22nd A

22nd Sunday of Ordinary Time A


Introduction: In today's readings we hear of two men, Jeremiah and
Peter who are struggling with difficult parts of being a follower of God .
The Gospel reading is a contrasting balance with the Peter
of last Sunday's Gospel who professes Jesus as: You are the Christ the
Son of the living God. Jesus then designated Peter as the Rock on
whom he would build his church.


HOMILY:
In Today's Gospel we heard the first of three predictions of the
Passion that are found in Matthew's Gospel. The idea that Jesus must go
up to Jerusalem to suffer much and be condemned to death was difficult
for them to accept. After each prediction there is a response of Jesus’ followers, and a teaching of Jesus.
After the first prediction of the Passion, Peter as the
spokesperson gives words to their dissatisfaction with this idea. “God forbid, Lord ! No such thing shall ever happen to you.”
To the second prediction the apostles will respond by asking the
question "who is the most important in the kingdom of heaven?"
After the third prediction the mother of James and John will come
asking that her sons be given the places of honor at the right and left
of Jesus when he comes into his kingdom.
__________________________________________________________________


The apostles idea of the Messiah did not include suffering and
death. They were happy to be commissioned to be followers of Jesus when
he shared with them his power to expel demons and to cure every kind of
infirmity and sickness. Now Jesus introduces the idea that he must
suffer much and be condemned to death. Peter objects to this future for
Jesus.
But Jesus reacts to Peter very strongly. “Get behind me Satan! You are an obstacle to me. You are thinking not as God does but as human beings do.”


__________________________________________________________________


But these words of Jesus are followed by an even greater challenge
to Peter and to us. If we wish to follow Jesus we must be ready to
meet the same fate he is going to meet. Following Jesus has its cost:
one must go up to Jerusalem.
v. 24 “Whoever wishes to come after me must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me.” As goes the master, so goes the disciple.
v. 25 Whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses
his life for my sake will find it. If we deny Jesus, selfishly seek
self fulfillment we will be condemned, no freedom, no happiness. If we die, surrender to God we will know everlasting life, freedom, happiness.
v. 26 all human conceptions of loss and gain have been turned
upside down.
__________________________________________________________________


v. 27 fidelity has its reward: The Son of Man... will repay,
reward, each one according to his conduct.


Jesus prediction for himself included to suffer much, be condemned to
death but it also included rising on the third day. So Jesus
prediction for his followers is also deny self, carry the cross, lose
life but also with the promise to receive recompense according to one's
conduct.
__________________________________________________________________


After the first prediction of the passion we have Jesus teaching us what
we must do to be his followers: deny self, carry your cross and lose your
life.

After the second prediction of the passion we have Jesus teaching us
what we must do to be his followers: Mt. l8:3 if we don't change and come
like little children, we cannot enter the kingdom of God.


After the third prediction of the passion we have Jesus teaching us what
we must do to be his followers: Mt. 20: 26,27 “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and the great ones make their authority over them felt. But it shall not be so among you. Rather, whoever wishes to be great among you, shall be your servant. ...the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

Carry our cross, become like little children and serve. How close am I to that model of discipleship?

Jeremiah felt duped by God. He was an object of laughter and everyone mocked him. “The word of the Lord has brought me derision and reproach all the day.” We can identify with Jeremiah’s feelings, “I say to myself, I will not mention him. I will speak in his name no more. But then it becomes like fire burning in my heart. Imprisoned in my bones; I grow weary holding it in, I cannot endure it.” Yet somehow he manages: “But the Lord is with me, like a mighty champion; my persecutors will stumble they will not triumph.” “O Lord of hosts, you who test the just. who probe mind and heart, Let me witness the vengeance you take on them, for to you I have entrusted my cause.”
We too at times wish vengeance. Deception, sorrow and terror have brought the prophet close to the point of despair. He makes it through.
Jeremiah clearly wrestles with God. Have I at times wrestled with God? Have I felt a “fire burning in my heart?” What do I feel is imprisoned in my bones? Has vengeance or forgiveness been more a part of my life?

21 A

21stA Sunday A cycle
Mt. 16:13-20
As Catholics hear this passage they immediately reflect the traditional Roman Catholic interpretation. This is the biblical foundation for the papal office. The Catechism of the Catholic church #881 cites this passage in precisely this vein.
It is important to take this passage in context with the following verses which we will hear next Sunday. Peter is rock but also stumbling block (obstacle). Moments after his great profession, “You are the Messiah, the son of the living God,” Jesus would say, “get behind me Satan You are an obstacle (stumbling block) to me. You are thinking not as God does, but as human beings do.” Peter’s original understanding of the title, Messiah, was clearly charged with Jewish political, temporal understandings, which Jesus will shortly correct.
This is only the beginning of Peter’s reign. Braggadocio, denials, betrayals, reconciliations, victories, later struggles with Paul and disappointments with his people will follow. I believe these adjectives also describe the history of the Catholic Church.
At the present moment of history for the Catholic Church the president of the Catholic Theological Society of America made these observations in her presidential address for 2008. (from the article of John Allen, NCR)
The papacy is a “gift” of the Catholic church to other Christians, a leading Catholic ecumenist said ..., but it needs “repair” before those other Christians are likely to accept it. Specifically, Margaret O’Gara of the University of St. Michael’s College in Toronto called for a papacy that’s “less centralized, less authoritarian, and more respectful of the diversity of local churches.”...
. O’Gara is a longtime veteran of ecumenical conversations with a variety of Christian denominations.

Pope John Paul II, O’Gara said, was an “engaging figure” for many Protestants, Orthodox and Anglicans, who admired his strong stands on issues such as abortion and war, his commitment to evangelization, and his capacity to project a Christian voice in global debates. At the same time, she said, John Paul’s pontificate left behind “a mixed heritage” ecumenically.
O’Gara cited eight motives for that ambivalence:
1. The Synod of Bishops remained merely advisory to the pope;
2. The authority of episcopal conferences was restricted;3. A Vatican document on “Some Aspects of the Church Understood as Communion” asserted that the Petrine ministry is “interior to every fully local church”;
4. The Vatican document Dominus Iesus said that some Protestant and Anglican bodies aren’t really “churches”;
5. Cardinals Joseph Ratzinger and Walter Kasper carried out a debate over whether the local or universal church has priority;6. The term from Vatican II that the church “subsists” in Catholicism was understood to mean that it exists fully only in Catholicism;
7. The ban on women’s ordination was declared definitive;8. The volume of papal teaching raised questions about its authority, and what role it would play in sister churches if present divisions could be overcome.
In light of all this, O’Gara argued, the papacy must be reformed “in a more pastoral way, in a less centralized way, in a way that defends the diversity of the local churches” before it can serve the cause of Christian unity.
Concretely, O’Gara made two suggestions.
First, she suggested remedying what she called a confusion between papal infallibility and papal primacy, with the latter referring to the pope’s regular business of governance. Quoting the theologian Klaus Schatz, she said that primacy is too often treated as a sort of “ersatz infallibility,” so that even routine administration seems like an exercise of infallibility.
Second, she proposed reconsidering what she called the “classicist” language used by the First Vatican Council in the 19th century to formulate the dogma of infallibility. Rephrasing the teaching in a more historically-minded fashion, she said, could make it less threatening to other Christians.

At times in our life we may ask or be asked, “Who am I to you?” Why does someone ask this? Perhaps the person has been mistreated, neglected, forgotten, ignored, etc. The person perhaps is thinking of a different and deeper type of commitment, such as marriage. The person may simply want loving reassurance. Why do you think Jesus asks this question? What is my answer to Jesus’ question?

20th A

20th A

Matthew 15: 21-28

The story of the Canaanite woman has been characterized in different ways. It would seem to be significant that she is the first woman to speak in Matthew's Gospel. Kenneth Bailey in Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes states: “This story is often viewed as a troubling embarrassment. A sincere foreign woman seeks help from Jesus. At first he ignores her. He then appears to exhibit racism and insensitivity to her suffering as he insults her in public.” p. 217 Sharon H.Ringe describes Jesus situation this way: "Jesus seems to be caught with his compassion down." Donald Senior in The Gospel of Matthew states, “The story of the Canaanite woman is a remarkable text...” p. 130 Catholic Worker, Jeff Dietrich, titles his reflection in the Agitator, “Exorcising the Demons from Jesus.” In my opinion Dietrich gives the story an exaggerated interpretation. “She (Canaanite woman) has exorcized Jesus and transformed the entire kingdom project. If it had not been for the Canaanite woman, there would have been no second wilderness feeding to the Gentiles. Because of her, the liberating message of the Kindom would include not just the lost sheep of the house of Israel, but all of the lost sheep, all of the expendable victims of empire...Henceforth there would be no more unclean people, no expendables, no dogs, no excuse for treating anyone as less than human. The legacy of the Canaanite woman continues to this day.” But Dietrich also makes some insightful interpretations.

Bailey’s exploration of the Canaanite woman stresses that a critical component in both the parables of Jesus and the dramatic stories about him is the ever-present community. He states that Jesus pretends indifference. By ignoring the woman’s desperate cries he appears to endorse views toward women with which the disciples were comfortable. “The text can be understood as follows: Jesus is irritated by the disciples’ attitudes regarding women and Gentiles.” This view is in conflict with that of Don Senior and Dietrich. Senior sees Jesus himself emphatically resisting the extension of his mission to the Gentiles. Dietrich sees Jesus as downright rude to the woman and rejecting her plea in a most uncompassionate manner. His interpretation is: Jesus “here shows himself to be filled with the same demons of nationalism and patriarchy that he had just criticized in the religious authorities.” In the quick retort of the woman Dietrich sees Jesus stopped in his tracks, knocked over so to speak. “In a single instant she has exorcised from Jesus, the demons of nationalism, religious righteousness, segregation, and patriarchy. Just as he restored the Gerasene demoniac to his right mind, she has restored Jesus to his right mind.”

In the third chapter of Mark’s Gospel vs. 21 we read, “When his (JESUS’)relatives heard of this they set out to seize him, for they said, “He is out of his mind.” So to me it is not an exaggerated interpretation to have the Canaanite woman restoring Jesus to his right mind.
Warren Carter raises this point: "The woman is not deterred by Jesus' response. Instead she wittily and bravely recasts Jesus' response. Whereas disciples do not understand Jesus parable ('It is not fair to take the children's food and throw it to the dogs') she understands this one so well that she recasts it to accomplish her goal." Carter also points out she is showing "great...faith". This is the onlyh time this adjective is used to describe faith in the gospel.
This story is clearly dealing with sexism (not talking to a woman), nationalism and racism (dealing with a Gentile outsider) and patriarchy (superiority of males). In this story Jesus overcomes the ethnic, cultural, political, gender, and religious barriers humans have created. It is clearly a powerful story of the compassion of the boundary breaking Jesus for the woman, her daughter and the disciples.
It seems to me our challenge is to find ourselves in this story. Is the Canaanite woman or some other woman working to exorcize some demon in me?