Would that all the people of the Lord were prophets! Sunday Readings 26 B (Y-not question the Sunday Readings)

The disciples continue to fail to understand.Notwithstanding Jesus' attempts in last week's Gospel they are still caught up in exclusiveness,control,prestige,influence etc.So much like many in some parts of the church today. ( Apostolic Succession indeed !!)

So little consideration for those who have been healed by this outsider. ( Actually earlier on in Mark 9 at 18 the disciples had been unable to cure an epileptic demoniac )

This passage really undermines the belief that outside the church there can be no salvation.

I think many more people (both laity and religious) are finding their prophetic voice.

But what might impede us in playing a prophetic role ? Our own materialism ? Perhaps there are some clues in the second reading 2 James 5:1-6.

Maitland

Thanks Tony & Maitland.
May I add further thoughts that evolved from reading the discussions initiated by Beehive about the news that German Catholics are being threatened with denial of the sacraments if they do not pay a ‘church tax’.
#113166

A German bishops' decree which has just come into force says anyone failing to pay the tax - an extra 8% of their income tax bill - will no longer be considered a Catholic.
The bishops have been alarmed by the number of Catholics leaving the Church.
They say such a step should be seen as a serious act against the community.
All Germans who are officially registered as Catholics, Protestants or Jews pay a religious tax of 8-9% on their annual income tax bill. The levy was introduced in the 19th Century in compensation for the nationalisation of religious property.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19699581

I can understand that in the historical context this ‘tax’ makes some sense.
It does mean that the onus is on the ‘churches’ to maintain their membership.
They have to make it their serious business to motivate people to be members in a manner that is relevant to their lives.
They have to be seen by potential members to be leading as exemplary role models with great integrity.
When they fail to do so there are serious consequences.

This news story has stayed uncomfortably with me all week and the gospel this Sunday seems to be somewhat of a commentary on that issue.

Is it a sign of commitment and integrity for a church to deny anyone the ‘path to salvation’ that it claims to be in control of?

The gospel seems to suggest that being a recognised member of Christ’s disciples is not necessarily a requirement for salvation.
Outsiders, others, can be just as effectively on the path to salvation!
Wow! Vatican II revisited!

Vatican II recognized that there is truth in all the world’s great religions as well as in its secular institutions, for as Jesus declared: "Anyone who is not against us is with us."

Selectivity, exclusion are not part of the way of Christ.
Inclusivity is!

Jesus is about being of service to others.
The disciples were concerned about being exclusive, about being ‘better than others.’
Christ asks us not to be better than others but better for others.
In the final analysis our lives stand or fall on how we have or have not loved.
It is a free choice we ourselves make.

Following on from those thoughts it would seem that if we are going to be disciples of Jesus we had better examine our conscience to see how we speak about and act towards people who are not ‘one of us’!

Quoting from a reflection by a Henley Beach parish priest:

“If, in the past, when people were more locked into their own racial groupings, there were grounds for ignorance of people of different colour, race or religious customs, today we cannot make the same excuses.
We have looked back at the earth from space and have seen it as a beautiful planet.
It has been dramatically demonstrated that we do, indeed, belong to each other.
We need each other.
Moreover, just as an orchestra is enriched by the variety of instruments that make it up, and as a garden is made more beautiful by the variety of plants and flowers that grow in it; just as a cathedral window produces such awe because of the variety of colours through which the light is filtered; so we should recognize the immense gift of the many cultures that make up Australia.”

Jesus teaches his disciples to appreciate the good done by others, whoever they are, and never to give scandal.
He teaches us to be ecumenical; to be open minded Christians, acknowledging that we are not in the business of being better than others but being better at being for others.
If we Christians, and there are millions and millions of us, were fully committed to living the Gospel wouldn’t the world be a different place?

Tony, welcome back to leading the reflections. Thanks also for linking to the insight from Eugene Stockton's book. I'd like to take up on that and also link into a comment James placed on the forum commenting on Frank Brennan's homily on the St Francis Xavier relic: "Relativism within the Catholic Church" [LINK]...

It seems to me there is this deep and almost universal drive within the human spirit or psyche to seek what might be loosely described as "goodness". The news in Australia of the last 24 hours of the bloke who has now been charged with raping and murdering ABC Radio employee, Jillian Meagher [LINK for readers outside Australia who might not be aware of this story], might cause us to reflect on the "universal" claim in my last sentence. It's perhaps reflection for another time if some are intrinsically attracted to "badness" or whether "bad behaviour" is an aberration away from the "universal attraction to 'goodness'"? (This, I understand, was/is a major point of contention between Calvinist and Catholic theology.)

Accepting then, for the purposes of this comment, the Catholic position that there is some "universal call to 'goodness'" (and "bad behaviour" is an aberration to that), it seems to me that even within Catholicism there is deep confusion over what this means. This is at heart of the conversation in another string about the "Catholic Answers" video urging a vote for the Republican candidates in the forthcoming US elections because to vote for others is inherently bad or sinful because of the five "non negotiable" moral issues that face the world today [LINK]. As Gail observes/implies in that string [LINK] today we effectively have two versions of Catholicism or Christianity:

• One is rooted in the Old Testament "God said to Moses" theology of "Thou Shalt Nots";
  
• "Then along came Jesus whose life and death turned the story - life and the universe - upside down. His most powerful message? The Beatitudes - more in line with your prudential judgements, as the bishop describes them. Yet this was the Master's most powerful sermon. If you're looking for Good News, it doesn't come much better than this vision."

Earlier this evening over dinner with a friend we were discussing the rise of religious fundamentalism in the world. All of it seems rooted in this Absolutism of the Old Testament and "Thou Shalt Not" theology. Jesus presents a radically different alternative to this. It is not some game of social conformism — trying to please some authority figure — but it is a radical call calling us forward to "goodness" or morally intelligent behaviour. We don't "conform" because some authority figure in the sky commanded us to. We seek "good moral behaviour and thinking" because it is inherently "good" within itself.

The proposition that has been exercising my mind as a result of your reflection, and Eugene's book, and also some of what James wrote about Frank Brennan's observations, is where does this "universal call to goodness" come from? Further to that, does it have to reside in some "authority figure" — such as Jesus, Muhammad, Moses, Abraham or any of the other "gods, saints and prophets" worshipped in other religions? Or is it something even more basic, or universal, or fundamental than that? Is it, as Fr Eugene implies through the title of his book, something "Deep Within" each one of us — and exists quite apart from any "prophets, saints or gods" who might help us articulate it?

In the business of parenting, the wise parent starts off with a fairly strict obedience regime in the development or formation of their children. Over time though the parent, by intuition or intelligent choice, gradually transfers authority and autonomy to the child to take responsibility for their choices themselves. The child is taught to live with the consequences of their choices. The intelligent and wise parent is no longer encouraging compliant or obedient behaviour because it pleases the parent but because the parent is pleased to see the child with the capacity to make wise choices in their own right. There is a big difference.

James, it seems to me, is critical of the Church because it seems to take a hypocritical attitude towards moral relativism. It is self-evidently relativist in some areas of moral choice or discernment but in other areas it tends to be absolutist — and in its public rhetoric denies that it is relativist about anything. The charge, or criticism, is inconsistency. My own position, partly drawn from James' argument, is that all moral decisions need to be relative. This appears to be supported by the insights of modern science — viz Einstein's General and Special Theories of Relativity — that all observations have to made with reference to the position of the one making the observations. The very presence of the observer can affect the absolute value of an observation. While this might be all too complicated with Benedict's "little people" and the religious fundamentalists, I believe it also applies in the moral realm. In another case in the Australian courts that made the headlines today, a woman who stabbed her husband and who subsequently died as a result of the wound, was cleared of both murder and manslaughter on the grounds of self-defence [LINK]. The fundamentalist would hold she "sinned" against the Fifth Commandment and there was only one possible outcome: she was guilty — there were no grounds for some "relativistic" exoneration on the grounds of self-defence or diminished responsibility for her actions.

I'm still mulling on all of this. There are three realms to my mulling:

• firstly, where does this "universal call or urge" to choose good behaviour/intelligent moral choices over bad behaviour/unintelligent moral choices come from? Where does it ultimately reside? In this place called "natural law" the Church talks about?
  
• secondly, where does Jesus – or any "authority figure" for that matter – fit into all this? Where does Eugene Stockton's idea of a call, or attraction, to a certain kind of behaviour and thinking reside — where is this "Deep Within" located? How is it shared between people in different cultures, religions, locations and over massive spans of time down through history?
  
• thirdly, how will society eventually overcome this challenge and threat posed by religious fundamentalism and absolutism? If it isn't humankind faces centuries more of war and divide with various groups of people trying to argue "my God is better than your God" or outside my church, or religious beliefs, there is no salvation.

Brian Coyne
[Editor & Publisher]

Thanks Tony for encouraging reflections on Sunday's Gospel.
It seems to challenge us/me not to judge others for doing good works that eases all types of suffering in people, whether it be physical,mental,emotional etc.
It also asks/points to what is important in life ie To be Peace with God and ourselves.
georgeh

What fabulous food for thought this discussion has given me...thank you everyone!

And a special welcome back, Tony. It's wonderful to have you back with us after your heart surgery and on the road to recovery. Long may you prosper and continue to bring us these fine reflections!

Musica delenit bestiam feram.

Tony, welcome back, and thank you for these thoughts.

At one level the messages are basic, common sense ethics.

At one level, I agree, but at another, more literal level, they are appalling. And this is one of the problems with all religions that I know of, but particularly Christianity, which is the one I know best.
Let me just take some of your examples.

For whoever is not against us is for us.

That is a quote from Luke 9:50, and that is the translation give by all translations.
http://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Luke%209:50

On the other hand, if you choose Matthew 12:30, you get something different:

He that is not with Me is against Me

And again, there seems to be unanimity in all translations that this is what Matthew says.
http://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Matthew%2012:30

The two sayings don't really mean the same thing, the second one implying that anyone who is not on Jesus side is fighting against him, rather than being arguably neutral. George Bush chose Matthew to justify his so called "war on terror". And so, the Matthew version has an appalling side, a fundamentalist, totalitarian side, justifying complete intolerance of any one else's point of view or begging to differ.

Anyone who gives you a cup of water to drink
because you belong to Christ, amen, I say to you, will surely not lose his reward.

There is nothing particularly appalling about this, but it does suggest that morality has to be based on promises of reward, rather than good deeds being worth doing in themselves. Much of Catholic devotional practice is based on this idea of rewards and punishments - indulgences, Nine First Fridays etc.

"Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were put around his neck and he were thrown into the sea"

As a metaphor, this works fine, but if taken literally, it justifies capital punishment of the most extreme kind.

If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life maimed than with two hands to go into Gehenna,into the unquenchable fire.

There is a fair bit of the Old Testament vengeful God in this. It also forms the basis for the practice of flagelation, self crucifixion and other bizarre practices that one sees now and then in Christianity.

The same comments apply to the recommendation to cut off your own foot, and plucking out your eye.

At another level, the evangelists have introduced a theme that goes beyond the ethical, touching on the mystery of Jesus the Christ. Look at these phrases: "in my name"; "because you belong to Christ"; "who believe in me". At first they might seem to focus the moral injunction on followers of Jesus to the implied exclusion of non believers. This of course doesn't wash. As we see it today, there is every reason to respect and acknowledge the good being done in the name of the Buddha or Krishna or The Prophet, or even simply in the name of humanity. The ethical injunction is universal.

Well the "as we see it today" took at least 1500 years to be accepted as a "universal injunction". It was the persistence of the religious wars in Europe that gave rise to this realisation with the Englightenment, and the reason why we have a legal and political system that is spreading throughout the world of tolerance of religious belief. And while I welcome the thoughts of my old seminary teacher, Eugene Stockton, particularly in relation to aboriginal culture, I am sure he would be the first to admit that there are quite a few people within his Church who would think he was treading on dangerous doctrinal territory. He does seem to water down any idea of "the one true Church".

I have an atheist friend who went down to the Atheist Conference in Melbourne this year. I made a bit of fun of this, asking him if they had started working out the rituals for consecrating their bishops, The Most Reverend Richard Dawkins, His Grace, Sam Harris etc. But he did say that one of the things that the atheist movement can't explain, is how so many intelligent people can get taken in by religion - any form of it.

But I think a clue has to be in the relationship to religious belief to the feeling of being in love, and the neuroscientists seem to suggest that the same areas of the brain are working with both experiences. And I am happy to confess that in my own personal religious experience, the feelings generated were very similar. Now the thing about love of another human being is that it blinds you to the faults of the beloved - the other side of their nature. And we see that in religion too. So, George Pell reads the Koran and is appalled by the violence, but it not appalled by the same and maybe worse violence in the Bible.

I accept that the passages you cite Tony, are indications of basic human ethics, but it means ignoring the other side of their message, a message, unfortunately that too many religious fundamentalists are happy to take up.

Now you can object that their interpretation of the text is wrong, misguided, etc, but the fact is that these texts can be interpreted in that way, and very often are.

The real lesson from all of this, for me, is that the most sensible religious people are those who don't take it too seriously. Once you take it too seriously you are in trouble mentally, (and so is the world), and that is the paradox, for me, of religion.

http://ncronline.org/node/36151/

The TEDx video by Peter Kennedy that Desi posted yesterday probably fits into these readings as well.

Maitland