An Exegetical Reflection on
the Gospel of the Twenty-Sixth Sunday of Year C, Luke 16:19-31, September 29,
2013
A FEW YEARS ago, the problems of praying
in the classroom or at graduations and of placing Christmas trees in government
offices were brought to some US Courts.
Protesters against such religious practices complained that these
violated the principle of separation between Church and State. Hearing the oral arguments in courts, one
could not help making a mental note that such questions would not have been raised
had the protesters viewed religion as embracing social attitude and
behavior. But if the issues tell us
anything, it is that they tend to imply that for those against the exercise of
religious practices in schools and offices, religion is merely an private
affair, something that transpires only between God and the private
individual. And we will not be surprised
if, out of consistency in their outlook and position, the same protesters go to
court to ask for the removal of the words “In God We Trust” in the American
dollar.
But to confine religion to the privacy of the individual
is to make a caricature out of it. As
this Sunday’s readings indicate, our faith in God is intimately linked with
matters affecting the society. And one
of these matters concerns the question of wealth and poverty. In an unprecedented statement about the
situation in the world, the l97l Synod of Bishops questioned “the serious
injustices that are building around the world of men a network of domination,
oppression and abuses which stifle freedom and which keep the greater part of
humanity from sharing the building up and enjoyment of a more just and more
fraternal world.” That millions, for
example, starve in Somalia and other eastern African countries while those in
the West have more than enough of almost everything is simply not morally
right. It is unjust. So is the situation in the Philippines in
which, in the words of the Second Plenary Council of the Philippines (PCP-II),
“the poverty and destitution of the great mass of our people are only too
evident, contrasting sharply with the wealth and luxury of the relatively few
families, the elite top of our social pyramid.”
It is against this background that today’s Gospel on the
parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31) must be viewed. The story, probably based on an Egyptian
tale, adapted in Judaism, and retold by Jesus, concerns two characters: a rich
man (erroneously named Dives in some translations) who indulged in a very
luxurious life fit for kings and princes, and a poor man called Lazarus was so
poor that he could only hope that he could eat his fill of the scraps from the
rich man’s table, and so weak that he could not even defend himself from the
dogs that licked his sores. But the
reversal of fate after the two died is utterly shocking: the rich man went to
Hades, while Lazarus rested on Abraham’s bosom—a fortune which would be
difficult to accept in a culture that sees God’s blessing in wealth, and his
curse in poverty.
But why the
reversal of fortunes in the next world?
Though it is tempting to assume that the rich man must have lived a
sinful life, whereas Lazarus was virtuous, the parable does not make even the
slight suggestion about it. Most likely,
it is simply that the rich man wallowed in wealth, whereas Lazarus was in
misery, and that the stark inequality in their living conditions was utterly
wrong. This could only mean that to
enjoy the luxuries of life while millions starve in scandalous poverty is not
morally right. Which is why it is not
difficult to understand when we hear in the 1st Reading Amos the
prophet upbraiding the rich, viewing their extravagance as morally intolerable:
“Lying upon beds of ivory, stretched comfortably on their couches, they eat
lambs taken from the flock, and calves from the stall, improvising music of the
harp, like David, they devise their own accompaniment. They drink wine from bowls and anoint
themselves with the best oils; yet they are not made ill by the collapse of
Joseph!” (Amos 6:4-6).
The Bishops of the Philippines, in their Pastoral
Exhortation on the Philippine Economy, bring home the point raised by
Jesus’ parable and Amos’ woes. After
enunciating the principles of the universal purpose of the created goods and
private property, equitable distribution, the use of productive property for
the common good, the duty to preserve the environment and responsibly use the
natural resources (nn 47-48), they declared: “In our Philippine situation such
principles would certainly reject situations like the continuing concentration
of economic power in the hands of a few; particularly oligopolies; the
pervading presence of absolute poverty; the flight of financial capital
especially in times of national crisis; and legislation that sacrifices the good
of the many in order to preserve the vested interests of the few. The same
principles would mandate the ethical directions that businesses and investments
should take: Create jobs in the local market, open to the public ownership of
corporations, especially those related to our natural resources; and invest in
the rural and poor areas for the sake of the poor, even when profits are less.”
It is difficult to see how a sharp contrast between
wealth and poverty can be reconciled with a community that calls itself
Christian. Of course, from a human point
of view, it does not befit humanity. As
Helder Camara noted, “poverty makes a person subhuman, excess of wealth makes a
person inhuman.” But from a Christian point of view, two reasons may be
advanced why such stark inequality is morally wrong. First, according to Paul, we form one body (1
Cor 10:17; 12:12), and it is scandalous to celebrate one Eucharist, one bread
and one cup, while the contrast between superfluous wealth and grinding poverty
remains unchanged in our situation (1 Cor 11:18-22). It is contempt for the Church of God. As Edward Schillebeeckx puts it, “the great
scandal is the intercommunion of rich Christians who remain rich and poor
Christians who remain poor while celebrating the same Eucharist, taking no
notice of the Christian model of sharing possession.” Second, we cannot continue to speak of love
if we, as a community, remain divided into the rich who are few and the many
who are poor (1 John 3:17). In fact, our
faith is without life if we close ourselves and be blind to that division (Jas
2:15-27). We must share because,
according to the Second Vatican Council, God destined the earth and all it
contains for all humanity and all peoples so that all created things would be
shared fairly by all humankind under the guidance of justice, and tempered by
charity (Gaudium et spes, 69).
No comments:
Post a Comment