother and then with any other object of love is damaged.

Positive feelings encourage the child to keep the milk received as good.

Experiencing gratitude is the basis of pleasure, and later he will be able to establish satisfying relationships, because destructive desires are diminished: his anxieties will be less.

Envy does not make us live well, for the simple reason that it goes against life - and the outside world becomes our enemy.  

Or it makes us live a 'breast' that is too idealised or too bad.

A person with a good capacity to love can love the 'object' while seeing its limitations.

One positive thing that envy can operate in us is the possibility of improving ourselves.  

Often, for those who seek help from a professional, among the various issues that the person brings to analysis, this problem must be addressed. 

If the analyst is well aware of these destructive parts, he will be able to lead the person in front of him to recognise the negative parts, and to mitigate them with love and positive feelings.

The well-adjusted person will bear his or her own feelings of guilt better, and will not need to see them on others.  .

Very often it is difficult to bear ourselves.

Francesco Giovannozzi Psychologist - Psychotherapist.

No forced surrender

(Mk 12:28b-34)

That of the ‘Great commandment’ was the most familiar catechism rule, even to infants.

Jesus is questioned only to retort: and why do you not keep the one commandment that even God fulfils - the Sabbath rest?

The only disposition in which the Father recognizes himself is Love, not some particular precept - because only profound Quality obliges.

The spiritual proposal of the Master makes the narrative of God's people and the practice of the Prophets its own: all heart, feet, hands - and intelligence.

Complete Love for God envelops the creature in every decision [heart], every moment and aspect of its concrete 'life', all its resources [strength].

Mt 22:37 does not explicitly mention this last aspect, perhaps to emphasize that the Father doesn’t absorb energies in any way, but transmits them.

And Jesus adds to the nuances of authentic understanding with God enumerated in the First Testament an unexpected side to those who think of love as a feeling only emotional.

The Lord suggests study, discernment and understanding of our perceptions (v.30) - the mental and deep intelligence aspect that complements Dt 6.

At first glance, it appears to be a secondary facet or even a frill for the qualitative leap from a common religious sense to the wisely and personally configured existence of Faith.

The exact opposite is true: we are children of a Father who does not supplant us, nor absorb our forces or potential, depersonalising us; not even from the mental point of view.

Practicality alone makes us fragile, not very aware; and when we are not convinced, we will not be reliable either, always at the mercy of changing situations and the conformist, fashionable, other people’s opinion.

Jesus doesn’t speak of love for God in terms of intimacy and feeling, but of a totally involving affinity, made less oscillating precisely by the development of our sapiential measure on issues.

Here is a decisive appointment, of the Love in the round.

It would be unnatural to recognise a Lord of Heaven who does not come to meet us and instead towers over us with an objective of his own, which is extrinsic to us and makes us marginal.

Loving «How [and Because] yourself»: it’s a new Genesis in the spirit of Giving.

The paradox suggested by Jesus is that we love for the care to meet - and because we love ourselves - by expanding the I into the You.

God’s «great command» affects real life and concerns not only the quality of relationship with the world and neighbour, but the reflexive global with oneself. 

We should not be afraid of other doctrines and disciplines, neglecting the challenges even intellectual ones that call into question beliefs, works, one’s worldview, language, style, and thought itself.

All added values.

Needless to complain, if the ecclesial realities that do not update or deepen, and remain in the inherited commonplaces [or vogues] slowly decay, then disappear.

Therefore to the ancient notes of true love, the Son of God adds the ‘quality of mind’: we are not gullible, clueless, one-sided.

Our outstretched hands are the result of free and conscious choice. No forced surrender.

«Faith that does not become culture is a faith that is not fully accepted, not entirely thought out, not faithfully lived» [John Paul II].

To internalize and live the message:

What’s Great for you? Do you document and update yourself in order to better correspond to God’s Call?

[31st Sunday in O.T.  B  (Mk 12,28b-34)  November 3, 2024]