Homily Model for September 29, 1996
(Matthew 21: 28-32)
Instead of assuming that only one of the two sons did what the father wanted him to do, we can interpret the parable to indicate that both sons both did and did not do the father's will at different times and in different ways. None of us knows whether the fist son had a good reason not to show up or whether the second son had a good reason to say he wouldn't. But if we look at the text we realize that neither of them will be excluded from the Kingdom anyway. Entering some place after someone else does not mean exclusion. Imagine people lined up to get on a bus. Except for the one person who gets on first and the one person who gets on last, all others are both after those who precede them and before those who follow them. No one, in this scenario, actually misses the bus, and chaos were to result if everyone insisted on being first. Our tendency to interpret this passage as excluding one of the two brothers is actually a symptom of the very either-or attitude Jesus came to challenge.
Let us take another look at the situation. The first son who promises to work for his father but fails to show up, can represent those among the contemporaries of Jesus who were good, solid, law-abiding Jews but couldn't believe that the father wanted them to accept this radical new message of the kingdom of love. In the historical context of the New Testament era, the second son symbolizes the ex-prostitutes and other reformed sinners whose repentance opens up the doors of the Kingdom for them while the above mentioned pillars of the community fall behind by failing to grasp the spirit of Jesus' message. Reinterpreted for the contemporary world, the gospel tells us that the church is always in process and that we may actually do the will of God by following our conscience, even if it tells us something different from the accepted tradition or official teachings. The trick, of course, involves knowing the difference between demands for change that are frivolous and those that aren't.
For most of human history all over the world people have lived their lives under the control of an ascending series of ever more powerful lords. In this kind of social structure unthinking obedience to authority was considered a major virtue. In those times there was practically no guesswork to making moral decisions. One simply followed orders. Children were expected to obey their fathers without question, and adults were expected to do the will of their superiors. In a democratic age, and especially for us descendants of those who did not oppose--and frequently extolled as virtuous--all sorts of social injustice, ecological irresponsibility, and religious superstition this kind of blind obedience can no longer be morally justified. We have learned that like information, obedience is only as good as the one from whom the orders or information emanate and that there are many occasions when reactions other than disobedience or skepticism are irresponsible.
The central theme of today's readings and gospel is the call for humans to help build the Kingdom of God by doing God's will. Two questions immediately arise: "How do we know God's will?" and--in this democratic age--"What is God's Kingdom"?
How does God communicate with people? The possible answers differ from person to person, and have varied considerably over the centuries. Those who believe that the Spirit communicates directly with humans will disagree with those who believe that in post-biblical times God speaks only through the magisterium, or those who believe that God speaks only through Scripture, or those who believe that God speaks through all of creation including but not limited to Church and Scripture. The answer will also depend on whether we believe that the natural world, including the human intellect, is primarily a source of temptation or of grace.
Despite this diversity, there are discernable patterns, and especially a shift from monologue to dialogue. In the past, culminating in the First Vatican Council (1869-1870), the emphasis has tended toward an authoritarian model. In the twentieth century, expressed in and through the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), the emphasis has been shifting for Catholics from a simple mandate of uncritical obedience to authority toward increased personal accountability and emphasis on making mature decisions appropriate to a given situation. We should not forget, however, that emphasis on decisions of personal conscience is part of the traditional, pre-Vatican II Catholic theology. Seven hundred years ago, Saint Thomas already insisted that we must always follow our informed conscience, even if it meant excommunication. And while both words, "informed" and "conscience" are essential, those are still very strong words from a scholar and priest who lived in a time when excommunication literally meant expulsion from the community. Saint Thomas understood the power of conscience and the diversity that is an essential aspect of the Catholic tradition.
Lively dissent and difference have marked the Church from the beginning and reach all the way to the very top. Jesus called Peter a "satan." But this didn't keep him, Catholics believe, from choosing Peter to lead the developing community after the crucifixion. Consider Peter arguing with Paul, or the controversies raised by the Franciscans during the Middle Ages. Many of the councils throughout church history became so heated that bishops engaged in fists fights and name calling--including the First Vatican Council in the last century. When a twelfth century archbishop tried to enforce the new rule of celibacy, his soldiers beat up the priests of Rouen with "arms and staves." The Franciscans were almost declared heretics because of their insistence on a simple life of holy poverty. Even a couple of the teachings of Saint Thomas were condemned. All of this can be interpreted to mean that the Holy Spirit works precisely in and through such periods of ferment.
We need to remember that in a certain sense, as James Joyce told us in Finnegan's Wake, "catholic" means "Here Comes Everybody"--and each and every one happens to be different. Once we realize that today Catholicism is truly a global religion for over a billion people of widely divergent cultural, linguistic, and ideological backgrounds we should also accept the inherent pluralism--some call it "messiness"--of the Catholic tradition. Even in this country, Catholics hold a wide spectrum of opinions on most issues. The vast majority may agree on such central doctrinal points as the Eucharist and the Incarnation. But concerning such issues as saints, miracles, liturgy, social action, divorce, and birthcontrol the spectrum is much wider. Almost all Catholics will disagree in a number of areas, often without realizing it. Generally their dissent is moderate and respectful, a sign that the Church is a living, growing organism. Liberals want the Church to ordain women to the priesthood or relax clerical celibacy, while conservatives are troubled by the vernacular mass and decline of old pieties. None of these issues, while potentially explosive, are contrary to fundamental doctrine. Most of those who strongly identify with one direction or the other do not go so far as to join the Society of St. Pius X (Archbishop LeFebvre's Tridentine group) or the Old Catholics who recently ordained two women in Germany. Most people in either camp don't leave the Church on account of those differences. In fact, being "Catholic" means accepting a Church that is more like an overgrown orchard with a wide assortment of fruit trees and a tangle of paths than a neatly pruned, formal French park with antiseptic, geometrically designed gravel walkways. The wild orchard, it should be noted, can accommodate sections that look like small formal gardens. Catholicism is essentially a "both-and" tradition.
A recent message in a Catholic Internet forum neatly illustrates this point. It was sent by a couple who belong to one of the many Catholic reform organizations. During weekend visits to northern Wisconsin, they usually attend Mass at either of two parishes about 10 miles apart. One of those parishes was obviously far more conservative than the other but they felt comfortable and welcome in both. The difference became glaringly obvious, however, when the couple discovered diametrically opposed petitions at the back of both churches in early June.
One petition--with two signatures by the end of the Mass--came from Human Life International and was "In support of Bishop Bruskewicz who has the courage to staunchly defend the faith against 'groups' who actively promote abortion or in other ways dissent from the teachings of the Magisterium . . ." Bishop Fabian Bruskewicz had threatened to excommunicate members of the newly formed Lincoln, Nebraska chapter of national Catholic Renewal Group, Call To Action (CTA). CTA is a lay-led Catholic reform organization with some 15,000 members nationwide, including hundreds of religious, priests, and nine bishops. One of those bishops, Raymond Lucker of New Ulm, Minnesota, was a main speaker at last year's national conference in Chicago. He made a public statement in support of CTA after the Bruskewicz interdict. Cardinal Bernardin of Chicago also publicly criticized his Lincoln colleague for his actions and assured members of reform groups that they would continue to be welcome and safe in Chicago--a conciliatory position subsequently reinforced by the Archbishop's August 12 call for Common Ground dialogue between opposing factions.
Ultimately, however, the document at the back of this church was not as much a statement of support for the Nebraska bishop as it was aimed against well publicized efforts by a coalition of U.S. Catholic reform groups to gather at least a million signatures in support of a more democratic and loving church over the next year. Only eleven miles away, on a table in back of the other church were copies of that very document: We Are the Church: A Catholic Referendum. After Mass, the couple reported, there was a lively discussion concerning the issues on the referendum form, and many members of the congregation--primarily tourists--were signing the document and asking for copies to take along back to their home parishes.
The Catholic Referendum is the U.S. version of petitions that resulted in some 2.5 million signatures in Austria and Germany last year. Drives are being organized in other countries as well. All the global efforts urge genuine dialogue in the whole church concerning certain issues. Signature sheets are being distributed throughout the United States by volunteers. People are asked to sign "with prayerful hope for an new movement of the Spirit in our church." Organizers plan to take the results to the Vatican next year. Main points are: (1) Equality of the faithful and the right of a community to participate in selecting pastors and bishops, (2) equal rights for women, including ordination, (3) optional celibacy for priests, (4) affirmation of the goodness of sexuality combined with a shift of emphasis from sexual morality to other essential issues, such as peace, social justice, and the environment, and (5) a generous and welcoming spirit that affirms people rather than condemning them for following their conscience in such areas as divorce or theological debate.
It's important to note that no one expects the church to change overnight as a result of popular demand but rather that those in charge of decision making should not simply close the door but continue to explore those issues in careful dialogue with many constituencies. Petition signers are in good company. Cardinal Martini of Milan has suggested we need another ecumenical council to deal with women's ordination. Bishop Reinhold Stecher of Innsbruck--where the entire movement originated--officially requested that Rome consider the ordination of women to the diaconate and the ordination of married men to the priesthood. Theologian Hans Küng said that the petition drive "reminds us of the original freedom of early Christianity and does an immense service for the Church in this difficult period of transition."
Küng is right. Instead of weakening the church the very process of gathering signatures has turned widespread Catholic apathy in Austria and Germany into lively, spirited, and public debate. And the excitement affects especially the young. Martin Loer who teaches religion in a college preparatory high school is quoted in a Publik-Forum article, that "students have stopped yawning in class" and are busy arguing the demands of the petition in terms of scripture. Even some of those who had long turned away from the church announced all of a sudden that "they were Catholics after all, that the Church is more than prohibitions and rules." For the first time since Vatican II the laity is deeply and enthusiastically involved in the Church.
The greatest impetus of the church in our time came from one single man, Pope John XXIII, with his decision--or inspiration-- to call the Second Vatican Council. It was carried forward by great theologians like Fr. Ives Congar and extraordinary bishops like Cardinal Suenens, both recently deceased, and many others who agreed with the pope that the church needed to reflect on a mission in a vastly changed world. The ferment today to renew the church which coming from "the bottom up" is not surprising, because the Council emphasized the responsibility of the laity to think of themselves as the church.That does not mean the institution fades away, but rather, there is--or should be--a new collegial spirit, a listening to each other. There are grass roots movements everywhere; some of these seek through petition and dialogue changes in church discipline but not doctrine; others like the San Egidio apostolate centered in Rome, emphasize service to the poor, ecumenism, peace-making; still others, the vast spread of base Christian communities, take on the work of teaching Christian doctrine. Perhaps it is too soon to call this a new Pentecost, but it is manifestly the work of the Spirit. And the way the kingdom of God appears (final paragraph by Rev. Joseph T. Nolan, Good News Editor].
Ingrid H. Shafer (c)Copyright 1996 Liturgical Publications, Inc.
An almost identical version of this sermon appears in Volume 23, Issue 9 (September 1996) of Good News, a homily service edited by Fr. Joseph T. Nolan. I am placing it on the web because "recycling" of material in non-profit publications is expressly permitted. Good News has several thousand subscribers, primarily priests. I've been writing for the homily service since 1985. Sermons are published anonymously.
This page is part of my evolving Catholicism in Renewal Webpage.
Last revised 23 August 1996
(c) 1996 Ingrid H. Shafer