向一切受做物傳福音─環保 Preach to the Creation --- Environmental Protection

傳教節（乙年）
主題：向一切受做物傳福音─環保

數星期前，執事在講道中曾提及過我們對天主應該有信德，不要限制天主拯救世界的方法，認為一定要領洗入教纔能得救。即使祗信科學，不信有神的人，天主一樣有本事拯救他們。後來，有位年青教友向執事討教。既然連不信天主的「無神論者」也能得救，為甚麼還要多此一舉，向他們傳教呢？這的確是個很有意思的問題。今天剛好是「傳教節」，正好是解答這個疑問的好機會。 三部對觀福音結束時，都記載了耶穌離世歸父的時候，吩咐門徒向全世界宣揚福音。所以，教會存在的目的，就是傳福音。不傳福音，教會就沒有存在的理由了。無論世人接受與否，向他們宣講福音是做教友的本份。別人接受固然好，因為我們幫助了一個靈魂得救；若別人不接受，這是他們的自由。我們傳福音就是執行耶穌派遣我們的使命。我們領洗入教，享受天主恩寵，就同時有義務分擔這份傳福音的使命。我們祗問耕耘，不問收獲。

讓我們再深入分析在三部對觀福音裡，耶穌怎樣派遣門徒傳福音。
在瑪竇福音中，耶穌吩咐十一宗徒使萬民成為門徒，並因天主聖三之名為他們施洗，教訓他們遵守耶穌的吩咐。路加福音的耶穌吩咐門徒從耶路撒冷開始，因耶穌的名向萬邦宣講悔改，以獲得罪赦。宣講的對象，無論是「萬民」抑或是「萬邦」都是人。宣講的內容都是與獲得罪過的赦免有關。今天所讀的馬爾谷福音就有明顯的分別。首先，宣講的內容與瑪竇路加一致，都是有關洗禮獲得罪赦。但宣講的對象卻是「一切受造物」。難道我們真的要好像亞西西的聖方濟一樣，向大樹、飛鳥和豺狼講耶穌，向在家中飼養的寵物，或街邊的流浪貓狗講罪的赦免嗎？如果真是這樣，我們未免太沒有想像力了。

我們的教宗方濟，就在本年五月廿四日聖神降臨節，向全世界發表一篇名為「願祢受讚頌」的通諭，要求所有懷有善意的男女，保衛我們共同的家園。為甚麼教宗會談及環保呢？是追上潮流嗎？抑或是環保符合聖經的教訓呢？毫無疑問，當今教宗的確掌握到時代的脈搏，而且能善用資訊科技。不過，如果環保有違教會的道理，教宗是不會支持的。那麼，保護環境怎樣符合聖經的教訓呢？

聖經的第一本書的第一章，開宗明義以一首讚美詩，歌頌天主創造天地萬物的偉大。創世紀第一章是詩歌體裁，當中可以找到詩歌的一個明顯特徵─重句。例如，「過了晚上，過了早晨，這是第一天」等等。另一個出現了七次的句子，就是「天主看了認為好」！創世紀第一章的另一個特點，就是它包含著「進化論」的雛型，先有植物纔有動物；而脊椎動物之中，先有水中的魚，然後空中的飛鳥，然後地上的哺乳類動物，最後纔是人。由此可見，聖經裡所提及的超乎自然的記載，例如創造天地萬物、洪水滅世或者分開紅海等等的神蹟，不一定是神話故事。請記著，聖經不是一本自然科學的教學書，而是一本超越科學範疇，有關救恩歷史的書。所以要求聖經的內容完全脗合大自然的現象，而不應記載神蹟，是太苛求了。
創世紀說人是按天主的肖像所造，管理萬物，這是從宗教及倫理角度去描述。倘若有人借「進化論」來推出天主一定好像大猩猩，他就掉進了邏輯上的「越位」陷阱了。聖經旨在說明在萬物之中，人是天主的肖像，所以人能與天主溝通，而且人代表天主，治理世界。因此，人並不擁有這個世界，祗不過是這個世界的管家而已。這樣的推論纔符合宗教及倫理學的邏輯。

讓我們來評鑑，人類今天是一個稱職的管家嗎？很明顯，我們做得不好。我們貪圖舒適和方便，消耗了很多天然資源而同時留下了很多有害的垃圾，污染了我們的環境。這樣做，我們不但趕絕了其他生物的生存空間，而且自己亦身受其害。可惜，各地政府祗探取鴕鳥政策，用金錢去處理問題的表面，而逃避了根治問題的所在。例如，香港政府探取「用者自付」的政策：「用得多，污染得多，就繳交多一點服務費。」看來很公平，其實不然。這樣的話，有錢人能負擔得起，就可以任意污染環境了嗎？過度消耗大自然的資源，污染了生物圈和食物鏈，固然對我們自己有害，但想深一層，首當其衝受害的是生活在我們中間的窮人。當富有的人能付出冷氣費，出入乘冷氣房車，飲消毒了的蒸餾水，吃從遠方未受污染的食物時，窮人祗能吹風扇、呼吸路邊極污濁的空氣，飲含鉛的食水，吃地溝油炸的黑心食物。富有就可以任意污染，貧窮就要承受別人造成的污染，這是對窮人不公義的。而且當我們耗盡大自然的資源，沒有足夠的資源留給遲我們出生的人的時候，我們對不起我們的後代子孫，對後人不公平。所以，不以環保的心態生活，是一種不公義的生活，對窮人不公義，對後代子孫不公義。百多年來的天主教社會訓導，都宣稱天主教站在貧窮人身邊。如果我們不環保，貪圖舒適方便地生活，我們沒有資格稱為天主教徒。

教宗在通諭中提醒我們的，不單是物質上的生態環境，他提醒我們更要注意文化上的生態環境，因為文化對人的影響，遠比物質的影響大。無疑，現代經濟是繁榮的，但繁榮背後是一個鼓吹消費的文化。以往生產的電櫃，洗衣機或汽車，都可以用上30年。30年後，顧客纔需要買第二部。那麼，公司如何經營下去呢？為了公司業績，為了賺錢，公司惟有推出「短命」的產品，幾年甚至一年或幾個月就推出新產品，花大量金錢賣廣告促銷，鼓勵消費者追上潮流，換新機。這樣便造成了一個「用完即棄」的文化生態環境。試想一想，當人與人之間的關係也變成「用完即棄」，是多麼可怕。你可能會問那裡可以找到「用完即棄」的人際關係呢？有。例如：「一夜情」、「代母產子」。當我們在報紙上看到某地產商，抱著三個由美國的代母為他的兒子所生的男孫，裂嘴而笑時，我們會羨幕他，為他高興，抑或感覺到不公義和可怕呢？

各位兄弟姊妹，請大家關心我們生活所在的物質上及文化上的生態環境。培養一個「環保」的生活態度。這樣就是響應耶穌的號召，向一切受造物傳福音。此外，我們還要提高警覺，不要跌入「用完即棄」的陷阱之中。
天主保祐。

---

Mission Sunday (Year B)
Theme:Preach to the Creation --- Environmental Protection

A few weeks ago, I mentioned in my homily that we should have faith in God. We should not restrict God’s ways of salvation, thinking that only becoming a Catholic through baptism can one be saved. Even those who only believe in science, those who do not believe in the existence of God, God can still find ways to save them. Later, a young parishioner came to ask me. “Since even atheists can be saved, why bother preaching to them?” I think it was a meaningful question. Since today is Mission Sunday. I think it is the most appropriate opportunity to answer this query.

The three Synoptic gospels finish with the story of ascension before which Jesus sent his disciples to evangelize the world. Therefore, evangelization is the raison d’état of the Church. The Church has no reason to exist at all if not for evangelization. Whether people accept or not, proclaiming the gospel is the duty of Catholics. Good for them if they accept because we help save a soul. If they reject, it is their freedom. When we preach the good news, we are discharging Jesus’ commission. We were baptized to enjoy God’s grace. At the same time, we have the duty to share this evangelization duty. The process is more important than the product.

Let us analyze deeper the way the three Synoptic gospels tell how Jesus sent the disciples to spread the good news.
In Matthew, Jesus sent the eleven remaining apostles to make disciples among the peoples, baptize them in the name of the Blessed Trinity and teach them to keep all that he had commanded. Luke tells of how Jesus sent the disciples, beginning at Jerusalem, to preach to all nations in the name of Jesus repentance in order to obtain the forgiveness of sins. The target audiences, be they “peoples” or “nations” were human beings. The contents were related to the forgiveness of sins. The Marcan passage we read today is obviously different. First of all, the contents are consistent with Matthew and Luke. They are about baptism and forgiveness of sins. But the target audience is “the whole creation”. Then, are we supposed to work like St. Francis of Assisi, to talk about Jesus to trees, birds and wolves; or to tell our pets or strayed cats and dogs on the streets about the forgiveness of sins? If we think along such lines, we lack imagination.

On May 24, Pentecost Sunday, Pope Francis issued an encyclical letter “Laudato Si” to urge all people of good will to protect our common home. Why did our Pope talk about environmental protection? Was it trendy? Or is it because environmental protection is consistent with the teaching of our Church? Without doubt, our Pope is very capable of discerning the signs of our times and he is IT literate. However, had environmental protection been contrary to Church teachings, the Pope would not have supported it. So, how does environmental protection agree with the social teachings of the Church?

The first chapter of the first book of the Bible began with a hymn to praise the greatness of God’s creation. Genesis 1 is a poem. We can see many obvious traits of a song --- repetition. For example, “And the evening, and the morning were the first day …” etc. Another phrase which appears seven times is “and God saw that it was good.” There is another characteristic in Genesis 1, that evolution is embedded in an embryonic form. There were plants before animals; among vertebrae, there were fish before birds in the air, then mammals and lastly human beings. Thus, supernatural narratives in the Bible, such as the Creation, the Great Deluge or the splitting of the Red Sea are not necessarily myths. Remember, the Bible is not a natural sciences textbook, but a book of salvation history which goes beyond the scientific realm. Therefore, it is an unreasonable demand to require Biblical narratives to match natural phenomena and should not talk about miracles.
Genesis mentions that men were created in the image and likeness of God, to have dominion over all other creatures. It is a religious and moral description. If somebody makes use of “evolution theory” and deduces that God must look like a chimpanzee, then he has fallen into a fallacy of “straw man”. By saying that men were created in the image of God, the Bible tells us that men are able to communicate with God and manage the world in his stead. Therefore, men do not own the world. Men are only stewards. This deduction follows the religious and moral logic.

Let us evaluate how we fare as the steward of the world. Obviously we are doing a bad job. For the sake of comfort and convenience, we have depleted many natural resources and have left behind a lot of harmful trash, contaminating our environment. In doing so, we deprive other living organisms of their habitats and we ourselves also suffer bad consequences. Unfortunately, governments bury their heads in the sand, using money to deal with the surface of the problems and evade tackling the root cause of the problems. For example, the Hong Kong government adopts a “Pay while you pollute” policy: the more resources you use, the more you pollute, the more you pay. It looks fair but it is not because the rich may pollute as much as they can afford. Of course we suffer if we deplete natural resources excessively and contaminate the biosphere and food chain. But ask yourself. Who bear the blunt of pollution? The poor. When the rich can afford to pay air conditioning, travel in air-conditioned private cars, drink sterilized distilled water and eat unpolluted food imported from afar, the poor can only afford electric fans, inhale polluted air at the roadside, drink tap water tainted with Pb and eat expired food deep fried in gutter oil. It is blatant injustice for the poor when the rich can pollute at will while the poor bear the blunt. And when we deplete most of the natural resources, leaving little behind for our posterity, it is unfair for them. Therefore, if we do not lead an environmentally friendly life, we are unfair towards the poor, towards the posterity. For more than a century, the social teachings of the Catholic Church have been talking about opting for the poor. If we do not protect the environment and desire for a comfortable and convenient life, we are not qualified to a Catholic.

In the encyclical letter, the Pope reminds us not only the material ecological environment but also the cultural ecological environment. It is because culture affects humanity much greater than material environment. Without doubt, modern societies are economically prosperous. However, behind this prosperity is a culture of consumerism. Previously, the refrigerators, washing machines and motor cars were able to last for some 30 years. After that, consumers bought a second one. Then, how could the company survive? In order to boost sale figures, to make money, the company was forced to produce “short-lived” products. After a few years or months, the company would introduce new products, spend a lot of money to promote sale, to encourage consumers to catch up the trend, to buy the new products. Then, a “disposable” culture was created. Just imagine how terrifying it would be when interpersonal relationships became disposable! You may wonder where we can find disposable interpersonal relationships. Let me tell you. “One night stand” as well as “surrogate motherhood”. When we see the image of a developer in broad grin, holding 3 grandsons given birth by American surrogate mothers for his son, do you admire him? Congratulate him or feel the terror of injustice?

Brethren, care about our material as well as cultural ecological systems. Cultivate an environmentally friendly life style. In this way, we are following Jesus’ commission to preach to the creation. Moreover, be vigilant. Do not fall into the traps of disposability.
God bless.

威士忌的比喻 The Parable of Whiskey

常年期第28主日（乙年）
主題：威士忌的比喻

為甚麼耶穌要求富貴少年要捨棄一切，然後跟隨祂呢？讓我講一個故事，玩一個數學遊戲去幫助大家明白耶穌的用心。執事從前是一位教師，有幸在市區一所有名的男校執教了二十年。雖然談不上甚麼桃李滿門，但大部份的學生都成了社會上的棟樑，做老師的我總算老懷安慰。幾個星期前的一個晚上，這些非常念舊的同學邀請執事出席他們在尖東一間酒店舉行的畢業35周年晚宴。席間飲酒當然不在話下。試想像一下，執事要了一杯九江雙蒸，剛喝下了半杯，有位政商界才俊拿一瓶價值2500英鎊的35年的威士忌來孝敬您。您會怎樣處理手中飲剩的半杯雙蒸呢？

1. 謝絕您學生的美意，您堅持繼續飲九江雙蒸
2. 把威士忌斟滿手上半杯的雙蒸
3. 立刻飲勝半杯雙蒸，然後斟滿一杯威士忌
4. 捨棄手中半杯雙蒸，換一杯斟滿的威士忌

請大家在心裡評論這四種做法的優劣。我給大家一分鐘時間，與坐在旁邊，十八歲以上的兄弟姊妹交換意見。請各位家長向未成年的小朋友解釋飲酒會上癮的害處。
請注意，每個人的處境不同，您的選擇是沒有對錯之分。你一定有個別的因素，影響你所作的抉擇。例如您「愛祖國，用國貨」，你是不會購買或使用任何進口貨的；又或者你很有冒險創新精神，樂於嘗試新的雞尾酒，所以你會混和來飲，說不定會帶來意外的驚喜；又或者你非常「環保」，你不想浪費任何飲品和食物，所以你飲勝你杯中的雙蒸之後纔飲威士忌。話雖如此，您的選擇是會帶來不同效果的。

以下是執事的個人意見，您不一定要同意。如果您選擇A，這是您的自由，但一個飲酒的人竟然放棄品嘗三萬元一支的威士忌，「人一世，物一世」，我會替您可惜。如果您選擇B，您竟然用價值十數塊錢的雙蒸來破壞差不多三萬元的威士忌的香醇，這真是暴殄天物，罪大惡極。而且這一杯不倫不類的雞尾酒會令您更易醉倒，到頭來享受不到真正的雙蒸或者真正威士忌的滋味。如果您選擇C，這與B的選擇分別不大，雖然您把雙蒸和威士忌分開了，但您舌頭上的味蕾仍然受到雙蒸的影響，除非您飲完雙蒸之後用蒸餾水漱口。很明顯，執事是選擇D的。理由很簡單，讓我計算給大家看吧。

如果您選擇A，您的胃裡有一杯或更多的雙蒸，但沒有任何威士忌，三萬元的威士忌等於零。如果您選擇B，您的胃裡有一杯雙蒸，半杯威士忌，二份雙蒸對一份威士忌，威士忌佔⅓。如果您選擇C，您的胃裡有一杯雙蒸，一杯威士忌，五五之比，威士忌佔½。如果您選擇D，不但您舌頭上的味蕾沒有受雙蒸的干擾，同時您的胃裡祗有半杯雙蒸，一杯或更多杯威士忌，威士忌佔⅔以上。很明顯，D是最好的選擇。這個「威士忌的比喻」與今天的福音有甚麼關係呢？

我們相信天主愛我們，祂為我們預備了很多很好的永恆福樂。注意，是永恆的，不是人世間任何的幸福快樂可以比擬的。永恆的福樂與現世的幸福相比，不祗是大海的水和沙灘上的一個小洞所能盛載的水可以比擬的。耶穌邀請我們悔改，跟隨祂善用在世的歷鍊，修道成聖，預備他日在天上分享天父的永恆生命。有些人拒絕耶穌的邀請，依然故我，繼續飲他的九江雙蒸，繼續做他的無神論者。這是他的自由，耶穌是不會強迫他的。但他這樣做，他不悔改，不清理好自己的罪性，這些罪性他日必會影響他，拖累他分享天主永恆生命的能力。試想想當一個人飲九江雙蒸以至肝硬化，又如何享受健康的生活呢？

大部份的人以度結婚生活來回應耶穌的邀請，他們成家立室，在家庭生活中與配偶及兒女一起相親相愛，一起成聖。這些人既飲九江雙蒸，同時又飲35年的威士忌。他們有家庭生活，又抽時間讀經祈禱，參加堂區大家庭的生活，促進靈修，兩全其美。當然，他們仍以家庭生活為重。倘若兩者之間發生衝突，例如沒有時間了，失業了等。他們會毫不猶豫地限制追求永生所要付出的時間和金錢上的代價，放棄理想，放棄靈修。今天福音裡的富少年，他從小便守誡命，並渴望追求更高層次的永生，很有潛質取代將來猶達斯所留下的空缺。所以耶穌欣賞喜愛這位有理想，有潛質的富少年。很可惜，富少年限制了自己所願意付出的代價，同時亦限制了他將來永生上的得益。家庭與靈修的得益，不高於2對1之比。

自從梵二恢復終身執事職之後，教會提供了選擇C。部份已婚或未婚男士，可以付出更多精神時間，回應耶穌的聖召，投入靈修和教會內的聖言服務與代表教會在社會上愛德服務。雖然他們被祝聖為神職人員，但他們並沒有放棄家庭生活。他們橫跨靈性與世俗兩個範疇，經常徘徊在靈性與世俗之間，有如保祿所說的，徘徊在討好天主與討好太太之間。在家庭與靈修的得益，不高於五五之比。

有些人蒙召，放棄俗世生活，放棄家庭生活，全心全意修道，跟隨基督傳福音。這的確是困難的，尤其是在今天的香港，整個社會的風氣都在政府帶領之下變得急功近利，例如政府的基建投資，要在五年內歸本；教育、醫療及房屋等素來是穩安香港的服務，也要自負盈虧。有誰還會這麼奢侈地想知道「為承受永生，我該作甚麼呢？」。有的。如果執事早一點知道這班尊師重道的學生預備了三萬元的威士忌來孝敬我，執事還會不會這麼傻，飲九江雙蒸呢？可惜，執事知道得太遲，正如聖奧思定在他的【懺悔錄】所說，「天主，我愛祢實在愛得太遲。」
但這一切，耶穌已事先張揚，二千年前祂已許諾「誰為了傳福音的原故所捨棄的，天主要百倍償報。」其實又何止百倍呢？九江雙蒸十八元一大瓶，35年的威士忌，網上曾見過18600英鎊，超過港幣二十二萬元。天主為鍾愛祂的人所預備的，又何止百倍的百倍（即一萬倍）的償報呢？

這個星期，請大家回家反省「百倍賞報」的其中三個教訓。首先，在耶穌要求我們捨棄的人際關係之中，沒有提及哪一個親蜜的關係？為甚麼沒有？第二，在為天國而捨棄的事物之中，哪一樣是沒有「百倍賞報」？為甚麼沒有？最後，選一個/一件對您非常重要的人或事物，想一想他/它對您有多麼重要，多麼好。然後想像一下把他/它的重要性或好處放大一百倍會是怎樣？
天主保祐。

---

Twenty eighth Ordinary Sunday, Year B
Theme: The Parable of Whiskey

Why did Jesus demand the rich young man to renounce everything in order to follow him? Let me tell you a story and do some calculations to help you understand the intention of Jesus. I had once been a teacher in an urban elite boy school for twenty years. I am rather contented that most of my students have become part of the establishment in the society. A couple of weeks ago, these loyal students invited me to a hotel in Tsim Sha Tsui to celebrate their 35th anniversary of graduation. In such a delighted occasion, we drank. Imagine, I ordered a glass of “Double Distillate”, a local Chinese wine, and after sipping half a glass, an accomplished old student came along to honour me with a bottle of 35-year-old whiskey worth more than £2500. How would you handle the remaining half glass of “Double Distillate”?

1. Thank the kindness of your student and you insist on drinking your DD.
2. Fill up the half glass of DD with whiskey.
3. Drink up the half glass of DD and pour the whiskey to the brim of your glass.
4. Give up the half glass of DD and get a full glass of whiskey.

Quickly assess the merits of each option. Share your opinions with your neighbour of 18-year-old or above. Parents should explain to your underage children the risk of alcoholism.
You should understand that our situations are unique. There is no right or wrong choice. Your choice is based on some unique factors of yours. For example, you may be very patriotic. You will never buy or consume any imported goods. Or you may be very adventurous and want to try out a new cocktail. Perhaps it will bring you surprises. Or perhaps you are very environmentally friendly. You don’t want to waste any food or drink. Therefore you drink up the DD before filling your glass with whiskey. However, whatever you choose, there are consequences.

The followings are my personal opinions only. We agree to disagree. If you choose A, this is your choice which I respect. However, as somebody who drinks, it is rather pitiful to miss this once-a-lifetime opportunity to try out a bottle of $30,000 whiskey. If you choose B, you are going to spoil the pleasure of this $30,000 whiskey with a $18 DD. It is a sin to be so wasteful. Moreover, this cocktail may get you drunk more easily. In the end, you are not able to enjoy the genuine taste of your DD, or the whiskey. If you choose C, there is not much difference with option B. Although you separate the DD and the whiskey, your taste buds are still affected by the DD, unless you rinse you mouth with distilled water after you finish your DD. Obviously, I choose D. The reason is simple. Let me show you the calculation.

If you choose A, there will be one or more glasses of DD in your stomach but not any whiskey. There is 0% of $30,000 worth of whiskey in your stomach. If you choose B, there is one glass of DD and half a glass of whiskey. Two portions of DD vs. 1 portion of whiskey. Whiskey is ⅓ by volume. If you choose C, there is one glass of DD plus one glass of whiskey, fifty fifty. Whiskey is ½ by volume. If you choose D, not only are your taste buds free from DD aftertaste, at the same time, there are half a glass of DD and one or more glasses of whiskey. Whiskey is more than ⅔ by volume. Obviously D is the best option. How does this parable of whiskey relate to the gospel?

We believe that God loves us. He has prepared much eternal happiness for us. Pay attention! The happiness is eternal and nothing on earth can be compared to it. Contrasting eternal happiness with worldly happiness is more than what the comparison between the water in the oceans and the water in a small puddle can show. Jesus invites us to repent, to follow him and make good use of our experiences in this world to attain sanctification so as to equip us to share the eternal life of the Father in the future. Some people reject the gospel message, preferring DD to whiskey, atheism to Christianity. This is their freedom and Jesus would not coerce them. But if they continue not to repent; not to cleanse themselves of their sinfulness, this sinfulness will weigh them down; will prevent them from partaking in God’s eternal life. Can somebody who suffers cirrhosis enjoy a healthy life?

Most people respond to Jesus’ call in married life. They build up families and attain sanctification with their spouses and children through loving each other at home. They drink both DD and 35-year-old whiskey. They lead a married life and are able to take time to study the Bible, to pray and join the bigger family of parish to enhance their spirituality. They enjoy the best of both worlds. However, their family life is more important. If conflicts arise between their family life and spiritual life, e.g. there is no leisure time or become unemployed etc., they will not hesitate to limit the price they are willing to pay to attain eternal life. They will not hesitate to give up their ideals, to give up spirituality. The rich young man in the gospel today had already kept all the commandments since he was young. He desired to seek a higher level of actualization --- eternal life. He would have had the potential to fill up the vacancy left by Judas. So, Jesus liked this idealistic and promising rich young man. Regrettably, this rich young man limited the price he was willing to pay and at the same time, limited how much benefit he would attain in eternal life. The benefit between family and spirituality will not exceed 2 vs. 1.

Since the restoration of permanent diaconate at Vatican II, the Church provides option C. Some married or even unmarried men are able to devote more time and energy to respond to Jesus’ call. They are able to immerse themselves in spirituality, to serve the Word in the Church and to represent the Church to serve the needy in the society. Although they are consecrated clergy, they don’t have to abandon their familial life. They oscillate between the sacred and the mundane. Just as what St. Paul says, between pleasing the Lord and pleasing their wives. The benefit between family and spirituality will be roughly half and half.

Some are called and are able to renounce their worldly life, their family life. They are able to devote themselves totally in sanctification and evangelization. This is very difficult, especially in Hong Kong where the whole society, led by the government, looks for instant successes. For example, all government investments in infra-structure projects must be returned within 5 years; education, medicine and housing whose services helped stabilize the society in the past have to support themselves now. Who then would afford the luxury to want to know what to do to inherit eternal life? There are such people. If I had known earlier that my loyal students would honour me with a bottle of $30,000 worth of whiskey, I would not have had been so stupid as to drink DD. Regrettably, I knew it too late, just as what St. Augustine wrote in Confessions, “Late have I loved thee!”
But Jesus has already made this known two thousand years ago and promised that whoever abandons such and such for his sake and for the gospel will receive one hundredfold what he has abandoned. In fact, God’s reward will not merely be one hundredfold. A big bottle of DD costs $18. One 35-year-old whiskey found on the web costs £18600, exceeding $220,000. For those whom God loves, can the reward be capped at 100 times one hundredfold?

This week, meditate on three teachings in this “one hundredfold reward”. First, which intimate relationship is not mentioned in the list of things to abandon? Why? Second, in the list of things to abandon for the sake of evangelization, which one does not have the promised one hundredfold reward? Why? Lastly, choose somebody/something which is very important to you. Think about how important, how good it is to you. Then imagine what will it be like after enlarging it one hundredfold?
God bless.

現代婚姻生活所遇到的困難 Marital difficulties in modern times

常年期第27主日（乙年）
主題：現代婚姻生活所遇到的困難

作為一個天主教徒，我們在現世無可避免地擁有雙重國籍。我們既屬於天主的國，也屬於世界上的某個國家。擁有雙重國籍，意味我們享有兩個國家的權利，同時我們需要遵守兩個國家的法律。所以，作為一個天主教徒，我們要遵守天主的法律和本地的法律。天主的法律記載在聖經中，在教會的法律裡。
聖經是一個小型圖書館，藏有七十三部書，寫作時間橫跨千多年。最後一本書約在公元一百年完成，距今差不多一千九百年了。時代在進步，社會在進步，天主的教會也因應時代的改變，把天主的法律作出更恰當的運用。例如在古代奴隸制度的社會裡，買賣奴隸是理所當然的，連保祿宗徒所寫的書信，亦並沒有猛烈批評奴隸制度的不公義。但到了今天，教會就不能捧著聖經來支持人口販賣了。又例如婚姻制度，雖然在舊約的故事中，有些人物都有很多妻子兒女。例如雅各伯就有十二個兒子，是以列色十二支派的祖宗，他們全部是由雅各伯的兩個表妹和表妹的婢女為他生的。民長之中有位基德紅，他有七十個親生的兒子。至於妻妾和女兒的數目就無從稽考了。到了君王時代，按列王紀上十一章的記載，撒羅滿王有七百個妻妾和三百個妃嬪，更不在話下了。但他們都是有權有勢的大人物。其實大部份人都是實行一夫一妻的。所以教會亦不會用舊約的個別例子來支持一夫多妻制度，並且按耶穌在今天所讀的福音的教訓，鼓吹一男一女的一夫一妻制和反對離婚。在中國明代，意大利籍的利瑪竇神父來華，向仕大夫傳教時，其中一個要克服的障礙就是要說服那些官員實行一夫一妻制，保留他們的元配，遣散其餘的妻妾。大家自然會問，天主教不是反對離婚的嗎？利瑪竇神父又怎能教仕大夫寫休書，遣散多了出來的妻妾呢？

讓我們讀清楚耶穌的教訓。耶穌有沒有說梅瑟容許寫休書休妻是錯的呢？沒有。錯祗錯在以色列人心硬。「心硬」是甚麼意思？是就沒有愛心的意思，祗著眼自己的利益，不理他人的死活，就是自私，就是自我中心。例如，福音教訓我們要「神貧」，警告我們不能同時事奉天主又事奉金錢，因為坐擁萬金容易令人為富不仁，心腸變硬，對窮人的需要麻木。應用在婚姻之中，心硬就是見異思遷，忘記夫妻之間的恩情。婚姻是終生不逾，至死方休的山盟海誓，那麼，梅瑟必須在殺人和姦淫之間，兩害取其輕，提供一個寫休書休妻的安全掣，保護處於劣勢的婦女。一紙休書還婦女的自由身，可以改嫁。這是梅瑟的權宜之計。所以梅瑟並沒有錯，沒有違反天主的意願。

況且，耶穌是來使法律完滿的（瑪5:17）。在社會的法律下，婚姻是一個帶有社會及經濟益處的合約。但耶穌把婚姻昇華成為一件聖事：夫妻在婚姻中承受天主的祝福和恩寵，在所建立的家庭中成聖。倘若為了種種原因，婚姻失敗了，以當地的法律，例如寫休書休妻，離婚收場。耶穌會感到傷心和可惜，但他並沒有批評反對這種現世法律的權宜之計。回到利瑪竇的例子。利瑪竇勸仕大夫保留元配，遣散多餘的妻妾，還她們自由身，是正確的做法。因為耶穌反對的，是離婚再娶。利瑪竇沒有鼓吹再娶，而是鼓吹一夫一妻。所以利瑪竇的做法，也沒有錯。

其實分居後祗要仍保持獨身的生活，在天主的眼中，兩人仍是當初一樣，仍是一體。但當中如果出現了第三者介入，無論這第三者是導至離婚的原因，抑或是分居後出現的所謂「第二春」，就會破壞了當初兩個人的盟約，事情就不好辦了。這種情況就好像以色列人當初離開埃及，在西乃山與天主立約，奉解放他們的天主為惟一真神。到了應許的福地後，卻跟隨當地人拜偶像，忘記了天主的救恩。這種做法，有如夫妻之間出現了第三者，對自己的元配不忠一樣。天主把西乃山的盟約比喻為婚姻的盟約，把自己與以色列人的關係比喻為婚姻關係，把拜偶像與通姦等同，可見其嚴重性。這就是耶穌這樣嚴厲批評離婚再娶的原因。

現代社會的環境更為複雜，有很多的因素在破壞著婚姻生活，家庭生活；要維持一段美好的婚姻關係極不容易。以往在大家族一起生活，遇到困難時身邊還有很多人可以幫忙和支持。今天生活在小家庭中，夫妻之間就少了身邊的親戚朋友作緩衝，磨擦就更直接、更容易受傷，並且更容易傷及身邊的兒女。所以現代人更需要天主祝福和保障他們的婚姻。
天主如何祝福保障婚姻出現困難的夫婦呢？天主就靠我們了。今天我們聽到很多人提出離婚的理由是性格不合，「因誤會而結合，因了解而分開」。聽起來瀟灑，其實是不負責任。雖然愛情是盲目的，但去到談婚論嫁的地步，終身大事，總不能隨隨便便了事嘛。結婚前應多了解，結婚後就要多忍讓了！我們經常說，「家家有本難唸的經」。話雖如此，但當局者迷，作為朋友的，鄰居的，總要有愛心，發揮守望相助的精神，幫助他們，更鼓勵他們尋求專業的協助。教會方面，雖然不能改變耶穌對婚姻不可拆散的教訓，但有豐富牧民經驗的教宗方濟各，他非常了解兩夫婦在現代社會所遇的困難。他已表示會下放權力，把一些傳統上保留給教廷處理的婚姻無效個案，交由本地主教處理，大大縮短處理的時間。

請記住，教會應該是幫助有需要的人的教會，而不是個判官的教會。所以我們每一個人都有責任幫助身邊在婚姻上遇到困難的兄弟姊妹，而不是歧視他們，疏遠他們。
天主保祐。 

---

Twenty Seventh Ordinary Sunday (Year B)
Theme: Marital difficulties in modern times

As a Catholic, we inevitably possess dual nationality. That is, we belong to the Kingdom of God and an earthly country. Possessing dual nationality means we enjoy the rights of two countries and at the same time, we have to obey the laws of these two countries. Therefore, as a Catholic, we have to observe God’s laws and local laws. God’s laws are written in the Bible and the Canon Laws of the Church.
The Bible is a small library of 73 books. They took more than a thousand years to write and the last book was finished in 100 A.D., nearly 1,900 years ago. Time is moving ahead and societies are advancing. Therefore the Church of God makes appropriate adjustments in the application of God’s laws. For example, in slavery societies, slave trading was a normal practice. Even St. Paul did not condemn the injustice of slavery. But today, the Church cannot support human trafficking with the teachings of the Bible. Take another example of marriage. Although many famous people in the Old Testament have many wives and children, e.g. Jacob had 12 sons who were the patriarchs of the 12 tribes of Israel. Two cousins and their maids gave birth to them. Gideon the Judge had 70 sons. The number of daughters and wives remained unknown. During the time of Empire, according to 1 Kings 11, King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines; these were rare examples of famous people only. In fact, most people practised monogamy. Therefore, the Church would not support polygamy with a few examples from the Old Testament. She will stick to Jesus’ teaching of monogamy between one man and one woman and opposes divorce. During Ming Dynasty, Matthew Ricci preached in China and one of the obstacles he had to overcome was to persuade the Mandarins to practise monogamy. They should live with their first wife and sent away the remaining wives and concubines. Naturally, you would wonder whether the Catholic Church really opposed divorce. How could Fr. Ricci teach the Mandarins to write a divorce letter to send away the reductant wives and concubines?

Let us read more carefully the teaching of Jesus. Did Jesus say that Moses was wrong to allow people to divorce their wives with a divorce certificate? No. The fault lies not in the divorce certificate but in the hardness of the hearts of the Jews. What does “hardness of heart” mean? It means there is no love in their hearts. They focus on their own interests and ignore the needs and difficulties of the others. They are selfish and self-centred. For example, the gospel of Matthew teaches us to be “poor in spirit”, warns us not to serve God and money at the same time. It is because riches and treasures will easily harden our hearts so much so that we become insensitive to other people’s needs. In the case of marriage, hardness of hearts means we forget the love between the spouses and engage in extra-marital affairs. Marriage is a covenant for life. We made a vow that till death we part. In this situation, Moses had to decide between murder and adultery. He chose the lesser evil and provided a safety valve of divorce certificate to protect the women who were in a disadvantaged position. The divorce certificate freed them so that they might marry another man later. Moses was not wrong in protecting these pitiful women. He did not go against God’s will.

Indeed, Jesus came to fulfil the law (Matthew 5:17). Under the civil law of a society, marriage is a contract that brings a lot of social and economic benefits to the society. However, Jesus elevates marriage into a sacrament. Husbands and wives receive God’s blessings and grace in marriage and attain sanctification in the family they build up through marriage. If for various reasons, a marriage fails and ends up in divorce through local laws, Jesus must be very sad and disappointed about it, but he did not criticize this contingency plan. Return to the story of Fr. Matthew Ricci. Fr. Ricci encouraged the Mandarins to keep their first wife but sent away the redundant wives and concubines, to restore their freedom. He was right. What Jesus objected was remarriage after divorce. Fr. Ricci did not encourage remarriage but monogamy. Therefore, what Fr. Ricci did was not wrong.

In fact, when a couple separate and as long as they remain single, in the eyes of God, they are still one in flesh as they did in the first instance. But when a third person intrudes, whether this third person is the cause of divorce or a “second spring” after separation, this third person would destroy the original covenant. This is a situation similar to Exodus. After leaving behind Egypt, Israel entered into a covenant with God on Mount Sinai, worshipping Yahweh who liberated them as their only God. But after entering the Promised Land, the Israelites followed the local inhabitants to worship idols and had forgotten God’s liberation. This behaviour is similarly to extra-marital affairs. God looks at the Sinai Covenant as a marital covenant. He looks at his relationship with the Israelites as a marital relationship. Therefore, adultery is idolatry and vice versa. You may understand why adultery is such a serious crime. That is why Jesus seriously criticizes remarriage after divorce.

Modern society is more complicated. There are more factors harmful to married life and family life. It is not at all easy to maintain a good marital relation. People were used to living in big and extended families. When one family member encountered a difficulty, there would be many more people around to offer help. Today, we live in nuclear families. There is no buffer, no friends and relatives between the spouses. There will be more direct clashes, deeper injuries and the children will be more easily wounded. Therefore, modern people need more blessing and protection for their marriages from God.

How does God bless and protect the people who come down with marital difficulties? God relies on us. Today we hear of personality mismatch as a reason for divorce. They say “out of misunderstanding we married, of understanding we separate.” This sounds sensational but in fact it is irresponsible. It is true that love is blind, but when we reach the stage of marriage proposal, how can we be casual in such a big thing? See more clearly before you get married. Turn a blind eye (to all the unpleasant things) afterwards.
It is true that “each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.” But as outsiders, as friends or neighbours, we are able to see more clearly from another perspective. We should have a big heart to take care of each other, help and encourage those who encounter marital difficulties to seek professional advice. The Church cannot change Jesus’ teaching of indissolubility of marriage. But our Pope has much pastoral experiences. He understands clearly what difficulties modern couples are facing. He intends to delegate authority to the bishops to handle annulment cases traditionally reserved for the Roman Curia so as to shorten the time to process the backlog of cases.

Remember, the Church should help the needy, not to judge them. So, each and every one of us has the duty to help our brothers and sisters who suffer from marital difficulties. We should not discriminate them, distance them.
God bless.