Translate

Friday, 30 September 2016

Quotations on the Panels of Gate of Mercy at St. Peter's Basilica


QUOTATIONS on the Panels
of the Gate of Mercy, St. Peter Basilica
There are 16 panels (4 by 4) on the Gate of Mercy of the St. Peter's Basilica. We cannot see the top row clearly even if we are standing at the Holy Door. It is very generous of Fr. Philip Chan to share these pictures with us.
The top row consists of two stories whereas the rest four stories each. Quotations on the panels are taken from the New Testament, except the first row's which was taken from an ancient Marian hymn, "O Gloriosa Virginum", sung for Lauds in the Common of the BVM.
Here are the quotations. Notice that there is no "U" in Latin. It was written as "V".
I should thank my friend, Mr. Anthony Lam, a student of mine decades back in La Salle College for helping me look up the sources. He has done a good job.

Stare at the pictures and meditate the mercy of God.
God bless you.


Panel#1&2: The Fall of the First Parents
"Quod Heva tristis abstulit"
What hapless Eve has lost,
Panel#3&4: The Annunciation
"Tu reddis almo germine"
Your sacred scion restore.
Panel#5: The Baptism of Jesus
"Tu Venis ad Me?"
You Come to Me? (Matthew 3:14)
Panel#6: The Lost Sheep
"Salvare quod Perierat"
Save that which is Lost. (Matthew 18:11)
Panel#7: The Prodigal Son
"Pater, Peccavi in Coelum, et Coram Te"
Father, I have sinned against Heaven, and Before Thee. (Luke 15:18)
Panel#8: Cure of the Paralyzed Man
"Tolle grabatum tuum et Ambula"
Take up your bed and Walk. (Mark 2:9)
Panel#9: The Sinful Woman
"Remittuntur ei peccata multa"
Forgiven are her many sins. (Luke 7:47)
Panel#10: Forgive how many times?
"Septuagies septies"
Seventy times seven. (Matthew 18:22)
Panel#11: Peter's 3 denials
"Conversus Dominus, Respexit Petrum"
The Lord Turned, Looked upon Peter. (Luke 22:61)
Panel#12: The Repentant Thief
"Hodie mecum eris in Paradiso"
Today you shall be with me in Paradise. (Luke 23:43)
Panel#13: The Doubting Thomas
"Beati qui ... Crediderunt"
Blessed are they who ... have Believed. (John 20:29)
Panel#14: Jesus appeared to his disciples
"Accipite Spiritum Sanctum"
Accept the Holy Spirit. (John 20:22)
Panel#15: Conversion of Saul
"Sum Jesus quem Tu persequeris"
I am Jesus whom You persecute. (Acts 9:5)
Panel#16: Jesus knocks at your door
"Sto ad ostium et Pulso"
I Stand at the door and Knock (Revelation 3:20)


Sunday, 25 September 2016

誰是這個「拉匝祿」? Who is this Lazarus?

常年期第廿六主日(丙年)
主題:誰是這個「拉匝祿」?

為充滿「正義感」的讀者,他們會覺得富翁罪有應得,因為他為富不仁,鐵石心腸。雖然坐擁巨富,卻沒有為身邊的窮人解困。路加的故事,大快人心。路加的寫作優美,他並不用先知的咆哮口吻,並沒有把富翁「妖魔化」,亦沒有痛罵富翁的為富不仁。路加祗是客觀地對比富翁和拉匝祿:一個身穿紫紅袍細麻布,另一個祗有瘡痍作他的衣服;一個奢華宴樂,另一個連桌上掉下的碎屑也沒有。雖然沒有明顯說出,相信富翁身邊一定有不少人擁著他,最少也有五個兄弟罷。反觀拉匝祿,祗有狗隻陪伴著他,舐他的傷口,給他一點安慰。讀到這裡,你還需要對富翁,破口大罵嗎?

很奇怪,富翁在陰間,竟然還有一點兒愛心,關心到自己的兄弟,擔心他們也會淪落到好像他一樣的地步。富翁已超越了後悔的階段,他還會為自己的兄弟設想。那麼,他這微末的愛心,足夠拯救他脫離陰間嗎?這個問題,我暫時沒有足夠的神學可以答覆。在亞巴郎的觀念中,那裡有一個不能逾越的深淵(路16:26)。難道這深淵可隔絕天主的慈悲嗎?天主的慈悲是我們可以理解的嗎?到了陰間就不能逆轉了嗎?

說到這裡,各位可能會發覺到富翁竟然是無名無姓的,反而一個乞丐竟然有名字,而且是耶穌所愛的朋友的名字(若11:3)!為甚麼呢?是否路加覺得不值得為這個富翁取一個名字嗎?在默想福音教訓的時候,我們難免會不知不覺對人物下了判斷,這也是講故事者的目的。所以我們自然會把為富不仁與沒有名字掛鉤。富翁當然有自己的名字,但財富迷塞了他的心,令他迷失了自己的身份,迷失了自己與天主的關係,忘記了自己是誰。這個反省非常好,而且符合猶太的文化背景。因為在舊約中,沒有了名字,就好像沒有存在的價值一樣。例如:巴特舍巴與達味通姦所生的兒子,出生後七日,未及改名已經死了(撒下12:15)。
這個反省固然好,但路加寫了那麼多的比喻,倘若為每個故事中的人物取一個名字,未免太麻煩了;而且角色眾多,增加了讀者閱讀的困難,反為不美。所以我們不應問為甚麼富翁沒有名字,我們反而要問為甚麼路加為乞丐取個名字,而且取了耶穌所愛的朋友的名字。給他開玩笑嗎?

當然不是開玩笑,而是一個溫馨提示:乞丐是主耶穌的好朋友,既是主的好朋友,基督徒應該要善待他們。瑪竇福音第廿五章,更把這基督徒的愛心推前一步,乞丐就是主耶穌!既然是主耶穌自己,基督徒就應該要服事祂。聖德蘭修女是這樣說的:「今天,耶穌的苦難在受苦的人的生命中重現。受苦決不是懲罰。天主並不懲罰。」(http://www.suffering.net/servmo-t.htm)
富翁與亞巴郎的對話中,也揭示了這個耶穌在受苦的人身上受苦的思想。富翁希望亞巴郎打發拉匝祿回去警告他的五個兄弟(路16:27)。打發拉匝祿還陽復活,亞巴郎豈不是天主?亞巴郎甚麼時候變成了天主?這真是很有趣的課題。今天姑且放下,有機會再談。不過,路加是保祿的門徒,他承襲了保祿的思想,就是復活是有次序的,「不過各人要依照自己的次第:首先是為初果的基督,然後是在基督再來時屬於基督的人。」(格前15:23)因此,拉匝祿是不會復活去警告富翁的五個兄弟,而是基督。路加寫福音在耶穌復活之後,所以亞巴郎所說的「縱使有人從死者中復活了」(路16:31),不是「縱使」,而是「真的」。耶穌的復活,祗感化到部份聽從梅瑟和先知的猶太人,對當代大部份對梅瑟和先知無動於衷的猶太人,耶穌的復活沒有說服到他們。

今天,耶穌已復活了。耶穌在那裡?給我們看見,我們便相信。不要告訴我耶穌現在坐在天上,因為天上有佛祖,有玉皇大帝和觀音。如果信耶穌的話,為甚麼不信觀音?對!耶穌復活了,而且祂許諾天天與我們在一起,直到世界的終結(瑪28:20)。我們現在還未在天上,雖然耶穌升了天,但耶穌因著祂的許諾,仍然留在世上。在哪?耶穌又說:「凡你們對我這些最小兄弟的一個所做的,就是對我做的。」(25:40)即是說,耶穌就在最小兄弟的身上;更好說,耶穌就是那些飢渴、無衣、無家、有病、被囚和被遺棄的人。耶穌既然可以為了愛我們,真實地臨現在聖體聖事之中滋養我們,沒有理由不能臨現在受苦的人之中,一再為愛我們而受難!這些受苦的耶穌,為我們而飢渴、無衣、無家;為我們患病、被囚和被遺棄,不就是故事中的拉匝祿嗎?原來拉匝祿,就是耶穌。

你還可以像那富翁一樣,看見了拉匝祿,那個復活了的,卻為了他而一再受苦的耶穌,無動於衷嗎?慈悲禧年尚餘兩個月,快抓緊時間,去服事我們的主耶穌基督。
天主保祐。


Twenty Sixth Ordinary Sunday (Year C)
Theme: Who is this Lazarus?

For readers who are passionate about "justice", they will feel that the rich man deserved hell because he was callous. He had a heart of stone. Although he possessed huge treasures, he did not relieve his poor neighbour of their plights. Luke's story is uplifting. Luke wrote gracefully. He did not bark like prophets, nor did he demonize the rich man. He did not scold him for his indifference. He only contrasts objectively the situations of the rich man and Lazarus: one "was clothed in purple and fine linen" and the other was clothed, was "full of sores"; one "feasted sumptuously every day" while the other did not even have "what fell from the rich man's table". Though not explicitly written, I believe that the rich man must have been surrounded by many people, at least his five brothers. Look at Lazarus, only dogs gave him company, licking his sores to comfort him. After reading up to here, do you need to vent your anger against the rich man?

Surprising, the rich man was able to show some charity in Hades. He cared about his brothers and worried that they would end up in Hades like him. The rich man had passed beyond regret. He was able to think about his brothers. Then, would this little charity be sufficient to deliver him out of Hades? At the moment, I do not have enough theology to answer this question. In the mind of Abraham, there was an unsurpassable chasm between them (Luke 16:26). Could this chasm separate us from the mercy of the Father? Do we understand enough God's mercy? Is landing in Hades irreversible?

Up to here, perhaps you may notice the anonymity of the rich man. In contrast, the beggar had a name, even the name of the friend whom Jesus loved (John 11:3)! Why? Did Luke think it not worthwhile to give the rich man a name? In meditating the teaching of this story, we will inevitably and imperceptibly pass judgment on the characters. This is one of the purposes of storytelling. Thus we will naturally link up the callousness of the rich man and his anonymity. Of course the rich man had a name. But his heart was smothered by wealth. Consequently he lost his identity and his relationship with God. He even forgot who he was. This reflection is commendable and compatible with Jewish culture. It is because in the Old Testament, a person without a name seemed not worth living at all. For example, the baby born out of adultery between Bathsheba and David died within seven days without a name (2 Samuel 12:15).
This reflection is good but Luke had written many parables. If he gave each character a name, wouldn't it be troublesome? Moreover, readers would find it difficult to navigate among so many names, thus decreasing the readability. Therefore, we should not ask why the rich man did not have a name. Rather, we should ask why Luke gave the beggar a name, even the name of a man whom Jesus loved. Was Luke joking?

Of course he was not joking. Rather, it is a gentle reminder: the beggar is a good friend of Lord Jesus. As the Lord's good friends, Christians should treat the beggar well. Matthew 25 pushes this Christian charity even further. The beggar is Lord Jesus! Since he is Lord Jesus himself, Christians should serve him. St. Mother Teresa of Calcutta said, "Today the passion of Christ is being relived in the lives of those who suffer. Suffering is not a punishment. God does not punish." (http://www.suffering.net/servmo-t.htm)

The dialogue between Abraham and the rich man also reveals this idea of Jesus' presence among the suffering. The rich man wanted Abraham to send Lazarus back to warn his five brothers (Luke 16:27). Sending Lazarus back to life, wouldn't Abraham be God? When did Abraham become God? This is an interesting topic. Let us handle it later in another occasion. But Luke was a disciple of Paul. He inherited the idea of Paul. That is there is an order of resurrection. "But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ." (1 Corinthians 15:23) Thus, Lazarus would not come back to life to warn the five brothers of the rich man. Christ would. Luke wrote after the resurrection of Jesus. Therefore, when Abraham said, "... if someone should rise from the dead" (Luke 16:31), it is not "if someone should ..." but "someone is really ..." The resurrection of Jesus could only convert some Jews who listened to Moses and the prophets. For most of the contemporary Jews who were not touched by Moses and the prophets, Jesus' resurrection did not convince them.

Today, Jesus is already risen. Where is Jesus? Show me and I shall believe. But don't tell me that Jesus is now sitting in heavens. It is because there are also Buddha, the Jade Emperor and Avalokiteśvara. If we believe in Jesus, why don't we believe in Avalokiteśvara? Right! Jesus is risen and he promises to stay with us until the end of the age (Matthew 28:20). We are not yet in heavens. Although Jesus has ascended into heavens, because of his promise, he still stays on earth. Where? Jesus also said, "As you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me." (25:40) That is to say, Jesus is present among the least of these. Better still, Jesus is the hungry, thirsty, naked, homeless, sick, imprisoned and abandoned. Since out of love, he is present in the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist to nourish us, there is no reason why he cannot be present among the suffering, to love us and suffer for us once more. Aren't these suffering Jesus's, who are hungry, thirsty, naked, homeless, sick, imprisoned and abandoned for us Lazarus? Lazarus is Jesus.

Can you, like the rich man who saw Lazarus, the risen Jesus in disguise who relived suffering for him, not be touched? Only two months are left in the Jubilee of Mercy. Seize the moment to serve our Lord Jesus Christ.
God bless.

Sunday, 18 September 2016

以不義之財結交朋友 Make friends for Yourselves by means of Unrighteous Mammon

常年期第廿五主日(丙年)
主題:以不義之財結交朋友

作為一個中國天主教徒,今天福音中的比喻,似曾相識。對了!這是有名的「狡兔三窟」故事的福音版。這個路加福音比喻的文學性很高,人物的描寫活靈活現。一段獨白,「鋤地吧,我又沒氣力;討飯吧,我又害羞。」(路16:13)便把一個有小聰明卻好逸惡勞,恃寵生驕的奴才,活現紙上。故事中這個枉費主人信任的奴才,揮霍了主人的錢財。
我們每個人都是按天主的肖像所造,天主把世界交託給我們管理。所以,我們每個人都是一個「管家」,憑天賜的才幹,管理和發展這個世界。當我們祗顧為自己累 積利益,而沒有善用天賜才幹,造福身邊的人的時候,我們都辜負了天主的信任,我們都揮霍了天主所賜予的才幹。所以,今天福音比喻中的主角,這個恃寵生驕的奴才,其實就是我們每一個人的寫照。

到主人打算開除這個奴才的時候,這奴才思前想後,竟然給他想出一個三贏方案,獲得主人的讚賞。很奇怪,這奴才曾經浪費過主人的錢財,現在又為了自保,再進一步令主人蒙受損失,為甚麼主人反而讚賞他呢?如果大家記得「狡兔三窟」的故事,就能明白箇中的奧妙。簡單地說,這個奴才的所作所為,第一,減了少債戶的債務負擔,第二,將來這些債戶會在他被開除之後報答他,接濟他。這樣已經形成了雙贏局面。但主人呢?主人得到甚麼好處呢?主人雖然蒙受少許金錢損失,但那奴才卻為他沽名釣譽,面上貼金,何樂而不為呢?這樣做便形成了三贏局面,所以主人讚賞奴才的精明。倘若從倫理的角度考慮,從前他揮霍主人的錢財,利益歸自己,是自私的行為,主人懲罰他是合理的。今天這奴才也在揮霍主人的錢財,但他並不單祗為了自己,而是惠及他人,所以主人稱讚他,也是合理的。
天主給我們才幹,是為了管理和建設一個合乎天父旨意的世界。在運用我們的才幹時,我們獲得報酬,是合理的。工人應得他的工資(10:7)。但當收入與付出努力不相稱時,這些額外的收入,顯然就是福音中所謂的「不義之財」了。何謂「收入與付出不相稱」呢?就是支付了家庭中衣食住行的開支之後,甚至為自己及家人的未來購買了保險之後,尚有很多的盈餘,這盈餘恐怕就是「不義之財」。你可能會抗議,難道運用天賦的才幹,勤力工作,多勞多得有罪嗎?當然不是。但為了賺錢而想盡辦法去剝削工人,令努力工作的人,仍然不能糊口,今天的所謂「在職貧窮」。這樣賺來的盈餘,便是真正的「不義之財」了。耶穌基督的指示非常清楚,絕不含糊。他說,我們應該把那盈餘,那不義之財,去幫助有需要的人。耶穌並且許諾,在末日,這些曾接受過我們幫助的人,會在天主台前為我們求情。耶穌並沒有要求每一個基督徒有如聖德蘭修女一樣,愛窮人愛到自己一無所有。這樣做固然好,是成聖之路,但不是每一個人都有這樣大的恩寵可以堅持到底的。耶穌祗要求我們好好運用剩餘的金錢,時間和精神,去幫助有需要的人。耶穌這樣低的要求,適合所有人,並不過份吧。
耶穌所說的「在不義的錢財上不忠信」(16:11),是甚麼意思呢?首先,甚麼是忠信?忠信是服從,履行主人的吩咐。主人是誰?對主人忠心,就是對主人的對頭人叛逆。反過來說,對自己的主人不忠,就是對主人的對頭人效忠了!耶穌基督要求我們把剩餘的金錢、時間和精神,用來幫助窮人。履行祂的吩咐,就是忠信;祗顧自己的利益,累積財富,就是對耶穌基督不忠,對魔鬼效忠了!
今天的香港社會,地產發展商、政府、新界的地主和投資了物業的中產人仕,在處理房屋供應的問題上,就沒有照顧到窮人的需要了!樓價高企,但又不能把樓價推倒,形成一個騎虎難下的格局。結果,令新一代的年青人未能置業安家。錢,他們賺了。卻要下一代替他們「找數」,付出代價。看來,地產發展商與政府,要聯手合作,像今天比喻中的奴才,從他們龐大的盈利及財政盈餘中,成立一個置業基金,幫助那些有需要的青年人,置業安家了。

世間的財物,不是我們帶來的,是我們在生時經營管理的,死後又不能帶走的,所以是耶穌所說的「別人的財物」(16:12)。有甚麼是「屬於我們」(同前)的呢?是人與人之間的關係,是與生俱來,死後仍在,直到最後一個認識你的人也離世纔消失的。是你與天主之間的關係,在你未出生之前已開始,直至你死後仍存在,更是永世常存的。現在,相信你已懂得服事哪個主人了吧!
天主保祐。


Twenty Fifth Ordinary Sunday (Year C)
Theme: Make friends for Yourselves by means of Unrighteous Mammon
As a Chinese Catholic, the parable today gives us a feeling of déjà vu. Right, this is the famous idiom of "Three Lairs of a Cunning Rabbit" in a gospel context. The literary value of the parable is high. The descriptions of characters are vivid. The image of a witty, lazy and arrogant steward jumps to life in the monologue, "I am not strong enough to dig, and I am ashamed to beg!" (Luke 16:3) Not only did this unjust steward waste his master's goods, he also betrayed his master's trust.
All of us were created in the image of God who entrusts the world to our care and management. Therefore, each of us is a steward. We should make use of God's given talents to manage and develop this world. When we focus on amassing benefits for ourselves and do not make good use of God's given talent to do something for the good of our neighbour, we betray God's trust and waste God's given talent. Therefore, the unjust steward in the parable is actually talking about each one of us.

When the master decided to fire the shrewd steward, the steward thought up a triple-win solution and earned the praise of the master. It was very strange indeed. This steward had wasted the goods of his master. Now, in order to save his own skin, he cost his master even more losses. Why did the master commend him? If you remember the moral of the story of the "Three lairs of the Cunning Rabbit", you will understand the intricacy of the master's commendation. Simply put, what the steward had done first was to relieve the burden of the debtors. Secondly, in the future after the steward had lost his job, the debtors would repay him and receive him. The steward had achieved a win-win situation. But what about the master, what benefits did it bring? Although the master lost some money, this steward had bought him fame of generosity and goodwill of the people. Why not? In this way, a triple-win situation was created. That was why the master commended his shrewdness. From a moral point of view, the steward wasted his master's goods to benefit himself. It was reasonable for the master to punish him for his selfishness. Today, he wasted his master's goods not only to benefit himself but also others. It was reasonable for the master to commend him for his shrewdness.
God gives us talents to manage and build a world according to His will. When we exercise our talents, we receive reward. This is reasonable, "for a labourer deserves his wages." (10:7) But when the income is incompatible with the efforts, this extra revenue is obviously the "unrighteous mammon". What does "income incompatible with the efforts" mean? When after spending on the necessities to support the family and on buying insurance for the family, there is a lot of leftover. This leftover, I am afraid, is the "unrighteous mammon". You might probably disagree. What is wrong with making good use of God's given talent to work hard and make money? Of course it is not wrong. However, in order to earn more by exploiting others to the extent that no matter how hard they work, they still live in poverty, the so called "working poor". This kind of surplus is definitely £unrighteous mammon". The instruction of Jesus Christ is unambiguous. He said, we should make use of the leftover, the "unrighteous mammon" to help the needy and he even promises that, on Judgment Day, those who have received our help would advocate for us before the Judgment Seat of God. Jesus does not demand every Christian to help the needy out of their poverty like St. Mother Teresa. This is commendable. This is the path to sainthood which not everybody has enough grace to persevere to the end. Jesus only asks us to make good use of our spare money, time and energy to help the needy. Jesus' demand is reasonable for all.
What did Jesus mean when he said, "not being faithful in unrighteous mammon" (16:11)? First of all, what is "being faithful"? Being faithful is to submit, to obey the master's instructions. Who is the master? When we are faithful to our master, we will be rebellious against his nemesis. On the contrary, when we are unfaithful to our master, we will be faithful to his nemesis! Jesus Christ requires us to make use of our spare money, time and energy to help the poor. When we do it, we are faithful. When we only focus on amassing our own wealth, we are unfaithful to Jesus Christ. We are faithful to Satan!
Today in Hong Kong, the developers, government, land owners in the New Territories and the middle class who have investment in real estates have done nothing to help the poor in the problem of housing supply. The property prices remain high but nobody dares to push them down. The whole society is caught in a dilemma. Consequently, the younger generation cannot afford to buy a flat to get married. The four parties have made a lot of money at the expenses of the future generation. Perhaps, the developers and government should work together, like the shrewd steward in the parable, to take out from their huge earnings and financial surpluses to set up a fund to help young people buy a flat and set up a family.

We did not bring wealth into this world. We only manage it during our life and cannot take it along to our grave. That is why Jesus said, "that which is another's" (16:12). Then what is "our own" (ditto)? It is the interpersonal relations we were born with. It remains beyond our death until the last person who knows us leaves this world. It is also your relationship with God which had begun even before you were born. It continues to exist beyond your death, forever and ever. By now you should know which master to serve, God or mammon!
God bless!





Thursday, 15 September 2016

2016 Mid-Autumn Festival Greeting

2016 中秋節快樂


中秋團圓的日子,
讓我們記起那些
未能與家人一共團圓的
您家中的外傭;
在囚人士;
醫院裡臥病的人;
露宿者;
獨居長者;
精神病患者;
……
Acknowledgement:
Picture link from http://link.photo.pchome.com.tw/s14/ctwuok/2/141008561514/

Sunday, 11 September 2016

天主主動尋找亡羊 God takes the initiative to look for lost sheep

常年期第廿四主日(丙年)
主題:天主主動尋找亡羊

今天沒有讀第三個比喻,相信大家已經聽過很多次了,不用讀亦已經非常熟悉了。耶穌喜歡用比喻講述天國的道理,因為比喻容易理解,容易記憶。今天的三個比喻,旨在說明天父是慈悲的,祂不願看見罪人喪亡,所以當罪人悔改的時候,會給天父帶來很大的喜樂。說一個比喻不是已經足夠了嗎?為甚麼要說三個呢?理由十分簡單,正如我們不是有一部而是四部福音,從不同的角度介紹耶穌基督的生平。同樣,三個失而復得的比喻,也是從不同的角度,讓人明白天父的心意。

比喻是以小故事,講述大道理。所以比喻會用一些誇張的手法,或者出人意表的情節,吸引聽眾,並給聽眾留下深刻的印象。所以聽比喻是一種享受,在享受以餘,再玩味其中的大道理。當然,我們不是二千年前的聽眾,有些時候,我們未必掌握到其中的驚喜之處。例如,今天科技發達,耕種稻米的技術得到改良,由一顆種子吐出的穗,可以有二百多顆的稻榖。二千年前的生產量祗不過是三四十顆,沒有這麼多了。所以當耶穌說三十倍、六十倍甚至一百倍時,我們不覺得有甚麼了不起,但當時的聽眾,一定非常眉飛色舞,希望耶穌可以送一些神奇種子給他們。

今天的比喻,有甚麼驚喜之處呢?英文有這樣的一句成語:「手中一鳥,勝過林中雙鳥。」教人不可貪得,輕言冒險。中國人也有「亡羊補牢」的成語,勸人做一些補救的工程,減少未來的損失,雖然比較消極,但卻十分合理。福音的第一個比喻,令人意外之處,就是主人竟然為了一隻迷失的羊,而掉下九十九隻手上的羊。這是絕對不理智的做法,無論是說英語的人或中國人,都一定不會這樣做。因為找回先前迷失的一隻之後,回來時可能已經失去掉下的九十九隻羊,得不償失。這個比喻令人驚喜之處,在於天主奇怪的思想,祂真的不惜任何代價,祗是為了一隻亡羊。

相對地,第二個比喻的女人比較理智,她這樣翻箱倒籠是合理的。試想想,如果一個男人可以為了百份之一的財產如此落力,何況是十分一的財產,不是應該更加落力嗎?一個「達瑪」祗不過是一天的工資。這個婦女的十個銀幣,一定是她的「私房錢」,或者是她的嫁妝。所以這失去的達瑪的珍貴之處,不在於它的幣值,而是在於它的意義。一個人有甚麼價值可言呢?他出於塵土,將來亦要歸於塵土。人已是如此卑微,更何況是罪人呢?天主的慈悲,就在這裡彰顯出來。縱使我們祗值一個達瑪,天主也不會嫌棄我們,反而會不厭其煩地尋找罪人。這就是出人意表之處。教宗方濟各說,天主會不厭其煩地寬恕我們,祗不過我們厭倦求天主憐憫我們罷了。

讓我們做一個小結。第一和第二個失而復得的比喻,告訴我們亡羊和失錢是不會自己回頭的,是主人主動地,不惜代價地去尋覓它們的。其次,亡羊和失錢雖然本身的價值不大,但它們的主人仍非常珍惜它們,沒有嫌棄它們。找到它們,給主人帶來很大的歡樂。同樣,罪人沒有能力自己悔改。他們需要天主尋覓他們,而天主亦樂於伸出援手。

為甚麼還要說第三個失而復得的比喻呢?還有甚麼可以說呢?有!就是為那些自以為是的罪人。他們都是亡羊,但他們不認為自己是亡羊,所以不需要主人的尋覓。他們最大的問題,就是以為自己沒有問題。世上最難醫治的病人,就是那些認為自己沒有病的人。既然沒有病,就不需要醫生;同樣,義人既然沒有罪,就不需要天主了。問題是,那些所謂義人,真是義人嗎?

蕩子比喻的主角不是那悔改的不肖子,而是那長子。當弟弟分家產的時候,他沒有勸阻,反而坐享其成。祗是弟弟想分家,他不想分家嗎?結果弟弟做了不肖子,他做了「孝子」。當弟弟回來,父親竟然沒有懲罰他,反而大排筵席,宰了那肥牛犢,為那不肖子向全村的鄉親父老謝罪。至於他,連一隻山羊也未享用過,父親實在太不公義,太徧心了!
其實,他一直在父親身邊,一直享受著在父親身邊的益處。現在不肖子返回父親身邊了,他的焦點不在浪子的回頭,不在一家團聚的喜樂,不在父親的慈悲,反而要和弟弟斤斤計較,甚至和父親斤斤計較。難道這不肖子會分薄他的利益嗎?當我們的心容不下別人的過失的時候,我們的心就容不下天主了。這是多麼危險的事。這就是我們經常祈禱的事:「求祢寬恕我們的罪過,如同我們寬恕別人一樣。」第三個失而復得的比喻,提醒我們,悔改不是別人的事,是我們每一個人的事。
天主保祐!


Twenty Fourth Ordinary Sunday (Year C)
Theme: God takes the initiative to look for lost sheep

I believe all of you have read many times the third parable which I did not read today and you are already very familiar with it. Jesus likes to speak about the Kingdom of Heaven with parables because they are easy to understand and remember. The three parables talk about the mercy of the Father. He does not want to see sinners perish. So when sinners repent, it brings Him great joy. Isn't one parable enough? Why are there three? The reason is simple. Just as there are not one but four gospels to tell the life of Jesus from different angles, similarly, the three "lost-and-found" parables help us understand God's mind from different angles.

Parables are fables that teach a moral. Therefore, parables make use of exaggerations or surprises to attract the audience and leave them a deep impression. Therefore, enjoy listening to parables and in your leisure, figure out the moral. Of course, we are not audience two millennia ago. Sometimes, we may not appreciate where the surprises lie. For example, advances in technology improve the technique of rice growing. Today, a grain of rice may produce more than 200 grains. Two thousand years ago, the output was merely thirty to forty. So, when Jesus said thirtyfold, sixtyfold and even a hundredfold, the eyes of the audience might have been brightened and would like Jesus to give them these miracle seeds.

So, where are the surprises in the parables today? In English, an idiom "A bird in hand is worth two in the bush" warns people not to take risks casually. In Chinese, the idiom "Mend the fence when you lose a sheep" advises us that it is never too late to rectify mistakes in order to contain the damages and prevent future loss. Though it is passive, it is reasonable. The surprise in the first parable lies in the behaviour of the man after he lost his sheep. He left the 99 sheep in hand behind to look for a lost sheep! This is absolutely irrational. Any English speak people or Chinse speaking people would never take such an action. What if after finding the lost sheep, you return home only to find the 99 sheep disappeared. The risk/cost is higher than the benefit. God's strange way of thinking surprises us. He is willing to pay whatever price it takes to find the lost sheep.

Comparatively speaking, the woman in the second parable is more sensible. Her turning the house upside down was reasonable. Just think about it. If a man worked so hard to recover one hundredth of his possession, would he not work even harder to recover one tenth? One drachma was the wage of one day. These ten drachmas of the woman must be her "private purse" or perhaps her dowry. The value of the lost drachma lies not in the face value of the silver coin but its meaning to the woman. What does a man worth? He came from dust and will one day return to dust. Man is already so lowly. How much lower is even a sinner? God's mercy is manifested here. Even if all we worth were only one drachma, God would never abandon us. On the contrary, He would seek us out tirelessly. This is the surprise. Pope Francis said, "God would never grow tired of forgiving us. It is we who are tired of seeking mercy from God."

Let us consolidate what we have so far. The first and second "lost-and-found" parables tell us that the lost sheep and the lost coin were unable to return on their own. The master took the initiative to seek them out whatever the costs. Secondly, the lost sheep and the lost coin did not worth much, but their masters still treasured them, did not abandon them and sought them out. Finding them brings great joy to the master. Similarly, sinners are unable to repent on their own. They need God to seek them out and God is happy to lend them a helping hand.
Why then do we need the third "lost-and-found" parable? What else can we say? There is! Those self-righteous sinners need the third parable. They are lost sheep but they do not think they are. They do not need their Master to seek them out. Their biggest problem is that they do not think they have problems. The most difficult patients in the world to heal are those who do not think that they are sick. They are not sick, thus they do not need physicians. Similarly, righteous people are without sins, thus they do not need God. The problem is whether these righteous people are truly righteous.

The hero of the Parable of the Prodigal Son is not the younger son but the elder brother. When the younger son wanted his share of inheritance, the elder brother did nothing to prevent him. He did not dissuade his younger brother. He benefited from his brother's claim without moving his finger. Was the younger brother the only one who wanted to divide the inheritance? Did the elder brother not want to? The younger brother became the bad boy and he the good. When the younger brother returned, the father killed the fatted calf to pacify the elders in the village, to apology on behalf of his prodigal son. As for the elder son, he never had a kid to merry with his friends. The father was unfair and showed favouritism.

In fact, he had always stayed close to the father, enjoying the benefits of being close to the father. Now that this wayward son had returned, his focus was not on the repentance of the younger brother, not on the joy of family reunion, not on the mercy of the father, but on enumerating the wrongs of the younger brother and even the wrongs of the father. Would his younger brother take away his benefits? When our hearts cannot let go the mistakes of the others, our hearts have no room for God. How dangerous it is. That is why we keep on praying, "Forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us." The third "lost-and-found" parable reminds us that repentance is NOT other people's problem. It is the problem of each one of us.
God bless.

Wednesday, 7 September 2016

How to tell lies with election statistics

I do not blame politicians for abusing statistics to their own advantages. It is straight forward and simple. People who do not bother to do mental maths are to blame.
I like i-cable news because it is informative and has the guts to be independent. However, the readers may not have enough time and patience to swallow the figures. Let us take a look at the objective data. More than 2 million people turned up to vote on Sunday, 400 thousands more than the previous one 2012. 26 new faces have been elected into the Council and some old soldiers have failed to garner enough votes. After hearing these figures, the first impression people have would be that 400000 new comers came out to vote for the new generation of localists. This election has conveniently been divided between the pro-establishment camp and the non-pro camp, i.e. pan-democrats and localists. Here comes the first surprise.
They are equally shared by both camps!
But this is wrong! We have made the wrong assumption that people did not switch sides in this election! The pro-establishment camp always accuses the non-pro camp for wasting resources with filibustering. They encouraged voters to vote them out. Perhaps some previous non-pro camp really get tired of the actions of non-pro legislators and switched side this time. On the other hand, we cannot rule out the possibility that since a greater turnout was expected, some pro-establishment voters had the room to switch side and voted according to their conscience, instead of instructions from above!

Here comes the second surprise. The numbers add up.
The localists garnered 400,000 votes. Are they all new comers? Together with the first picture above, where did the extra 200,000 votes come from? We don't know. But they look as if some supporters of pan-democrats have abandoned the traditional way of voting and thrown their weigh to the localists to look for a change. This reasoning is further reinforced by the following two pictures.

The radicals have lost 100,000 votes and the pan-democrats together another 100,000 votes. The numbers now add up cleanly but then the pro-establishment would have wasted their breath in encouraging people to vote for their camp. The pan-democrat supporters have a fresh choice of localists to vent their dissatisfaction and they remain stubborn rivals against the pro-establishment. This is an over-simplification and easily accepted by all.

CY did not fail to make use of the figures to evade when reporters asked him if the election results indicated the citizens' dissatisfaction with his administration. With his typical cunning grin, he said that citizens had instead voted the radical legislators out. He drew people's attention to only one section of the full picture, without mentioning the 6 newly localists who openly declared not to meet him and the officials from the Central Government. This is simple enough to refute.
Lastly, Mr. Ho also played with figures. He told reporters that he had to thank Mr. Eddie Chu and Mr. Cheng Chung Tai for ousting Mr. Lee Cheuk Yan from the Labour. Here, he was suggesting that Lee's losing margin of 5,500 votes all went to Messrs Chu and Cheng! Again, this is an oversimplification and easily understood by everybody. However, since the Central Liaison Office have been pumping votes to pro-establishment candidates, I would retort that the CLO must have pumped too little votes to him so that he could only win by an insignificant margin of 5,500.

Readers! Beware of Statistical Figures!

Acknowledgement:
有線寬頻

Tuesday, 6 September 2016

Passover in Life

This morning, I officiated the School Opening Prayer Service in Tung Chung Catholic School (Secondary Section). The theme was "Passover in Life". The new principal Mr. Lam was invited to do sharing before my homily. Since not many Catholic Schools brought their students to visit the Mother Teresa Exhibition organized by the Diocesan Ad Hoc Committee of Jubilee of Mercy, in collaboration with the St. Vincent de Paul Society, I decided to present the theme through the biography of St. Mother Teresa.

Students & Teachers,

First of all, I would like to thank Mr. Lam for sharing his most intimate experiences with us. It is very generous of him to open up his heart to reveal his previous vulnerability, which is no longer bothering him. In other words, he has been liberated.
The story of Moses leading the Israelites out of Egypt is a story of liberation. It was not a revolution because Moses did not have the intention to overthrow the Egyptian government. So, Passover is only a matter of liberation from slavery, not a revolution to achieve independence. Do not think that there is no more slavery nowadays. There are many such instances, even in Hong Kong. The foreign domestic helpers are examples. They are not allowed to live outside. They are 24-hour on duty. Most of them do not have the privacy of a bedroom on their own etc. It is true that they have holidays. Otherwise, it would truly be blatant slavery and an international scandal for Hong Kong. Human trafficking, leading to forced labour and prostitution is another example of slavery. Thus, there is slavery even nowadays. The freedom of many people has been exploited.
But there is slavery or bondage even on a personal level. Unbeknown to the victims, they build up comfort zone to enslave themselves. In order to break away from these human bondages, we need Passover in life.

Yesterday was a big day, not only because Mother Teresa was canonized, but also because it was the polling day for the Legislative Council in Hong Kong. The voting rate was at least 4% higher than that of 2004. Quite a number of young post-umbrella movement local candidates have been voted into the Council. What happened two years ago? What were the opinions of the adults towards those youngsters? "They are immature", "They are easily misled by evil people", "There are foreign influences controlling them" or even "They behave like Red Guards." etc. Why did the adults make mistakes in their assessment of the Umbrella Movement? It was because they were living in their comfort zones and the Movement threatened their security. They did not see this as an opportunity to initiate political reform for good.  They forgot that the Liberal Studies had trained these young people to think independently ... Yesterday, many people came out to vote. Whatever their political affiliations, there was one common theme running through the election campaign --- for the good of our children, we must come out to vote, to improve our legislature. Students, four years later, you will be entitled to vote. Start caring about what is going on inside the Council chamber. Start learning and equipping yourselves. Start building up your social network instead of hiding yourselves in your comfort zone of online games. Start knowing more about yourselves, your bondage and your talents.

Mother Teresa was a good example for us to see how we passover our bondage. She had already done very well in renouncing all to become a missionary Loreto nun. She left her Albania roots and travelled to Calcutta to teach in a convent school and even became the principal of this elite school. She loved her career and her students who loved her too. But it was also her comfort zone. So, on her way to Darjeeling, she received a "call within a call". Jesus summoned her to leave her comfort zone to serve him among the poorest of the poor. She followed Jesus' call and began helping out poor children, feeding and teaching them. You see, teaching was still within her comfort zone. So, a more demanding call compelled her to work for the dying.
Mother Teresa began to realize that material poverty was not poverty at all. The truly terrible poverty is a poverty of relation. Feeling rejected and abandoned. So, she began to serve the dying, picking them up on the street, washed them and taking care of them so that they might leave this world with a little dignity and being loved.

Students, enjoy the following 14-minute excerpt from a 2003 movie "Mother Teresa of Calcutta" and see how she passovered her comfort zone to ascend sainthood. Mother Teresa said that being a saint is not the privilege of a handful of elites. God calls us to be saints and He surely will help us. Rely on God. Beware of your own comfort zone. It prevents you from developing your real potentials. Now, let us watch and enjoy the video.

Sunday, 4 September 2016

為甚麼要捨棄一切所有? Why do we have to renounce all?

常年期第廿三主日(丙年)
主題:為甚麼要捨棄一切所有?

這幾個主日的福音是一脈相承的。首先,耶穌正朝耶路撒冷出發的時候,有人問耶穌得救的人多不多,耶穌便指出要進入天國,必需通過窄門。即是說,進入天國是要用力的,要作出犧牲的。上一個主日的福音,耶穌直指得救的核心所在,就是「謙遜」。人類因為渴望成為天主,並驕傲地想取代天主,所以惹下大禍,我們稱之為「原罪」。針對人類的驕傲,天主聖子降生成人,服從至死,並死在十字架上,就是「對症下藥」,教導我們以謙遜的心態,走過得救的窄門。今天,耶穌更清楚指出,跟隨耶穌,做耶穌門徒的人,要捨棄一切。不過,我們要瞭解,耶穌當時說這番話的背景。

首先,耶穌行過了五餅二魚與及其他的神蹟,已經吸引了一大群人跟隨他。其次,從門徒口中,耶穌知道了群眾對他懷有一個「危險的期望」,就是擁立他為「默西亞」,帶領他們進入耶路撒冷,驅逐羅馬人。而他正朝耶路撒冷方向進發,入聖城受難。當然,耶穌渴望所有的人得救,但得救與否,始終仍是個人的自由抉擇。因此,耶穌有責任向跟隨他的人,事先聲明,後果是自負的。所以耶穌按步就班,把進入天國的步驟慢慢展示出來。他首先提出窄門,然後提出謙遜,最後攤牌,提出做他的門徒要捨棄一切。所以,如果你是一個機會主義者,想跟隨耶穌,得到一官半職,但又不願意作出犧牲的話,恐怕你要適可而止,早日另謀高就了。倘若你是真心跟隨耶穌,我們就進一步默想耶穌的教訓,它的真正意義是甚麼。為甚麼我們要捨棄一切,纔能得救?

在路加福音中,耶穌提出的「捨棄」分了三個層次。第一是「憎恨自己的親人,甚至憎恨自己的生命」,第二是「背起自己的十字架」,第三是「捨棄一切所有」。讓我們來分析第一個層次。
猶太人用的希伯來語,是沒有比較式的。即是說,祗有美和醜,沒有更加美。正如兩個美女站在一起的時候,一個是美,另一個便是醜了。但所謂醜的並不是真正的醜,祗是沒有那麼美。同理,因為希伯來文沒有比較式,所以祗有愛和恨。在耶穌與父母之間,你愛哪個多一些呢?你會說:「我愛耶穌多一些,我愛父母少一些。」這是中國人,現代人的表達方式。但在耶穌時代的猶太人,他們祗能說:「我愛耶穌,憎恨父母。我愛天主,憎恨自己的生命。」試想想,十誡不是要求人孝敬父母嗎?憎恨父母豈不是違反十誡呢?耶穌是天主,他豈能自我矛盾呢?所以,第一個層次,就是在心態上,你愛自己的生命多,還是愛耶穌多呢?你愛自己的妻子、兒女多,還是愛耶穌多呢?耶穌要求做他門徒的人,愛他更甚於愛自己的生命。

很自然,愛耶穌甚於愛惜自己的生命,必會帶來困難痛苦。因為愛耶穌,你會遵從祂的教訓行事,努力實踐真福八端的要求,自然招致來自自己的私慾徧情、世俗和魔鬼的干擾。這就是耶穌所指的十字架了。最後,為甚麼要捨棄一切呢?錢財是身外物,但親友的關係、事業的成就,是你自己的組成部份,甚至是重要的組成部份。捨棄了這些,你還是你嗎?親友的確是天主賜給你,幫助你成長的,不可缺少的成員。你的事業是你善用天主所賜的才幹的成果。但這一切,就是天主的計劃嗎?天主真的想你停在現狀嗎?

今天,真福德蘭修女封聖了,她的生平是一個很好的說明。她已經捨棄了一切,加入了一個傳教女修會,離開家人,到印度加爾各答教書,做到了校長的地位。她本可以繼續安逸地在學校的圍墻內教書,作育英才,興建更多的名校,甚至晉升為修會會長。但她沒有這樣做。她感覺到一個召叫中的召叫,耶穌呼召她到最貧窮的人之中,去服事他,實踐瑪竇福音第廿五章的教訓。就這樣,她捨棄了過往十八年的成就,離開了安全、安逸的學校環境,走入了陌生、危險貧民窟,踏上了成聖之窄門。你或者會說,真福德蘭修女是聖人,我們是凡人。她做得到,我們做不到。

耶穌所說的兩個計算的比喻很有趣,其中暗藏了一些指示。第二個比喻中提及以一萬人與二萬人作戰,有勝算嗎?有!你可以與其他國王聯盟作戰。找誰聯盟最好呢,哪位國王的作戰紀錄最好呢?據民長紀的記載,天主從一萬士兵之中,挑選了其中三百個,打敗了外族的十二萬的聯軍。所以,投靠天主是最好的選擇。其實,天主非常渴望幫助我們,可惜我們不願捨棄阻礙我們親近天主的事物。你能犧牲捨棄多少呢?
天主保祐。


  Twenty Third Ordinary Sunday (Year C)
Theme: Why do we have to renounce all?

The gospel readings in these few weeks are related. First of all, when Jesus was heading towards Jerusalem, somebody asked Jesus whether few would be saved. Jesus told them to strive to enter the Kingdom of Heaven through the narrow gate. That is to say, in order to be save, we need to strive, to sacrifice. Last Sunday, Jesus pointed directly to the core of salvation. That is humility. Men desired to become God, and arrogantly wanted to replace God. This started all the troubles and we call it the "Original Sin". Targeting this human pride, the Son of God incarnated and died obediently even on the cross. With this dose of target medicine, Jesus taught us to go through the narrow gate of salvation with humility. Today, Jesus makes it clear that one must renounce all in order to become his disciple. But let us take a look at the background of this teaching.

Firstly, Jesus had worked the 5 loaves and 2 fish and many other miracles. He had attracted a large following. Secondly, from his disciples, Jesus knew that the crowd had cherished a dangerous expectation on him. They wanted to make him the Messiah, lead them to Jerusalem to drive out the Romans. Coincidentally, he was heading Jerusalem at the moment to suffer his Passion. Of course, Jesus desires all to be saved but at the end of the day, it is a matter of personal free choice. Therefore, Jesus has the obligation to make it clear beforehand to the people who were following him what the consequences would be. So, he patiently and step by step unfolded how to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Firstly he brought up the narrow gate, then humility and lastly the renunciation of all. If you were an opportunist and wanted to get a government job, you had better think again and perhaps quit as soon as possible. If you sincerely want to follow Jesus, let us meditate further the real meaning of Jesus teaching. Why is it necessary to renounce all in order to be saved?

In the gospel of Luke, Jesus mentions three levels of renunciation. Firstly, you must hate your family members and your life. Secondly, you must carry your own cross and lastly, you renounce all. Let us take a look at the first level. In Hebrew, there is no comparative. That is to say, there are "beautiful" and "ugly" and there is no "more beautiful". So when two beautiful ladies stand together, one is beautiful and the other ugly. But the ugly one is not really ugly. She is only less beautiful. Similarly, there are only "love" and its opposite "hate" and no in-between. So, between Jesus and parents, which one do you love more? You would say, "I love Jesus more, and my parents less." This is the Chinese way, the modern way of expression. But in Jesus' time, people could only say, "I love Jesus and hate my parents. I love God and hate my life." Just think about it, do the Ten Commandments not tell us to love our parents? If we hate our parents, do we go against the Ten Commandments? Jesus is God. How could he contradict himself? Therefore, on the first level, in our choices, do we love our life more than we love Jesus? Do we love our wife and children more than we love Jesus? Jesus demands his followers to love him more than their own lives.

Naturally, if we love Jesus more than our own life, difficulties and sufferings will follow. It is because when we love Jesus, we want to follow his teaching and try our best to fulfil the Beatitudes. This will attract disturbances and persecutions from our own concupiscence, the secular world and Satan. This is what Jesus meant by the crosses we have to carry. Lastly, why should we renounce all? Money and wealth are things outside, but relationships with friends and relatives, our careers and achievements are parts of ourselves, even the most crucial parts. They are what made us. Without them, we are not what we are today. God gave you relatives and friends to help you grow up. They are significant others of your life. Your career is the fruit of what you have made use of God's bestowed talents. But are all these people and achievements God's plan for you? Does God really want to remain in this status quo?

Today, the Blessed Mother Teresa will be canonized. Her life was a good illustration of this teaching of renunciation. Mother Teresa had already forsaken all to join the Loreto Order. She left everything behind, moved to Calcutta to teach and had even become the headmistress of an elite convent school. She could have stay behind the security of the school to continue her teaching, her formation of young girls, building up of more elite schools and even her promotion to the post of Mother General. But she did not do this. She felt "a call within a call" that Jesus called her to serve him among the poorest of the poor, to put the teaching of Matthew 25 into practice. In this way, she renounced her achievements of 18 years, leaving the safe and secure environment of the convent school, walked into an unknown and treacherous slum, the narrow gate of sainthood. You may complain that Blessed Mother Teresa is a saint and we are mere mortals. She could do it. We cannot.

Here, Jesus2 two parables of calculation might give us some hint. In the second parable, can you win 20,000 with 10,000? Yes you can. You may join alliance with other kings. Which king should we join, a king with a good track record? According to the book of Judges, God once selected 300 soldiers among 10,000 to defeat an alliance army of 120,000. So, choosing God is the best. In fact, God desires to help us very much. It is we who do not want to forsake things that block us from getting close to God. How much can you renounce?
God bless.