LinearThe rich young man. Sunday Readings 28 B (Y-not question the Sunday Readings)
![[image]](http://www.catholica.com.au/sunday/images/Y-not131012_an_640x166.gif)
Twenty-eighth Sunday of Ordinary Time B
October 14, 2012
Reading I: Wisdom 7:7-11
Responsorial Psalm: 90:12-13, 14-15, 16-17
Reading II: Hebrews 4:12-13
Gospel: Mark 10:17-27
As Jesus was setting out on a journey, a man ran up,
knelt down before him, and asked him,
"Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
Jesus answered him, "Why do you call me good?
No one is good but God alone.
You know the commandments: You shall not kill;
you shall not commit adultery;
you shall not steal;
you shall not bear false witness;
you shall not defraud;
honor your father and your mother."
He replied and said to him,
"Teacher, all of these I have observed from my youth."
Jesus, looking at him, loved him and said to him,
"You are lacking in one thing.
Go, sell what you have, and give to the poor
and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me."
At that statement his face fell,
and he went away sad, for he had many possessions.
Jesus looked around and said to his disciples,
"How hard it is for those who have wealth
to enter the kingdom of God!"
The disciples were amazed at his words.
So Jesus again said to them in reply,
"Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God!
It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle
than for one who is rich to enter the kingdom of God."
They were exceedingly astonished and said among themselves,
"Then who can be saved?"
Jesus looked at them and said,
"For human beings it is impossible, but not for God.
All things are possible for God."
Many years ago I remember hearing the story of a family man who sincerely believed he should follow Jesus' words to the rich young man, and sell all he had and give it to the poor.
He had joined a charismatic Christian group, and had had a profound religious experience in that context. Now he wanted to sell his house and all that he owned and donate the money to the poor. His wife was distraught. What would she and the children do? Where would they live? His only response was that they needed to trust in the Lord, who would provide. In the end, she appealed to the parish priest to talk to her husband.
Her husband came to talk with the priest, but would not change his mind. Finally the priest came up with an idea. If the man sold the family home, wouldn’t his wife and children then be homeless, and so be among the poor, to whom he could give money? After some thought, man agreed, so the priest offered a solution. The man could sell the house then give the money to his now-homeless wife for a new house. Even better, why not just give the house and its contents to his wife, so saving all the cost and disruption to family life?
Whether that eventually happened or not, I don't know, but it seemed a sensible solution to the situation. However, this story shows what can happen when we try to literally follow Jesus’ instructions to the rich young man. Did Jesus really mean that we have to part with all our possessions and give up everything, including home and family responsibilities if we are serious about following him?
Certainly this has been standard practice for the unmarried men and women wanting to enter Catholic religious orders, even in our own time. But what if the call to a deeper spiritual life does not surface until after one has married and had children, or has aged parents to care for?
Perhaps taking a too narrow or literal interpretation of this text from Mark, may be to miss a deeper principle behind Jesus’ words. If I listen to those words for guidance in my own life, in my own search for God, what advice does he have for me, a family woman? What advice does he have for all of us, whatever our situation, in the search for a satisfying and fulfilling life, particularly one that includes an encounter with the mystery at the core of life, the mystery to which the word ‘God’ refers?
Jesus' first instruction is to keep the commandments.
"You know the commandments: You shall not kill; you shall not commit adultery; you shall not steal; you shall not bear false witness; you shall not defraud; honour your father and your mother."
This advice is really a guide to living a happy life within a community. But the rich young man wants more than that. He wants eternal life. We want more than a peaceful life in the community too, when we set out on a spiritual search. Like him, we want eternal life.
We were taught that eternal life is a life that continues beyond the death of the body, hopefully in the presence of God. But is it? Perhaps eternal life is more to do with life here and now, the eternal now that is always with us as time and events flow past. As well, many people have serious doubts about the possibility of life after death. Such doubts mean that if there is a God to be encountered, that encounter must take place in this life. Perhaps that is what the rich young man is asking,
‘How can I encounter God... how do I find my way into the Kingdom of God?’
And Jesus responds,
“Go, sell what you have, and give to the poor and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me”
And the disciples’ reaction to Jesus’ words about the impossibility of a rich man entering the Kingdom of God?
They were exceedingly astonished and said among themselves,
"Then who can be saved?"
This sounds as though the disciples believed that everyone, including themselves, and perhaps even the beggars in the street, were wealthy. So wealth in this context would seem to mean far more than wealth as we think of it. Is it perhaps an attitude of materialism? The title of a wonderful book by a Tibetan Buddhist, Chogyam Trungpa comes immediately to mind – “Cutting through Spiritual Materialism”. Spiritual riches too, would seem to be part of the wealth to be put aside. This whole concept needs further reflection, for it may provide the key to really understanding what this passage is about.
I, myself, wonder if Jesus is talking more about having a detached attitude to wealth, rather than complete renunciation of wealth. To me, it would all make more sense if, in effect, Jesus is saying, “Stop being preoccupied with wealth and possessions, and all the other things that concern you, thinking that is the route to happiness. It is not. Drop those concerns. They are distractions. It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for one who is preoccupied with wealth and possessions to enter the Kingdom of God. Cultivate an attitude of detachment to all that. Give priority instead to your yearning for eternal life, then I can show you the way.”
However, Jesus seems to agree with the disciples about the impossibility of what he is asking.
"For human beings it is impossible, but not for God.
All things are possible for God."
And perhaps this is the whole point of the story about the rich young man. If a yearning or even a natural curiosity about the mystery at the heart of life happens to arise and is taken seriously, then all our religious and spiritual baggage might have to be ‘sold’, leaving us in poverty, in a state of unknowing, before the abyss. Only then can the mystery make itself known, revealing itself as the fulfilment of that secret yearning that lies dormant in every heart.
I would be really interested to hear what others make of this Gospel story. Perhaps I have got it wrong, and it really is about embracing a life of material poverty in order to follow Jesus! Have any of you tried to live a life of radical poverty (not in the context of joining a religious order), and found that, free of the bondage of possessions, you were enjoying life more? Maybe even finding it to be a path leading into that elusive Kingdom of God? I would love to hear about your experience.
Sue
locked
The rich young man. Sunday Readings 28 B
by Francis 
, Kingsgrove, NSW, Friday, October 12, 2012, 18:20 (225 days ago) @ Sue
And perhaps this is the whole point of the story about the rich young man. If a yearning or even a natural curiosity about the mystery at the heart of life happens to arise and is taken seriously, then all our religious and spiritual baggage might have to be ‘sold’, leaving us in poverty, in a state of unknowing, before the abyss. Only then can the mystery make itself known, revealing itself as the fulfilment of that secret yearning that lies dormant in every heart.
Sue, I don't think you have got it wrong. Maybe your conclusion needs to be teased out more.
St Francis, the son of a rich merchant of Asissi, enjoyed his status and rejoiced in the wealth he squandered with all his, maybe, hanger on friends. Nevertheless he had high ideals. He wanted to be a knight and with his friend, Clare, had problems with the difference between, the regular run of people, peasants who depended on and survived on the crumbs that fell from the rich man's table, and the extravagance and ostentation of the rich including the hierarchy (the priests mostly shared the lot of the poor). It was more than a 'problem' that bothered him, he was aghast at seeing the poor in their rags at the rear to the church during Mass (for example) and the bishop and assistants sporting the most elaborate of vestmentation. He screamed a protest within himself and determined to work at bringing about a diminution of the inequality and injustice. He gave up all that had him in that class of being rich and took on just being a peasant. An extreme move for him and for those (including Clare)who later followed him, yes! He made himself one with the poor and when the Pope wanted to deny his choice of life Francis replied that to deny his choice was to deny the Way of Jesus and the Gospels.The imbalance of wealth was a stumbling block to the Reign of God. He would show to the world that wealth caused discrimination and the cause of pain to the people of God who should rejoice in an equal place in the Church.
In addition the words of a friend of mine who wishes his words to be read without thought of status.
Let us imagine Jesus today looking upon each us with love, and then saying, ‘If, you really want to enter the Reign of God, go sell everything. Give it all up, all your desires for the wealth and worldly power. Even more challenging is the call to follow him. In recent weeks we have heard where that is leading: Jerusalem, torture, death, whilst continually showing us the way of love and how that will transform our world into God’s Reign. It can seem a tough call.
Recall about three years ago, the Melbourne priest, Bob Maguire, who would not go away, when called on to resign by the archbishop. Maguire faced accusations relating to his mission amongst the poor. He was accused of using too many resources on behalf of the poor and needy. His actions remind us that the gospel might be telling us that the Church is supposed to be poor? That it recognises its real treasures are the poor in community? Should not the church’s wealth be at the service of people – especially the poor?
For decades after Jesus’ Resurrection, we had a community that followed the way of Jesus – not a church property and buildings. In many places, and there are many exceptions, the Church has moved away from the poor. It is not the church of the poor. Sadly, as a body, it does not seem to be willing to do as Jesus asked: ‘Go sell everything. Give it all up and then enter into the Reign of God, enter into the work of transforming God’s world into the Reign of God’. Most important is that each of us changes personally. Pope Paul VI once said, ‘We don’t have a right to keep for our use what is beyond our need when others lack the barest necessities.’ In the face of poverty, local or global, we have to face up to the question as to whether we have something to share with the poor
Thanks again, Sue and see if what I have offered helps in this reflection of yours or not.
Francis
My purpose is to remember the love that created me in God one with my brothers and sisters and with all life. My function is to extend that love and unity each moment to all.
lockedThe rich young man. Sunday Readings 28 B
Francis, you have given me much food for thought in your comment, especially with your reference to Francis of Assisi. Though I read his story many years ago (I seem to remember that the Pope came to dine with Francis and Clare one day and that it was Clare who broke and blessed the bread) I had to do a quick refresh on the Net. It seems he lost interest in the lifestyle of the rich, and enjoyed experimenting with the experience of being a beggar, on a visit to Rome.
So maybe it was not so much with an attitude of self-sacrifice that he turned away from the wealth of the family home, as trying out a more challenging lifestyle. A bit like the hippies and flower-people and the drop-outs of the sixties and seventies, at least those who were genuinely seeking a simple lifestyle.
More than that though, he found inspiration in the teachings of Jesus and the way he lived – and he wanted to spread the word, and becoming an itinerant teacher himself seemed the best way to do that. Such a lifestyle would make it easier to relate to ordinary people.
Even more, as you say, he was disgusted at the wealth and ostentation of the Church Hierarchy. Becoming an impoverished itinerant preacher was a very public act of criticism and rebellion. I had not thought of it that way before. Very relevant in the light of what is happening in the modern Church. I can see the connection with Bob Maguire in Melbourne very much.
The other question that comes up here is also the whole notion of asceticism and its role in spiritual life. I, probably like you, have met people where poverty/asceticism has become an end in itself. OK, that’s fine if they find some intrinsic value there, provided they don’t make life too hard for those around them, but I have come to believe that that is a very different matter to just discovering a loss of interest in the trappings of wealth, as Francis did. Asceticism/poverty-seeking can be just the reverse of wealth-seeking, with both having a focus wealth (the first can take the moral high ground, the second just enjoy it), when the focus, for the spiritual seeker at least, should be on seeking first to find God.
This does not mean that we neglect to attend to the inequalities of the world and seek to right them, but that must come out of a genuine love and compassion, if it is to be effective and respectful.
Sue
lockedThe rich young man. Sunday Readings 28 B
by Jerome , Friday, October 12, 2012, 22:43 (225 days ago) @ Sue
Thank you Sue for that great reflection.
Like you I am drawn to that closing comment in this gospel reading.
"Then who can be saved?"
Jesus looked at them and said,
"For human beings it is impossible, but not for God.
All things are possible for God."
It seems a pretty tough call!
But then I question that attitude inherent in that question, "Then who can be saved?"
I have never been able to get my head around this ‘saving business’.
It is pretty obvious from the state of our world that human beings are far from perfect – very distorted images of God!
Our consciences tell us that there are certain things we ought to do or aim for, that are better than others.
Interestingly enough, Jesus quotes some of the commandments in this gospel.
He quotes all the commandments that refer to our relationships with others, our neighbours, not those referring to our relationship with God.
He did not mention the first three.
For me that is significant.
It suggests to me that our treatment of our neighbours reflects on our relationship with God.
That would mean then that entry into the realm of God is possible only through love of neighbour.
Love of neighbour is perfected through service, sacrifice, other-centred focus and deeds.
So we have choices and we have decisions to make – tough decisions!
In this day and age, where the overwhelming ‘fashionable’ focus is on individualism, celebrity, ‘good times’ and greed, it is pretty tough to discover or recognise an affirmation of loving neighbour.
I read a story about G. K. Chesterton. He was an English writer who became a Catholic.
He wrote that he “Did not know anyone who, on his death-bed, regretted having been a practising Christian" For him it didn't matter if there was a God or not, it didn't matter if there was an eternal reward for ‘goodness’.
That person had the satisfaction of having tried to live a ‘good’ life, a life well spent.
Is that then a sign of entry into the realm of God?
So there we are; priorities, decisions, choices.....
How do our priorities, decisions, choices, impact on others, on the ‘common good’.
"For human beings it is impossible, but not for God.
All things are possible for God."
![[image]](http://www.thechristiangift.com/newsletters/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/soul-finds-rest-590.jpg)
It seems that without God we are not going to succeed.
In all humility we just have to recognise that we need help.
And Christ is telling us that there is a ‘Way'.
lockedThe rich young man. Sunday Readings 28 B
Jerome, thanks for your response, expanding on the relational aspects of this reading, and filling out my own reflection. The diversity of views, of interpretations, of new insights, all adds to a better understanding of this confronting teaching from Jesus.
Like you, I have never been able to get my head around this ‘saving’ business either. Certainly not from the fires of eternal damnation, for I think these have long been extinguished ... or have they? There are still certainly many fundamentalist preachers around of the fire and brimstone variety.
I suppose I just think of 'being saved' as some unexpected experience of the mystery that brings peace and joy, especially in times of anxiety.
‘Unexpected’ because such experiences, if they are authentic, cannot be contrived. They are pure gift. I suspect that is what is meant by those words,
“For human beings it is impossible, but not for God.
All things are possible for God”
Sue
lockedThe rich young man. Sunday Readings 28 B
Thanks Sue ( Francis and Jerome )
Another challenging passage which keeps pushing the parameters of the disciples' (and our) understanding of Jesus' message
ETERNAL LIFE :
I agree Sue that this is more about the here and now rather than the 'afterlife". Jesus' whole proclamation of the "reign of God" wasn't about a moral code but the action of God in the daily lives of people.
I think this is what Jesus is getting at in the introductory exchange.When the young man addresses Jesus as "good master " he may have been attempting to use a respectful honorific.However Jesus immediately challenges him on this and points to the 'goodness of God'.This is here and now stuff
KEEPING THE COMMANDMENTS:
Jesus refers him to what Jerome aptly describes as the 'relational' commandments.
At the time traditional teaching would have said that keeping the commandments was a way to eternal life
The young man has been keeping all of these but has realised in his searching that there is something more.
Has he listened to other teachers/rabbis before Jesus ?
However keeping the commandments can be a "formula" - you can tick all the boxes to use modern terminology.
Was the young man looking for another "formula" that he could take back ome with him.
However there is a group missing from the 'relational' Commandments - namely the poor.Yet these are the people that Jesus is engaging with in the Gospel accounts.( This is now understood in Catholic Social Teaching as preferential option in favour of the poor )
SELL EVERYTHING AND GIVE IT TO THE POOR
What is Jesus' real emphasis here ?
Perhaps our comfortable western lifestyles and mindset cause us to focus on /react to the first bit. We are as taken aback as the disciples.
Does everything mean "selling our house" ?I don't think this is what Jesus is getting at. Some of the disciples like Peter may have left families and livelihoods behind to follow Jesus.However Peter certainly didn't sell his house.Elsewhere in gospels Jesus Peter and some others go back to Peter's house in Capernaum.(cf Matthew 8:14-17.).The history of the early church suggests that many gatherings of Christians were small groups meeting in each other's houses.
Is perhaps Jesus' emphasis on the other part . Is his challenge a maens of exposing this young man's heart and mind to the reality of the poor ?
If he was rich he would not have had much contact with the poor.In Jesus' time wealth was seen as a sign of God's blessing.Poverty and sickness were seen as a sign of God's disfavour.Jesus was teaching a totally different reality and maybe was trying to expose this young man to that reality
THEN COME FOLLOW ME
Was this the really hard bit for the young man.
Albert Nolan ( the South African Dominican) in his marvellous book 'Jesus before Christianity -a Gospel of Liberation' identifies that in Jesus' time there was one thing even moreimportant than money - prestige and status.( This is probably still true in many cultures today)
His wealth ,his compliance with his religious obligations and his prestige were all rolled into one.To walk away from this would have been scandalous - particularly to his family.
WHAT DOES THIS SAY TO US TODAY.
We Catholics over the years have been pretty good at 'formulas' and ticking the boxes.The coomndments by all means. Going to Mass every Sunday,regular confession, throw in Nine First Fridays, nightly recitation of the rosary and the occasional novena - we were on our way to heaven
Many of the those practices are no longer in vogue.However are we still ticking boxes? - attending or viewing the 'right' seminars, reading the latest books articles or journals, signing petitions , joining the 'right' groups.
We can do all those things but still be attached to our material possessions ,our reputations, our ideas.Our very identity is tied up in these and they soak up so much of our time and energy that our hearts remain closed to the reality of the "kingdom" and to those in our midst who are most vulnerable.
THE CAMEL AND THE EYE OF THE NEEDLE :What is the real 'miracle' here ?
What is impossible for man but possible for God doesn't mean that even if you are rich that somehow God might still get you in.
The true miracle is that God will change our hearts and minds and free us from our attachments.
Socrates once said " the secret happiness is not found in seeking more but in developing the capacity to enjoy less"
We have to work at this ourselves as well. Does Graham English's commentary " Travel Light " from several weeks ago provide some insight?
http://www.catholica.com.au/gc2/ge/019_ge_280812.php
WHO IS RICH ?
When I first started reading Sue's commentary last night what immediately sprung to mind was the beautiful You Tube clip that Brian (via Fancis ) posted some weeks ago."If the world was a village of 100 people" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKBtKPZMIeA. Watch the second half and appreciate how privilged many of us are.
At the time of Vatican II many Catholics lived in the West.50 years later the vast majority are in South and Central America,Asia and Africa.
What are the implications ?
I'll close with following from Pope Paul VI
“Increased possession is not the ultimate goal of nations nor of individuals. All growth is ambivalent. It is essential if man is to develop as a man, but in a way it imprisons man if he considers it the supreme good, and it restricts his vision. Then we see hearts harden and minds close, and men no longer gather together in friendship but out of self-interest, which soon leads to oppositions and disunity. The exclusive pursuit of possessions thus becomes an obstacle to individual fulfillment and to man’s true greatness. Both for nations and for individual men, avarice is the most evident form of moral underdevelopment.” (Pope Paul VI, Populorum Progressio,1967: 19)
Maitland
lockedThe rich young man. Sunday Readings 28 B
Maitland, there are many interesting ideas in what you say, and it all helps to open open what we can learn from this reading.
You and Jerome have both remarked on Jesus mentioning only the 'relational' commandments. What of the ones he does not mention, the ones about God??? I won't go down that track here as it is about what is not in this Gospel, rather than what is there, but it is curious isn't it?
I am glad you have drawn particular attention to Jesus' words about selling everything and giving it to the poor. Finding Jesus real emphasis here is difficult. One question that arises here, in the light of what you say, is whether Jesus really is bringing the poor to the young man's attention,as a focus of his ministry, or whether he just saying that disposing of wealth and possessions is a pre-condition to adapting to the wandering lifestyle that Jesus and his disciples seemed to lead?
Sue
lockedThe rich young man. Sunday Readings 28 B
by georgeh , Saturday, October 13, 2012, 23:05 (224 days ago) @ Sue
Thanks Sue for your thoughtful reflections on the Gospel.
For starters most wouldn't/couldn't claim to have kept the Commandments as that young man in the Gospel?!
But if we did like the young man, we are told by Jesus to go further and give up the things we don't really need,like fortunes and extra posessions or even power?!
I doubt if we're asked to give up our needs, since we are asked to pray for them in the Lord's prayer "our daily bread"?!
We are challenged to look deeply into our hearts and gage our selfishness?!
Peace
georgeh
lockedThe rich young man. Sunday Readings 28 B
by Ynot , Sunday, October 14, 2012, 09:53 (224 days ago) @ Sue
Sue, thank you for this wide-ranging investigation of some of the endless possibilities of interpretation of the gospel teaching about riches and possessions. I have been looking for a "key" (as I always do) but with no success. The central message is a slippery little sucker.
Is that because the matter of possessions and wealth is utterly central to the human condition, yet so complex?
Then, just now, I found the post of PatB below referring us to a statement of US theologians titled "On our shoulders", and I feel it makes a very good commentary for today's gospel. http://www.onourshoulders.org./
I would re-phrase vs. 23 “How hard it is for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God!” as: When it comes to the matter of wealth and possessions, the issues are very complex and there are no easy formulas, no simple path to virtue. It is never easy to find the correct balance between one's obligations in managing a business and being serious about the spiritual life; between just rewards for enterprise and labour and the obligation to care for those less well endowed; between government's role in fostering industry and in providing for those who cannot make a living by themselves.
The disciples despairing response: Who then can be saved? rings the bells around the world as we sit atop the time-bomb of globalisation, over-population, and the shift of growth from west to east. Never has a word of comfort been more urgently needed:
“For human beings it is impossible, but not for God. All things are possible for God.”
Tony Lawless
'TonyL
"A post is a free gift, and it will go where it pleases."'
lockedAnother angle
by Ynot , Sunday, October 14, 2012, 11:10 (224 days ago) @ Ynot
This section of Mark's gospel is such an enigma. Reading it I find myself going from surprise to acceptance to sudden shock to being just plain confused. I wonder what the gospel writer had in mind. Did he have a clear idea, or was he confused as to how these different elements should gell together. We already have most of the possible interpretations spelled out in the various contributions to this thread, and I am not going to repeat them.
I will note, (1) that Jesus loved this young man with all his wealth because he could say that he had lived by the commandments all his life.
(2) Then Jesus says: "You are lacking in one thing..." Lacking. Like we might say: Well there's one more thing you could do...
(3) "Then come, follow me." It would clearly not be possible for this good young man to walk with Jesus unless he got rid of his commitments. Wealth in the form of many possessions carries its own obligation to spend time and energy and a lot of thought in managing that wealth. Many people depend on you.
(4) "He went away sad for he had many possessions". This bit is surprising. The gospel writer interprets - judges - the young man, as to his personal reason for turning away. I wonder how Mark knew this. Is he saying that others who were not nearly that wealthy had followed Jesus joyfully? Did Mark want to say that the very rich have problems of their own?
And how do we interpret that sadness: was he sad because he was too attached to his possessions? Or was he sad because he could not see his way clear to dispersing that accumulated wealth? He might have been envious of those who had less, and could simply walk away from their little farms or fishing boats and nobody would suffer. But for a major business to fold means people are put out of work and a lot of things have to be adjusted.
I am reminded of our family's foundation story. Settled on 80 acres of good dairy country as a Returned Soldier after the first World War, my father started off milking a few cows and sending the cream off to the butter factory and feeding the skim milk to the pigs. His first payment was famously 3/6d - i.e., three shillings and six pence, for a week or a month (I don't know which; probably a week). A cow would have cost maybe four or five pounds and a horse much more, and everything depended on building up numbers for the farm to pay off the loans. Within 50 years, worked by two of his sons that little farm had expanded to become a million dollar business and still growing. I have often wondered whether the sons felt more free than the father had felt as he started with nothing but his capacity for work, with a strong wife beside him and the productivity of the land itself. I do remember that he was filled with gratitude and awe that he had won the battle of survival, as he saw it 20 years later - me as a 10-yr-old listening as dad told of his good fortune to the occasional visitors from the city.
TonyL
'TonyL
"A post is a free gift, and it will go where it pleases."'
locked
Is this all really about money, wealth and affluence?
by Brian Coyne 
, LINDEN, NSW, Sunday, October 14, 2012, 13:50 (223 days ago) @ Ynot
I've reflected on this passage a lot over the years. In the end I don't see it as primarily some reflection on money, wealth and affluence. Rather I see it as a parable about attachment.
Buried deep down in all of us are these deep drives that we scarcely even understand ourselves. The desire to "get ahead"; the desire to have "full control" in our lives; the desire to be loved and respected in the eyes of the "significant audiences" we interact with in life (even if it is only those closest to us); the desire for security and freedom from pain and want. I find myself wondering: how much control do we really have?
We read in the media of people who've adopted the most conservative strategies in life and then some tsunami comes along and wipes it all out. I have several close mates who were once very wealthy and on high incomes and today, in retirement, they are "doing it tough" and wonder where it all went it. As a lecturer at a tertiary institution a long time ago I can remember our trying to predict which of our students would make the big time. In hindsight I think we were wrong most of the time. In Western society we have come to equate great wealth with some kind of cleverness. I sincerely doubt today there is any equation that directly links cleverness and wealth. You come across some incredibly dumb people who have made piles of money because of "good luck" somewhere long the line — and some who are out and out fraudsters and criminals. They might be "street wise clever" but in many other ways there definitely would appear to be a few neurons missing. (There is a celebrity couple much in the news in recent times that causes me to reflect on this.) Even the Son of God himself, so this insightful gospel legend informs us, had only limited control over his own life.
It has been thoughts such as those above that have led me over a long period to wondering if this parable is more about living providentially — living without attachment to the things of this world? And those things are not just money, but ideas, sentimentalities, certitudes, dogmas, and all manner of things that ultimately can dwarf us. Is it some missive against the rich, or aspiring to be rich, or even aspiring to be "secure"? Or is it a missive against being too attached to anything? In the final analysis we come into this world with nothing and when we leave this world we can't take any of it with us. Does our ultimate happiness in life come from what we have acquired and what we become very "attached" to? Or does it come from a certain "attitude of mind" and it is that "attitude of mind" that Jesus, or the seers who wrote this scene into the Jesus' script, are endeavouring to focus our attention on?
![[image]](http://catholica.com.au/images/CatholicaICO_30x30.jpg)
Brian Coyne
[Editor & Publisher]
lockedIs this all really about money, wealth and affluence?
by Ynot , Sunday, October 14, 2012, 21:50 (223 days ago) @ Brian Coyne
edited by Ynot, Monday, October 15, 2012, 03:57
Brian, I can agree with the detachment message in general, but I can't see it as the key to this very graphic episode. First there's the problem that the gospel story seems to approve of the rich young man as he was. I can't see that it was unwarranted attachment that caused him to go away; at least that is not said, and it would have been so easy to be explicit, e.g., "for he loved his possessions too much". I think these gospels are very carefully edited to a point of fine precision and Mark at least wants to leave the problem as a problem, and the apostles bewilderment as our own bewilderment.
I would make my point again: society has developed to the stage where some wealth has to be concentrated just to manage the needs and resources of the community. We cannot go back to the simple hand-to-mouth living that Francis saw in the Highlands. We have cities, and we have trade and manufacturing, and food supplies have to be purchased and transported and traded, etc. There is nothing wrong with some people having the financial means to contribute - but Jesus seems to say that those people will have more difficulty tuning in to the idea of God's kingdom.
On one hand he wanted to counter the Jewish idea that wealth was a sign of blessing. On the other, it is fair warning that if the poor are in need of our special care, the rich are in need of special guidance, perhaps.
And then you open up another can of worms: all those clergy (and hierarchy) who have taken on a special ministry to the rich - with questionable results.
I'm a little surprised that we seem reluctant even to consider this, as though the preferential option for the poor covered everything, or as though anyone who does engage with the movers and shakers is necessarily suspect in terms of their gospel integrity.
'TonyL
"A post is a free gift, and it will go where it pleases."'
lockedIsn't it a message both for the rich and the poor?
by Brian Coyne , LINDEN, NSW, Sunday, October 14, 2012, 22:53 (223 days ago) @ Ynot
No, I don't agree Tony. My sense is that this is a message for everyone — the rich and the poor and everyone in between. It is a message about not becoming attached to our circumstances — whether we're rich or poor or some "do-gooder" trying to serve the poor for "our reward in heaven". Jesus has been called the great iconoclast — the smasher of idols. I read him as being constantly paradoxical — not the rule maker, and goody-two shoes law-abiding citizen but constantly breaking all the rules but not simply for the heck of it, nor to show his "independence of spirit", but because to live life authentically you do have to learn how to navigate through all the rules of life and that involves, often, knowing how to break them but always in morally legitimate ways.
When we are first presented with this parable we tend to read it as some missive against the rich and wealthy. I think it is addressed to all people and is essentially a missive against attachment to things that ultimately do not matter, or any of which a person could lose in the blink of an eye. What is Christ offering when, in response to the young man, he says "come follow me"? What does "following me" actually mean? Is it some game of "social conformism" — running around like some teenager following a pop star screaming "I love you Jesus", or "I believe in you Jesus"? Or is it some different sort of commitment to that?
Brian Coyne
[Editor & Publisher]
lockedDid Edmund Rice "get" this insight of Jesus...
by Brian Coyne , LINDEN, NSW, Monday, October 15, 2012, 11:46 (223 days ago) @ Brian Coyne
See the two posts I've just written in the string on "What is a brother?"
From my study of Edmund Rice I don't pick up a sense that when he gave away his business fortune he had any idea that he would be setting up some kind of "global enterprise". His focus, at least initially, was simply educating the poor of his own country, Ireland. In a sense, as I argue in those posts, Rice became an enormously "wealthy" man in a material sense in terms of the scale of the enterprise he built — far greater, I imagine, than had he continued in the world of secular "business". It has been my own reflections on the life of Edmund Rice over the years that has led to my insight that the readings from Mass yesterday are more about an "attitude of mind" rather than literally being about the impossibility of rich people getting into heaven.
It's not the "wealth" that ultimately matters for our happiness in life, nor our eternal salvation (however you interpret that), it is the "attitude of mind" we have to everything, including our "wealth and security"! Neither am I arguing that, if you want to get rich, go follow Edmund Rice. Self-evidently a lot of the blokes who did "follow Rice" and who, in fact, "built that huge enterprise" did not themselves become materially rich. I often wonder if trying to understand this insight of Jesus might be likened to trying to fathom the meaning in a Zen koan? (e.g. What's the sound made by one hand clapping? What does Jesus really mean when he tells the young man to "give it all away"? What's he really asking him to "give away"? Is he demanding some kind of "poverty" in material terms — our wallowing in some sense of "look at me and how 'poor' I am" — or is he calling for a "poverty" in attitude (towards life) towards some kind of humility of spirit and suppression of ego and insecurity/anxiety?
www.catholica.com.au/forum/index.php?mode=thread&id=114438#p114626
Brian Coyne
[Editor & Publisher]
lockedIs this all really about money, wealth and affluence?
Tony
You quite correctly identify the complexity of modern society and the need for an economic framework that supports that.
There are many quite affluent people who with a generous give of their money , their time ( eg skilled surgeons who go overseas for part of each year to perform operations in poverty stricken countries , businessmen who mentor young people from disadvantaged backgrounds , the makeup of the boards of many not -for-profit organisations,the pro bono work done by many professionals without any desire for recognition )
There are some elite schools who as an alternative to the end of grade 12 celebrations now colloqially known as 'Schoolies' are arranging programs that enable their students to undertake volunteer work in a third world country.
Others of course lead quite selfish hedonistic lifestyles.
PaulJ asks the question:
"How did the young man acquire his so called wealth; how do we acquire ours? Has it been at the expense of someone else? And when we are asked to share it, do we know how and do we do it with an open heart, rather than an automatic response to a request or from some other external jab-and-poke?"
I have no background in finance or economics but I read somwehere in the last couple of months that for the first time ever more "profit" had been made from financial "transactions" than from manufacturing and agriculture combined.( That was the general thrust anyway)
Maitland
lockedWell, my 2 penn'orth - by a poor old woman
by Englishwoman , Sunday, October 14, 2012, 23:59 (223 days ago) @ Sue
The rich young man. Sunday Readings 28 B
Can't write learned paras on all this, nor do I want to. I find enough to think about in the problem that the things we have (possess) are very near to possessing us. That's the danger of possessions.
Franciscan poverty, as I always understood it, was a matter of living precariously. And the religious fiction of calling stuff "ours" is belied when one religious says to another, "Gimme that - it's OURS." With a capital M.
Brian, I guess you and Milly live real Franciscan precariousness? You share your "wealth" with us and we are grateful.
The rich young man did not have the eye to see that the poor needed what he had to give. He'd left undone those things that he ought to have done. The Pharisee in the Temple had a list of commendable actions . . . but was not in any way rich.
Mary
lockedA great conversation....
Mary, I take your point about the way our possessions can come to possess us. So true. The counter to that problem seems to be, as Brian and Tony are saying, cultivating a certain detachment even towards all wealth, whether it be money and possessions or a much broader idea of what constitutes wealth... Including relationships, ideas, religious dogmas and rituals...
And Tony, pointing out the way our society is organized with its need for the wealthy to provide work, and to use their wealth responsibly for the good of society illustrates the dilemma faced by the rich young man. If others were dependent on him to employ them, then he might be seen as irresponsible and selfish to sell up and deprive others of employment, just so he can go off and 'do his own thing'. Maybe, Hinduism-style, he needs to wait for he arrival of the first grandson. Then he can hand over the family business and retire to a life where spiritual goals become the first priority.
Going back to the text of the reading, there is still the problem of what Jesus actually said, whether the event took place at all, and what point Mark is really trying to make. Perhaps it is like a Zen koan, where you worry away at it, finally give up in despair, and then ... Ah-ha....the meaning breaks through...in this instance, the meaning for one's own life situation at this particular time.
So this has been a rich conversation, leaving me with much to ponder, and especially to reflect on my own life. Thanks everyone.
Sue. 
lockedWhat Governs Our Intentions
Thank you for all your Wisdom, Insight and Sharing!
There is much richness in our Community here at Catholica!
You have all encouraged me to dig deeply . . . ; to reflect . . .
Perhaps, as many of you have already eluded to, once again we are called to an examination of conscience: What are our intentions behind our actions? Do we often examine our intimate understandings of our personal existence, relationships and reality? When we consider our 'wealth' as gift, do we consider who's hands have touched the gift that is deposited at our personal door?
How did the young man acquire his so called wealth; how do we acquire ours? Has it been at the expense of someone else? And when we are asked to share it, do we know how and do we do it with an open heart, rather than an automatic response to a request or from some other external jab-and-poke?
Perhaps when we search profoundly under the surface we realize there are 'mystical' forces beyond us that guide our actions. The author describes this as coming from God; it is impossible for us alone, but not impossible through God.
When I allow myself to ponder (a seldom reality):
Job 15:7-8 Are you the firstborn of the human race? . . . Have you listened in the council of God? And do you limit wisdom to yourself?
Job 38:4 Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding, Who determined its measurements – surely you know!
They are humbling prospects indeed.
And what is even more humbling is when I examine my own direction as guided by those 'simple' words: “Love one another” in the context of: Feed me, clothe me, give me drink; visit me in prison; heal me; just be aware that I too exist and struggle on the road beside you, behind you, ahead of you.
PaulJ
lockedWhat Governs Our Intentions
PaulJ
Grappling with this passage requires some degree of Wisdom ( first reading)
Thanks for mentioning conscience.I think wisdom and conscience are closely related.
Maitland
lockedAnother fresh angle
by Ynot , Monday, October 15, 2012, 20:30 (222 days ago) @ Maitland
Thanks, Maitland, for your comments above, and yours, too, Sue. There are too many loose ends in this thread already, but there's always room for another! 
If we place ourselves in one of the early christian communities (that's where the oral teaching was gradually concretised and finally put together as written documents), we might see a context in which this section makes a lot of sense:
Acts 2,42-47 They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. Everyone was filled with awe at the many wonders and signs performed by the apostles. All the believers were together and had everything in common. They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need. Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.
I can imagine the question arising as to why there were not many (or any) rich people joining the communities. Yet they too are called, surely.
I'll leave it to anyone interested to read the gospel passage again for themselves, against the backdrop not of the journey towards Jerusalem only, but against the backdrop of the early community. I think perhaps the final word: "All things are possible to God" takes on a slightly different meaning.
That's all. Thanks to everyone who has dipped an oar in the water.
tony
'TonyL
"A post is a free gift, and it will go where it pleases."'
lockedAnother fresh angle - the two "halves" of life
Thanks Tony
I keep chewing on this passage.
Looking through the perspective of the early Christian communities is a good way of approaching it.For a number of weeks the teachings are getting harder ( and certainly from the disciples point of view who are still struggling to "get it") The piece about the rich man entering the kingdom of heaven is directed at the disciples after the young man has left.
Perhaps the teachings are getting harder as Jesus heads to Jerusalem and starts to understand how it all might end.
However like Jesus' teaching on marriage in last week's gospel there has always been some scope for compromise /balance
Mary posted as a "poor old woman". When I started thinking about this passage it occurred to me that most members /visitors are possibly in the "second half" of life.Many of us grew up in modest circumstances.We had electricity and running water.I know many who didn't as kids even have these basic amenities.
Most of our parents experienced one (or possibly two) world wars plus the Depression.
Their first ( and possibly only) house was a modest affair.Extras or little 'luxuries' were purchased on lay by.
The world we inhabit today is vastly different.Much of it has been for the better but at least we can locate it in some frame of reference
What of our kids and grandchildren ? They have grown up in culture of expectation if not entitlement to the good things in life.My fear is that any sense of the common good is being eroded.Rowan Williams phrases it this way " I think we have been persuaded in the last couple of decades that somehow the will and the go are the raelities that make the money; and so we have lost that sense of what we are in each other's eyes - and how to live in such a way that we can make sense to one another and make sense of one another" ( Sssh - there might be just someting to Benny's concerns about 'individualism' )
Maitland
lockedBeing Saved: an interesting concept!
I couldn't help but notice that in the readings, Mark 10:17-27, shortly after the Young Man went away sad, Jesus speaks to his disciples:
“Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God!
It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle
than for one who is rich to enter the kingdom of God."
They were exceedingly astonished and said among themselves,
"Then who can be saved?"
Whereas near the end of Acts 2:42-47
Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.
These two writings portray an interesting concept of “being saved”. In Mark, the disciples ask themselves, “Then who can be saved?” while in Acts, the writer makes the statement: “ And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.”
Wow! Is there not a monumental shift of attitude, understanding and confidence here - from uncertainty to certainty?
So what has changed? Of course Acts were written after the death of Jesus. So does 'being saved” have everything to do with the actual Christ event – so difficult or impossible (but not for God) before and seemingly so much easier afterword (God has acted)?
Or: Is it that the context of the two stories is so vastly different? In Acts, there is the community-meal of celebration of thanks and praise; an event missing in Mark's story.
Is there one sure path to salvation? Does it come down to one's celebration of life in an atmosphere of thanks and praise and community?
PaulJ
lockedBeing Saved: an interesting concept!
by Ynot , Tuesday, October 16, 2012, 11:47 (222 days ago) @ PaulJ
Is there one sure path to salvation? Does it come down to one's celebration of life in an atmosphere of thanks and praise and community?
So many different ways of looking at it. I like the points you make, Paul, comparing the confusion seen in Mark 10 with the confidence in Luke's account of the early communities - possibly a bit of window dressing here, but with foundation, I'm sure.
I cite your final words above: so true. In whatever situation, let's celebrate life in thanks and praise and community...! I've known a few people who made a ppoint, even a mission, of involving others in their celebration in thanks and praise, and it was contagious. Salvation being shared in a simple human way.
tony
'TonyL
"A post is a free gift, and it will go where it pleases."'
lockedA few more thoughts
Tony, an interesting paragraph about the early Christian communities that adds another dimension as to the meaning of the rich young man story.
I think there are maybe three strands to be sorted out:
1. Giving to the poor - maybe the good Samaritan story is about this
2 Sharing only within the small new communities - that paragraph you give us
3. Promoting poverty as a way of life for those who are spiritual seekers.
While still chewing over Mark's words, I favour the spiritual path interpretation, as this also resonates with spiritual paths in Buddhism, Sufism and Hinduism. In Hinduism, there are various spiritual paths, such as the way of service, the way of devotion, the way of lknowledge, depending on the psychology of the seeker. In our tradition we seem only to be given a choice between the way of action and the way of contemplation, again depending on personality. Still thinking...
Sue
lockedThe rich young man. Sunday Readings 28 B
by Jerome , Monday, October 15, 2012, 22:52 (222 days ago) @ Sue
From the many wonderful commentaries on this gospel reading I keep on thinking about this issue of what does it mean to be rich or wealthy.
There seemed to be two interpretations about this wealth being not necessarily about mountains of money, but more about power and influence in community as a result of, for example, being a large employer of people, or a major money lender, etc.
When looking at those situations I find myself asking how does such power or influence that comes from being a significant business translate into massive personal wealth.
I have never been able to accommodate the idea that any one human being can be worth, in money terms, 100 or more times as much as any other person.
I would like to take as a random example the response of John Hewson [remember him?] to the questions about his wealth and Ferrari sports car, while he was promoting a GST. His answer was that he worked hard to get that wealth and that Ferrari.
I almost cried at the insult that response represented to my father who worked his guts out as a loyal, trustworthy employee on a basic wage.
Never have I been able to reconcile mountains of money for individual persons in any large business when success and profitability depend on teamwork resulting in benefits for the team and the ability to research and invest in further success.
I never forget having worked in organisations where all of us would spend hours and hours of extra time without payments because as a team we wanted to achieve certain outcomes for the organisation. We owned the projects and we were going to make sure they were successful!
No CEO or whatever got any extra bonuses and nor did we. All of us just felt good because we were in it together.
I cannot accept in any shape or form the obscene payments being made to a variety of executives etc, indicating that their contributions are worth 100+ times as much as the average employee.
I cannot think of such situations as anything else but blatant exploitation of the common good.
Sorry about this rant!
lockedThe Common Good
Thanks, Jerome, for your healthy rant!
I think that you hit the nail square on the head when looking at “the common good”.
Going back to the readings re: Rich Young Man, Jesus could sense that the young man's prime concern was not that of the common good; the good of the community; the good of someone other than self – even if he wasn't 'aware'.
Perhaps Jesus was trying to 'force' the young man to examine his conscience regarding his wealth and his motivations and intentions. How did this person of such a young age attain this wealth? Because of his youth, perhaps he was spiritually immature.
Perhaps it is of some note that the main character in the story wasn't an old man or woman who worked an entire life-time or the father or mother that worked their guts out to support a family (God bless their souls). There was no mention of the young man's family or ties to the community at all.
Perhaps Jesus was trying to 'force' us to examine our conscience regarding our wealth and our motivations and intentions.
I think it worked, don't you?
PaulJ
lockedThe Common Good
This passage reminds me of the main task that I set myself, now that I am on involuntary "early retirement" (few jobs for older workers in this Great Recession)...
What am I going to do with the next 25+ years of my life, till I become greatly incapacitated?
It is a very modest Social Security payment, though I am still looking for supplemental jobs. I have no interest in self-employment.
What good can I do with limited funds & transport money?
Where can I volunteer & make a worthwhile contribution?
How can I ration my means, yet still give to charitable efforts?
One thing that my parents taught me, since we weren't on the bottom rungs of society here in the USA, is to do your best with what you have & be content,coumt your blessings & share yourself with others who are not so fortunate...
I find that at this time of my life, surprisely, I have to work on not being envious of those with more -- work, material goods, accomplishments, etc...
I am resolved to spend more time with people, both those in need & with others just to have fun at times...
Those are the true riches of a well-spent life that leaves good memories of us in the hearts of those left behind us!
lockedThe Common Good
"I am resolved to spend more time with people, both those in need & with others just to have fun at times...
Those are the true riches of a well-spent life that leaves good memories of us in the hearts of those left behind us!"
Thanks Kay - a marvellous resolution
Maitland
lockedThe Common Good
by Ynot , Tuesday, October 16, 2012, 11:33 (222 days ago) @ Maitland
Your questions will ring some bells for many of us, Kay. Even the capacity to help others is a richness, and when we are limited to being no more than just as happy and friendly as possible we experience another kind of poverty. Yet again the determination to be positive in giving can turn even that into more "riches".
When our two kids were still at school we got to a stage of having to count every dollar from one Social Security payment to the next, and I hated it. Grinding poverty that goes on and on must grind the human spirit down to its bitter core. On the oher hand the gratitude that floods the heart at an unexpected gift or helping hand is quite unique, I think.
I hope you find some way to supplement your income. I too love your resolution.
tony
'TonyL
"A post is a free gift, and it will go where it pleases."'
lockedThe rich young man. Sunday Readings 28 B
There is no indication from Mark's gospel that the rich man was young.
locked
