The Holy Family is the most primitive social structure --- a mother, her child and a sponsor who is not the biological father of the child. To the eyes of outsiders, the Catholic Church strangely encourages her believers to take the Holy Family as the exemplar of all Catholic families. Is the Catholic Church promoting unwed motherhood because the BVM was an unwed mother? Is the Catholic Church promoting sexual abstinance for husbands because the Catholic Church teaches that the virginity of the BVM is perpetual? Of course not. The Holy Family was a family living through extreme difficulties. What began as an ordinary Jewish family was turned upside down with the intrusion of God's intervention. The betrothed Mary was found to be pregnant from the Holy Spirit. A good virgin was turned into an unwed mother. Poor Joseph, instead of building up a normal family, he became the guardian of the BVM and the Son of God on earth. He could not desire his betrothed anymore because she belonged to him no more. She belonged to God.
So, what does the Catholic Church wants her believers to follow? According to the teaching of the Catholic Church, the Holy Family is an exemplar of a God-centred family. And because of their faith in God, the Holy Family was able to endure all sorts of difficulties. The Catholic Church also teaches that Jesus is truly God. Therefore, Jesus is the centre of the Holy Family. Mary and Joseph demonstrated how mankind is able to relate to God meaningfully in a family. The first couple, Adam and Eve, failed to do so because they were driven out of the Paradise by God due to their disobedience. The Holy Family made up what our First Parents had failed to achieve. Both the BVM and Joseph followed the will of God to rear the Son of God up into a perfect human being.
Since primitive tribal age, the institution of family has served the society well through different stages of social evolution: gathering & hunting, farming and industrialization. In this post-industrialization age, the institution of family is beset on all sides. The popularization of contraception has freed man from the fear and guilt of the consequences of extra-marital sex: pre-marital sex, cohabitation and adultery carry no consequences. Economic independence enables women to rely less on husbands. Therefore, the number of single-parent families as a result of divorces or simply pre-marital sex is on the rise. Children raised in such incomplete family backgrounds will surely suffer. Even if the single parent is able to handle the physical and financial needs, I doubt very much if the great love of the single parent is able to satisfy all the emotional, intellectual, interpersonal and spiritual needs of the developing children. I just cannot imagine how the BVM could raise an infant Jesus healthily without Joseph, not to mention Joseph raising the infant Jesus without the BVM. For various reasons, in particular the high prices of housing in Hong Kong, young people cannot afford financially as well as psychologically to get married to build up their own families. Perhaps they don't want to. We, the older generation, believe in the merits of the social institution of family. But food to one is poison to the others. Perhaps young people today no longer believe in the necessity of family in the virtual reality of their world, their reality. Therefore, any form of relationship, whether heterosexual, bisexual or homosexual is acceptable because they are not able to distinguish the advantages and disadvantages of these different kind of relationships. Novelty is music to their ears. Catholic family values such as fidelity and chastity are all Greek to them. The affluent societies today are able to support such a mentality which the feudal agricultural societies in previous generations would sure condemn.
The Holy Family is a deep mystery which is difficult to fathom. Just think about it. How can human family members work together to raise up their God from an infant to a mature teenager? Can human really do any work to rear an infant God? I don't think I know. However, I feel that the infant God was actually teaching the BVM and Joseph how to rear him, e.g. Luke 2:49. So, don't despise and overlook what the younger generation may offer us. There might be truth in their views of the reality and perhaps God is speaking to us through them. (I write this in the aftermath of OC.)
Infant Jesus, teach us how to raise the awareness of your presence in our family. Amen.
Sunday 28 December 2014
Wednesday 24 December 2014
CHRISTMAS GREETING 2014
Let us build a crib
of COMPASSION in our own hearts
to house the new born
Prince of Peace.
Merry Christmas!
Sunday 21 December 2014
Between David and Mary
I enjoy listening to Fr. Milanese's homilies. He is well-trained and very knowledgeable in his interpretation of the Bible. Moreover, his homilies are concise and to the point. He is very disciplined and efficient in celebrating Sunday masses within one hour. In his homily tonight, the 4th Advent Sunday, Year B, he contrasted the two Biblical characters, King David and Mary of Nazareth. Both of them were people after God's heart (1 Samuel 13:14; Luke 1:30).
King David was elevated from a shepherd boy to a giant slayer and subsequently a king that was able to unite the 12 tribes of Israel. He was truly powerful and everything was within his reach. As a sign of his charisma, David already had six wives before he moved into Jerusalem! His greatness was matched with his passion for the Lord. He wrote psalms and danced half naked to welcome the Ark of Covenant even when he was already a king (2 Samuel 6:14). Despite his greatness and passion for the Lord, he was also flawed. He coveted Bathsheba and killed Uriah (2 Samuel 11). Bathsheba later gave birth to Solomon! Everything unfolds according to God's plan. God alone sees the whole picture. Perhaps it was God's plan to humiliate a powerful king.
In contrast, the Mary of Nazareth was a nobody. She was not even in control of her own life because she was betrothed to Joseph who, on the discovery of her pre-marital pregnancy, intended to annul the marriage contract. We do not have any reliable information about her life in Nazareth. Historicity is overwhelmed by devotional piety. No matter what, we can safely conclude that her life was very much like any other ordinary peasant teenage girls in Nazareth. With such a lowly humble girl, God's plan can fully unfold and the Son of God may assume human nature to redeem mankind. Perhaps it was God's plan to elevate a humble girl. Reading the lives of these two Biblical characters together, we may appreciate what kind of God our God is.
Between David and Mary, we tend to act like David though in our heart, we have been told that we should follow the humility of Mary. David was already very good though not impeccable. He has already shown us how, by relying on God, a little shepherd boy was able to defeat a Goliath. Yet, when he himself became more powerful and was able to control more of his own and others' lives, he relied less on God and fell from grace. If we still regard him as a holy king, it is not because of his military successes but his immediate repentance and his intense love of God. David is honoured as a beloved sinner! In this perspective, David was our model.
On the other hand, Mary has never had the opportunity to wedge any power over anybody, not even her son Jesus. She could only tell Jesus a situation but could not control Jesus to do her will (John 2:3, 5). In the Biblical world, Mary is more successful than David because of her submission and cooperation to God's will so that through her, God's salvation is brought to this world. It was the BVM who clothed the divine Son of God with humanity. She is always our exemplar as a carrier of God's grace in this world.
Hail Mary. Full of Grace, the Lord is with you. Pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen.
King David was elevated from a shepherd boy to a giant slayer and subsequently a king that was able to unite the 12 tribes of Israel. He was truly powerful and everything was within his reach. As a sign of his charisma, David already had six wives before he moved into Jerusalem! His greatness was matched with his passion for the Lord. He wrote psalms and danced half naked to welcome the Ark of Covenant even when he was already a king (2 Samuel 6:14). Despite his greatness and passion for the Lord, he was also flawed. He coveted Bathsheba and killed Uriah (2 Samuel 11). Bathsheba later gave birth to Solomon! Everything unfolds according to God's plan. God alone sees the whole picture. Perhaps it was God's plan to humiliate a powerful king.
In contrast, the Mary of Nazareth was a nobody. She was not even in control of her own life because she was betrothed to Joseph who, on the discovery of her pre-marital pregnancy, intended to annul the marriage contract. We do not have any reliable information about her life in Nazareth. Historicity is overwhelmed by devotional piety. No matter what, we can safely conclude that her life was very much like any other ordinary peasant teenage girls in Nazareth. With such a lowly humble girl, God's plan can fully unfold and the Son of God may assume human nature to redeem mankind. Perhaps it was God's plan to elevate a humble girl. Reading the lives of these two Biblical characters together, we may appreciate what kind of God our God is.
Between David and Mary, we tend to act like David though in our heart, we have been told that we should follow the humility of Mary. David was already very good though not impeccable. He has already shown us how, by relying on God, a little shepherd boy was able to defeat a Goliath. Yet, when he himself became more powerful and was able to control more of his own and others' lives, he relied less on God and fell from grace. If we still regard him as a holy king, it is not because of his military successes but his immediate repentance and his intense love of God. David is honoured as a beloved sinner! In this perspective, David was our model.
On the other hand, Mary has never had the opportunity to wedge any power over anybody, not even her son Jesus. She could only tell Jesus a situation but could not control Jesus to do her will (John 2:3, 5). In the Biblical world, Mary is more successful than David because of her submission and cooperation to God's will so that through her, God's salvation is brought to this world. It was the BVM who clothed the divine Son of God with humanity. She is always our exemplar as a carrier of God's grace in this world.
Hail Mary. Full of Grace, the Lord is with you. Pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen.
Sunday 14 December 2014
基督徒的喜樂在於福傳 Joy in evangelization is the joy of Christians
將臨期第三主日（乙年）
太陽之下無新事（訓1:9），二千年前發生的故事，今天仍繼續演出。
耶穌時代可以說是一個亂世。猶大淪為羅馬帝國的殖民地，有人攀附權貴，甘心做羅馬人的傀儡，跑腿，做統治者的宣傳機器，亦有人選擇使用暴力頑抗，而大部份人就忍氣吞聲做沉默的大多數。就在整個社會都充滿壓力的時候，忽然在曠野出現了一個「你們悔改罷，因為天國臨近了」的呼聲（瑪3:2）。京城的權力中心自然要派人去查個究竟。這個調查團包括了司祭、肋未人和法利塞人。當他們問若翰的身份時，若翰一口否定了自己是他們所期待的默西亞。那麼，默西亞究竟是甚麼呢？
「默西亞」是希伯來文受傅者的意思。在舊約時代，那些身負重要公職的人，例如君王和司祭，都會經過一個公開的儀式，把香油倒在候選人的頭上，向以色列人民表示他們是天主所揀選的人。這個「默西亞」的稱號，不一定是以色列人專用的，例如，依撒意亞先知曾預言波斯王居魯士是上主的受傅者（依45:1）。
達味統一十二支派成為以色列國的君王的初期，安放了十誡的約櫃仍然在帳幕內（撒下7:2）。於是達味想為天主建造一座聖殿，供奉天主的約櫃。天主見達味一片忠心，不但不要達味為祂建造聖殿，反而藉納堂先知之口，應許達味的王朝永遠長存。這就是有名的「納堂神諭」。下一個主日的讀經一就是這一段。
後來達味的王朝覆滅，猶大國人充軍巴比倫，要由波斯王居魯士這個默西亞解放他們回國。痛定思痛，天主的諾言是絕不會落空的，所以縱使達味王朝一時滅亡，天主總會派遣一個達味的後裔來重建達味王朝。這個就是天主所派遣，所傅了油的「默西亞」。
當調查團查問若翰時，大部份的猶太人正熱切期望默西亞來驅逐羅馬人，解放他們，有如當年的居魯士。當然，對於那些既得利益者，他們就並不熱衷默西亞的出現了，因為驅逐羅馬人對他們不會帶來任何好處。所以若翰的答案令他們鬆一口氣。但他們仍不放心繼續追問若翰是否厄里亞。那麼，厄里亞又是誰呢？
「厄里亞」是君王時代，抗衡拜偶像的腐敗君王的一個先知典型。他捍衛雅威的崇拜，曾獨力與450個拜偶像的假先知比拼誰所呼喚的神是真天主，結果當然是厄里亞勝出。他最為人所津津樂道的，莫過於他並沒有好像一般人一樣死去，而是天主派遣一輪由火馬拉的火車，在旋風中把他接到天上去。另一位先知瑪拉基亞曾預言在末日，在默西亞來臨前厄里亞會出現，為默西亞作好末世的準備，是默西亞的前驅。若翰又否認了。調查團更放心了，末日沒有這麼快出現。
「那位先知」(若1:21)是指梅瑟在【申命紀18章】所提及的一位像梅瑟一樣的先知。因為他像梅瑟一樣，所以這位先知亦可能會擔任拯救以色列的任務。他的出現對當時的權貴亦不會是一個好消息，一個福音。
既然若翰不是那些預言中的大人物，法利塞人就放心質問若翰憑甚麼權柄為人施洗。這樣就給若翰一個為基督作證的機會。你們知道嗎？若翰就是因為這個機會，感到滿心歡喜。因為他就是為了為耶穌作先驅，預備他的道路而來到這世上的。若翰說:「有新娘的是新郎；新郎的朋友侍立靜聽，一聽得新郎的聲音，就非常喜樂：我的喜樂已滿足了。」（若3:29）耶穌曾評論並讚美洗者若翰說：「在婦女所生者中，沒有興起一位比洗者若翰更大的」（瑪11:11）。
今天是「喜樂主日」。作為基督徒，我們有甚麼值得喜樂呢？保祿宗徒在讀經二告訴我們，天主的旨意是要我們「在基督耶穌內時常喜樂」（得前5:16-18）。在基督耶穌內時常喜樂是甚麼意思呢？請各位想一想，我們做天主教徒，信了耶穌之後是甚麼使我們喜樂呢？
原來喜樂的秘訣就記載在今天的讀經一之中。天主透過依撒意亞先知告訴我們：吾主上主的神臨到我身上，派遣我向貧苦的人傳佈喜信，治療破碎了的心靈…等等，我們就會有如新郎新娘一樣喜樂。先知說，我們每人都領受了聖神，獲得神恩。聖保祿宗徒說，神恩雖各有不同，都是為建樹基督的身體（弗4:12）注意，喜樂已不再在於物質生活上的富足，不在於攀登上社會的高位，有權有勢；而在於好像若翰洗者一樣，完成天主所委派給我們的任務，就是傳福音的任務。傳福音使其他人都能獲得天主的救恩，這就是做天主教徒喜樂的真正意義。
可是，天主教徒在人前好像並不喜樂。很多教友覺得在人前表露教徒的身份很尷尬。歸根究底都是我們並不熱衷傳福音。為甚麼我們並不熱衷傳福音呢？因為我們洗禮之後，沒有恆心讀經祈禱，尋求天主的旨意。我們對福音的內容陌生，怕自己說錯了。殊不知是天主聖神希望透過我們向未信的人說話。耶穌說：「聖神必要教給你們應說的話。」(路12:12) 我們覺得領聖事，參彌撒已經足夠了，最多參加善會，服務堂區，已算熱心了吧，傳福音就留給神父、執事、修士修女做吧。領聖事，參彌撒，服務堂區固然是重要，但這些祗是前菜而不是主菜。天主在我們面前擺設了豐富的盛宴（詠23:5），而我們卻揀飲擇食，祗挑選了一些前菜而不吃主菜。真可惜。我們既然領受了聖神，享受著天賜的神恩，為甚麼埋沒了這些神恩，不運用它們呢？在我們傳福音的時候，我們就像先知一樣，天主透過我們向不信的人說話，我們將會經驗到天主的德能在我們身上運行，這是何等的喜樂。這種喜樂，不應是神職人員的專利，我們每一個教友都有權分一杯羹。
依撒意亞先知是四大先知之首，他宣講了很多有關默西亞的預言。將臨期主日的十二篇讀經一，就有七篇出自依撒意亞。所以黎神父曾建議過我們在將臨期讀完依撒意亞先知書。雖然將臨期已過了一半，所謂「遲到好過無到」。現在開始研讀依撒意亞先知，體會他的精神，也未算遲。天主保佑。
3rd Sunday of Advent, Year B
Theme: Joy in evangelization is the joy of Christians
There is nothing new under the sun (Ecclesiastes 1:9). A 2000-year old story continues to play out today. The time of Jesus was a troubled time. Judaea was a Roman colony. Some played up to the powerful, willingly became their puppets, running dogs and even propaganda machines. Some chose to resist with violence and the rest became the silent majority. When the whole society was pressurized, a voice appeared in the wilderness calling “Repent ye for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” (Matthew 3:2). Naturally, the power centre in Jerusalem sent a delegation to investigate. It consisted of priests, Levites and Pharisees. When they asked the Baptist who he was, the Baptist denied that he was the Messiah. So, what was the Messiah?
Messiah is a Hebrew word, meaning the Anointed One. In Old Testament time, important officials such as kings and priests would be anointed in a public ceremony to indicate to the Israelites that they were chosen by God. However, the title of “Messiah” was not exclusively Jewish. For example, Isaiah called Cyrus, the Persian King, the Anointed One of the Lord (Isaiah 45:1).
During the early stage of the United Empire when David had united the 12 tribes of Israel, the Ark of Covenant was still housed within curtains (2 Samuel 7:2). Therefore, David intended to build a Temple to adore the Ark. God saw the loyalty of David. Not only did God decline David’s generosity, but He also promised, through the prophet Nathan, that David’s dynasty would last forever. This was the famous “Nathan Oracle” which will be read next Sunday.
Later, David’s dynasty was overthrown. Jews were exiled to Babylon only to be liberated by King Cyrus the Anointed One. On reflection, the Jews reasoned that God’s promise would not fail. Therefore, though the Davidic dynasty might fall, God would raise a descendant of David to rebuild his kingdom. This would be the Messiah they were awaiting.
When the delegation interrogated the Baptist, most Jews were eagerly expecting the Messiah to come to drive away the Romans, to liberate them like what Cyrus did in the past. Of course, the parties of vested interests were not as eager because driving out the Romans brought them no benefits. So, they were relieved to hear John’s denial. But their relief was incomplete. They continued to ask the Baptist whether he was Elijah. So, what was Elijah?
Elijah was a typical prophet who fought against corrupt and idolatrous kings. He defended Yahweh-worship and single-handedly combated 450 Baal prophets to prove whose god was the true God. Of course Elijah won the day. He was most remembered for being taken up to heaven in a fiery chariot drawn by fiery horses in a whirlwind. Prophet Malachi prophesized that on the Lord’s Day, Elijah would appear to prepare the coming of the Messiah. Elijah was the forerunner of the Messiah. The Baptist denied a second time. The delegation was relieved because the end time had not yet arrived.
“The prophet” (John 1:21) was the prophet Moses mentioned in Deuteronomy 18. This prophet was as powerful as Moses and so was expected to take up a liberator role. His appearance would not be a good news to the people of authority either.
If the Baptist was not any prophesized important dignitary, the Pharisees would feel safe to challenge the Baptist’s authority to baptize. This gave the Baptist an opportunity to bear witness to Jesus. Because of this opportunity, the Baptist was full of joy because this was his raison d'être. John said, “He that hath the bride is the bridegroom: but the friend of the bridegroom, which standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom’s voice: this my joy therefore is fulfilled.” (John 3:29) Jesus once commented and praised the Baptist, saying: “Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist.” (Matthew 11:11)
Today is Gaudete Sunday. What makes us Catholics joyful? In the second reading today, St. Paul told us that it is God’s will for us to be always joyful in Christ Jesus (1Thessalonians 5:16-18). What does it mean to be always joyful in Christ Jesus? Let’s ponder, what makes us joyful after becoming a Catholic, after believing in Jesus?
The secret to be joyful is found in the first reading today. Through Isaiah, God told us that the Spirit of the Lord is upon me ... sending me out to bring good tidings to the afflicted and to bind up the brokenhearted etc. Then we would be as joyful as brides and bridegrooms (Isaiah 61:1, 10). Isaiah said each of us has received the Spirit, received spiritual gifts. St. Paul told us that though God’s grace may be different for each of us, the purpose is to build up the body of Christ (Ephesians 4:12). Pay attention. Joy is no long material satisfaction, or social status, power and influence. Instead, it is, like the Baptist, the accomplishment of the mission commissioned by God, viz. evangelization. Evangelization is to make others receive God’s salvation. This is the true meaning of Christian joy.
However, Catholics do not appear to be joyful in front of people. Many Catholics find it embarrassing to reveal their Christian identity. Why? It is all because we are not enthusiastic in evangelization. Why not? It is because we are not steadfast in prayer and bible study to discover God’s will after baptism. When we are not familiar with the contents of the gospel, we are afraid to make mistakes when we preach. We don’t know that it is the Holy Spirit who wishes to speak to non-believers through us. Jesus said, “The Holy Spirit will teach you in that very hour what you ought to say” (Luke 12:12). We feel that it is enough to receive sacraments, to join masses or we are fervent enough when we join some laity associations to serve the parish. Leave the preaching job to the clergy and nuns. Of course it is essential to receive sacraments, to join masses and serve the parish, but these are just side dishes, not the main course. The Lord prepares a table before me (Psalm 23:5), yet we are very choosy, picking up the side dishes rather than the main course. What a pity! Since we have received the Holy Spirit and are enjoying God’s graces, why should we bury the talents and do not make use of them? In preaching the gospel, we will be like prophets, allowing God to speak through us to non-believers. We will be able to experience the joy and excitement of God’s power working in us. This joy is not the privilege of the clergy. Each baptized Catholic can partake in this excitement.
Isaiah is the first of the four Major Prophets. He prophesizes a lot about the Messiah. Among the 12 first readings on Advent Sundays, 7 are taken from Isaiah. That was why Fr. Lejeune encouraged us to finish reading Isaiah in Advent. Though we are already halfway through Advent, it is better late than never. Start reading Isaiah to experience his spirit now. God bless.
太陽之下無新事（訓1:9），二千年前發生的故事，今天仍繼續演出。
耶穌時代可以說是一個亂世。猶大淪為羅馬帝國的殖民地，有人攀附權貴，甘心做羅馬人的傀儡，跑腿，做統治者的宣傳機器，亦有人選擇使用暴力頑抗，而大部份人就忍氣吞聲做沉默的大多數。就在整個社會都充滿壓力的時候，忽然在曠野出現了一個「你們悔改罷，因為天國臨近了」的呼聲（瑪3:2）。京城的權力中心自然要派人去查個究竟。這個調查團包括了司祭、肋未人和法利塞人。當他們問若翰的身份時，若翰一口否定了自己是他們所期待的默西亞。那麼，默西亞究竟是甚麼呢？
「默西亞」是希伯來文受傅者的意思。在舊約時代，那些身負重要公職的人，例如君王和司祭，都會經過一個公開的儀式，把香油倒在候選人的頭上，向以色列人民表示他們是天主所揀選的人。這個「默西亞」的稱號，不一定是以色列人專用的，例如，依撒意亞先知曾預言波斯王居魯士是上主的受傅者（依45:1）。
達味統一十二支派成為以色列國的君王的初期，安放了十誡的約櫃仍然在帳幕內（撒下7:2）。於是達味想為天主建造一座聖殿，供奉天主的約櫃。天主見達味一片忠心，不但不要達味為祂建造聖殿，反而藉納堂先知之口，應許達味的王朝永遠長存。這就是有名的「納堂神諭」。下一個主日的讀經一就是這一段。
後來達味的王朝覆滅，猶大國人充軍巴比倫，要由波斯王居魯士這個默西亞解放他們回國。痛定思痛，天主的諾言是絕不會落空的，所以縱使達味王朝一時滅亡，天主總會派遣一個達味的後裔來重建達味王朝。這個就是天主所派遣，所傅了油的「默西亞」。
當調查團查問若翰時，大部份的猶太人正熱切期望默西亞來驅逐羅馬人，解放他們，有如當年的居魯士。當然，對於那些既得利益者，他們就並不熱衷默西亞的出現了，因為驅逐羅馬人對他們不會帶來任何好處。所以若翰的答案令他們鬆一口氣。但他們仍不放心繼續追問若翰是否厄里亞。那麼，厄里亞又是誰呢？
「厄里亞」是君王時代，抗衡拜偶像的腐敗君王的一個先知典型。他捍衛雅威的崇拜，曾獨力與450個拜偶像的假先知比拼誰所呼喚的神是真天主，結果當然是厄里亞勝出。他最為人所津津樂道的，莫過於他並沒有好像一般人一樣死去，而是天主派遣一輪由火馬拉的火車，在旋風中把他接到天上去。另一位先知瑪拉基亞曾預言在末日，在默西亞來臨前厄里亞會出現，為默西亞作好末世的準備，是默西亞的前驅。若翰又否認了。調查團更放心了，末日沒有這麼快出現。
「那位先知」(若1:21)是指梅瑟在【申命紀18章】所提及的一位像梅瑟一樣的先知。因為他像梅瑟一樣，所以這位先知亦可能會擔任拯救以色列的任務。他的出現對當時的權貴亦不會是一個好消息，一個福音。
既然若翰不是那些預言中的大人物，法利塞人就放心質問若翰憑甚麼權柄為人施洗。這樣就給若翰一個為基督作證的機會。你們知道嗎？若翰就是因為這個機會，感到滿心歡喜。因為他就是為了為耶穌作先驅，預備他的道路而來到這世上的。若翰說:「有新娘的是新郎；新郎的朋友侍立靜聽，一聽得新郎的聲音，就非常喜樂：我的喜樂已滿足了。」（若3:29）耶穌曾評論並讚美洗者若翰說：「在婦女所生者中，沒有興起一位比洗者若翰更大的」（瑪11:11）。
今天是「喜樂主日」。作為基督徒，我們有甚麼值得喜樂呢？保祿宗徒在讀經二告訴我們，天主的旨意是要我們「在基督耶穌內時常喜樂」（得前5:16-18）。在基督耶穌內時常喜樂是甚麼意思呢？請各位想一想，我們做天主教徒，信了耶穌之後是甚麼使我們喜樂呢？
原來喜樂的秘訣就記載在今天的讀經一之中。天主透過依撒意亞先知告訴我們：吾主上主的神臨到我身上，派遣我向貧苦的人傳佈喜信，治療破碎了的心靈…等等，我們就會有如新郎新娘一樣喜樂。先知說，我們每人都領受了聖神，獲得神恩。聖保祿宗徒說，神恩雖各有不同，都是為建樹基督的身體（弗4:12）注意，喜樂已不再在於物質生活上的富足，不在於攀登上社會的高位，有權有勢；而在於好像若翰洗者一樣，完成天主所委派給我們的任務，就是傳福音的任務。傳福音使其他人都能獲得天主的救恩，這就是做天主教徒喜樂的真正意義。
可是，天主教徒在人前好像並不喜樂。很多教友覺得在人前表露教徒的身份很尷尬。歸根究底都是我們並不熱衷傳福音。為甚麼我們並不熱衷傳福音呢？因為我們洗禮之後，沒有恆心讀經祈禱，尋求天主的旨意。我們對福音的內容陌生，怕自己說錯了。殊不知是天主聖神希望透過我們向未信的人說話。耶穌說：「聖神必要教給你們應說的話。」(路12:12) 我們覺得領聖事，參彌撒已經足夠了，最多參加善會，服務堂區，已算熱心了吧，傳福音就留給神父、執事、修士修女做吧。領聖事，參彌撒，服務堂區固然是重要，但這些祗是前菜而不是主菜。天主在我們面前擺設了豐富的盛宴（詠23:5），而我們卻揀飲擇食，祗挑選了一些前菜而不吃主菜。真可惜。我們既然領受了聖神，享受著天賜的神恩，為甚麼埋沒了這些神恩，不運用它們呢？在我們傳福音的時候，我們就像先知一樣，天主透過我們向不信的人說話，我們將會經驗到天主的德能在我們身上運行，這是何等的喜樂。這種喜樂，不應是神職人員的專利，我們每一個教友都有權分一杯羹。
依撒意亞先知是四大先知之首，他宣講了很多有關默西亞的預言。將臨期主日的十二篇讀經一，就有七篇出自依撒意亞。所以黎神父曾建議過我們在將臨期讀完依撒意亞先知書。雖然將臨期已過了一半，所謂「遲到好過無到」。現在開始研讀依撒意亞先知，體會他的精神，也未算遲。天主保佑。
3rd Sunday of Advent, Year B
Theme: Joy in evangelization is the joy of Christians
There is nothing new under the sun (Ecclesiastes 1:9). A 2000-year old story continues to play out today. The time of Jesus was a troubled time. Judaea was a Roman colony. Some played up to the powerful, willingly became their puppets, running dogs and even propaganda machines. Some chose to resist with violence and the rest became the silent majority. When the whole society was pressurized, a voice appeared in the wilderness calling “Repent ye for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” (Matthew 3:2). Naturally, the power centre in Jerusalem sent a delegation to investigate. It consisted of priests, Levites and Pharisees. When they asked the Baptist who he was, the Baptist denied that he was the Messiah. So, what was the Messiah?
Messiah is a Hebrew word, meaning the Anointed One. In Old Testament time, important officials such as kings and priests would be anointed in a public ceremony to indicate to the Israelites that they were chosen by God. However, the title of “Messiah” was not exclusively Jewish. For example, Isaiah called Cyrus, the Persian King, the Anointed One of the Lord (Isaiah 45:1).
During the early stage of the United Empire when David had united the 12 tribes of Israel, the Ark of Covenant was still housed within curtains (2 Samuel 7:2). Therefore, David intended to build a Temple to adore the Ark. God saw the loyalty of David. Not only did God decline David’s generosity, but He also promised, through the prophet Nathan, that David’s dynasty would last forever. This was the famous “Nathan Oracle” which will be read next Sunday.
Later, David’s dynasty was overthrown. Jews were exiled to Babylon only to be liberated by King Cyrus the Anointed One. On reflection, the Jews reasoned that God’s promise would not fail. Therefore, though the Davidic dynasty might fall, God would raise a descendant of David to rebuild his kingdom. This would be the Messiah they were awaiting.
When the delegation interrogated the Baptist, most Jews were eagerly expecting the Messiah to come to drive away the Romans, to liberate them like what Cyrus did in the past. Of course, the parties of vested interests were not as eager because driving out the Romans brought them no benefits. So, they were relieved to hear John’s denial. But their relief was incomplete. They continued to ask the Baptist whether he was Elijah. So, what was Elijah?
Elijah was a typical prophet who fought against corrupt and idolatrous kings. He defended Yahweh-worship and single-handedly combated 450 Baal prophets to prove whose god was the true God. Of course Elijah won the day. He was most remembered for being taken up to heaven in a fiery chariot drawn by fiery horses in a whirlwind. Prophet Malachi prophesized that on the Lord’s Day, Elijah would appear to prepare the coming of the Messiah. Elijah was the forerunner of the Messiah. The Baptist denied a second time. The delegation was relieved because the end time had not yet arrived.
“The prophet” (John 1:21) was the prophet Moses mentioned in Deuteronomy 18. This prophet was as powerful as Moses and so was expected to take up a liberator role. His appearance would not be a good news to the people of authority either.
If the Baptist was not any prophesized important dignitary, the Pharisees would feel safe to challenge the Baptist’s authority to baptize. This gave the Baptist an opportunity to bear witness to Jesus. Because of this opportunity, the Baptist was full of joy because this was his raison d'être. John said, “He that hath the bride is the bridegroom: but the friend of the bridegroom, which standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom’s voice: this my joy therefore is fulfilled.” (John 3:29) Jesus once commented and praised the Baptist, saying: “Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist.” (Matthew 11:11)
Today is Gaudete Sunday. What makes us Catholics joyful? In the second reading today, St. Paul told us that it is God’s will for us to be always joyful in Christ Jesus (1Thessalonians 5:16-18). What does it mean to be always joyful in Christ Jesus? Let’s ponder, what makes us joyful after becoming a Catholic, after believing in Jesus?
The secret to be joyful is found in the first reading today. Through Isaiah, God told us that the Spirit of the Lord is upon me ... sending me out to bring good tidings to the afflicted and to bind up the brokenhearted etc. Then we would be as joyful as brides and bridegrooms (Isaiah 61:1, 10). Isaiah said each of us has received the Spirit, received spiritual gifts. St. Paul told us that though God’s grace may be different for each of us, the purpose is to build up the body of Christ (Ephesians 4:12). Pay attention. Joy is no long material satisfaction, or social status, power and influence. Instead, it is, like the Baptist, the accomplishment of the mission commissioned by God, viz. evangelization. Evangelization is to make others receive God’s salvation. This is the true meaning of Christian joy.
However, Catholics do not appear to be joyful in front of people. Many Catholics find it embarrassing to reveal their Christian identity. Why? It is all because we are not enthusiastic in evangelization. Why not? It is because we are not steadfast in prayer and bible study to discover God’s will after baptism. When we are not familiar with the contents of the gospel, we are afraid to make mistakes when we preach. We don’t know that it is the Holy Spirit who wishes to speak to non-believers through us. Jesus said, “The Holy Spirit will teach you in that very hour what you ought to say” (Luke 12:12). We feel that it is enough to receive sacraments, to join masses or we are fervent enough when we join some laity associations to serve the parish. Leave the preaching job to the clergy and nuns. Of course it is essential to receive sacraments, to join masses and serve the parish, but these are just side dishes, not the main course. The Lord prepares a table before me (Psalm 23:5), yet we are very choosy, picking up the side dishes rather than the main course. What a pity! Since we have received the Holy Spirit and are enjoying God’s graces, why should we bury the talents and do not make use of them? In preaching the gospel, we will be like prophets, allowing God to speak through us to non-believers. We will be able to experience the joy and excitement of God’s power working in us. This joy is not the privilege of the clergy. Each baptized Catholic can partake in this excitement.
Isaiah is the first of the four Major Prophets. He prophesizes a lot about the Messiah. Among the 12 first readings on Advent Sundays, 7 are taken from Isaiah. That was why Fr. Lejeune encouraged us to finish reading Isaiah in Advent. Though we are already halfway through Advent, it is better late than never. Start reading Isaiah to experience his spirit now. God bless.
Sunday 7 December 2014
Could John's baptism forgive sins?
During the Saturday Catechumen class, we were reading Mark 1:1-8. The class consists of catechumens who are undergoing instructions to prepare for baptism. There are also baptized Catholics who want to brush up their faith. Indeed, the Church has been talking about New Evangelization among the baptized. To a certain extent, the Hong Kong Diocese is running ahead of the other churches and is doing a good job in providing theological training not just for the clergy but also for the laity.
When we came to Mark 1:4, some Catholics showed signs of puzzlement. Isn't only Christian baptism the only baptism that is capable of forgiving sins? Why does the gospel say that John's baptism can forgive sins? The Christian baptism is a sacrament while John's baptism is not. If John's baptism is not a sacrament, it does not give grace and so it cannot forgive sins. This simplistic line of reasoning is understandable. Perhaps the instructors of these Catholics had not received adequate theological training or they were too eager to defend the superiority of Christian baptism over John's baptism so much so that they ignore the gospel! Of course the gospel cannot be wrong. That is to say John's baptism could indeed forgive sins. No theology can overwrite the bible. But then, how can we harmonize this gospel text with sacramental theology?
First of all, sacraments are the products of the Church. The disciples of John the Baptist failed to build up their church. They left behind no writings of their own. Their existence was only inferred from the Acts of the Apostles. Therefore, nowadays there is no such thing as the baptism of John the Baptist to challenge the supremacy of Christian baptism, i.e. their ability to forgive sins.
Secondly, since the gospel cannot be wrong, we should ask how the Baptist's baptism could forgive sins. All the Synoptic gospels report that Jesus was baptized by the Baptist. It seems a bit embarrassing for Christians because we can imagine how the disciples of John the Baptist would tease their Christian counterparts --- "Your Master Jesus was also baptized by our Master John. So, Jesus was also a disciple of John the Baptist like one of us. Therefore, call us Masters!" We can further imagine how Christian retorted by saying that Christian baptism gives the Holy Spirit and John's did not. This is a correct argument. The supremacy of Christian baptism over John's baptism lies at its ability to give the Holy Spirit.
Thirdly, it was a popular HKCEE RS question to ask why the sinless Jesus should receive baptism from John. One of the model answers was that Jesus showed his approval of the work of John the Baptist. This answer is redundant because the gospel already says that John was the forerunner sent by God to prepare the hearts of the Jews to receive the Messiah. Without God's commission, the Baptist could not baptize on his own. Prompted by this answer, I would rather suggest that Jesus came to sanctify John's baptism to make it capable of forgiving sins.
Traditional catechists usually say, in their piety, that Jesus came down to the water to sanctify the water so that it might wash away our sins when we receive Christian baptism. But this explanation cannot establish the monopoly of Christian baptism. If this explanation is accepted, any baptism with water should be able to forgive sins because water all over the world is the same. Otherwise, only water in River Jordan can forgive sins. No baptism held outside River Jordan would be valid! This is an unnecessary burden, very much like the circumcision required of Gentile believers.
There is always room for improvement for us catechists. Let's work hard to keep up.
Dear Lord, inflame the hearts of your servants to know you better. Amen.
When we came to Mark 1:4, some Catholics showed signs of puzzlement. Isn't only Christian baptism the only baptism that is capable of forgiving sins? Why does the gospel say that John's baptism can forgive sins? The Christian baptism is a sacrament while John's baptism is not. If John's baptism is not a sacrament, it does not give grace and so it cannot forgive sins. This simplistic line of reasoning is understandable. Perhaps the instructors of these Catholics had not received adequate theological training or they were too eager to defend the superiority of Christian baptism over John's baptism so much so that they ignore the gospel! Of course the gospel cannot be wrong. That is to say John's baptism could indeed forgive sins. No theology can overwrite the bible. But then, how can we harmonize this gospel text with sacramental theology?
First of all, sacraments are the products of the Church. The disciples of John the Baptist failed to build up their church. They left behind no writings of their own. Their existence was only inferred from the Acts of the Apostles. Therefore, nowadays there is no such thing as the baptism of John the Baptist to challenge the supremacy of Christian baptism, i.e. their ability to forgive sins.
Secondly, since the gospel cannot be wrong, we should ask how the Baptist's baptism could forgive sins. All the Synoptic gospels report that Jesus was baptized by the Baptist. It seems a bit embarrassing for Christians because we can imagine how the disciples of John the Baptist would tease their Christian counterparts --- "Your Master Jesus was also baptized by our Master John. So, Jesus was also a disciple of John the Baptist like one of us. Therefore, call us Masters!" We can further imagine how Christian retorted by saying that Christian baptism gives the Holy Spirit and John's did not. This is a correct argument. The supremacy of Christian baptism over John's baptism lies at its ability to give the Holy Spirit.
Thirdly, it was a popular HKCEE RS question to ask why the sinless Jesus should receive baptism from John. One of the model answers was that Jesus showed his approval of the work of John the Baptist. This answer is redundant because the gospel already says that John was the forerunner sent by God to prepare the hearts of the Jews to receive the Messiah. Without God's commission, the Baptist could not baptize on his own. Prompted by this answer, I would rather suggest that Jesus came to sanctify John's baptism to make it capable of forgiving sins.
Traditional catechists usually say, in their piety, that Jesus came down to the water to sanctify the water so that it might wash away our sins when we receive Christian baptism. But this explanation cannot establish the monopoly of Christian baptism. If this explanation is accepted, any baptism with water should be able to forgive sins because water all over the world is the same. Otherwise, only water in River Jordan can forgive sins. No baptism held outside River Jordan would be valid! This is an unnecessary burden, very much like the circumcision required of Gentile believers.
There is always room for improvement for us catechists. Let's work hard to keep up.
Dear Lord, inflame the hearts of your servants to know you better. Amen.
Sunday 30 November 2014
A PR disaster --- WATCH with a rusty mentality
My boss and his Crisis Management Committee were deeply troubled by a message left in the forum of “SaluteToHKPolice”. The message was supposed to be a screen capture of a Facebook page of one of our alumni. The message was a collection of obscenity and curses against the Hong Kong Police for their recent “excessive brutality” towards the OC protestors. This message has caused more than 2000 feedbacks that criticized the supposed Facebook author. The one who posted this message also included a “background” of this Facebook author: the name of our school, the physical and email addresses, telephone and fax numbers etc.
My boss felt guilty for the obscenity of the language used. How could our students write such obscenity and curses on the Internet? We are a Catholic school and we have failed the public! The school actually received some 7 complaint emails and at least 2 phone calls. At the advice of the CMC, my boss issued a statement which was put up briefly for about four hours on the school webpage, withdrawn after a second thought. Some alumni were unhappy with the stance of the statement and they were collecting money to put up an advertisement on a newspaper to voice their discontent against their alma mater ... It was a PR disaster! This time, we needed to ad hoc a PR adviser, not an educational psychologist as we have usually done.
Jesus told us to WATCH (Mark 13:37). However, we teachers have very little IT expertise and our mentality is rusty. We used to being always right. We knew all.
“We provide students with quality education to prepare them to become citizens with independent thinking and full social awareness in order to play a positive role in the ever-changing world.”
(a partial quotation from the School Mission, ) Sigh!
Even if we want to watch, we are not sensitive enough to appreciate the repercussion of issuing our political stance on the Internet at this turmoil moment. We look but see not, hear but understand not (Mark 4:12). We are not able to understand the reactions of our alumni. We feel lost. My boss is even prepared to quit in order to save the reputation of the school! Once again, rusty mentality.
My Dear Lord, in this season of Advent, open our eyes and our hearts to WATCH with humility. Amen.
My boss felt guilty for the obscenity of the language used. How could our students write such obscenity and curses on the Internet? We are a Catholic school and we have failed the public! The school actually received some 7 complaint emails and at least 2 phone calls. At the advice of the CMC, my boss issued a statement which was put up briefly for about four hours on the school webpage, withdrawn after a second thought. Some alumni were unhappy with the stance of the statement and they were collecting money to put up an advertisement on a newspaper to voice their discontent against their alma mater ... It was a PR disaster! This time, we needed to ad hoc a PR adviser, not an educational psychologist as we have usually done.
Jesus told us to WATCH (Mark 13:37). However, we teachers have very little IT expertise and our mentality is rusty. We used to being always right. We knew all.
“We provide students with quality education to prepare them to become citizens with independent thinking and full social awareness in order to play a positive role in the ever-changing world.”
(a partial quotation from the School Mission, ) Sigh!
Even if we want to watch, we are not sensitive enough to appreciate the repercussion of issuing our political stance on the Internet at this turmoil moment. We look but see not, hear but understand not (Mark 4:12). We are not able to understand the reactions of our alumni. We feel lost. My boss is even prepared to quit in order to save the reputation of the school! Once again, rusty mentality.
My Dear Lord, in this season of Advent, open our eyes and our hearts to WATCH with humility. Amen.
Sunday 23 November 2014
I have been consumed by narcissism
We should be serving Christ in the needy, in the least of his brethren (Matthew 25:40). Yet, I have forgotten Erminia who is sharing my bed with me. God be my witness, had it been another woman in bed with me, I would not have been able to respond God’s call to permanent diaconate today. From the very first day we dated, I immediately could recognize that she is a gift God sent to help me along my path to sainthood. I was torn between the call to priesthood and marriage. Of course, my upbringing made me not suitable to serve God and his people as a priest. However, I secretly pledged to God. “Allow me to love and I will be able to love you better in the future.” God is patient and kind. He gives me room to mature.
But after getting my first computer, I indulged too much in cracking computer programs and literally made Erminia a “computer widow”. She told me point-blank tonight, “Your DM has saved you.” Truly, my DM helps me reconcile with my mother who would not forgive me for deserting her, getting married and moved to Tuen Mun. My DM made Erminia tolerate my narcissism. But my narcissism does not do me good. I withdrew more and more into my comfort zone, developed depression and licked my wounds sustained after departing from La Salle.
Meanwhile, Erminia had to take care of the children, both as a mother and a father. Though she has complained that I have not spent enough quality time with the children, I did not take appropriate actions. Though not very successful, she had to dress up as much as she could, the wounds the boys sustained while being brought up by the grandmothers. Up till today, she feels very guilty about it, in particular, for Hilary our first born who seems to be the most hard-hit, feeling deserted by us. He has developed a withdrawn and evading character, not confident enough to face challenges and frustrations squarely. Of course I share a lion share of the blame but it is Erminia who bears all the guilt alone.
When I am sick, she takes care of me. But when she is sick, I am not even aware of her health state! I have been consumed by narcissism and am slow in picking up her distress signals. Our communication breaks down. In conclusion, I see that I love myself more than anything else. Though I have responded to the call of permanent diaconate, I wonder if I am really honouring my pledge to God more than three decades ago. God, have mercy on me. I am a sinner.
Dear Lord, Erminia is patient and kind. She still hopes that I can return one day. Yes, I do. I hope it is not too late. My God, I owe her so much. I have not taken up a fair enough share of her burden. Forgive me. Help my children. Amen.
But after getting my first computer, I indulged too much in cracking computer programs and literally made Erminia a “computer widow”. She told me point-blank tonight, “Your DM has saved you.” Truly, my DM helps me reconcile with my mother who would not forgive me for deserting her, getting married and moved to Tuen Mun. My DM made Erminia tolerate my narcissism. But my narcissism does not do me good. I withdrew more and more into my comfort zone, developed depression and licked my wounds sustained after departing from La Salle.
Meanwhile, Erminia had to take care of the children, both as a mother and a father. Though she has complained that I have not spent enough quality time with the children, I did not take appropriate actions. Though not very successful, she had to dress up as much as she could, the wounds the boys sustained while being brought up by the grandmothers. Up till today, she feels very guilty about it, in particular, for Hilary our first born who seems to be the most hard-hit, feeling deserted by us. He has developed a withdrawn and evading character, not confident enough to face challenges and frustrations squarely. Of course I share a lion share of the blame but it is Erminia who bears all the guilt alone.
When I am sick, she takes care of me. But when she is sick, I am not even aware of her health state! I have been consumed by narcissism and am slow in picking up her distress signals. Our communication breaks down. In conclusion, I see that I love myself more than anything else. Though I have responded to the call of permanent diaconate, I wonder if I am really honouring my pledge to God more than three decades ago. God, have mercy on me. I am a sinner.
Dear Lord, Erminia is patient and kind. She still hopes that I can return one day. Yes, I do. I hope it is not too late. My God, I owe her so much. I have not taken up a fair enough share of her burden. Forgive me. Help my children. Amen.
Sunday 16 November 2014
Love explains all
I am not sure whether perseverance is a talent or a virtue. My doggedness is amazing. When I want to get something done, I will spend hours and even days to find ways to get what I want. That was how I developed DM while cracking software protection. Meanwhile, in the exploration of different ways, I would discover pieces of newfound land. This is my style of learning, learning by doing even to this day.
I was trained a science student in the secondary school. Language was not my turf. Some five years into my teaching career, I came upon Computer Literacy. I found writing computer programs and learning different computer languages fascinating. My reward? Some short-lived cracked computer programs and diabetes.
As for my responding to the diaconate vocation, I regret that I have not answered earlier. I am privileged to be called to serve. I understand that I have to overcome my arrogance which is the very obstacle to receiving God’s grace of serving as a deacon. In my younger days, when I wanted to do something, nothing could prevent me from doing it. Today, I will not be so arrogant. I would say, I would like to do this, if God wishes.
I know I am pragmatic and physical. I may not be a spiritual man because I use my intellect more than affection. From what I know about myself, I will put in more efforts in spiritual formation, to pray with the Scripture more. I am sure God wishes this into me.
My wife and I attended a Workshop for Deacons’ wives. It was a very fruitful workshop for all of us, including all the gentlemen who could afford to join. The speaker was a Spanish speaking lady, Montserrat Martínez, a very experienced and capable scholar and a deacon wife for more than three decades. Since she felt more comfortable in delivering her talks in her native tongue, the VG invited Fr. Gabriel Altamirano O. MG, to be an instantaneous interpreter. Fr. Gabriel did not translate mechanically. He sprinkled his translations with wit and personality by which I mean he was able to add a bit of his own comments and dissent in his translations. He kept on saying “she said that ...” In fact, Fr. Gabriel was once a member of the Diocesan Commission For the Permanent Diaconate. He was indeed the most appropriate candidate to do this job.
On Sunday, he delivered an enlightening homily on the Parable of Talents in Matthew. His delivery was effortless and his perspective sharp. He made use of “love” to explain the difference between the servant given 5 talents and the one with only one talent. With love, the servants, who were given 5 and 2 talents, worked eagerly and earned double. Without love, the servant with 1 talent was afraid (Matthew 25:25) and out of fear buried his talent! Bravo! How wonderful to see that everything falls in place.
Dear Lord, help me love you more. Amen.
I was trained a science student in the secondary school. Language was not my turf. Some five years into my teaching career, I came upon Computer Literacy. I found writing computer programs and learning different computer languages fascinating. My reward? Some short-lived cracked computer programs and diabetes.
As for my responding to the diaconate vocation, I regret that I have not answered earlier. I am privileged to be called to serve. I understand that I have to overcome my arrogance which is the very obstacle to receiving God’s grace of serving as a deacon. In my younger days, when I wanted to do something, nothing could prevent me from doing it. Today, I will not be so arrogant. I would say, I would like to do this, if God wishes.
I know I am pragmatic and physical. I may not be a spiritual man because I use my intellect more than affection. From what I know about myself, I will put in more efforts in spiritual formation, to pray with the Scripture more. I am sure God wishes this into me.
My wife and I attended a Workshop for Deacons’ wives. It was a very fruitful workshop for all of us, including all the gentlemen who could afford to join. The speaker was a Spanish speaking lady, Montserrat Martínez, a very experienced and capable scholar and a deacon wife for more than three decades. Since she felt more comfortable in delivering her talks in her native tongue, the VG invited Fr. Gabriel Altamirano O. MG, to be an instantaneous interpreter. Fr. Gabriel did not translate mechanically. He sprinkled his translations with wit and personality by which I mean he was able to add a bit of his own comments and dissent in his translations. He kept on saying “she said that ...” In fact, Fr. Gabriel was once a member of the Diocesan Commission For the Permanent Diaconate. He was indeed the most appropriate candidate to do this job.
On Sunday, he delivered an enlightening homily on the Parable of Talents in Matthew. His delivery was effortless and his perspective sharp. He made use of “love” to explain the difference between the servant given 5 talents and the one with only one talent. With love, the servants, who were given 5 and 2 talents, worked eagerly and earned double. Without love, the servant with 1 talent was afraid (Matthew 25:25) and out of fear buried his talent! Bravo! How wonderful to see that everything falls in place.
Dear Lord, help me love you more. Amen.
Sunday 9 November 2014
我們都是聖殿 All of us are temples
祝聖拉脫朗大殿
主題：我們都是聖殿
梅瑟蒙召解放以色列人脫離埃及的奴役，過了紅海，到西乃山與天主訂立盟約。他按天主的吩咐造了一個約櫃，安放著天主所頒佈的十誡。天主就用這種形式與他們在曠野同行了40年。
進入客納罕福地定居下來，建立了以色列國之後，在公元前957年，撒羅滿王在耶路撒冷建成第一座聖殿，把約櫃與梅瑟在曠野高舉過的銅蛇，供奉在內。雖然天主藉依撒意亞先知曾表示過天是天主的寶座，地是天主的腳凳，天主不需要住在人手建造的聖殿（依66：1）。但聖殿是有存在價值的。一方面它表示天主的臨在；另一方面，它又是聚集萬民，祈禱崇拜天主的好地方。但好境不常，以色列沒有遵守誡命，結果召來亡國之痛。在公元前721年，北國以色列率先亡國予亞述。在公元前586年，南國猶大繼而亡國，座落耶路撒冷有370年歷史的聖殿被毀，約櫃與銅蛇，從此下落不明。大部份猶大國人，充軍巴比倫。
厄則克耳是舊約的「四大先知」之一。他在猶大國亡國前十年，與所有貴族及壯丁，已先被擄往巴比倫做人質。在那裡天主召叫他做先知，給他神視之恩，並傳達天主的說話去鼓勵安慰後來一齊充軍的同胞，告訴他們天主仍與他們同行。厄則克耳在猶大國亡國之前是一個司祭，所以對聖殿有一份不能磨滅的感情。亦因如此，先知書記載的最後一個神視，亦是有關新聖殿的神視。今天的第一篇讀經就是該神視的一部份。公元前538年，波斯帝國滅巴比倫，波斯王居魯士恩准猶大國人回國，他的兒子達理亞更資助他們重建聖殿。厄則克耳的神視應驗了一部份。至於從聖殿流出的水有滋養生命，治療疾病的神視，就有待耶穌基督來應驗了。
在今天所讀的福音中的聖殿就是公元前515年落成的第二座聖殿，它亦經歷希臘帝國和羅馬帝國的摧殘，到公元前20年，大黑落德為了討好猶太人，開始維修並擴建這第二座聖殿，到耶穌清理聖殿的時候，已擴建了46年了。這聖殿，在公元70年，羅馬帝國鎮壓猶太人叛亂時一把火燒了，結束了它的585年歷史。當年耶穌不滿聖殿的司祭，貪污腐敗，把聖殿變成為詐騙斂財的地方，而不是萬民祈禱敬拜天主的地方。於是耶穌義憤填膺，驅逐商人，清理聖殿。結果招至殺身之禍，完成贖世的工程。在福音中，耶穌清楚表示自己就是那座「不經人手所興建的真正聖殿。」更好說，聖殿只不過是一個記號，象徵在基督內天人聚合，天人合一。
其實耶穌更加是湧到永生的活水。在耶穌受難的時候，有士兵為了保証耶穌真是在十字架上死了，就用長矛刺透耶穌的肋膀。立刻就有血和水從刺穿了的肋膀湧出。我們相信，這血和水不單表示耶穌為了拯救人類所作的完全交付，並且，這是天主的意思，藉聖洗聖事治好我們的罪過，並以耶穌的聖血，滋養我們的靈魂。
耶穌升天及聖神降臨後，門徒數目雖然大增，但仍未成氣候。他們在教友的家中團聚擘餅，是「家庭教會」，亦即是今天所說的「基基團」。當遇到本地官員的欺凌或羅馬帝國的逼害時，他們的組織不能是公開的地上教會，而是冒生命危險在地下墓穴舉行主的晚餐的，名副其實的「地下教會」。有意見認為在禮儀中獻香，除了象徵祈禱上達於天主台前之外，還有辟臭辟蟲的實際作用。終於，守得雲開見月明，羅馬帝國的逼害結束了，教會進入一個昇平的時代了。
今天我們所慶祝的「祝聖拉脫朗大殿節」的拉脫朗大殿，是羅馬四大教堂之首，被稱為「一眾聖堂之母」。約在公元313年，君士旦丁大帝把它贈送給羅馬的主教，於公元324年祝聖，後來更成了教宗的座堂，已有1690年歷史。是君士旦丁令基督徒可以享有「信仰自由」，是他開創先河，令以後的王帝、貴族，慷慨地捐贈大量物業和土地給教會。也是這個原故，紀念「主的晚餐」由一個簡單的擘餅晚餐，慢慢進化成充滿宮廷禮節的彌撒。其實聖堂最重要的，不單是建築上的氣魄或者是令人肅然起敬的祈禱氣氛，而是在聖堂裡祈禱的人。
聖伯多祿和聖保祿兩位宗徒都不約而同教訓說：「我們是建造耶穌基督這座屬神殿宇的活石（伯前2:5），是聖神的宮殿（格前3：16）。」既然我們是聖殿，就讓我們默想我們有甚麽可以流出，滋養治療別人的生命。
首先，我們沒有讀過醫科，又不會行神蹟，又怎樣醫治別人呢？沒有讀過醫科，對。我們真的不會行神蹟，錯！事實上，醫治的力量來自耶穌基督，我們只不過是負責輸送天主恩寵的渠道。我們蒙召成聖，不是憑自己的法力行神蹟，而是把天主的恩寵傳送給別人，同時亦享受在傳送過程中所通過我們的恩寵。聖母是滿被聖寵者，不是因為她修行多年，累積了很多聖寵，很大的法力，而是她接受天主的召叫，把恩寵之源，耶穌基督輸送到這世界上。是她告訴耶穌婚宴上沒有酒了，是她站在十字架下接受了教會之母的任務，是她在耶穌升天後陪著耶穌復活後所聚集到的120個門徒，在她陪伴下，聖神降臨，開始了「教會的時代」。天主是不會偏心的，祂不會給聖母很多恩寵，給我們小小恩寵，我們與聖母的分別在於我們的輸送管是否暢通，有沒有閉塞。
我們暢通嗎？我們自己有沒有勤領聖事，與主結合呢？我有沒有祈禱讀經，體會耶穌的心意，好能把祂的恩寵輸送給別人呢？
我們閉塞嗎？常見的一種閉塞是驕傲。上星期的福音所講的山羊與綿羊的比喻，可以理解為鼓勵大家多行愛德，服事弱小者身上的耶穌基督。但大家有沒有反轉來想一想，調轉身份，成為饑渴者、病弱者，自己成為耶穌的化身，謙遜地接受他人的服事，造就他人成為輸送天主恩寵的渠道呢？這樣做，我們豈不做到了「在病弱中成聖自己、在接受服事中聖化他人」嗎？就讓我們繼續努力，成聖自己，聖化他人，轉化世界。
天主保祐。
Feast of the Dedication of St. John Lateran Basilica
Theme: All of us are temples
God called Moses to liberate the Israelites from Egyptian slavery. They crossed the Red Sea and reached Mount Sinai to seal the Old Covenant with God. Moses followed God’s instructions to build an Ark of Covenant and put the Ten Commandments in it. In this manner, God accompanied the Israelites in the wilderness for 40 years.
After settling in Canaan to build up the Kingdom of Israel, King Solomon finished building the first Temple in Jerusalem in 957 B.C. In this Temple, he put the Ark of Covenant and the Bronze Serpent which Moses had once raised in the wilderness for adoration. Though God spoke through Isaiah that heaven is his throne and the earth is his footstool, that he does not need to rest in a Temple built by man (Isaiah 66:1), the Temple still has its intrinsic values. On the one hand, the Temple signifies the presence of God among men. On the other, it is a good place to gather all peoples to pray and worship God. Unfortunately, the fidelity of Israelites was short-lived. They did not observe the commandments and ended up being conquered. In 721 B.C., the northern kingdom Israel was annihilated by the Assyrians. In 586 B.C., the southern kingdom Judah had fallen into the hand of the Babylonians. The 370-year-old First Temple of Jerusalem was burnt down. The Ark of Covenant and the Bronze Serpent were nowhere to be found. Most of the people of Judah were exiled to Babylon.
Ezekiel was one of the Four Major Prophets of the Old Testament. Ten years before the fall of Judah, he was captured as hostages together with the aristocrats and strong young men to Babylon. There, God called him to be a prophet and gave him the gift of vision to pass on God’s words of consolation to those exiles who joined him later, telling them that God exiled with them. Before Judah was conquered, Ezekiel was a priest. He had an inerasable emotional bond with the Temple. That was why the last vision recorded in the book was a vision related to the new Temple. The first reading we heard today is part of that vision. In 538 B.C., Persia conquered Babylon. Cyrus the Persian king allowed the exiles of Judah to return home. His son Darius even subsidized their rebuilding of the Temple. The vision of Ezekiel was partly fulfilled. That part of the life-giving water flowing out from the Temple had to wait for its fulfillment in Jesus.
The Temple we read in the gospel today was the Second Temple built in 515 B.C. It also went through sacrileges and vandalism during the Greek and Roman empires. In 20 B.C., in order to please the Jews, Herod the Great renovated and extended this Second Temple. When Jesus cleansed it, the building project had gone through 46 years. This Temple too was burnt down in 70 A.D. by the Roman army when it suppressed the first Jewish Revolt, thus ending its history of 585 years. What infuriated Jesus was the mismanagement of the priests whose corruption had turned the Temple from a house of prayer for the peoples into a house of cheats. Consequently, Jesus was killed to fulfill his salvation project. In the incident, Jesus made it clear that he himself is the true Temple which is not built by human hands. To put it better, the Temple was only a sign symbolizing the communion of God and men in Jesus.
In fact, Jesus is the living water running towards eternal life. During his Passion, a soldier, in order to ensure the death of Jesus, pierced his side with a spear. Immediately, blood and water gushed out from his wound. We believe that this water and blood not only show how Jesus totally surrendered himself in the redemption of mankind, but it is also a means with which God intends to heal us through baptism and to nourish our souls through the Eucharist.
After Jesus’ ascension and the descent of the Holy Spirit, the number of disciples multiplied but the Christian community was still insignificant. They broke bread in the houses of the disciples. They formed ‘house churches’, or ‘basic Christian Communities’ in modern jargon. When the local officials bullied them, or when the Empire systematically persecuted them, they could not officially be recognized as churches. Christians had to risk their lives to celebrate the Lord’s Supper in the catacomb. They were truly ‘underground churches’. Some experts opine that the incense offered in liturgy not only symbolizes our prayers reaching up to heaven, but also served practical purposes as deodorant and insect repellent. At last, Roman persecution ended. The Church has entered a peaceful era.
The Lateran Basilica whose dedication we celebrate today ranks the oldest and the first of the four major basilicas in Rome. It has been honoured the mother and head of all the churches in the city and the world “omnium urbis et orbis ecclesiarum mater et caput”. Around 313 A.D., Constantine gave it to the bishop of Rome. It was consecrated in 324 A.D. and later made the cathedral of the Roman Pontiff. It is already sixteen hundred and ninety years old. It was Constantine who gave religious freedom to Christians. It was him who set a precedent for subsequent kings and nobles of donating mansions and land to the Church. And it is because of this practice that the simple bread-breaking Lord’s Supper has evolved into a mass that is full of regal pomp and ceremony. In fact, the most important element in a church building is not its awe commanding architecture or its solemn prayerful atmosphere. It is the people who pray in it.
Both Ss. Peter and Paul teach that we are living stones which build up the spiritual house (1 Peter 2:5) and God’s temples (1 Corinthians 3:6). Since we are God’s temples, let us meditate what flows out from us that nourishes and heals.
Firstly, we have not studied medicines, nor can we work miracles, how do we heal? Haven’t studied medicines? You’re probably right. Unable to work miracles? Wrong! Indeed, healing powers come from Jesus Christ. We are only channels responsible for the transmission of God’s grace. We are called to be holy, not to work miracles with our magical powers, but to channel God’s grace to others and in doing so, enjoy the grace that goes through us. Our Lady is “full of grace”, not because she has practised contemplation for ages, thus accumulating a lot of graces and powers. Rather, it is because she humbly accepted God’s call to bring forth the source of all graces, Jesus Christ into this world. It was she who told Jesus that people had drunk up all the wine in the wedding banquet. It was she who stood under the cross to be given the mission to be the Mother of the Church. It was she who accompanied the 120 disciples Jesus gathered before his ascension. With Our Lady around, the Holy Spirit descended and inaugurated the Age of the Church. God will not favour Our Lady by giving her many graces and giving us little. The difference between the BVM and us is whether our channel is obstructed or not.
Is our channel unobstructed? Are we in communion with the Lord through receiving the sacraments frequently? Do we know the will of the Lord through prayers and bible studies? Can we channel His grace to the others unobstructed?
Is our channel obstructed? One of the most popular obstructions is pride. The message of the gospel reading last week (Matthew 25:31-46) can be interpreted as an encouragement for us to do more charities, to serve Jesus Christ in the needy. But have you ever thought about it upside down, about a switch of roles to become the hungry, the thirst and the sick, to become an incarnated Christ to humbly accept the service of the others, making them a channel of God’s grace? In so doing, haven’t we “sanctify ourselves in our sickness, sanctify others in being served”? Let us work hard to sanctify ourselves, sanctify others and transform the world.
God bless.
主題：我們都是聖殿
梅瑟蒙召解放以色列人脫離埃及的奴役，過了紅海，到西乃山與天主訂立盟約。他按天主的吩咐造了一個約櫃，安放著天主所頒佈的十誡。天主就用這種形式與他們在曠野同行了40年。
進入客納罕福地定居下來，建立了以色列國之後，在公元前957年，撒羅滿王在耶路撒冷建成第一座聖殿，把約櫃與梅瑟在曠野高舉過的銅蛇，供奉在內。雖然天主藉依撒意亞先知曾表示過天是天主的寶座，地是天主的腳凳，天主不需要住在人手建造的聖殿（依66：1）。但聖殿是有存在價值的。一方面它表示天主的臨在；另一方面，它又是聚集萬民，祈禱崇拜天主的好地方。但好境不常，以色列沒有遵守誡命，結果召來亡國之痛。在公元前721年，北國以色列率先亡國予亞述。在公元前586年，南國猶大繼而亡國，座落耶路撒冷有370年歷史的聖殿被毀，約櫃與銅蛇，從此下落不明。大部份猶大國人，充軍巴比倫。
厄則克耳是舊約的「四大先知」之一。他在猶大國亡國前十年，與所有貴族及壯丁，已先被擄往巴比倫做人質。在那裡天主召叫他做先知，給他神視之恩，並傳達天主的說話去鼓勵安慰後來一齊充軍的同胞，告訴他們天主仍與他們同行。厄則克耳在猶大國亡國之前是一個司祭，所以對聖殿有一份不能磨滅的感情。亦因如此，先知書記載的最後一個神視，亦是有關新聖殿的神視。今天的第一篇讀經就是該神視的一部份。公元前538年，波斯帝國滅巴比倫，波斯王居魯士恩准猶大國人回國，他的兒子達理亞更資助他們重建聖殿。厄則克耳的神視應驗了一部份。至於從聖殿流出的水有滋養生命，治療疾病的神視，就有待耶穌基督來應驗了。
在今天所讀的福音中的聖殿就是公元前515年落成的第二座聖殿，它亦經歷希臘帝國和羅馬帝國的摧殘，到公元前20年，大黑落德為了討好猶太人，開始維修並擴建這第二座聖殿，到耶穌清理聖殿的時候，已擴建了46年了。這聖殿，在公元70年，羅馬帝國鎮壓猶太人叛亂時一把火燒了，結束了它的585年歷史。當年耶穌不滿聖殿的司祭，貪污腐敗，把聖殿變成為詐騙斂財的地方，而不是萬民祈禱敬拜天主的地方。於是耶穌義憤填膺，驅逐商人，清理聖殿。結果招至殺身之禍，完成贖世的工程。在福音中，耶穌清楚表示自己就是那座「不經人手所興建的真正聖殿。」更好說，聖殿只不過是一個記號，象徵在基督內天人聚合，天人合一。
其實耶穌更加是湧到永生的活水。在耶穌受難的時候，有士兵為了保証耶穌真是在十字架上死了，就用長矛刺透耶穌的肋膀。立刻就有血和水從刺穿了的肋膀湧出。我們相信，這血和水不單表示耶穌為了拯救人類所作的完全交付，並且，這是天主的意思，藉聖洗聖事治好我們的罪過，並以耶穌的聖血，滋養我們的靈魂。
耶穌升天及聖神降臨後，門徒數目雖然大增，但仍未成氣候。他們在教友的家中團聚擘餅，是「家庭教會」，亦即是今天所說的「基基團」。當遇到本地官員的欺凌或羅馬帝國的逼害時，他們的組織不能是公開的地上教會，而是冒生命危險在地下墓穴舉行主的晚餐的，名副其實的「地下教會」。有意見認為在禮儀中獻香，除了象徵祈禱上達於天主台前之外，還有辟臭辟蟲的實際作用。終於，守得雲開見月明，羅馬帝國的逼害結束了，教會進入一個昇平的時代了。
今天我們所慶祝的「祝聖拉脫朗大殿節」的拉脫朗大殿，是羅馬四大教堂之首，被稱為「一眾聖堂之母」。約在公元313年，君士旦丁大帝把它贈送給羅馬的主教，於公元324年祝聖，後來更成了教宗的座堂，已有1690年歷史。是君士旦丁令基督徒可以享有「信仰自由」，是他開創先河，令以後的王帝、貴族，慷慨地捐贈大量物業和土地給教會。也是這個原故，紀念「主的晚餐」由一個簡單的擘餅晚餐，慢慢進化成充滿宮廷禮節的彌撒。其實聖堂最重要的，不單是建築上的氣魄或者是令人肅然起敬的祈禱氣氛，而是在聖堂裡祈禱的人。
聖伯多祿和聖保祿兩位宗徒都不約而同教訓說：「我們是建造耶穌基督這座屬神殿宇的活石（伯前2:5），是聖神的宮殿（格前3：16）。」既然我們是聖殿，就讓我們默想我們有甚麽可以流出，滋養治療別人的生命。
首先，我們沒有讀過醫科，又不會行神蹟，又怎樣醫治別人呢？沒有讀過醫科，對。我們真的不會行神蹟，錯！事實上，醫治的力量來自耶穌基督，我們只不過是負責輸送天主恩寵的渠道。我們蒙召成聖，不是憑自己的法力行神蹟，而是把天主的恩寵傳送給別人，同時亦享受在傳送過程中所通過我們的恩寵。聖母是滿被聖寵者，不是因為她修行多年，累積了很多聖寵，很大的法力，而是她接受天主的召叫，把恩寵之源，耶穌基督輸送到這世界上。是她告訴耶穌婚宴上沒有酒了，是她站在十字架下接受了教會之母的任務，是她在耶穌升天後陪著耶穌復活後所聚集到的120個門徒，在她陪伴下，聖神降臨，開始了「教會的時代」。天主是不會偏心的，祂不會給聖母很多恩寵，給我們小小恩寵，我們與聖母的分別在於我們的輸送管是否暢通，有沒有閉塞。
我們暢通嗎？我們自己有沒有勤領聖事，與主結合呢？我有沒有祈禱讀經，體會耶穌的心意，好能把祂的恩寵輸送給別人呢？
我們閉塞嗎？常見的一種閉塞是驕傲。上星期的福音所講的山羊與綿羊的比喻，可以理解為鼓勵大家多行愛德，服事弱小者身上的耶穌基督。但大家有沒有反轉來想一想，調轉身份，成為饑渴者、病弱者，自己成為耶穌的化身，謙遜地接受他人的服事，造就他人成為輸送天主恩寵的渠道呢？這樣做，我們豈不做到了「在病弱中成聖自己、在接受服事中聖化他人」嗎？就讓我們繼續努力，成聖自己，聖化他人，轉化世界。
天主保祐。
Feast of the Dedication of St. John Lateran Basilica
Theme: All of us are temples
God called Moses to liberate the Israelites from Egyptian slavery. They crossed the Red Sea and reached Mount Sinai to seal the Old Covenant with God. Moses followed God’s instructions to build an Ark of Covenant and put the Ten Commandments in it. In this manner, God accompanied the Israelites in the wilderness for 40 years.
After settling in Canaan to build up the Kingdom of Israel, King Solomon finished building the first Temple in Jerusalem in 957 B.C. In this Temple, he put the Ark of Covenant and the Bronze Serpent which Moses had once raised in the wilderness for adoration. Though God spoke through Isaiah that heaven is his throne and the earth is his footstool, that he does not need to rest in a Temple built by man (Isaiah 66:1), the Temple still has its intrinsic values. On the one hand, the Temple signifies the presence of God among men. On the other, it is a good place to gather all peoples to pray and worship God. Unfortunately, the fidelity of Israelites was short-lived. They did not observe the commandments and ended up being conquered. In 721 B.C., the northern kingdom Israel was annihilated by the Assyrians. In 586 B.C., the southern kingdom Judah had fallen into the hand of the Babylonians. The 370-year-old First Temple of Jerusalem was burnt down. The Ark of Covenant and the Bronze Serpent were nowhere to be found. Most of the people of Judah were exiled to Babylon.
Ezekiel was one of the Four Major Prophets of the Old Testament. Ten years before the fall of Judah, he was captured as hostages together with the aristocrats and strong young men to Babylon. There, God called him to be a prophet and gave him the gift of vision to pass on God’s words of consolation to those exiles who joined him later, telling them that God exiled with them. Before Judah was conquered, Ezekiel was a priest. He had an inerasable emotional bond with the Temple. That was why the last vision recorded in the book was a vision related to the new Temple. The first reading we heard today is part of that vision. In 538 B.C., Persia conquered Babylon. Cyrus the Persian king allowed the exiles of Judah to return home. His son Darius even subsidized their rebuilding of the Temple. The vision of Ezekiel was partly fulfilled. That part of the life-giving water flowing out from the Temple had to wait for its fulfillment in Jesus.
The Temple we read in the gospel today was the Second Temple built in 515 B.C. It also went through sacrileges and vandalism during the Greek and Roman empires. In 20 B.C., in order to please the Jews, Herod the Great renovated and extended this Second Temple. When Jesus cleansed it, the building project had gone through 46 years. This Temple too was burnt down in 70 A.D. by the Roman army when it suppressed the first Jewish Revolt, thus ending its history of 585 years. What infuriated Jesus was the mismanagement of the priests whose corruption had turned the Temple from a house of prayer for the peoples into a house of cheats. Consequently, Jesus was killed to fulfill his salvation project. In the incident, Jesus made it clear that he himself is the true Temple which is not built by human hands. To put it better, the Temple was only a sign symbolizing the communion of God and men in Jesus.
In fact, Jesus is the living water running towards eternal life. During his Passion, a soldier, in order to ensure the death of Jesus, pierced his side with a spear. Immediately, blood and water gushed out from his wound. We believe that this water and blood not only show how Jesus totally surrendered himself in the redemption of mankind, but it is also a means with which God intends to heal us through baptism and to nourish our souls through the Eucharist.
After Jesus’ ascension and the descent of the Holy Spirit, the number of disciples multiplied but the Christian community was still insignificant. They broke bread in the houses of the disciples. They formed ‘house churches’, or ‘basic Christian Communities’ in modern jargon. When the local officials bullied them, or when the Empire systematically persecuted them, they could not officially be recognized as churches. Christians had to risk their lives to celebrate the Lord’s Supper in the catacomb. They were truly ‘underground churches’. Some experts opine that the incense offered in liturgy not only symbolizes our prayers reaching up to heaven, but also served practical purposes as deodorant and insect repellent. At last, Roman persecution ended. The Church has entered a peaceful era.
The Lateran Basilica whose dedication we celebrate today ranks the oldest and the first of the four major basilicas in Rome. It has been honoured the mother and head of all the churches in the city and the world “omnium urbis et orbis ecclesiarum mater et caput”. Around 313 A.D., Constantine gave it to the bishop of Rome. It was consecrated in 324 A.D. and later made the cathedral of the Roman Pontiff. It is already sixteen hundred and ninety years old. It was Constantine who gave religious freedom to Christians. It was him who set a precedent for subsequent kings and nobles of donating mansions and land to the Church. And it is because of this practice that the simple bread-breaking Lord’s Supper has evolved into a mass that is full of regal pomp and ceremony. In fact, the most important element in a church building is not its awe commanding architecture or its solemn prayerful atmosphere. It is the people who pray in it.
Both Ss. Peter and Paul teach that we are living stones which build up the spiritual house (1 Peter 2:5) and God’s temples (1 Corinthians 3:6). Since we are God’s temples, let us meditate what flows out from us that nourishes and heals.
Firstly, we have not studied medicines, nor can we work miracles, how do we heal? Haven’t studied medicines? You’re probably right. Unable to work miracles? Wrong! Indeed, healing powers come from Jesus Christ. We are only channels responsible for the transmission of God’s grace. We are called to be holy, not to work miracles with our magical powers, but to channel God’s grace to others and in doing so, enjoy the grace that goes through us. Our Lady is “full of grace”, not because she has practised contemplation for ages, thus accumulating a lot of graces and powers. Rather, it is because she humbly accepted God’s call to bring forth the source of all graces, Jesus Christ into this world. It was she who told Jesus that people had drunk up all the wine in the wedding banquet. It was she who stood under the cross to be given the mission to be the Mother of the Church. It was she who accompanied the 120 disciples Jesus gathered before his ascension. With Our Lady around, the Holy Spirit descended and inaugurated the Age of the Church. God will not favour Our Lady by giving her many graces and giving us little. The difference between the BVM and us is whether our channel is obstructed or not.
Is our channel unobstructed? Are we in communion with the Lord through receiving the sacraments frequently? Do we know the will of the Lord through prayers and bible studies? Can we channel His grace to the others unobstructed?
Is our channel obstructed? One of the most popular obstructions is pride. The message of the gospel reading last week (Matthew 25:31-46) can be interpreted as an encouragement for us to do more charities, to serve Jesus Christ in the needy. But have you ever thought about it upside down, about a switch of roles to become the hungry, the thirst and the sick, to become an incarnated Christ to humbly accept the service of the others, making them a channel of God’s grace? In so doing, haven’t we “sanctify ourselves in our sickness, sanctify others in being served”? Let us work hard to sanctify ourselves, sanctify others and transform the world.
God bless.
Sunday 2 November 2014
OC and three out of Six Corporal Works of Mercy
Today, we celebrated the Feast of All Souls and launch the remembrance of the faithfully departed for the whole month. Traditionally, we Catholics pray for the souls in the Purgatory. They can no longer help themselves because they have shed their physical bodies. However, we on earth can perform many different types of Works of Mercy to help them. In fact, when the Church encourages us to perform these works, we are actually helping ourselves as well.
The idea of Corporal Works of Mercy comes from the gospel reading today, Matthew 25:31-46. This is the famous scene of the Last Judgment if you care to believe in it. As I use to saying, Jesus told us beforehand the syllabus of the Final examination: feed the hungry, quench the thirsty, shelter the homeless, clad the naked, nurse the sick and visit the imprisoned (vv 35-36). During the Last Judgment, Jesus will not ask whether you were baptized, you have skipped masses or saying graces. But of course, this does not give you a licence to oversleep and miss a Sunday mass. This syllabus is designed for all humanity, peoples of all faiths or no faith. This is the minimum requirement to enter eternal life. We Catholics count ourselves privileged to be baptized and to enjoy the foretaste of heaven on earth before it ends.
Does the story give me any inspiration in seeing the present OC stalemate?
It all started with the fact that the Occupiers have been fed up with the injustice a government that favours the tycoons with the approval from the Central government. Many SME shops have been folded up because of high rents. Many young people cannot buy a flat to start their own families. All the citizens have to foot the bill of overspent MTR projects to join the Mainland and many scandals are played out among government officials etc. They are hungered and thirsted of democracy. They want a government that is also accountable to them and not just to the rich and the Central government. Who can feed them and quench their thirst?
The students are like helpless souls in the Purgatory. They find themselves entered a cul-de-sac but are unable to find a way out. The adults outside insist that the decisions have been final. It is out of the question for NPC to amend their August 31 Announcement. Our students remain "imprisoned" as long as they uphold their ideals and demands which the adults dismiss as unrealistic and impracticable. They are free to go whenever they give up. But do we want to see them give up?
Quite a number of people do. For example, many anti-Occupation groups which have emerged from nowhere to take advantage of the situation to demonstrate their loyalty to the Central Government as can be heard from their mouthpieces in Hong Kong; those who claim that their livelihood have been hurt (e.g. taxi drivers, truck drivers, shop-owners, hotel managers and tour agencies etc.) and of course the HKSAR Government whose image has been more tarnished the longer she takes to resolve the impasse. However, many anti-Occupation tactics, such as tear gas, smear campaigns such as unsubstantiated allegations of foreign interventions, provisional court injunctions, withdrawal of sponsorship to universities, provocations and scuffles with Occupiers etc. seem to have backfired and fanned the momentum of the Occupation more. Do both governments want to end the Movement by dissipating the energies of our students? Do both governments see that by extending a helping hand to these helpless students, they are helping themselves in the long run instead? I always feel sorry for the Central government for her failure to attract competent people to do their jobs. Judge for yourselves the characters and qualities of those anti-Occupiers.
On the other hand, the students are practising some of the Beatitudes taught in the gospel. The generation gap in mentality is truly nowhere more obvious than in this Umbrella Movement. Unfortunately, so far nobody is able to offer a satisfactory compromise to bridge the gap. We don't know how long the students are going to hold out and I worry whether this course of political education would produce a huge group of disillusioned radical activists in Hong Kong in the future.
Dear Heavenly Father, what is your plan? Not our will, but Your will be done. Grant Your unworthy servant the joy to see a righteous ending. Amen.
The idea of Corporal Works of Mercy comes from the gospel reading today, Matthew 25:31-46. This is the famous scene of the Last Judgment if you care to believe in it. As I use to saying, Jesus told us beforehand the syllabus of the Final examination: feed the hungry, quench the thirsty, shelter the homeless, clad the naked, nurse the sick and visit the imprisoned (vv 35-36). During the Last Judgment, Jesus will not ask whether you were baptized, you have skipped masses or saying graces. But of course, this does not give you a licence to oversleep and miss a Sunday mass. This syllabus is designed for all humanity, peoples of all faiths or no faith. This is the minimum requirement to enter eternal life. We Catholics count ourselves privileged to be baptized and to enjoy the foretaste of heaven on earth before it ends.
Does the story give me any inspiration in seeing the present OC stalemate?
It all started with the fact that the Occupiers have been fed up with the injustice a government that favours the tycoons with the approval from the Central government. Many SME shops have been folded up because of high rents. Many young people cannot buy a flat to start their own families. All the citizens have to foot the bill of overspent MTR projects to join the Mainland and many scandals are played out among government officials etc. They are hungered and thirsted of democracy. They want a government that is also accountable to them and not just to the rich and the Central government. Who can feed them and quench their thirst?
The students are like helpless souls in the Purgatory. They find themselves entered a cul-de-sac but are unable to find a way out. The adults outside insist that the decisions have been final. It is out of the question for NPC to amend their August 31 Announcement. Our students remain "imprisoned" as long as they uphold their ideals and demands which the adults dismiss as unrealistic and impracticable. They are free to go whenever they give up. But do we want to see them give up?
Quite a number of people do. For example, many anti-Occupation groups which have emerged from nowhere to take advantage of the situation to demonstrate their loyalty to the Central Government as can be heard from their mouthpieces in Hong Kong; those who claim that their livelihood have been hurt (e.g. taxi drivers, truck drivers, shop-owners, hotel managers and tour agencies etc.) and of course the HKSAR Government whose image has been more tarnished the longer she takes to resolve the impasse. However, many anti-Occupation tactics, such as tear gas, smear campaigns such as unsubstantiated allegations of foreign interventions, provisional court injunctions, withdrawal of sponsorship to universities, provocations and scuffles with Occupiers etc. seem to have backfired and fanned the momentum of the Occupation more. Do both governments want to end the Movement by dissipating the energies of our students? Do both governments see that by extending a helping hand to these helpless students, they are helping themselves in the long run instead? I always feel sorry for the Central government for her failure to attract competent people to do their jobs. Judge for yourselves the characters and qualities of those anti-Occupiers.
On the other hand, the students are practising some of the Beatitudes taught in the gospel. The generation gap in mentality is truly nowhere more obvious than in this Umbrella Movement. Unfortunately, so far nobody is able to offer a satisfactory compromise to bridge the gap. We don't know how long the students are going to hold out and I worry whether this course of political education would produce a huge group of disillusioned radical activists in Hong Kong in the future.
Dear Heavenly Father, what is your plan? Not our will, but Your will be done. Grant Your unworthy servant the joy to see a righteous ending. Amen.
Sunday 26 October 2014
Love until it hurts
Today, we read of the well-known story of the Greatest Commandment in the Law of Moses. When a Pharisaic scribe asked Jesus which the greatest commandment among the 613 laws was, Jesus answered him with ease by quoting Deuteronomy 6:5. "Love the Lord, your God with all your heart, with all your soul and with all your mind." (Matthew 22:37). Of course, the quote was not exact because in Hebrew, it was "with all your might וּבְכָל-מְאֹדֶךָ" and Septuagint it was also "might ἐξ ὅλης τῆς δυνάμεώς σου" instead of "with all your mind ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ διανοίᾳ σου". That is to say, LXX translates the Hebrew original faithfully while the New Testament Greek chooses another word. Anyway, let the biblical scholars settle this difference and let us continue.
Jesus continued to quote the Leviticus 19:18 to give the second greatest commandment. This is the famous "Love your neighbour as yourself." (22:39) Many people miss an important point in the ministry of Jesus. When Jesus was tempted by Satan, Jesus countered the Devil only with quotations from Deuteronomy. He did not use his own authority. Similarly, when Jesus answered the challenges from the Jewish authority, he made use of materials which the `Jews were familiar. Jesus did not teach them new things, things which they had not heard of. Jesus adapted to their level of understanding. Therefore, it is a happy misunderstanding to say that Jesus taught us to love our neighbour as ourselves. No, Jesus did not. He only reminded what the Jews had already known from the Old Testament. People who say this is unfamiliar with the Bible as well as Jesus' MO in his public ministry.
The second greatest commandment is the only way we can fulfill the first greatest commandment. Doing the second commandment is the only concrete way we can love God who is a spirit. John was probably the first apostle to interpret this when he wrote,
"If a man say, I love God, and hates his brother, he is a liar: for he that loves not his brother whom he has seen, how can he love God whom he has not seen?" (1 John 4:20)
Of course, Jesus also left us the Parable of Sheep and Goats (Matthew 25:31-46) to encourage us to serve the poor and the needy. In serving these needy people, we will be able to serve God. Still, these two commandments belong to the Old Testament. People would naturally ask what makes the New Covenant superior to the Old. Well, during the Last Supper, Jesus gave a new commandment quite similar to the Old Law,
"A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; even as I have loved you" (John 13:34).
So, what is the difference between the Old commandment and the New commandment? How is the New superior to the Old?
"For no man ever hates his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it" (Ephesians 5:29).
In short, when you love yourself, you nourish and cherish yourself. You will not hurt yourself. When you love your neighbour as yourself, you nourish and cherish your neighbour. Yet, you love within your capacity so as not to hurt yourself. However, if we love as Jesus has loved, we must love until it hurts because Jesus has sacrificed himself to die on the cross for us. Here lies the difference. Christian love is to do good until it hurts.
Not only is it unpopular, it also hurts to be paternalistic for the good of people. Blessed Pope Paul VI was one such example. This evening, the Hong Kong Diocese celebrated the Beatification of Pope Paul VI. In recounting his many contributions to the modernization of the Church, Cardinal John Tong fondly remembered how he was ordained by the Supreme Pontiff. In his encyclical Humanæ Vitæ, Paul VI insisted on the traditional teaching against artificial contraception, contrary to the majority recommendation of the theologians. This made him unpopular. He must have been deeply hurt because few people appreciated his love and concern for the good of his flock. Relaxation on the use of artificial contraceptives pleases the crowd and brings them convenience. However, such practices objectify women and promote a culture of death. It will bring people away from God, rather than drawing them near. This is a perspective new to me. It requires a moral man of steel to be able to uphold an unpopular, yet beneficent traditional teaching. Blessed Pope Paul VI is such a man of steel.
Dear Lord, we thank you for sending us a blessed pastor to shepherd us. May his intercessions draw us close to you. Amen.
Jesus continued to quote the Leviticus 19:18 to give the second greatest commandment. This is the famous "Love your neighbour as yourself." (22:39) Many people miss an important point in the ministry of Jesus. When Jesus was tempted by Satan, Jesus countered the Devil only with quotations from Deuteronomy. He did not use his own authority. Similarly, when Jesus answered the challenges from the Jewish authority, he made use of materials which the `Jews were familiar. Jesus did not teach them new things, things which they had not heard of. Jesus adapted to their level of understanding. Therefore, it is a happy misunderstanding to say that Jesus taught us to love our neighbour as ourselves. No, Jesus did not. He only reminded what the Jews had already known from the Old Testament. People who say this is unfamiliar with the Bible as well as Jesus' MO in his public ministry.
The second greatest commandment is the only way we can fulfill the first greatest commandment. Doing the second commandment is the only concrete way we can love God who is a spirit. John was probably the first apostle to interpret this when he wrote,
"If a man say, I love God, and hates his brother, he is a liar: for he that loves not his brother whom he has seen, how can he love God whom he has not seen?" (1 John 4:20)
Of course, Jesus also left us the Parable of Sheep and Goats (Matthew 25:31-46) to encourage us to serve the poor and the needy. In serving these needy people, we will be able to serve God. Still, these two commandments belong to the Old Testament. People would naturally ask what makes the New Covenant superior to the Old. Well, during the Last Supper, Jesus gave a new commandment quite similar to the Old Law,
"A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; even as I have loved you" (John 13:34).
So, what is the difference between the Old commandment and the New commandment? How is the New superior to the Old?
"For no man ever hates his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it" (Ephesians 5:29).
In short, when you love yourself, you nourish and cherish yourself. You will not hurt yourself. When you love your neighbour as yourself, you nourish and cherish your neighbour. Yet, you love within your capacity so as not to hurt yourself. However, if we love as Jesus has loved, we must love until it hurts because Jesus has sacrificed himself to die on the cross for us. Here lies the difference. Christian love is to do good until it hurts.
Not only is it unpopular, it also hurts to be paternalistic for the good of people. Blessed Pope Paul VI was one such example. This evening, the Hong Kong Diocese celebrated the Beatification of Pope Paul VI. In recounting his many contributions to the modernization of the Church, Cardinal John Tong fondly remembered how he was ordained by the Supreme Pontiff. In his encyclical Humanæ Vitæ, Paul VI insisted on the traditional teaching against artificial contraception, contrary to the majority recommendation of the theologians. This made him unpopular. He must have been deeply hurt because few people appreciated his love and concern for the good of his flock. Relaxation on the use of artificial contraceptives pleases the crowd and brings them convenience. However, such practices objectify women and promote a culture of death. It will bring people away from God, rather than drawing them near. This is a perspective new to me. It requires a moral man of steel to be able to uphold an unpopular, yet beneficent traditional teaching. Blessed Pope Paul VI is such a man of steel.
Dear Lord, we thank you for sending us a blessed pastor to shepherd us. May his intercessions draw us close to you. Amen.
Sunday 19 October 2014
How I wish OC would end
I must declare beforehand that I am not a politically correct person. I am biased and support student movements. I am sympathetic because I feel guilty for failing to bring about a more democratic Hong Kong for them, leaving them to fight for it themselves. In my younger days, I participated rather marginally social movements, not patriotic movements in Hong Kong because by the time I entered university, I had missed the Protect Diaoyu Islands Movement. Moreover, I have not visited the Occupy sites. I have never been on the ground to feel the mood. I have not even responded to the Church's invitation to participate in prayer meetings, Eucharistic Adoration, Stations of the Cross etc. Therefore, you may question my "qualification" to speak on the topic.
As an armchair ethicist, teaching my students DSE Ethics and Religious Studies, I prayed to God when OC started prematurely. I prayed to the Archangels and guardian angels to protect the people when tear gas was fired to disperse the crowd in Admiralty. When misinformation and fallacies were freely floating around in the cyber space, I engaged in debates with various WhatsApp groups including my beloved intelligent LSC old students and in particular a heated face-to-face analysis with one of my Catholic colleagues. All in all, I submit everything to God's will. I believe that God has the best arrangements for all of us, the Central Government, HKSAR Government, the Occupiers and the rest of the world. After the baptism of this Umbrella Movement, the future of social unrest in Hong Kong will never be the same anymore. (I don't think it is appropriate to call it an "Umbrella Revolution" or "Colours Revolution" because Hong Kong cannot be independent, not to mention overthrowing the HKSAR Government or Central Government.) We have entered a New Age of social actions. The citizens of Hong Kong are aware of new possibilities and channels to express and fight for their rights. And this cannot be unlearned.
I thank my daughter for telling me to see things in the eyes of young people of these days. She said that this Umbrella Movement is a clash of old mentality vs. new mentality; old paradigm vs. new paradigm. She is right. While the government employs a PIE mentality (Proposal-Implementation-Evaluation. It was rumoured that the police's budget to deal with OC was 7 days), the Occupation Movement is impromptus and leaderless. While the police charges the crowd with formation, batons, pepper spray and tear gas, the crowd was like playing online games in teams. While many old soldiers saw signs of early phases of June 4, some even mistook the young people as Red Guards, the crowd wax and wane when "it was evenings and it was mornings, a 22nd day". How could they be able to see otherwise because a show of a certain man proposing to a lady whom he met just for a few days in the movement was put up in Mongkok in front of TV cameras. There are still people who continue to adhere to their old mentality in believing that our students are naive; that there is a "Black Hand", a foreign country in the background to manipulate them etc. Sometimes, I myself fell victim to this mentality. I do not apologize because I am no longer young. For example, I think the HKSAR Government is playing a cat vs. mouse game with the student leaders in the so called "dialogue". The topics of the scheduled meeting were about constitutionality and legality! One day before the meeting, the Government called it off because the students were "insincere and putting forth unrealistic demands, continuously moving the football goal" etc. Frankly speaking, I find no sign for optimism in the upcoming "dialogue" next Tuesday, though I see it as a contest between David and Goliath, but the student leaders are no David! I wish I were wrong because my old mentality is affecting my judgment. But I will definitely pray to God to side the students because this is God's MO. He opts for the poor and the weak and tells us to do so.
The seeds of conflict have been sowed long time ago in a soil of discontent. At the outbreak of SARS epidemic in 2003, all the citizens of Hong Kong were united and stood by the side of the HKSAR Government, cooperating with her to fight against a deadly virus which affected everybody. To deliver the HKSAR from bankruptcy, the Central Government benevolently started sending mainland tourists to cross the border shopping. However, discontents started to brew when government policies are getting more and more lopsided to benefit the rich, creating wider and wider income gaps; when young people have to live with their parents because prices of housing are sent soaring to heavens; when the shopping sprees of mainland visitors push up prices, grab up our milk powders and benefit only a handful of people; when the CE handed out government posts to award his election supporters and when scandals broke out one after another among his handpicked supporters etc. Perhaps the CE was following orders from the CG to demonstrate his loyalty but it was at the expenses of the citizens. Naturally, citizens want to choose a CE after their hearts. When hundreds of people came out to mourn for the death of a dog on the MTR tracks, I was surprised at the pressurized frustrations of people against big corporations. When thousands of people took to the street in these twenty odd days, I was surprised no more.
I said earlier that the upcoming Tuesday dialogue fails to inspire optimism in me. One of the reasons is the chairperson of the dialogue. The Government claimed her intention to look for a person of high virtuous calibre and is highly respected in the society (德高望重) to chair the meeting. It turns out that the person is another CE supporter handpicked to head one of the universities in Hong Kong. Don't make me wrong. I do not question his virtue and fame. Moreover, I admire his courage because many other university chancellors shy away from this invitation because this job pleases nobody. Rather, I lament for the CG because it fails to attract competent enough people, leaving the posts to be grabbed up by people of lesser calibre, the Gresham's Law (405 BC) as applied in governments. Once again, I am still unable to shake off my old mentality.
When all hopes seem gone, I still have my trump card. Today is Mission Sunday. In the gospel reading, Jesus promised his disciples to be with them always even unto the end of the world (Matthew 28:20). I am sure he is accompanying the Christians among the Movements. His presence will bless all the people present, students, mobs, police and onlookers etc. And like most people in Hong Kong, I pray that OC would end soon without bloodshed.
How do I wish OC would end? I suggest the three OC organizers and student leaders of all parties turning themselves in to the Wan Chai Police Station asap. Hopefully, it will trigger a wave of self-surrenders until a tipping point is reached that the crowd at Admiralty will wane. When Admiralty is dissolved, Mongkok will melt away.
Dear Father, hear my prayer. Not what I will, but what thou wilt. Amen.
As an armchair ethicist, teaching my students DSE Ethics and Religious Studies, I prayed to God when OC started prematurely. I prayed to the Archangels and guardian angels to protect the people when tear gas was fired to disperse the crowd in Admiralty. When misinformation and fallacies were freely floating around in the cyber space, I engaged in debates with various WhatsApp groups including my beloved intelligent LSC old students and in particular a heated face-to-face analysis with one of my Catholic colleagues. All in all, I submit everything to God's will. I believe that God has the best arrangements for all of us, the Central Government, HKSAR Government, the Occupiers and the rest of the world. After the baptism of this Umbrella Movement, the future of social unrest in Hong Kong will never be the same anymore. (I don't think it is appropriate to call it an "Umbrella Revolution" or "Colours Revolution" because Hong Kong cannot be independent, not to mention overthrowing the HKSAR Government or Central Government.) We have entered a New Age of social actions. The citizens of Hong Kong are aware of new possibilities and channels to express and fight for their rights. And this cannot be unlearned.
I thank my daughter for telling me to see things in the eyes of young people of these days. She said that this Umbrella Movement is a clash of old mentality vs. new mentality; old paradigm vs. new paradigm. She is right. While the government employs a PIE mentality (Proposal-Implementation-Evaluation. It was rumoured that the police's budget to deal with OC was 7 days), the Occupation Movement is impromptus and leaderless. While the police charges the crowd with formation, batons, pepper spray and tear gas, the crowd was like playing online games in teams. While many old soldiers saw signs of early phases of June 4, some even mistook the young people as Red Guards, the crowd wax and wane when "it was evenings and it was mornings, a 22nd day". How could they be able to see otherwise because a show of a certain man proposing to a lady whom he met just for a few days in the movement was put up in Mongkok in front of TV cameras. There are still people who continue to adhere to their old mentality in believing that our students are naive; that there is a "Black Hand", a foreign country in the background to manipulate them etc. Sometimes, I myself fell victim to this mentality. I do not apologize because I am no longer young. For example, I think the HKSAR Government is playing a cat vs. mouse game with the student leaders in the so called "dialogue". The topics of the scheduled meeting were about constitutionality and legality! One day before the meeting, the Government called it off because the students were "insincere and putting forth unrealistic demands, continuously moving the football goal" etc. Frankly speaking, I find no sign for optimism in the upcoming "dialogue" next Tuesday, though I see it as a contest between David and Goliath, but the student leaders are no David! I wish I were wrong because my old mentality is affecting my judgment. But I will definitely pray to God to side the students because this is God's MO. He opts for the poor and the weak and tells us to do so.
The seeds of conflict have been sowed long time ago in a soil of discontent. At the outbreak of SARS epidemic in 2003, all the citizens of Hong Kong were united and stood by the side of the HKSAR Government, cooperating with her to fight against a deadly virus which affected everybody. To deliver the HKSAR from bankruptcy, the Central Government benevolently started sending mainland tourists to cross the border shopping. However, discontents started to brew when government policies are getting more and more lopsided to benefit the rich, creating wider and wider income gaps; when young people have to live with their parents because prices of housing are sent soaring to heavens; when the shopping sprees of mainland visitors push up prices, grab up our milk powders and benefit only a handful of people; when the CE handed out government posts to award his election supporters and when scandals broke out one after another among his handpicked supporters etc. Perhaps the CE was following orders from the CG to demonstrate his loyalty but it was at the expenses of the citizens. Naturally, citizens want to choose a CE after their hearts. When hundreds of people came out to mourn for the death of a dog on the MTR tracks, I was surprised at the pressurized frustrations of people against big corporations. When thousands of people took to the street in these twenty odd days, I was surprised no more.
I said earlier that the upcoming Tuesday dialogue fails to inspire optimism in me. One of the reasons is the chairperson of the dialogue. The Government claimed her intention to look for a person of high virtuous calibre and is highly respected in the society (德高望重) to chair the meeting. It turns out that the person is another CE supporter handpicked to head one of the universities in Hong Kong. Don't make me wrong. I do not question his virtue and fame. Moreover, I admire his courage because many other university chancellors shy away from this invitation because this job pleases nobody. Rather, I lament for the CG because it fails to attract competent enough people, leaving the posts to be grabbed up by people of lesser calibre, the Gresham's Law (405 BC) as applied in governments. Once again, I am still unable to shake off my old mentality.
When all hopes seem gone, I still have my trump card. Today is Mission Sunday. In the gospel reading, Jesus promised his disciples to be with them always even unto the end of the world (Matthew 28:20). I am sure he is accompanying the Christians among the Movements. His presence will bless all the people present, students, mobs, police and onlookers etc. And like most people in Hong Kong, I pray that OC would end soon without bloodshed.
How do I wish OC would end? I suggest the three OC organizers and student leaders of all parties turning themselves in to the Wan Chai Police Station asap. Hopefully, it will trigger a wave of self-surrenders until a tipping point is reached that the crowd at Admiralty will wane. When Admiralty is dissolved, Mongkok will melt away.
Dear Father, hear my prayer. Not what I will, but what thou wilt. Amen.
Sunday 12 October 2014
「去飲」的聖經意義 God throws a banquet for us
常年期第廿八主日（甲年）
主題：天主為我們預備了的盛宴
近半個月來，我們不斷聽到「去飲」的新聞報導。所以，今天就和大家一起，默想一點「去飲」的聖經意義。
耶穌時代，大部份人的生活水準低，貧困簡陋。一生人恐怕祗可以安排一次婚宴。能夠參加婚宴，盡情飲食，並不是常有的事，可以說是非常難得。所以，耶穌在描述天國的奧秘時，用了婚宴的圖像，以表達出天國的隆重、矜貴。
人類雖然犯罪遠離了天主，天主卻並沒有放棄祂創造的肖像。雖然人類忘記了、否認了他們的創造主，但天父仍不離不棄，想盡辦法與人溝通，啟示自己，甚至為了償還人類的罪債，派遣聖子降生受難，幫助人類與祂和好，建立一個和平友愛的天國。耶穌用婚宴的象徵告訴我們，天父大排筵席，提供一個我們與祂和解的機會，成為自己人，分享祂豐富的、永恆的神聖生命。在第一篇讀經，依撒意亞先知給我們粗略地素描了這個「美酒佳餚的盛宴」是甚麽一回事。
第一，「上主要永遠取消死亡。」表面上取消死亡是指人類不再老死，人人都可以擁有用不完的時間，可以發揮潛能，可以實現夢想，做從前想做但沒有時間去做的事。其實，罪惡和死亡把天主和人隔絕了，「取消了死亡」表示天主主動打破祂與罪人之間的隔膜。耶穌斷氣時，聖所的帳幔從上到下分裂為二正展示出這個意義。天主要以耶穌的死永遠地取消死亡。
第二，「上主要從人人臉上拭去淚痕，消除一切恥辱。」在天國裡人人不再受日曬雨淋、沒有休息的奴隸之苦，不再有疾病，不再有流淚，不再有惡霸欺凌，人人豐衣足食。注意，不是「眼淚」而是「淚痕」，是過去了的傷痛。即是說，天主不是止痛藥，不是人民的鴉片。祂不但安慰我們目前的痛苦，而且徹底地，從每個人童年的陰影開始，掃除一切心靈上的創傷。
這一切將會在天主的聖山上實現。「天主的聖山」在那裡？聖保祿說，我們的身體是「聖神的宮殿」。身體最重要的部份是人的內心。所以，這聖山，這個天國就在我們的心內。這「聖山」又是天主聚集祂子民的地方，所以，這聖山，這個天國就是我們，就是教會團體。
教會按福音的精神去生活，並發展出一套放諸四海皆準的普世價值，例如慈善、公義、真理、自由、誠信、包容等。這些就是天主所預備了的佳餚美酒，用來滋養人性，好使埋藏在人心內的天主肖像，得以展現無遺。
在一眾普世價值之中，我想同大家講一講「自由」的重要。天主是自由的，祂的肖像當然是自由的。倘若人沒有自由，他的一切所作所為都是迫不得已的話，他還需要為他所做的事，所犯的錯負責嗎？人民有自由，就有可能「人盡其才、地盡其利、物盡其用、貨暢其流。」(孫文，上李鴻章萬言書，1894)發展他的潛能，展示天主的肖像。所以「自由、自主」是非常重要的。耶穌在若望福音指出，真理使人自由。可惜，當今社會，流傳著很多似是而非的謬論。我想幫大家分析其中兩個同天主教有關的謬論。
第一，耶穌說「凱撒的歸凱撒、天主的歸天主」。表面上，這段福音好像鼓吹「政教分離」。政治歸政府，宗教歸天主，河水不犯井水。但是，試問這世界有甚麽不是屬於天主的呢？連凱撒不也是歸於天主的嗎？那麽教會是否事事都干預政府的運作呢？當然不是。祗有當政府推行的政策，違反福音的精神，違反公義時候，天主的子民就不能袖手旁觀了。例如，近來平等機會委員會提出的反歧視條例修訂法案的諮詢文件，引入澳洲的「事實婚姻關係」的概念，將會把現時一夫一妻的家庭關係，破壞無遺，教會就不能坐視不理了。
第二，很多人誤會，以為天主教選教宗都不是一人一票，就沒有資格講民主。這真是一個荒謬的言論。難道男人不能懷孕生子，就沒有資格做婦產科醫生了嗎？所以，天主教徒絕對有資格講民主。
好了，讓我們回到福音的比喻。很奇怪，今天所讀的比喻中，國王擺酒竟然有人不賞面！這是甚麽意思呢？福音說「有的去耕田，有的去做自己的生意，有的竟捉住僕人，凌辱殺死。」這使我聯想起這半個月來發生的「去飲」事件。
因為各人的恩賜不同，不是人人都有本領站台、有時間在現場分派物資、維持秩序。有的人可以躲在家中，上網起底、作勵志歌曲或者為香港祈禱。各人就按自己的恩賜，共同建立天國。
另一方面，有些人寧願去耕田、去做生意，也不領國王的情去飲。今天，為了目前的經濟損失而反對佔中的，大有人在。福音中的國王也沒有勉強那些農夫和商人去飲。恨祇恨那些使用暴力和恐嚇手段，去撕裂社會的人，天主當然會與他們算帳。
最後，可能有人能夠欺世盜名，混水摸魚。但縱使他們能騙盡天下的人，他們始終都逃不過天主的審判，天主會把那些別具用心、言行不一，沒有穿禮服的人趕出天國。
各位，沒有人願意見到「去飲」會悲劇收場，但沒有人能想得出如何收拾殘局的好方法。讓我們謙遜地承認自己的不足，祈求天主大發慈悲，不要讓青年人受到無辜的傷害。
天主保佑。
28th Ordinary Sunday (Year A)
Theme: God throws a banquet for us
Preface: At the advice of Fr. Milanese, our parish priest, I watered down the homily and chose the wording more cautiously. He allowed me to speak freely whatever in my mind. I thank Fr. Milanese for his guidance and confidence in me.
We have heard a lot of news about “Go Banqueting”** in the past two weeks. Therefore, today, I would like to meditate its biblical meaning.
In Jesus’ time, the living standard of most of the people was low. Their life was poor and simple. At most, they could only afford to organize only one wedding banquet throughout their life. Going banqueting and eating to their full was not common, if not rare. Therefore, when Jesus uses the image of wedding banquet to describe the mystery of the Kingdom of Heaven, he wants to show the solemnity, nobility and rarity of the Kingdom.
Though men disobeyed God and rejected God, God had never abandoned the image He created. Though men forgot and denied their Creator, the Father had never forsaken us, trying hard to communicate and reveal Himself to us. He even sent His son to incarnate and died for us to repay our debts, to reconcile with us to build up a peaceful Kingdom of Love. Jesus makes use of the image of wedding banquet to tell us that God throws a party to provide an opportunity for our reconciliation with Him, to become an insider, to share His overflowing, eternal and sacred life. In the first reading today, Isaiah sketched a picture of what “a feast of fat things, a feast of wine on the lees” is all about. (Isaiah 25:6)
Firstly, “The Lord shall swallow up death forever” (25:8a). Superficially, swallowing up death may mean that men will no longer age and die. All possess infinite amount of time, to realize their potentials, to materialize their dreams and to do what they previously could not afford the time to do. Actually, sins and death cut men off from God. Therefore, swallowing up death means God will take the initiative to abolish the separation between Him and sinners. The moment Jesus died and gave up his spirit, the curtain of the Holy of the holies was torn from top to bottom into two. This illustrated the reconciliation between God and men. God made use of the death of Jesus to swallow up death forever.
Secondly, “the Lord God will wipe away tears from all faces, the reproach of His people, He will take away from all the earth” (25:8b). In the Kingdom of Heaven, people will not suffer in the scorching sun as slaves without a brief moment of rest. There will not be diseases, tears and bullies. Everybody is well-fed. The “tears” come not only from recent sufferings, but also sufferings in the past. God is not an instant pain-killer, not the opium of the people. Not only does God console our sufferings at the present moment, He will thoroughly, and starting from trauma in the childhood, clear and clean up pains in the heart.
All these will happen “on the mountain of the Lord of hosts” (25:6a). So, where is this holy mountain? St. Paul said, our body is the Temple of the Holy Spirit (1Corinthians 3:16). The most important part of the body is our heart. Therefore, this holy mountain, this Kingdom of Heaven dwells in our hearts. This holy mountain is where God gathers His people. Therefore, this holy mountain, this Kingdom of Heaven is the Church community.
The Church lives up the evangelical spirit from which she derives a collection of universal values which are applicable anywhere in the world. For example, beneficence, justice, truth, freedom, integrity and tolerance etc. These are the “fat things, the wine on the lees” God has prepared for us, to nourish our human nature so that the image of God which is buried in our heart might be able to shine off.
Among the universal values, I would like to talk about the importance of freedom. God is free. So His images should also be free. If a man were not free so that whatever he did was done out of necessity, would he be held responsible for the things, the sins he had done? If people are given freedom, “man can fully discharge his capability, land can fully yield its produce and things can fully be utilized and goods can fully circulate.” (Sun Yat-sen, Letter to Viceroy Li Hongzhang, 1894) Then people can fully realize their potentials and allow the image of God to shine out clearly. Jesus once said, “and the truth will make you free” (John 8:32) Unfortunately, many fallacies are floating around in the city of Hong Kong. Now, I would like to discuss two fallacies related to Catholicism.
Firstly, Jesus said, “Render unto Cæsar the things that are Cæsar’s, and to God the things that are God’s” (Mark 12:17) Superficially, this piece of gospel text seems to advocate the separation between the Church and the State: politics belongs to the government and religion to God. “River water does not mix with underground water”. However, tell me, what on earth does not belong to God? Nothing. Without exception, everything belongs to God, including Cæsar. Then, shall the Church meddle with every step in the running of the State? Of course not. Only when the policy of the State contradicts the evangelical spirit, contradicts justice, are Christians justified to intervene. For example, recently, the Equal Opportunities Commission is conducting the consultation of Anti-Discrimination legilation review. EOC introduces an Australian concept of “de facto relationships” which will undermine the family structure of one man and one wife. The Church cannot sit there like a duck.
Secondly, many people misunderstand that since the Pope is not elected through universal suffrage, Catholics are not qualified to talk about democracy. This is truly a fallacy. Wouldn’t it be that men cannot get pregnant and give birth to babies, therefore, men are not qualified to become a gynecologist and obstetrician? Therefore, the fact that the Pope was not voted in with one man one vote, does not disqualify Catholics from airing their views on democracy.
Now, let us return to the parable in the gospel (Matthew 22:1-14). Strangely enough, in the parable we read today, how come there were people who dared not giving face to the king by refusing to attain the king’s banquet (22:3, 5). What does that mean? The gospel reads, “... they went off, one to his farm, another to his business, while the rest seized his servants, treated them shamefully, and killed them.” (22:5-6) This made me think of what had happened to “Go Banqueting” in the past two weeks.
Since we are gifted differently, not everybody has the ability to address the crowd, has time to distribute the supplies or to maintain order etc. Some people can stay home to surf the Internet to dig up people’s background information, to write cheering songs or even to pray for Hong Kong. Everyone makes use of the charisma he receives from God to build up the Kingdom of Heaven.
On the other hand, some prefer going off to his farm, to his business and do not give face to the king by refusing to attend the banquet. Similarly, today, many people do not Go Banqueting because of the perceived financial losses. In the parable, the king did not force the farmers and businessmen to go banqueting. Rather, he was infuriated by those who used violence and intimidation to tear the society apart. God will surely make them pay for it.
Lastly, perhaps some people are successful in cheating the whole world, making a name and taking advantages. Although they might be able to fool the world, they will not be able to run away from God’s judgment. Woe to those who harbour ulterior motives, who do not practise what they speak, who do not go banqueting in wedding garments, God will expel them from the Kingdom of Heaven.
Dear brethren, nobody wants to see a tragic ending to the Go Banqueting, but nobody is able to come up with a good solution to the present situation. Let us humbly admit our inadequacy, pray for the mercy of God not to let our young people sustain unjustified injuries.
God bless.
**“Go Banqueting” is the code name of “Occupy Central Movement”, known internationally as the “Umbrella Revolution”
主題：天主為我們預備了的盛宴
近半個月來，我們不斷聽到「去飲」的新聞報導。所以，今天就和大家一起，默想一點「去飲」的聖經意義。
耶穌時代，大部份人的生活水準低，貧困簡陋。一生人恐怕祗可以安排一次婚宴。能夠參加婚宴，盡情飲食，並不是常有的事，可以說是非常難得。所以，耶穌在描述天國的奧秘時，用了婚宴的圖像，以表達出天國的隆重、矜貴。
人類雖然犯罪遠離了天主，天主卻並沒有放棄祂創造的肖像。雖然人類忘記了、否認了他們的創造主，但天父仍不離不棄，想盡辦法與人溝通，啟示自己，甚至為了償還人類的罪債，派遣聖子降生受難，幫助人類與祂和好，建立一個和平友愛的天國。耶穌用婚宴的象徵告訴我們，天父大排筵席，提供一個我們與祂和解的機會，成為自己人，分享祂豐富的、永恆的神聖生命。在第一篇讀經，依撒意亞先知給我們粗略地素描了這個「美酒佳餚的盛宴」是甚麽一回事。
第一，「上主要永遠取消死亡。」表面上取消死亡是指人類不再老死，人人都可以擁有用不完的時間，可以發揮潛能，可以實現夢想，做從前想做但沒有時間去做的事。其實，罪惡和死亡把天主和人隔絕了，「取消了死亡」表示天主主動打破祂與罪人之間的隔膜。耶穌斷氣時，聖所的帳幔從上到下分裂為二正展示出這個意義。天主要以耶穌的死永遠地取消死亡。
第二，「上主要從人人臉上拭去淚痕，消除一切恥辱。」在天國裡人人不再受日曬雨淋、沒有休息的奴隸之苦，不再有疾病，不再有流淚，不再有惡霸欺凌，人人豐衣足食。注意，不是「眼淚」而是「淚痕」，是過去了的傷痛。即是說，天主不是止痛藥，不是人民的鴉片。祂不但安慰我們目前的痛苦，而且徹底地，從每個人童年的陰影開始，掃除一切心靈上的創傷。
這一切將會在天主的聖山上實現。「天主的聖山」在那裡？聖保祿說，我們的身體是「聖神的宮殿」。身體最重要的部份是人的內心。所以，這聖山，這個天國就在我們的心內。這「聖山」又是天主聚集祂子民的地方，所以，這聖山，這個天國就是我們，就是教會團體。
教會按福音的精神去生活，並發展出一套放諸四海皆準的普世價值，例如慈善、公義、真理、自由、誠信、包容等。這些就是天主所預備了的佳餚美酒，用來滋養人性，好使埋藏在人心內的天主肖像，得以展現無遺。
在一眾普世價值之中，我想同大家講一講「自由」的重要。天主是自由的，祂的肖像當然是自由的。倘若人沒有自由，他的一切所作所為都是迫不得已的話，他還需要為他所做的事，所犯的錯負責嗎？人民有自由，就有可能「人盡其才、地盡其利、物盡其用、貨暢其流。」(孫文，上李鴻章萬言書，1894)發展他的潛能，展示天主的肖像。所以「自由、自主」是非常重要的。耶穌在若望福音指出，真理使人自由。可惜，當今社會，流傳著很多似是而非的謬論。我想幫大家分析其中兩個同天主教有關的謬論。
第一，耶穌說「凱撒的歸凱撒、天主的歸天主」。表面上，這段福音好像鼓吹「政教分離」。政治歸政府，宗教歸天主，河水不犯井水。但是，試問這世界有甚麽不是屬於天主的呢？連凱撒不也是歸於天主的嗎？那麽教會是否事事都干預政府的運作呢？當然不是。祗有當政府推行的政策，違反福音的精神，違反公義時候，天主的子民就不能袖手旁觀了。例如，近來平等機會委員會提出的反歧視條例修訂法案的諮詢文件，引入澳洲的「事實婚姻關係」的概念，將會把現時一夫一妻的家庭關係，破壞無遺，教會就不能坐視不理了。
第二，很多人誤會，以為天主教選教宗都不是一人一票，就沒有資格講民主。這真是一個荒謬的言論。難道男人不能懷孕生子，就沒有資格做婦產科醫生了嗎？所以，天主教徒絕對有資格講民主。
好了，讓我們回到福音的比喻。很奇怪，今天所讀的比喻中，國王擺酒竟然有人不賞面！這是甚麽意思呢？福音說「有的去耕田，有的去做自己的生意，有的竟捉住僕人，凌辱殺死。」這使我聯想起這半個月來發生的「去飲」事件。
因為各人的恩賜不同，不是人人都有本領站台、有時間在現場分派物資、維持秩序。有的人可以躲在家中，上網起底、作勵志歌曲或者為香港祈禱。各人就按自己的恩賜，共同建立天國。
另一方面，有些人寧願去耕田、去做生意，也不領國王的情去飲。今天，為了目前的經濟損失而反對佔中的，大有人在。福音中的國王也沒有勉強那些農夫和商人去飲。恨祇恨那些使用暴力和恐嚇手段，去撕裂社會的人，天主當然會與他們算帳。
最後，可能有人能夠欺世盜名，混水摸魚。但縱使他們能騙盡天下的人，他們始終都逃不過天主的審判，天主會把那些別具用心、言行不一，沒有穿禮服的人趕出天國。
各位，沒有人願意見到「去飲」會悲劇收場，但沒有人能想得出如何收拾殘局的好方法。讓我們謙遜地承認自己的不足，祈求天主大發慈悲，不要讓青年人受到無辜的傷害。
天主保佑。
28th Ordinary Sunday (Year A)
Theme: God throws a banquet for us
Preface: At the advice of Fr. Milanese, our parish priest, I watered down the homily and chose the wording more cautiously. He allowed me to speak freely whatever in my mind. I thank Fr. Milanese for his guidance and confidence in me.
We have heard a lot of news about “Go Banqueting”** in the past two weeks. Therefore, today, I would like to meditate its biblical meaning.
In Jesus’ time, the living standard of most of the people was low. Their life was poor and simple. At most, they could only afford to organize only one wedding banquet throughout their life. Going banqueting and eating to their full was not common, if not rare. Therefore, when Jesus uses the image of wedding banquet to describe the mystery of the Kingdom of Heaven, he wants to show the solemnity, nobility and rarity of the Kingdom.
Though men disobeyed God and rejected God, God had never abandoned the image He created. Though men forgot and denied their Creator, the Father had never forsaken us, trying hard to communicate and reveal Himself to us. He even sent His son to incarnate and died for us to repay our debts, to reconcile with us to build up a peaceful Kingdom of Love. Jesus makes use of the image of wedding banquet to tell us that God throws a party to provide an opportunity for our reconciliation with Him, to become an insider, to share His overflowing, eternal and sacred life. In the first reading today, Isaiah sketched a picture of what “a feast of fat things, a feast of wine on the lees” is all about. (Isaiah 25:6)
Firstly, “The Lord shall swallow up death forever” (25:8a). Superficially, swallowing up death may mean that men will no longer age and die. All possess infinite amount of time, to realize their potentials, to materialize their dreams and to do what they previously could not afford the time to do. Actually, sins and death cut men off from God. Therefore, swallowing up death means God will take the initiative to abolish the separation between Him and sinners. The moment Jesus died and gave up his spirit, the curtain of the Holy of the holies was torn from top to bottom into two. This illustrated the reconciliation between God and men. God made use of the death of Jesus to swallow up death forever.
Secondly, “the Lord God will wipe away tears from all faces, the reproach of His people, He will take away from all the earth” (25:8b). In the Kingdom of Heaven, people will not suffer in the scorching sun as slaves without a brief moment of rest. There will not be diseases, tears and bullies. Everybody is well-fed. The “tears” come not only from recent sufferings, but also sufferings in the past. God is not an instant pain-killer, not the opium of the people. Not only does God console our sufferings at the present moment, He will thoroughly, and starting from trauma in the childhood, clear and clean up pains in the heart.
All these will happen “on the mountain of the Lord of hosts” (25:6a). So, where is this holy mountain? St. Paul said, our body is the Temple of the Holy Spirit (1Corinthians 3:16). The most important part of the body is our heart. Therefore, this holy mountain, this Kingdom of Heaven dwells in our hearts. This holy mountain is where God gathers His people. Therefore, this holy mountain, this Kingdom of Heaven is the Church community.
The Church lives up the evangelical spirit from which she derives a collection of universal values which are applicable anywhere in the world. For example, beneficence, justice, truth, freedom, integrity and tolerance etc. These are the “fat things, the wine on the lees” God has prepared for us, to nourish our human nature so that the image of God which is buried in our heart might be able to shine off.
Among the universal values, I would like to talk about the importance of freedom. God is free. So His images should also be free. If a man were not free so that whatever he did was done out of necessity, would he be held responsible for the things, the sins he had done? If people are given freedom, “man can fully discharge his capability, land can fully yield its produce and things can fully be utilized and goods can fully circulate.” (Sun Yat-sen, Letter to Viceroy Li Hongzhang, 1894) Then people can fully realize their potentials and allow the image of God to shine out clearly. Jesus once said, “and the truth will make you free” (John 8:32) Unfortunately, many fallacies are floating around in the city of Hong Kong. Now, I would like to discuss two fallacies related to Catholicism.
Firstly, Jesus said, “Render unto Cæsar the things that are Cæsar’s, and to God the things that are God’s” (Mark 12:17) Superficially, this piece of gospel text seems to advocate the separation between the Church and the State: politics belongs to the government and religion to God. “River water does not mix with underground water”. However, tell me, what on earth does not belong to God? Nothing. Without exception, everything belongs to God, including Cæsar. Then, shall the Church meddle with every step in the running of the State? Of course not. Only when the policy of the State contradicts the evangelical spirit, contradicts justice, are Christians justified to intervene. For example, recently, the Equal Opportunities Commission is conducting the consultation of Anti-Discrimination legilation review. EOC introduces an Australian concept of “de facto relationships” which will undermine the family structure of one man and one wife. The Church cannot sit there like a duck.
Secondly, many people misunderstand that since the Pope is not elected through universal suffrage, Catholics are not qualified to talk about democracy. This is truly a fallacy. Wouldn’t it be that men cannot get pregnant and give birth to babies, therefore, men are not qualified to become a gynecologist and obstetrician? Therefore, the fact that the Pope was not voted in with one man one vote, does not disqualify Catholics from airing their views on democracy.
Now, let us return to the parable in the gospel (Matthew 22:1-14). Strangely enough, in the parable we read today, how come there were people who dared not giving face to the king by refusing to attain the king’s banquet (22:3, 5). What does that mean? The gospel reads, “... they went off, one to his farm, another to his business, while the rest seized his servants, treated them shamefully, and killed them.” (22:5-6) This made me think of what had happened to “Go Banqueting” in the past two weeks.
Since we are gifted differently, not everybody has the ability to address the crowd, has time to distribute the supplies or to maintain order etc. Some people can stay home to surf the Internet to dig up people’s background information, to write cheering songs or even to pray for Hong Kong. Everyone makes use of the charisma he receives from God to build up the Kingdom of Heaven.
On the other hand, some prefer going off to his farm, to his business and do not give face to the king by refusing to attend the banquet. Similarly, today, many people do not Go Banqueting because of the perceived financial losses. In the parable, the king did not force the farmers and businessmen to go banqueting. Rather, he was infuriated by those who used violence and intimidation to tear the society apart. God will surely make them pay for it.
Lastly, perhaps some people are successful in cheating the whole world, making a name and taking advantages. Although they might be able to fool the world, they will not be able to run away from God’s judgment. Woe to those who harbour ulterior motives, who do not practise what they speak, who do not go banqueting in wedding garments, God will expel them from the Kingdom of Heaven.
Dear brethren, nobody wants to see a tragic ending to the Go Banqueting, but nobody is able to come up with a good solution to the present situation. Let us humbly admit our inadequacy, pray for the mercy of God not to let our young people sustain unjustified injuries.
God bless.
**“Go Banqueting” is the code name of “Occupy Central Movement”, known internationally as the “Umbrella Revolution”
Sunday 5 October 2014
Whatever is true, whatever is just, think about these things
The Bible is reactionary to most governments. It should be included in the Index of Forbidden Books.
For example, the story of Exodus talks about the emancipation of Israelite slaves in Egypt. It inspires many wars of independence against colonial governments. Many prophets, from Samuel down to John the Baptist, Jesus Christ and his disciples, so called spokesmen of God, were troublemakers and accused kings of not doing the will of their God. They taught that the authority of kings was given by their God, putting a deity above kings and laws. In particular, Jesus taught his followers the so called Beatitudes, to use non-violence and non-cooperation to achieve their aims and promised them the Kingdom of Heaven. So, Christian loyalty is divided. They cannot be good and patriotic citizens. Today, we see many Christians and Cardinals supporting causes against their governments, making the population difficult to rule. In short, Christianity is a dangerous religion. It should be banned.
Unlike many other religions, Christianity demands its believers to get involved in their societies, to build a Kingdom of Heaven on earth. When people are satisfied with their livelihood, Christianity has no appeal. Christianity flourishes where people are being exploited. These people look for liberation, deliverance, redemption and Christianity promises them salvation, if not in this world, in heaven.
Most people are short-sighted and pragmatic. They want their daily bread. They care more about making their ends meet today than a fair society in the future. They are willing to be exploited so long as they are able to subsist. Adults are realistic. They are always ready to compromise. Just get back to normal asap, where normal means the usual daily exploitation they are suffering. An alien from outer space will be amused to see these mature creatures suffer so willingly! It will be amazed to see how the human nature can tolerate such flexibility. It is not at all a problem to abandon moral principles in order to survive, to meet their needs at this moment. Can this be the image of God? God must be very sad to see His image to be so defaced.
I am approaching my retirement. For the past 39 years, I have not achieved an open and fair society for the young people. I feel guilty to see the young people fighting for a fair society for themselves because we adults have failed to provide them one. We have not discharged our duties properly like the tenants in the parable of vineyard we read today (Matthew 21:33-46). May God judge us.
The OC is a new phenomenon in that the battle fields are not only the physical space but also the virtual space, thanks to the Internet. The rich and resourceful Goliath is playing on equal footing on the social networks with the meek David. The rich can mobilize many hired guns to provoke the non-violent underdogs and yet to little avail because the identities of those hired guns are quickly revealed, thanks to the Golden forum on the Internet. Conflicts in MK were orchestrated. Police was revealed to play both the good guys and the bad guys in provoking the peaceful demonstrators. A few hired extras played workers in the government HQ in front of TV cameras. Then our CE accused the OC protesters of blocking access to the government HQ so that 3000 civil servants were not able to render government services to the citizens. He issued an ultimatum, making Monday morning the deadline for protesters to open up the footbridge leading to the HQ. University vice-chancellors, professors, school principals called on their students to leave the HQ, fearing for their safety. Actually, these days, the government offices are still functioning. Supervisors instruct their staff to leave office at flexible hours after four. Do not leave at the same time for whatever reasons ...
The words of Isaiah and Philippians rang in my ears.
"... and he (Yahweh) looked for justice, but behold bloodshed; for righteousness, but behold, a cry!" (Isaiah 5:7b)
"Finally brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honourable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is gracious, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things." (Philippians 4:8)
Dear Lord, all things are possible for you. Remove this cup of wrath from us. Yet not what we want, but what you will. Amen.
For example, the story of Exodus talks about the emancipation of Israelite slaves in Egypt. It inspires many wars of independence against colonial governments. Many prophets, from Samuel down to John the Baptist, Jesus Christ and his disciples, so called spokesmen of God, were troublemakers and accused kings of not doing the will of their God. They taught that the authority of kings was given by their God, putting a deity above kings and laws. In particular, Jesus taught his followers the so called Beatitudes, to use non-violence and non-cooperation to achieve their aims and promised them the Kingdom of Heaven. So, Christian loyalty is divided. They cannot be good and patriotic citizens. Today, we see many Christians and Cardinals supporting causes against their governments, making the population difficult to rule. In short, Christianity is a dangerous religion. It should be banned.
Unlike many other religions, Christianity demands its believers to get involved in their societies, to build a Kingdom of Heaven on earth. When people are satisfied with their livelihood, Christianity has no appeal. Christianity flourishes where people are being exploited. These people look for liberation, deliverance, redemption and Christianity promises them salvation, if not in this world, in heaven.
Most people are short-sighted and pragmatic. They want their daily bread. They care more about making their ends meet today than a fair society in the future. They are willing to be exploited so long as they are able to subsist. Adults are realistic. They are always ready to compromise. Just get back to normal asap, where normal means the usual daily exploitation they are suffering. An alien from outer space will be amused to see these mature creatures suffer so willingly! It will be amazed to see how the human nature can tolerate such flexibility. It is not at all a problem to abandon moral principles in order to survive, to meet their needs at this moment. Can this be the image of God? God must be very sad to see His image to be so defaced.
I am approaching my retirement. For the past 39 years, I have not achieved an open and fair society for the young people. I feel guilty to see the young people fighting for a fair society for themselves because we adults have failed to provide them one. We have not discharged our duties properly like the tenants in the parable of vineyard we read today (Matthew 21:33-46). May God judge us.
The OC is a new phenomenon in that the battle fields are not only the physical space but also the virtual space, thanks to the Internet. The rich and resourceful Goliath is playing on equal footing on the social networks with the meek David. The rich can mobilize many hired guns to provoke the non-violent underdogs and yet to little avail because the identities of those hired guns are quickly revealed, thanks to the Golden forum on the Internet. Conflicts in MK were orchestrated. Police was revealed to play both the good guys and the bad guys in provoking the peaceful demonstrators. A few hired extras played workers in the government HQ in front of TV cameras. Then our CE accused the OC protesters of blocking access to the government HQ so that 3000 civil servants were not able to render government services to the citizens. He issued an ultimatum, making Monday morning the deadline for protesters to open up the footbridge leading to the HQ. University vice-chancellors, professors, school principals called on their students to leave the HQ, fearing for their safety. Actually, these days, the government offices are still functioning. Supervisors instruct their staff to leave office at flexible hours after four. Do not leave at the same time for whatever reasons ...
The words of Isaiah and Philippians rang in my ears.
"... and he (Yahweh) looked for justice, but behold bloodshed; for righteousness, but behold, a cry!" (Isaiah 5:7b)
"Finally brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honourable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is gracious, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things." (Philippians 4:8)
Dear Lord, all things are possible for you. Remove this cup of wrath from us. Yet not what we want, but what you will. Amen.
Wednesday 1 October 2014
OC no more
I thank God for bestowing on me an intelligent daughter. Over a glass of whisky, we discussed the current situation in Hong Kong, Occupy Central. But it is OC no more. Her analysis outgrows mine. I can rest contended.
The movement, sometimes known internationally as the Umbrella Revolution, becomes spontaneous. But it is not a revolution. The participants have no wish to overthrow the current regime. They do not want the Central Government to thrust CE candidates down their throats. They want real choices of CE candidates. Only then can universal suffrage be meaningful. Most people of Hong Kong don't want to become rubber stamps.
Anyway, the organizors of Occupy Central are no longer commanders of this movement which spills over to Causeway Bay, Tsim Sha Tsui and Mongkok. Journalists from BBC and CNN come to report it. Information Technology is fully made use of, FaceBook, WhatsApp and Twsitter etc. What about the supply line? People barbecued $12,000 of sausages to feed the protesters in Admiralty out of their own pockets. HKSAR realized that it was a blunder to send in riot police and to teargas the crowd. Now, they take a softy approach, hoping to wear the protesters down. The protesters may not last long, especially when they thin out to different parts of the city.
Of course, there are elements which worry people. Barbecues? It looks like a carnival. At the beginning, the organizers implicitly conjured up the image of Boston Tea Party by calling upon people to "attend a wedding banquet" as a code-name to occupy Central. The party merrying elements remind people of the early phase of June 4 massacre... Now, we see banners hanging over the footbridges declaring that this is not a party.
Moreover, the local TV stations are not truly autonomous in reporting. Some key messages of the OC organizers and student leaders are imperceptibly edited out in their news reports. This is understandable and I hope the IT literacy of the crowd is able to overcome this disadvantage.
Lastly, the shopkeepers and residents are annoyed. They lose business and are sometimes disturbed by the slogan chantings of the crowd. In fact, one of my students whom I enjoy talking on a par intellectually was emotionally disturbed when he saw me wearing a yellow ribbon in school. His father would be unable to seal a $500,000 deal because of the movement! I feel sorry about it. He, among many other honest business men, is an innocent collateral casualty. But who can be immune from suffering under an unfair government? Yesterday, he suffered. Today, you. Tomorrow, your son will! If you choose to suffer silently, it is your choice. But you cannot stop others from voicing their plights and to fight for their better future.
There is a lack of understanding especially among the elderly like me. I received WhatsApp messages, quoting a senior scholar who disagreed pessimistically with what the young people are doing on the ground. He is an admirable armchair historian. Though history almost always repeats itself, we can see a lot of encouraging elements in the movement. Young people collect rubbish on the ground. People are truly peaceful and even stop other from charging against the police. They are rational. When the ambulance services request the crowd to open up a through lane for emergency vehicles, it is done. Hong Kong is well known internationally as a city of demonstrations. We are proud of our peaceful and environmentally friendly demonstrations. We can be exemplars.
I invoked the Archangels on September 29. I will call upon the Guardian Angels tomorrow. And I can see that God is answering our prayers. May God be glorified forever and ever. Amen.
The movement, sometimes known internationally as the Umbrella Revolution, becomes spontaneous. But it is not a revolution. The participants have no wish to overthrow the current regime. They do not want the Central Government to thrust CE candidates down their throats. They want real choices of CE candidates. Only then can universal suffrage be meaningful. Most people of Hong Kong don't want to become rubber stamps.
Anyway, the organizors of Occupy Central are no longer commanders of this movement which spills over to Causeway Bay, Tsim Sha Tsui and Mongkok. Journalists from BBC and CNN come to report it. Information Technology is fully made use of, FaceBook, WhatsApp and Twsitter etc. What about the supply line? People barbecued $12,000 of sausages to feed the protesters in Admiralty out of their own pockets. HKSAR realized that it was a blunder to send in riot police and to teargas the crowd. Now, they take a softy approach, hoping to wear the protesters down. The protesters may not last long, especially when they thin out to different parts of the city.
Of course, there are elements which worry people. Barbecues? It looks like a carnival. At the beginning, the organizers implicitly conjured up the image of Boston Tea Party by calling upon people to "attend a wedding banquet" as a code-name to occupy Central. The party merrying elements remind people of the early phase of June 4 massacre... Now, we see banners hanging over the footbridges declaring that this is not a party.
Moreover, the local TV stations are not truly autonomous in reporting. Some key messages of the OC organizers and student leaders are imperceptibly edited out in their news reports. This is understandable and I hope the IT literacy of the crowd is able to overcome this disadvantage.
Lastly, the shopkeepers and residents are annoyed. They lose business and are sometimes disturbed by the slogan chantings of the crowd. In fact, one of my students whom I enjoy talking on a par intellectually was emotionally disturbed when he saw me wearing a yellow ribbon in school. His father would be unable to seal a $500,000 deal because of the movement! I feel sorry about it. He, among many other honest business men, is an innocent collateral casualty. But who can be immune from suffering under an unfair government? Yesterday, he suffered. Today, you. Tomorrow, your son will! If you choose to suffer silently, it is your choice. But you cannot stop others from voicing their plights and to fight for their better future.
There is a lack of understanding especially among the elderly like me. I received WhatsApp messages, quoting a senior scholar who disagreed pessimistically with what the young people are doing on the ground. He is an admirable armchair historian. Though history almost always repeats itself, we can see a lot of encouraging elements in the movement. Young people collect rubbish on the ground. People are truly peaceful and even stop other from charging against the police. They are rational. When the ambulance services request the crowd to open up a through lane for emergency vehicles, it is done. Hong Kong is well known internationally as a city of demonstrations. We are proud of our peaceful and environmentally friendly demonstrations. We can be exemplars.
I invoked the Archangels on September 29. I will call upon the Guardian Angels tomorrow. And I can see that God is answering our prayers. May God be glorified forever and ever. Amen.
Sunday 28 September 2014
OC was prematurely launched
Let me state my beliefs.
First of all, I believe in a God of freedom. God is free in doing whatever emerges in His mind. When God created men in His image, God took a certain risk but it was worthwhile. Man is like God in many ways, e.g. his creativity and his freedom. Freedom is important in at least two ways. One, with freedom, man is able to fully develop his potentials. Two, man is responsible for the choices he freely makes. Therefore, a political system that promotes or permits freedom is beneficial for men. Democracy is not a perfect political system. It has its flaws but it is relatively better than other repressive totalitarian systems.
Secondly, I believe in a God who cares about His creatures, especially mankind. The God I believe in actively involves Himself in human history. God is the true master behind human history. It is His intention to help the poor and the oppressed and God is powerful enough to transform evil and sufferings into blessings. Without His permission, nothing can happen.
Thirdly, I do not fancy that the Communists would permit democracy for the political reform in Hong Kong, viz. allowing universal suffrage to elect the Chief Executive. How can you expect democracy from the Communists when they lack democracy. It is something alien and they fear that their grip on power would be destroyed by democracy. The Communists would never let go of their power because they do not have confidence in the people they rule and they would not have any chance to make money when their power is gone. When there is no democracy, there is no balance and check on their tendency to abuse power for corruption.
After stating my basic beliefs, I would like to make the following observations.
First of all, the organizers of OC are academics. They are too idealistic and inexperienced in organizing people. Their logistic is poor. My ex-engineer brother teases them that these organizers have only told the protesters to bring along rain coat, water, digestives and goggles but have not arranged temporary toilet facilities for the protesters! Some people accused them of naivety. Their political reform proposal has been "hijacked" by radical democrats etc. Now, they were forced to start OC prematurely. The students told the OC organizers that they had given them a hope. Now that the students were provoked to turn their class boycott into something more radical. Where are you adults? What have you done to fight for a true universal suffrage etc. This movement was doomed to fail from the very beginning. Once started, it would soon be out of their control.
Secondly, many adults blame the organizers for exploiting the young people, making them as their front-line soldiers while they remain safely in their comfort zone. I think this accusation is unfair to our younger generation. I think the new DSE syllabus is good in that it provides Liberal Studies to train our students to build up their independent thinking and presentation skills. Our last batch of AL students felt threatened by their juniors who had studied Liberal Studies. When students from the old syllabus met their S.6 counterparts, they found that their juniors were more outspoken and confident. From this. I conclude that our young people can be more mature and independent in their thoughts than some of our adults. Thank you, Liberal Studies.
Thirdly, I would rather blame the government for such an eventuality. To handle such a volatile situation, the police should dissipate the emotion of the crowd, channel it elsewhere instead of blocking it and provoking it. They are playing with fire!
Which of the two sons did the will of the father? (Matthew 21:31) Who are the hypocrites and who have repented?
Dear Lord, send Your Archangels to protect the people and shine Your glory upon us. Amen.
First of all, I believe in a God of freedom. God is free in doing whatever emerges in His mind. When God created men in His image, God took a certain risk but it was worthwhile. Man is like God in many ways, e.g. his creativity and his freedom. Freedom is important in at least two ways. One, with freedom, man is able to fully develop his potentials. Two, man is responsible for the choices he freely makes. Therefore, a political system that promotes or permits freedom is beneficial for men. Democracy is not a perfect political system. It has its flaws but it is relatively better than other repressive totalitarian systems.
Secondly, I believe in a God who cares about His creatures, especially mankind. The God I believe in actively involves Himself in human history. God is the true master behind human history. It is His intention to help the poor and the oppressed and God is powerful enough to transform evil and sufferings into blessings. Without His permission, nothing can happen.
Thirdly, I do not fancy that the Communists would permit democracy for the political reform in Hong Kong, viz. allowing universal suffrage to elect the Chief Executive. How can you expect democracy from the Communists when they lack democracy. It is something alien and they fear that their grip on power would be destroyed by democracy. The Communists would never let go of their power because they do not have confidence in the people they rule and they would not have any chance to make money when their power is gone. When there is no democracy, there is no balance and check on their tendency to abuse power for corruption.
After stating my basic beliefs, I would like to make the following observations.
First of all, the organizers of OC are academics. They are too idealistic and inexperienced in organizing people. Their logistic is poor. My ex-engineer brother teases them that these organizers have only told the protesters to bring along rain coat, water, digestives and goggles but have not arranged temporary toilet facilities for the protesters! Some people accused them of naivety. Their political reform proposal has been "hijacked" by radical democrats etc. Now, they were forced to start OC prematurely. The students told the OC organizers that they had given them a hope. Now that the students were provoked to turn their class boycott into something more radical. Where are you adults? What have you done to fight for a true universal suffrage etc. This movement was doomed to fail from the very beginning. Once started, it would soon be out of their control.
Secondly, many adults blame the organizers for exploiting the young people, making them as their front-line soldiers while they remain safely in their comfort zone. I think this accusation is unfair to our younger generation. I think the new DSE syllabus is good in that it provides Liberal Studies to train our students to build up their independent thinking and presentation skills. Our last batch of AL students felt threatened by their juniors who had studied Liberal Studies. When students from the old syllabus met their S.6 counterparts, they found that their juniors were more outspoken and confident. From this. I conclude that our young people can be more mature and independent in their thoughts than some of our adults. Thank you, Liberal Studies.
Thirdly, I would rather blame the government for such an eventuality. To handle such a volatile situation, the police should dissipate the emotion of the crowd, channel it elsewhere instead of blocking it and provoking it. They are playing with fire!
Which of the two sons did the will of the father? (Matthew 21:31) Who are the hypocrites and who have repented?
Dear Lord, send Your Archangels to protect the people and shine Your glory upon us. Amen.
Sunday 21 September 2014
Is God being unfair (II)?
Three years ago, September 18, it was also the 25th Ordinary Sunday, Year A. I wrote a blog entitled "Is God being unfair?" Today, I thank God for allowing me to write again on the same topic. So, I entitled it "Is God being unfair (II)?" and renamed the previous one "Is God being unfair (I)?".
It is a grace of God that I can continue to reason and write because no matter how talented one is (I am not), one's health can only go in one direction. When I was younger, I was aggressive. I wanted to win. I wanted to get things done brilliantly. At this moment, I have lost that kind of passion. It no longer matters whether I win or not win. I am entering the rank of senior citizens.
In the parable, God seems to be guilty of creating in the first batch of workers a reasonable expectation which turned out to be unreasonable. I would defend God, arguing that this expectation came from a shaky moral principle. From another perspective, God wants to cure them of a utilitarian mentality which is very prevalent nowadays in Hong Kong --- people deserve to be rewarded more when they work more. Many Hong Kong citizens condemn newly arrived Chinese immigrants for collecting Comprehensive Social Security Allowance. They argue that these immigrants have not contributed to the economy of Hong Kong. Therefore, these immigrants do not deserve the benefits. Moreover, they will drain away our precious resources etc. Unfortunately, many people buy this idea because they see their "benefits" being rubbed. They see the immigrants as rivals rather than family members. Aren't we all Chinese? No. mainlanders are Communists! My overseas readers will be amazed by the in-fighting among us Chinese. No wonder Chinese have been colonized for more than two hundred years.
To illustrate the teaching of the poverty beatitude (Matthew 5:3), Jesus teaches us to pray to the Heavenly Father for our daily bread (6:11). Yes, daily. We trust that God will provide. Therefore, do not worry about tomorrow (6:34). There is no need to ask for a week's bread or a month's in advance. They will not be fresh anymore! In Jesus' time, a denarius is the wage of a day's labour, enough to feed a family. When the first batch of workers grumbled and wanted more, perhaps they wanted to save an extra denarius for tomorrow. That seems reasonable for most Hong Kong people. But perhaps they did not want to work the next day. Or they wanted a more secured retirement etc. In short, they felt insecure. They did not have faith in the owner, in God. In such case, nothing in the world would ever make them feel safe. God's providence is enough or rather more than enough to meet our needs because God is generous.
Some people were born lucky. They were talented and raised in well-off families with lucrative networks in the society. These people became successful early in their lives. People they met were less competent and less successful. Some might even losers throughout their lives. I am not suggesting categorizing people into different classes. Nor do I want to put the blame on the society for crimes people commit. Everybody is an image of God and like God we are free agents. We are free to make choices and we have to bear the consequences of our choices. This is our responsibility.
Since we live in a society, we expect fairness. We want a fair share of resources and opportunities. We don't want to be deprived of what is due us. Here lies the gap between God and men. God's righteousness is not man's justice. Righteousness for God is His salvation (various passages from Psalms and Isaiah). If God does not save us, it is for Him unrighteousness. For men, we want a fair share of rewards. So, God and man are speaking different languages here. So, when God calls us "friend" (Matthew 20:13), does God mean "friend" as we mean? Among the people called "friend" by God in Matthew, we have this unreasonable worker, an improperly prepared guest at the King's banquet (22:12) and lastly Judas (26:50).
What can we say? I am sure God wants to befriend us and to love us. Somehow, some people are more attracted by Him, some not. Some answer God's call early in their lives, some as late as at their last hour. This parable tells us not to be jealous of Jesus' generosity to one of the thieves who confessed Jesus' kingship while the other one cursed Jesus (Luke 23:39-43). The thief who cursed Jesus perhaps was harbouring an unreasonable expectation on Jesus like the first batch of workers. Therefore, the moral of this parable perhaps is to warn us of unreasonable expectations on God's reward. Trust Jesus. God will provide.
Dear Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom. Amen.
It is a grace of God that I can continue to reason and write because no matter how talented one is (I am not), one's health can only go in one direction. When I was younger, I was aggressive. I wanted to win. I wanted to get things done brilliantly. At this moment, I have lost that kind of passion. It no longer matters whether I win or not win. I am entering the rank of senior citizens.
In the parable, God seems to be guilty of creating in the first batch of workers a reasonable expectation which turned out to be unreasonable. I would defend God, arguing that this expectation came from a shaky moral principle. From another perspective, God wants to cure them of a utilitarian mentality which is very prevalent nowadays in Hong Kong --- people deserve to be rewarded more when they work more. Many Hong Kong citizens condemn newly arrived Chinese immigrants for collecting Comprehensive Social Security Allowance. They argue that these immigrants have not contributed to the economy of Hong Kong. Therefore, these immigrants do not deserve the benefits. Moreover, they will drain away our precious resources etc. Unfortunately, many people buy this idea because they see their "benefits" being rubbed. They see the immigrants as rivals rather than family members. Aren't we all Chinese? No. mainlanders are Communists! My overseas readers will be amazed by the in-fighting among us Chinese. No wonder Chinese have been colonized for more than two hundred years.
To illustrate the teaching of the poverty beatitude (Matthew 5:3), Jesus teaches us to pray to the Heavenly Father for our daily bread (6:11). Yes, daily. We trust that God will provide. Therefore, do not worry about tomorrow (6:34). There is no need to ask for a week's bread or a month's in advance. They will not be fresh anymore! In Jesus' time, a denarius is the wage of a day's labour, enough to feed a family. When the first batch of workers grumbled and wanted more, perhaps they wanted to save an extra denarius for tomorrow. That seems reasonable for most Hong Kong people. But perhaps they did not want to work the next day. Or they wanted a more secured retirement etc. In short, they felt insecure. They did not have faith in the owner, in God. In such case, nothing in the world would ever make them feel safe. God's providence is enough or rather more than enough to meet our needs because God is generous.
Some people were born lucky. They were talented and raised in well-off families with lucrative networks in the society. These people became successful early in their lives. People they met were less competent and less successful. Some might even losers throughout their lives. I am not suggesting categorizing people into different classes. Nor do I want to put the blame on the society for crimes people commit. Everybody is an image of God and like God we are free agents. We are free to make choices and we have to bear the consequences of our choices. This is our responsibility.
Since we live in a society, we expect fairness. We want a fair share of resources and opportunities. We don't want to be deprived of what is due us. Here lies the gap between God and men. God's righteousness is not man's justice. Righteousness for God is His salvation (various passages from Psalms and Isaiah). If God does not save us, it is for Him unrighteousness. For men, we want a fair share of rewards. So, God and man are speaking different languages here. So, when God calls us "friend" (Matthew 20:13), does God mean "friend" as we mean? Among the people called "friend" by God in Matthew, we have this unreasonable worker, an improperly prepared guest at the King's banquet (22:12) and lastly Judas (26:50).
What can we say? I am sure God wants to befriend us and to love us. Somehow, some people are more attracted by Him, some not. Some answer God's call early in their lives, some as late as at their last hour. This parable tells us not to be jealous of Jesus' generosity to one of the thieves who confessed Jesus' kingship while the other one cursed Jesus (Luke 23:39-43). The thief who cursed Jesus perhaps was harbouring an unreasonable expectation on Jesus like the first batch of workers. Therefore, the moral of this parable perhaps is to warn us of unreasonable expectations on God's reward. Trust Jesus. God will provide.
Dear Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom. Amen.
Sunday 14 September 2014
光榮十字架與政改 To carry one’s own cross in the daily life
光榮十字聖架慶節
主題：在生活中背負自己的十字架
二千年前，聖保祿宗徒面對一個嚴峻的問題，而他的問題也是歷代基督徒要回答的問題：就是「基督徒憑甚麽可以令羅馬帝國的統治者，或者是當代的統治者，相信天主是存在的，天主是全能的，天主是美善的，天主特別對人類是慈愛的呢？」保祿是猶太人，猶太人深信梅瑟頒布的誡命是從天主來的，所以是最偉大的，最幫助他們得救的，最能指導他們如何過日常生活的。可是，保祿所愛護的誡命可以說服統治者嗎？如果這些誡命真是有效，猶太人為甚麽會亡國，會淪為羅馬殖民地呢？
你知道聖保祿的答案嗎？他的答案竟然是十字架。注意，在二千年前的羅馬帝國，十字架不單是令人聞風喪膽的死刑，而且還是對死囚極盡凌辱的能事。所以，用十字架令世人相信天主的全能，天主的慈愛，的確是匪夷所思。今天正值光榮十字架慶節，就讓我們默想十字架的奧妙。
【創世紀】用一個神話故事，表達人類生存的矛盾和罪惡的本質。人是按天主的肖像所造，具有天主的潛質。所以，人不甘心屈就在「受造物界」之中，不甘心祗是當大自然的管家(創1：26)。人類渴望與天主平起平坐，自己做天主。這就是人類生存的矛盾。【創世紀】再用「食禁果」的故事，說明罪惡的本質。罪不但令人懷疑天主對我們的慈愛，破壞了人與天主的關係，更進一步破壞人與人，人與大自然的和諧關係。原本是相稱的助手，反而成為推卸責任的替死鬼。罪惡帶來了痛苦，人要勞苦到汗流浹背纔有飯吃，女人和丈夫不能夠和諧地生活；而天主亦在迫不得已的情況下，引入死亡，暫時限制著罪惡的擴散。一個天主看了認為好的世界，一夜之間被罪惡污染成荊棘遍地的煉獄（創3）。但為長遠計，天主要想辦法徹底地消滅罪惡。天主是不會輕易放棄擁有祂的肖像的人類的。祂會不惜任何代價去拯救人類。這一個也就是天主的死穴，就是聖保祿後來所說的天主的愚妄、天主的懦弱。
罪惡的破壞力既有兩個向度，一個天主與人上下的向度，一個人與人橫面的向度；所以天主就決定以十字架，一個既縱且橫，令人聞風喪膽的刑具，來消滅罪惡，並償還一切罪債。其實十字架本身並沒有甚麽了不起的威力。配戴十字架並不能為你辟邪，不能為你擋刦，不能為你消災解難。十字架的威力來自天主的慈愛，來自釘在它上的耶穌基督。天主親身降生成人，為人頂罪，死在十字架上，償還一切罪債。再由死者中復活，徹底消滅死亡，賜予我們永生。今天第二篇讀經是聖保祿所寫的一首讚美耶穌基督的詩歌。當人類驕傲地想變成天主的時候，天主反而謙遜地空虛自己，取了奴僕的形體變成人。當人類不服從天主的命令時，耶穌反而服從至死，且死在十字架上。人類失敗之處，耶穌以人的身份幫助我們完成了（斐2：6-8）。
聖保祿很清楚明白宣講被釘的基督的困難。他曾經說過十字架為猶太人是絆腳石，為外邦人是愚妄。但他相信在聽眾之中總有蒙召的人。而為蒙召的人，十字架上的基督顯示了天主的德能，天主的智慧。聖保祿很肯定地說天主的愚妄總比人明智，天主的懦弱也總比人堅強（格前1：23-25）。
環看今天有關政改的爭論，基督徒逼不得已，不能置身事外，不能緘默。表面上，基督徒與當權者周旋，強弱懸殊，根本沒有招架之力。當雙方都抱著不是你死便是我亡，不能輸的心態，試問又怎會有好的結果呢？基督徒好像忘記了天主是歷史的主宰，是天主令埃及的法魯王心硬，令埃及的戰車在紅海全軍覆沒。我們忘記了耶穌基督與當權者周旋的榜樣，忘記了天主的愚妄，忘記了天主的懦弱，忘記了耶穌愛仇人的教訓，忘記了那些奉承主子的政客也有天主的肖像。
宣講是容易的，實踐纔顯出真功夫。宣講十字架的道理有怎麽難，難就難在實踐十字架的道理。耶穌曾教訓門徒說：「誰若願意跟隨我，該棄絕自己，背著自己的十字架，跟隨我。」（谷8：34）你和我有各自的十字架，各有各與天主、與人的關係上的困難。我們會因事業上的挫折、疾病和種種不幸怨限天主，懷疑天主；我會因人與人之間的恩恩怨怨而忿恨、執著、鬱鬱不得志。耶穌教我們用神貧、哀慟，溫良、飢渴慕義（即渴求天主的救恩）作為待人接物的態度；以憐憫（即寬恕仇人）、心裡潔淨（即目標專一，不會看風駛艃，知不可為而為）、締造和平（即修和），最後為義而忍受迫害作為在世建設天國的奮鬥目標，生活出基督徒作為地上的鹽與世界之光的使命呢。耶穌應許我們獲得天國，獲得天主的安慰，承受土地，獲得天主的憐憫寬恕，享見天主，成為天主的子女。我們輸得起嗎？我們可以接受政改失敗嗎？我們可以放下執著，設身處地體會當權者內心的恐懼嗎？
今天我們慶祝光榮十字架，因為它戰勝了人間的罪惡。讓十字架的道理，真福八端的生活取向，幫助我們認清在政改問題上、醫療、住屋、全民退保等民生問題上、社會公義問題上、國際販賣人口、恐怖主義等問題上，天主的旨意是甚麽。讓我們謙遜地服從天父的聖意。亞孟。天主保佑。
Feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross
Theme: To carry one’s own cross in the daily life
Two thousand years ago, St. Paul had to handle a challenging problem which Christians of all generations likewise have to answer, “With what can Christians make the rulers of the state believe that God exists, that God is almighty and good and that God is merciful to mankind in particular?” Paul was a Jew and Jews believed that the commandments they lived by were given by God, were the best and helped them attain salvation and guided them in their daily life. However, would these commandments convince the state rulers? Obviously not. Had these commandments been effective, the Jews would not have been conquered and Judaea had become a Roman colony.
Do you know the solution of Paul? The Cross! Notice that 2000 years ago, crucifixion was not only a torture that scared people to death, the cross was also a public display of shame on the part of the condemned. So, making use of the cross to convince people of the omnipotence and mercy of God was mind-boggling. Today is the Feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross. Let us meditate the mystery of the cross.
It all began with the myth of the Creation of mankind in Genesis. The myth expresses the existential contradictions of mankind and the nature of sins. According to Genesis, man was created in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 1:26). Man has God’s potentials. Therefore, man was reluctant to remain in the realm of creatures. Man felt unfulfilled to be the steward of the universe only. Man desired to be equal to God, to take the place of God. These are the existential contradictions of human existence. Genesis 3 continues to tell the myth of the Forbidden Fruit to articulate the nature of sins. Sins cast a shadow of doubt over God’s love for mankind, thus soured the relationship between God and men. Furthermore, sins destroyed the harmonious relations among men and between man and the universe. The fit helper God made for man had turned into a scapegoat for blame. Sins brought in sufferings. Man had to labour until his face sweat before he could eat. Woman and her husband could not lead a harmonious life. God had no choice but to bring in death to contain the spread of sins. A world which God had seen to be good turned into a hell of thorns overnight. In the long run, God had to think of a way to destroy evil completely. God would not easily abandon mankind who possess His image. God would redeem mankind at all costs. This is the Achilles’ heel of God. This is also what subsequently Paul called the foolishness of God, the weakness of God.
The destructiveness of sins has two dimensions, a vertical one between God and men and a horizontal one between man and his fellow men. Therefore, God decided to use a dreadful cross, which is made of a vertical as well as a horizontal bars, to destroy evil and to repay all its prices. As a matter of fact, the cross has no miraculous power in itself. Wearing it would not ward off demons, nor unlucky events. The power of the cross comes from the love of God, from Jesus Christ who was crucified on it. God incarnated to become a man, to die for mankind on the cross to repay all the prices. Then he came back to life to annihilate death completely and to give us eternal life. The second reading today is a hymn St. Paul wrote in praise of Jesus Christ. When man arrogantly wanted to play God, God humbly emptied Himself, took the image of a slave to become man. When man disobeyed God, Jesus obeyed unto death, even death on a cross. What man has failed, Jesus accomplishes as a man (Philippians 2:6-8).
St. Paul understood clearly the difficulty of proclaiming the crucified Christ. Once he said that to the Jews, the crucified Christ is a stumbling block and to Gentiles, a folly. But he believed that among his audience, there had to be someone called and elected. For the called, the crucified Christ is the power and the wisdom of God. St. Paul firmly believed that the foolishness of God is wiser than men and the weakness of God is stronger than men. (1Corinthians 1:23-25)
Take a look at the political reform controversy today. Reluctantly Christians could not stay out of the issue, could not remain reticent. On the surface, Christians are on the losing side of the engagement with the rulers of the state. They do not have the power and the resources. But when both sides are locked into a mortal combat with a mind that refuses to lose, what good can come out? Christians, have you forgotten that your God is the master of human history? It was He who hardened Pharaoh’s heart and consequently annihilated all his chariots in the Red Sea. Have you forgotten how Jesus engaged with the Jewish and Roman authorities during his Passion, forgotten the foolishness and weakness of God, forgotten Jesus’ teaching to love your enemies and forgotten the image of God in those political shoe-shiners?
Words are easier said than done. Living the truth is what makes a Christian true. Proclamation of the truth of the cross is not difficult. What is difficult is to put it into practice. Jesus said to his disciple, “If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.” (Mark 8:34) You and me have our own crosses, all kind of difficulties in the relations with God and with men. We would doubt God, curse God for frustrations in career, for sicknesses and all sorts of misfortunes. We would be angry, would refuse to let go and would lose hope in all sorts of inter-personal estrangements. Jesus taught us to be poor in spirit, be mournful, be meek and hungry for God’s justice, i.e. God’s salvation, as our attitudes in inter-personal interactions; to show mercy, (i.e. to forgive your enemy), to be pure in heart, (i.e. will not be easily swayed by circumstances and give up, to persist despite slim chances), to make peace (i.e. to reconcile), and at last to be persecuted for building the Kingdom of Heaven on earth, to live up the Christians mission as the salt on earth and the light of the world. Jesus has promised us the Kingdom of Heaven, the consolation from God, the inheritance of land, the forgiveness of God, the beatific vision of God and sonship of God. Can we afford to lose? Can we accept the failure of political reform? Can we put down our insistence and put ourselves in the shoes of state rulers to feel their fears?
We celebrate the Exaltation of the Holy Cross today because it has conquered the evils on earth. Let the truth of the cross, the option of the Beatitudes help us discern the will of God in political reform, in medicine, housing, universal pension, social justice, international human trafficking and terrorism etc. Let us humbly submit to the will of the Father. Amen.
God bless.
Sunday 7 September 2014
Forgiveness within the Church
Before we proceed to deal with the theme of the three readings today, let me settle a curious detail --- the order of the Ten Commandments. Nowadays, the order we know goes like this: ... thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not commit adultery, thou shall not steal, thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour, thou shalt not covet ... etc. (Exodus 20:13-17, Deuteronomy 5:17-21). Even between Exodus and Deuteronomy, there is a variation between Exodus 20:17 and Deuteronomy 5:21. Even here, it is difficult to defend the position that Moses wrote the whole of Torah. If he did, he must have been a rather poor proofreader because it is easy to spot inconsistent texts within the Pentateuch.
I have to confess that despise teaching the gospel of Mark for more than 35 years, I allow an instance of inconsistency to tease me right under my nose for so many years without noticing it! I discovered it only last night and it was rather indirect. The offending verse came from Romans 13:9. Suddenly, I noticed that the Pharisaic Paul wrote adultery, kill, steal, false witness and covet. Why? Was there any significance?
Then it dawned to me that there are also similar lists of the Ten Commandments in the gospels (Mark 10:19, Luke 18:20 and Matthew 19:18). Like Paul who wrote to Gentiles, Mark and Luke began with "adultery". Matthew begins with "kill". The discrepancy can be traced to LXX. In the Greek translation of Exodus and Deuteronomy, "adultery" goes before "kill"! Again, Exodus and Deuteronomy differ, not just in the explanation of Sabbath, but also the order of the commandments. Exodus goes like this: adultery, steal, kill, false witness, covet ...
Deuteronomy: adultery, kill, steal, false witness, covet ...
Therefore, the authors of the New Testament followed the order of Deuteronomy, except for Matthew who wrote for Jewish Christians.
The logical follow-up question to ask is why LXX translated the Ten Commandments in an order different from the Hebrew text such as MT? This is an interesting project which this limited space cannot contain. I had better return to the main theme of the three Sunday readings.
Ezekiel 33:8-9 make it the duty of believers to warn their brothers of God's punishments for the wrong things they are doing. If we evade this duty or tell a white lie out of embarrassment, God will hold us responsible for the blood of our brothers. Our duty is communal, like the duty of a watchman warning the people of the approach of enemies (vv.33:2-6). This is the basis for the teaching in Matthew 18:15-17.
In his homily, Deacon Tsang brought our attention to a similar passage in Luke 17:3-4. The treatments of the issue are totally different. Luke took forgiveness personally while Matthew communally. Matthew's approach is the same as Ezekiel's. It is for the good of the community that we reconcile. Like what Paul teaches in the Romans, love fulfills all commandments. So, it should be out of love that we reconcile. We reconcile for the good of our brothers.
In reality, our brothers may be stubborn and irreconcilable. So, Matthew outlines the procedure of reconciliation. Assuming that you are on the right side and your brother "sins against you". If you are on the wrong side, of course you should be the one to apologize. But I don't think Matthew intends to talk about personal grudges. If it were and you brought the Church in to fight on your side against your brother, it would be an abuse of church authority. You outnumber your brother with the Church. God forbids! Of course, every believer should be a peacemaker, an ambassador of reconciliation and the Church as a whole should also work as a peacemaker and ambassador of reconciliation in the world. There is no doubt about it.
If the whole issue escalates to the Church level, it must be something about faith and morality. The teaching of the Church, the Magisterium has the final say. Does "treating him as a Gentile and tax-collector (v.18:17)" mean excommunication? Not quite. Matthew himself had been a tax-collector before following Jesus and Gentiles were targets of evangelization. Excommunication is out-of-fashion nowadays. We should keep the dialogue open. A day will come for our reconciliation.
Another line of argument against understanding the conflict on the personal level comes from v.18:18. In v.16:19, Simon Peter was given the keys of the kingdom of heaven and the authority to bind and to loose. Without v.18:18, Peter's personal power is absolute. With v.18:18, the authority to forgive is also shared by the Church. Therefore, it is impossible to interpret the whole text on the personal level, Though it is understandable that if I forgive my brother, heaven forgives because God requires us to forgive, it is mind-boggling if I refuse to forgive, I am able to mobilize the heavenly court to bind my brother! How can it be possible? It is impossible, unless it is the Church. Verse 18:20 gives us the answer. Jesus is in our midst when we gather in his name. Then the Church is able to define her articles of faith and morality. A single person cannot form a community, a community of the redeemed, the Church.
Dear Jesus, I am sorry for all the controversies and division among us. I am sorry for my arrogance and pride. Forgive me for I have offend my brethren with my arrogance and if I have become the cause of divisions, cut me short. Amen.
I have to confess that despise teaching the gospel of Mark for more than 35 years, I allow an instance of inconsistency to tease me right under my nose for so many years without noticing it! I discovered it only last night and it was rather indirect. The offending verse came from Romans 13:9. Suddenly, I noticed that the Pharisaic Paul wrote adultery, kill, steal, false witness and covet. Why? Was there any significance?
Then it dawned to me that there are also similar lists of the Ten Commandments in the gospels (Mark 10:19, Luke 18:20 and Matthew 19:18). Like Paul who wrote to Gentiles, Mark and Luke began with "adultery". Matthew begins with "kill". The discrepancy can be traced to LXX. In the Greek translation of Exodus and Deuteronomy, "adultery" goes before "kill"! Again, Exodus and Deuteronomy differ, not just in the explanation of Sabbath, but also the order of the commandments. Exodus goes like this: adultery, steal, kill, false witness, covet ...
Deuteronomy: adultery, kill, steal, false witness, covet ...
Therefore, the authors of the New Testament followed the order of Deuteronomy, except for Matthew who wrote for Jewish Christians.
The logical follow-up question to ask is why LXX translated the Ten Commandments in an order different from the Hebrew text such as MT? This is an interesting project which this limited space cannot contain. I had better return to the main theme of the three Sunday readings.
Ezekiel 33:8-9 make it the duty of believers to warn their brothers of God's punishments for the wrong things they are doing. If we evade this duty or tell a white lie out of embarrassment, God will hold us responsible for the blood of our brothers. Our duty is communal, like the duty of a watchman warning the people of the approach of enemies (vv.33:2-6). This is the basis for the teaching in Matthew 18:15-17.
In his homily, Deacon Tsang brought our attention to a similar passage in Luke 17:3-4. The treatments of the issue are totally different. Luke took forgiveness personally while Matthew communally. Matthew's approach is the same as Ezekiel's. It is for the good of the community that we reconcile. Like what Paul teaches in the Romans, love fulfills all commandments. So, it should be out of love that we reconcile. We reconcile for the good of our brothers.
In reality, our brothers may be stubborn and irreconcilable. So, Matthew outlines the procedure of reconciliation. Assuming that you are on the right side and your brother "sins against you". If you are on the wrong side, of course you should be the one to apologize. But I don't think Matthew intends to talk about personal grudges. If it were and you brought the Church in to fight on your side against your brother, it would be an abuse of church authority. You outnumber your brother with the Church. God forbids! Of course, every believer should be a peacemaker, an ambassador of reconciliation and the Church as a whole should also work as a peacemaker and ambassador of reconciliation in the world. There is no doubt about it.
If the whole issue escalates to the Church level, it must be something about faith and morality. The teaching of the Church, the Magisterium has the final say. Does "treating him as a Gentile and tax-collector (v.18:17)" mean excommunication? Not quite. Matthew himself had been a tax-collector before following Jesus and Gentiles were targets of evangelization. Excommunication is out-of-fashion nowadays. We should keep the dialogue open. A day will come for our reconciliation.
Another line of argument against understanding the conflict on the personal level comes from v.18:18. In v.16:19, Simon Peter was given the keys of the kingdom of heaven and the authority to bind and to loose. Without v.18:18, Peter's personal power is absolute. With v.18:18, the authority to forgive is also shared by the Church. Therefore, it is impossible to interpret the whole text on the personal level, Though it is understandable that if I forgive my brother, heaven forgives because God requires us to forgive, it is mind-boggling if I refuse to forgive, I am able to mobilize the heavenly court to bind my brother! How can it be possible? It is impossible, unless it is the Church. Verse 18:20 gives us the answer. Jesus is in our midst when we gather in his name. Then the Church is able to define her articles of faith and morality. A single person cannot form a community, a community of the redeemed, the Church.
Dear Jesus, I am sorry for all the controversies and division among us. I am sorry for my arrogance and pride. Forgive me for I have offend my brethren with my arrogance and if I have become the cause of divisions, cut me short. Amen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)