主題：看作外教人或稅吏
某市領導人，是一位天主教徒。市民真的要感謝讚美天主了，因為祂安排了一位對上司忠心的天主教徒，作為這座城市的領導人，以福音的精神指導行政，以行政作為主導，為人民服務。那城市的居民，是多麼令人羨慕（天主教要理#2442）！市長更在人前說，天主在天堂已為他留一席位。這句話在一段時期內，為大眾所津津樂道。這種能在人前作見證的勇氣，真的足以為他賺取天堂的一席位（瑪10:32）。
可惜現實是殘酷的，蜜月期過後，城市的深層矛盾逐漸浮現，加上可見的上司施壓，市長顯得有點疲於奔命，以致他的表現，好像忘記了天主教徒的身份，結果與市民的期望，出現很大落差，引發了一些為期不短的社會動盪。他效忠的上司，也有上司；層層可見的上司最後有一位最高的上司。雖然祂是不可見的，但祂巨細無遺地，把一切盡收眼底。倘若祂要追究，那些層層可見的上司，將會無一倖免！不過，這位不可見的至高上司是慈悲的，祂不斷釋出善意，希望那些作為上司的，可以回頭改過。另一方面，部份失望的天主教徒市民，計劃發起聯署，要求當今教宗絕罰市長。這樣做，符合福音的教訓嗎？
今天的第一篇讀經，很清楚指出，作為天主教徒，我們有彼此規勸的責任。我們彼此規勸，當然不是厄則克耳所說，擔任警衛角色。我們彼此規勸，也不是出於害怕天主追究我們（則33:8b）。出於害怕而做正確的事，是最低的道德層次。因為在耶穌基督內，大家都是兄弟姊妹。我們怎能忍心，看著天主懲罰自己的兄弟姊妹，而無動於衷呢？這種愛人如己的情操，是梅瑟的教訓（肋19:18），是法律的完滿（羅13:8-9），基督徒不是應該要超越這些最低要求嗎？所以，當我們對市長失望的時候，我們有規勸他嗎？或者，我們有沒有好像一眾先知，跑到君王面前，指出他的不是呢（則33:8a，瑪14:4）？不過，在跑到君王面前指摘他，首先應該得到天主的派遣，代表天主而不是代表自己說話（則33:7）。雖然天主教徒在領洗時，已分享了耶穌基督的先知職務，但也要確定是天主的差遣，方可行事！要知道祇有全知的天主，纔有能力判斷人的良心。我們不是全知的，所以祈禱明辨，非常重要。確定了是天主差遣之後，怎樣行事呢？今天的福音，提出了很清晰的步驟。但看來是有關個人恩怨，與公共利益無關。不過，即使是個人恩怨的處理手法，也有指導的作用，示範了規勸過程當守的原則。
第一步是私下獨處時規勸他（瑪18:15）。
除非領導人很親民，否則接近他的人不多，規勸他的責任，就落在他身邊的「諫官」身上了！諫官這樣做，便尊重了領導人的尊嚴和面子。要知道為了面子，很多人會否認自己犯錯，這是人之常情。在這種情況下，私下規勸好像起不了作用。錯！這樣做是「先禮後兵」，你曾表示過尊重，往後就不能怪你不留情面了！
第二步加入第三者在場（18:16），目的是希望有人能客觀持平，排難解紛。要知道人犯錯時，很多時候是無愧於心的！大家都是成年人，明白後果，做事不會一時衝動。所以我認為你做錯事，可能是大家意見不合而已。所謂旁觀者清，在沒有利益衝突的第三者面前，他可以作出客觀分析，說不定會發現錯不在領導人，而是我們。
最後一步纔由教會仲裁。既然福音說：「如果他連教會也不聽從，你就將他看作外邦人或稅吏」（18:17），聯署給教宗絕罰市長，把他當作稅吏或外邦人，不是按照福音的指示做嗎？
這種手法，犯了兩個毛病：一、市長未有答辯的機會。無論在教會的法律或世俗的法律下，都是不公義的。二、不認識福音。把不接受教會排解的兄弟當作稅吏，是曾當過稅吏的瑪竇所推薦的做法，有甚麼意思？天主出於慈悲，召選當稅吏的瑪竇成為門徒，從此瑪竇不再遭受歧視，他的塔冷通得以發展，為世人留下《瑪竇福音》。所以瑪竇深切地體會到，白白蒙受寬恕的喜樂。現今有兄弟不受規勸，便應該歧視他，排擠他嗎？錯！不是排擠他，而是對他展示天主的慈悲（9:10-13）！不是當外邦人一樣不相往來，而是把天主的救恩，重新帶給他（宗10:28）！即是說，重新啟動規勸程序，但要保持創意，吸收從前規勸失敗的教訓，另尋出路！
總括而言，公開的譴責，違反了第一個原則。聘請外國專家排解，是可行的第二步，可惜市民沒有資源，資源在政府手上。從市長的公開講話中，我們感覺得他認為自己沒有犯錯。即發生社會動盪，責任完全不在政府一方，是…云云，可見沒有專家能說服我們的市長了。最後一步，市民通知教會。現今在資訊流通的社會上，教會一定已經知道了。但教會的權威，今非昔比，現代人極不願意接受教會的裁決。該怎麼辦？
世上最難醫治的病人，不是病入膏肓的病人，而是那些不認為自己有病的病人。即使是神醫，恐怕也束手無策。同樣，對著自以為是的法利塞人，耶穌基督亦祇能「醫治」了三、四個，包括雅依洛、尼苛德摩、阿黎瑪特雅人若瑟和掃祿。真的是沒有辦法嗎？但掃祿的例子，卻證明了「在天主前沒有不能的事」（路1:37）。所以，即使是極度頑劣的人，慈悲的天主一定會憐憫。
各位兄弟姊妹，讓我們為市長祈禱，望全能的天主，不再令他心硬（出4:21），早日回頭悔改，做福百姓，讓「祂的百姓認識救恩，以獲得他們罪惡的寬宥。」（路1:77）
天主保祐！
2017年講道
圖片鳴謝：focusmagazine.org
Twenty Third Ordinary Sunday, Year A
Theme: Treat Him As A Gentile or Tax Collector
The leader of a city is a Catholic. The citizens should praise and thank God for arranging a Catholic who is loyal to his superiors to lead. Making use of evangelical values to guide the implementation of laws, the mayor serves the citizens with "elective dictatorship". How much we envied the citizens (CCC #2442)! Once the mayor claimed, even in front of the media, that God had reserved a place for him in heaven. For a while, this statement had been a top talk of the town. Indeed, such a courage to bear witness boldly should earn him a place in heaven (Matthew 10:32)
Regrettably, reality is unpleasant. After the honeymoon period, deep seated social contradictions began to emerge. The mayor showed signs of exhaustion under the demands of his boss. He seemed to have forgotten his Catholic identity. The gap of expectation was widened and there were not so short periods of social unrests. The immediate boss the mayor reports to also has bosses. Above all these visible bosses, there is the highest and invisible boss. He is omniscient. All details, be they huge or minute, are within His sight. Nobody can be exempted from accountability. But this invisible boss is merciful. He releases good will continually, hoping that those bosses might repent. On the other hand, some frustrated Catholic citizens intended to a petition and appeal to the current Pope to excommunicate the mayor. Is such an action evangelical?
The first reading today makes it clear that as Catholics, we have the responsibility to exhort each other. We exhort, not in the role of a sentinel as described in Ezekiel. We exhort, not out of fear that God would hold us responsible for their blood (Ezekiel 33:8b). Doing the right thing out of fear of punishment is the lowest level of morality. In Christ, we are brothers and sisters. Can we be indifferent seeing our brethren punished by God? Loving our neighbour as ourselves was taught by Moses (Leviticus 19:18). It is the fulfilment of the law (Romans 13:8-9). Aren't Christians supposed to have surpassed this minimum requirement? Thus, when we are frustrated by the mayor, have we exhorted him? Or, have we followed the examples of prophets, gone before the mayor to point out his faults (Ezekiel 33:8a, Matthew 14:4)? But before we go to point out his mistakes, make sure that we are sent by God, representing God and not ourselves (Ezekiel 33:7). Although Catholics partake in the prophetic ministry of Jesus Christ through baptism, we have to make sure that God has commissioned us before we act! Only God is omniscient. Only God is able to pass judgment on people's conscience. We are not. Thus discernment and prayer are extremely important. How shall we proceed after affirmation? The gospel passage today shows the way. But it looks personal and has nothing to do with the common good. However, we may still learn the principles of exhortation in this procedure of settling individual disputes.
First of all, "tell him his fault between you and him alone" (Matthew 18:15)
Unless the city leader is popular, not many people may gain access to him. The responsibility of exhortation falls on the devil's advocates close to him! Telling him his fault alone, the devil's advocates pay respect to the mayor's dignity and face. People tend to be defensive and deny making mistakes. This is human. Then exhorting him alone doesn't seem effective. Negative! This is courtesy before attack. I've shown you respect. Don't blame me for subsequent harshness!
Secondly, invite a third-party (18:16), hoping that an impartial party may help settle the dispute. We should note that most of the time, people make mistakes with a clean conscience. We are adults. We know the consequences of our actions. Rarely are mistakes made impulsively. Therefore, if you think I'm wrong, it may only be a matter of opinions. Without conflict of interests, the impartial third-party is able to analyse the dispute objectively. May be after all, it is our faults, not the mayor's.
Telling the Church is the last resort. The gospel says, "If he refuses to listen even to the Church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector." (18:17) Doesn't signing a petition to the Pope to excommunicate the mayor, treating him like a Gentile or tax collector follow the gospel teaching?
There are two problems with this action. Firstly, the mayor is not given a chance to defend. It is unfair whether under the Canon Law or under the local laws. Secondly, not knowing the gospel! What does it mean when Matthew, who had been a tax collector before, recommended treating the stubborn brother as a tax collector? Out of mercy, God called Matthew, the tax collector, to be an apostle. From then, nobody discriminated him. He was able to actualize his "talentum" and left us a gospel. Thus, Matthew fully understands the joy of being forgiven. Now let us despise and reject a stubborn brother! Negative! Not to reject him but to show him God's mercy (9:10-13)! Not rejecting interactions as Gentiles but to bring him once more God's salvation (Acts 10:28). That is to say, restart the procedure of exhortation but be creative. Learn from previous failures and seek other venues!
In short, public condemnation goes against the first principle. Deploying overseas experts is a plausible second step. Unfortunately, citizens don't have the resources. Only the government has. From public statements made by the mayor, we sense that he doesn't admit making any mistakes. Even for social unrests, the government can wash her hands. It is the fault of … etc. Thus, no experts would be able to convince the mayor. As for the last resort, in a society where information flows freely, the Church already knows. But unlike previous ages, nobody honours the authority of the Church anymore. Modern people won't accept the judgment of the Church. What should we do?
The most difficult patients to treat are not those who are seriously ill, but those who don't think they are sick. I'm afraid even miracle healers would fail. In a similar manner, as for the self-righteous Pharisees, even Jesus Christ could only "cure" a handful, namely Jairus, Nicodemus, Joseph of Arimathea and Saul. Is it really that bad? But the case of Saul proves that "For nothing will be impossible for God." (Luke 1:37) God is merciful toward even the worst.
Brethren! Let us pray for the mayor so that the almighty God will not harden his heart (Exodus 4:21), help him repent as soon as possible and serve the citizens well, "to give his people knowledge of salvation through the forgiveness of their sins." (Luke 1:77)
God bless!
No comments:
Post a Comment