LISTED HERE
* SPRING 2022 EVENT FR VICTOR DARLINGTON ON THE WORK OF THE COMMISSION FOR THE PROMOTION OF RACIAL AND CULTURAL INCLUSION
* AUTUMN 2020 EVENT FR. DAVID B McLOUGHLIN - THE WORLD IN WHICH JESUS LIVED AND HOW HE RESPONDED TO IT.
* 28th SEPT 2017 SR PATRICIA MADDEN ON POPE FRANCIS’ ENCYCLICAL “AMORIS LAETITIA”
* SPRING 2022 EVENT FR VICTOR DARLINGTON ON THE WORK OF THE COMMISSION FOR THE PROMOTION OF RACIAL AND CULTURAL INCLUSION
* AUTUMN 2020 EVENT FR. DAVID B McLOUGHLIN - THE WORLD IN WHICH JESUS LIVED AND HOW HE RESPONDED TO IT.
* 28th SEPT 2017 SR PATRICIA MADDEN ON POPE FRANCIS’ ENCYCLICAL “AMORIS LAETITIA”
Fr Victor Darlington, the Episcopal Vicar of the Commission for Promoting Racial and Cultural Inclusion spoke of its work
Fr Victor was Parish Priest at The Sacred Heart Church Camberwell and was a part-time lecturer at St. John’s Seminary, Wonersh. Fr Darlington has just been appointed (4th April) to be the Episcopal Vicar for the South East London Area of the Diocese
Fr Victor was Parish Priest at The Sacred Heart Church Camberwell and was a part-time lecturer at St. John’s Seminary, Wonersh. Fr Darlington has just been appointed (4th April) to be the Episcopal Vicar for the South East London Area of the Diocese
Fr Darlington explained that the commission is now one year old. It is the first, and as yet, the only commission covering racism & cultural inclusion in England and Wales. He told us of its origins. Archbishop Wilson rang him at the time in 2020 when “Black Lives Matter” was in the news and asked if he could arrange a zoom meeting with some older school students. He wanted to hear of their experiences of discrimination or feelings of exclusion. In the event twelve students met with the archbishop. The meeting was supposed to last an hour but actually went on for four hours. After which the archbishop was so appalled by what he heard that he said, “we must do something about this”. After further thought he decided to set up the Commission and asked Fr Darlington to be the chair.
Fr Darlington said that the commission had done well in schools but had not, as yet been able to do much in parishes. To spread the message, he would welcome invitations to visit parishes. He offered to speak at all Masses on a weekend and meet people who were interested to take the archbishop’s wishes further. The commission was not there to accuse parishes or individual parishioners but to educate so that, just like the archbishop, ordinary Catholics become aware of the discrimination and exclusion that some of their fellow parishioners’ experience. He said we should love as Jesus did and be inclusive because, “We are all one in Christ”. As St Paul said in Colossians, “there is no room for distinction between Greek and Jew, between the circumcised and the uncircumcised or between barbarian and Scythian, slave and free man. There is only Christ”
He described how in many passages in the New Testament Jesus went out of his way to be inclusive. In John 4 we read of the Samaritan woman at the well whom Jesus asked for a drink of water. This shocked his disciples, since Jews despised the Samaritans and considered them outcasts. In Mark 12 we read that the second greatest commandment after love of God is to love your neighbour as yourself and in Luke 10 Jesus describes in a parable who is our neighbour. The one who is a compassionate neighbour to the injured traveller is a Samaritan not one of the various others who have their own reasons, mostly discriminatory, to pass by on the other side.
The most important thing Fr Darlington would like us to do is speak to our parish priest about a possible visit by him to our parish.
He can be contacted on [email protected] or 07792 618781.
Fr Darlington said that the commission had done well in schools but had not, as yet been able to do much in parishes. To spread the message, he would welcome invitations to visit parishes. He offered to speak at all Masses on a weekend and meet people who were interested to take the archbishop’s wishes further. The commission was not there to accuse parishes or individual parishioners but to educate so that, just like the archbishop, ordinary Catholics become aware of the discrimination and exclusion that some of their fellow parishioners’ experience. He said we should love as Jesus did and be inclusive because, “We are all one in Christ”. As St Paul said in Colossians, “there is no room for distinction between Greek and Jew, between the circumcised and the uncircumcised or between barbarian and Scythian, slave and free man. There is only Christ”
He described how in many passages in the New Testament Jesus went out of his way to be inclusive. In John 4 we read of the Samaritan woman at the well whom Jesus asked for a drink of water. This shocked his disciples, since Jews despised the Samaritans and considered them outcasts. In Mark 12 we read that the second greatest commandment after love of God is to love your neighbour as yourself and in Luke 10 Jesus describes in a parable who is our neighbour. The one who is a compassionate neighbour to the injured traveller is a Samaritan not one of the various others who have their own reasons, mostly discriminatory, to pass by on the other side.
The most important thing Fr Darlington would like us to do is speak to our parish priest about a possible visit by him to our parish.
He can be contacted on [email protected] or 07792 618781.
AUTUMN 2020 EVENT TALK BY FR. DAVID B McLOUGHLIN
Some years we have run autumn events but, of course, that cannot happen this year because of the virus. But we are pleased to say that instead we have permission from Fr David B Mcloughlin, Emeritus Fellow in Christian Theology at Newman Catholic University in Birmingham to publish his talks entitled,
THE WORLD IN WHICH JESUS LIVED AND THE WAY HE RESPONDED TO IT.
Originally these talks were given to a large gathering of CAFOD supporters some years ago and have been updated. We are very grateful to Fr McLoughlin and hope you will benefit from reading them. They are in three parts;
PART ONE JESUS’ WORLD
PART TWO JESUS AND OTHER GROUPS
PART THREE JESUS' PROJECT
Rev. David B.Mcloughlin did his philosophical and initial theological studies for ministry at Oscott College, Birmingham. Then went to the Gregorian University in Rome for his B.Th and STL. In 1977 he was invited to Cambridge as an Ecumenical Scholar at the Divinity School. After Pastoral work in Christ the King Parish, Kingstanding, Birmingham, he became Senior Lecturer in Theology at Oscott College (1979-1999). Then in 1999 he became chaplain and lecturer at Newman, becoming Senior Lecturer in 2001 and Emeritus Fellow in Christian theology in 2018. He is a member of Pax Christi Theology Group and at various times he has been Theological Consultant to Caritas Europa & CSAN, Member of Cafod’s Theology Reference Group, Advisor to Birmingham Education Dept. SACRE Committee, Vice President of the European Association of Catholic Theology, President of Catholic Theological Association of Great Britain and Member of Theology Committee of Bishops’ Conference of England & Wales.
THE WORLD IN WHICH JESUS LIVED AND THE WAY HE RESPONDED TO IT.
PART ONE JESUS’ WORLD
The aim of this first part is to explore the political and economic context in which Jesus lived and taught. The aim overall is the see him as an actor is his own time and to allow his teaching and practice to emerge in context. This teaching and practice were radical and critical and it led to his death but also to the establishing of the community which keeps that teaching and practice alive in history. There are no simple answers to political and economic issues of our time to be found in the New Testament but there is a provocation to think and act in the light of Jesus’ teaching and practice so as to come up with our own radical and critical responses in our own time. Although it is unlikely that anyone will crucify us – at present!
PALESTINE UNDER THE ROMAN EMPIRE.
In AD 6 Judea became a Roman Province. The beginning of Luke’s Gospel (Luke. 2:1-2) starts with a census by Quirinius the Roman Governor of Syria – the Province to the north of Palestine. There is a registration and assessment of the population, closely followed by the levying of an indiscriminate new head/poll tax. New economic and political structures were being imposed which would lead to the breakdown of traditional Jewish Society and the substitution of a new means of production.
The Land, God’s gift to Israel, is effectively no longer Israel’s – the people can use it and even have their own government, the Sanhedrin, to administer it but they will never again, until the 20th century. own it. This would contradict their deepest collective beliefs and identity. The result was the gradual build up of a mute and bitter resistance throughout Jesus lifetime leading to a general uprising 30 years after his death which would be dealt with brutally and finally with the razing of the temple in Jerusalem, never to be built again. In the mean-time the ruling Jewish aristocracy, King Herod and his sons and the High Priestly families collaborated with the Romans to their advantage but not in the interest of the mass of the people. One of the early centres of resistance was Sepphoris, a new city built near Nazareth, perhaps with the help of Joseph and his young son. It was razed to the ground. So, the period in which Jesus grew up was marked by political and economic change and growing discontent with Galilee a centre of unrest (Cf. Acts 5:37 and the reference to the freedom fighter – Judas the Galilean). Hardly surprising then that Jesus’ enemies in Jerusalem should say of him “Can anything good come out of Galilee?” The Jerusalem authorities saw Galilee as multi-cultural and multi-racial and therefore under foreign influences including, potentially, foreign gods.
THE ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF ROMAN OCCUPATION:
The Roman provinces sustained the Empire’s administration. There were two forms of taxes:
There were also so-called voluntary taxes from every Jewish male over 20.
Hardly surprising then that remission of debt becomes an image of divine grace (Matthew 18:23ff). There were of course also natural disasters and famine. Josephus speaks of Galilee being overpopulated (Jewish Wars, 3.3.2.). Archaeologists tell us that over 90% of land was under cultivation. There were serious disturbances. Act 4:37 speaks of opposition and in particular of an uprising led by a certain Judas the Galilean who was executed.
The Palestinian economy was massively based on agriculture and ancillary industries. Poor soil and limited technology gave a limited yield sufficient for local consumption. The land was relatively densely populated and some 97% of it was under cultivation. The new tax meant that produce had to be used in payment, but this often led to peasant farmers getting into debt. To pay their debt they would mortgage their land, then falling behind on their payments they would have to sell the land to pay off the debts. Those that did not end up in indentured service/slavery or as beggars, became part of a growing force of day workers who waited in the market each morning to be hired by the stewards of the local estates (Cf. the parable of the workers in the vineyard Matthew 20:1-15). This situation was not unknown in Israel’s history hence the need for Sabbath and Jubilee years to free the enslaved and the landless to redress the balance.
But under the Romans this was not a haphazard process. The Romans used it throughout the empire. Under Roman imperial policy the land became increasingly concentrated in large estates, under wealthy landowners, who often lived distantly in the cities leaving a steward to manage local affairs. The steward would then send on the profits of the estate to fund the increasingly luxurious urban lifestyles of their masters. The basis of many of these estates was land that was originally communally owned; so here is a classic shift from public to private economic discourse. The Gospels have plenty of references to the role of good and bad stewards (cf. Luke 12:42; 16:1-9) and to the decadence of the rich (Luke 12:16-21)
This forced sale of land freed up a large cheap labour force, unorganised and insecure who were hireable for a denarius a day – sufficient for the bare necessities of a small family. The discontent of the mass of the people was growing throughout Jesus’ lifetime and exploded in the war of rebellion of 66 AD. The result was the destruction of the Jerusalem temple and of the Jewish way of life. Only two groups would survive - the Pharisaic movement we now identify with Rabbinic Judaism and the followers of Jesus of Nazareth who will eventually be expelled from Judaism. Jesus’ life spans the origin of this unrest. And in great part the context explains the reservation towards Jesus and the early Christian community among the Jewish leadership (cf. Acts 4:17,21; 5:26).
But the popular unrest was initially unfocused because the source of the oppression – Roman Imperial policy – was effectively disguised by what seemed to be local Jewish Government. While Rome was creaming off surplus production through its custom houses, Caesarea Philippi in the North and Jericho in the South, organised by Pilate the Jerusalem based procurator or imperial Finance Officer – the actual collecting of taxes was sublet every few years to Jewish tax-collectors. They bid for the right to collect the taxes, of course levying their own percentage at the same time. They were figures of hate in the popular mind and embodied the whole system of exploitation.
The Jerusalem based local government, the Sanhedrin, was made up of Aristocratic Landowners and Priests, Merchants and some Scholars. As intermediaries between the Imperial Authorities and the Masses they effectively hid the occupation behind seemingly autonomous government. The Sanhedrin effectively assured the people’s loyalty and submission to the empire. Screening the exploited from their exploiters.
However, throughout the Gospels Jesus is presented as being aware of this. The people are “Sheep without Shepherds.” They are betrayed by their own leaders who he calls hirelings and yet the mass of the people are unaware of it (cf. Jn.10:11-13). They are unaware that they are slaves. But their leaders know and yet they keep quiet, profiting by their silence. In the amazing trial scene in John’s Gospel when Pilate presents Jesus, saying, “Behold your King!” (John 19:15) the Leaders cry out “We have no King but Caesar!” And even when the masses show signs of recognising the real situation their response is to replace one absolute authority with another (cf. Jn 6:15). After the feeding of the 5000 they propose Jesus as a messiah King who would take over power in Jerusalem. Jesus had faced this temptation to use the power of force at the outset of his ministry (cf. Luke 4:6)
“The devil said: “I will give you all this power and the glory of these kingdoms, for it has been committed to me and I give it to anyone I choose.”
But such a change of figurehead would change nothing. In Jesus’ teaching power, the power embodied in the structures, motivated by an unconstrained desire for wealth, what he calls mammon, is a social or institutional evil, the realm of Satan. God’s kingdom and Caesars’ are incompatible. Jesus’ teaching about the Kingdom or rule of God establishes a different concept of power. Power is no longer domination that degrades, enslaves, dehumanises, but rather service, primarily service of the powerless ones, i.e. the mass of the workers. In developing this line of reflection Jesus was taking up and making more radical a tradition in the prophets (cf. Jer.5:17; Is. 56:11; Ps. 53 and the “greedy dogs!” of Ez. 34:3), with solidarity with the masses as the only true power.
JESUS' DEVELOPING PRACTICE
Jesus’ response was to take up a critical stance against the Temple. It comes through his teaching again and again. E.g. the parable of the Good Samaritan where robbers, priests and temple officials are all lumped together. He shifts the centre of real religion from temple and concerns for ritual purity to the unprejudiced love of a heretic Samaritan. This was corrosive social criticism. It seems that Jesus himself went through a conversion as regards the Samaritans and foreigners in general as a result of an encounter with the Siro-Phoenician mother. The parable of the Good Samaritan reveals him as a leader of the poor looking with contempt on the mighty of Israel. Elsewhere Luke records him cursing them:
Woe to you rich – you have received your consolation
Woe to you who are full now – you will hunger
Woe to you who laugh now, you will mourn and weep
Woe to you when men speak well of you,
for so their Fathers did of the prophets. (Lk. 6:24-26)
The curses on the rich parallel the promises to the poor. These promises respond with anger and compassion to the shocking contrasts in society: the wealth blinding the rich to the poor’s lack, their comfort making them indifferent to hunger, their easy life leading to complacency before oppression. Poor here are not those at the other end of a scale but those who have fallen off the scale, the destitute, the living dead – those who have no value and are shunned by all. Jesus critique takes shape as he responds to different groups he encounters in his increasingly fractured world.
To the wealthy Priests, Nobles and Sadducees who saw their wealth and power as a sign of God’s favour and poverty as a sign of God’s disfavour he says they are immoral. In the society of the time with its rigid social hierarchy and its politics of holiness, to be poor and to be a sinner were often seen as the same and so in some way to be poor was to be guilty. Jesus proposed a different view of God and of the poor and a different view of the exercise of power. In Luke. 22:25 God is Father primarily of the little ones. “I am among you as one who serves.” The rule of God is the opposite of the existing order. Service as opposed to dominion.
It was this wealthy class and power elite who were responsible for his death. The reasons are clear. Note the basis of his critiques of their power and authority – it lacked justice and truth. “What is truth?” Pilate asks and under pressure saves himself. The question expresses the void undermining Pilate’s own authority. Their wealth is at others expense, that of their neighbour. Not to love one’s neighbour is for Jesus not to know the God who is the father of the neighbour.
Jesus saw the misuse of power as arising inevitably out of the profit motive – mammon (Luke. 12:21-23; Matthew. 6:19-20) The rich lost their chance of knowing God, their minds clouded by desire to enrich themselves, leading inevitably to an insensitivity towards the brother in need (Cf. the parable of Lazarus and Dives in Luke 16: 19-31). For Jesus to be deaf to the cry of the poor is to be deaf to God. So, he chooses disciples from the poor masses or if they are wealthy, he calls them to strip themselves of wealth in favour of the poor (cf. Zacchaeus in Luke.19:1-9). Such solidarity with the poor made him a threat to the Jerusalem power elite.
THE TEMPLE.
As his ministry developed his critique focused more and more on the temple. The temple in Jerusalem was one of the wonders of the ancient world. It was vast, about the size of three international football stadiums. Its walls were dressed in white stone that shone as the pilgrims walked up the rift valley along the Jordan and saw it in the distance. Its great doors were covered in sheet gold and silver. At its centre was the holy of holies where every year the High priest after three days of ritual preparation and fasting would enter in to the sanctuary to seek the healing and reconciliation of the whole people. It was the holiest of Jewish places and a meeting place for Jews from around the entire Mediterranean at the annual feast of Passover when Jerusalem’s population doubled. It was the centre of government and of justice. It was a centre of trade and of banking.
Huge revenues went into the Temple from donations, trade in sacrificial victims which had to be purchased from the temple and it was a centre of taxation including temple taxes, money paid for the redemption of vows and promises, and it was the centre of administration of temple lands. In other words, it was the centre of Judea’s entire economic system and was a factor in all political decisions. It also regulated ideological control over the Jewish masses, regulating religious practice and expression.
So, it was both a bank and a marketplace. A seat of political authority, a regulator of religious symbols, a place of prayer, and an enclosure within which just about every type of human transaction took place. What was happening in the country had direct implications for what happened in the Temple. So, a religious challenge to the temple was a challenge to enormous vested economic and political interests.
Jesus shared a growing open reserve towards the Temple. He clearly saw the links connecting it with power and exploitation. His attitudes imply a political and social challenge. Hence the power of the story of the Good Samaritan. There is a growing awareness throughout the ministry of Jesus, a developing critique and analysis which he gradually puts together. This can inspire our own gradually development and growth in awareness. No-one is born a prophet!
PART TWO JESUS AND OTHER GROUPS
I think that the practice that emerges around Jesus points to an inner coherence and an original point of view. It was a practice that had to be structured to achieve its purpose. Let us try to get the shape of that practice by contrasting it to other contemporary groups.
A THE WEALTHY
These included:
Oppressive power is always precarious. Consistently Jesus critiques the power of domination and the amassing of wealth at the cost of others, usually the weakest. Mammon is acquired at the expense of others and its accumulation meant that those involved became impoverished in their relationship with God. The misuse of power here is nearly always linked to the uncontrolled desire for riches. “So, it is when someone stores up treasure for himself instead of becoming rich in the sight of God” (Cf. Luke 12:21-33, Matthew 6:19-20) and He tells them the story of the lilies of the field.
And so, to heighten this contrast (the community of Jesus is always a contrast society) Jesus chooses collaborators from among the poor, or if they are wealthy demands, they divest themselves of wealth in favour of the poor (Cf. the story of Zacchaeus Lk. 19:1-9). The rich have no share in the kingdom unless they make the poor part of their life. It’s important to recognise that Jesus had rich friends and supporters. Martha Mary and Lazarus lived in wealthy Bethany, Nicodemus was a member of the Sanhedrin but they all used their wealth and influence for the Kingdom of God. These very public gestures of solidarity with the poor and compassion towards them made the Jerusalem wealthy see Jesus as a threat to their power.
B THE SCRIBES These were teachers who were close to the people. They had considerable moral and intellectual prestige and huge influence through their interpretation of the Law in the synagogue. The best of them had considerable moral authority from their simplicity of life, many were craftsmen and small merchants like Paul the tent-maker (Acts 18:3). Many lived in near poverty and some followed a celibate life.
Jesus adopted and radicalised their lifestyle, choosing as the norm for himself and his close collaborators a life of poverty as an itinerant preacher and teacher. But his mode of teaching with its radical freedom and personal authority was a reproach to the scribes. His critique of them is that they monopolise knowledge and make it incomprehensible for others so that the liberating word of God is no longer life giving (Luke. 11:52). It has to wait for an interpreter. Jesus frees the text and puts God’s liberating word within reach of the masses by simplifying it and concentrating on the essential.
C THE PHARISEES: “the separated ones” These were mostly laymen from the artisan and small trader class. Their life was a symbolic form of resistance against the Romans and the corruption of Israel by external forces and cultures. Their intransigence and purity of practice nourished an ethnic identity with a vague expectation of an ultimate struggle leading to national autonomy. They followed all the rules and regulations that only bound the priests (613 precepts). This scrupulous observance set them apart from the ordinary people of the land “ An ignorant man cannot be saintly” (*Parke Avot 2,6). They fasted twice a week, prayed several times a day and gave to charitable works. Although a minority they were popular with the people and so provoked the envy of the Aristocracy who had to include them with the Sadducees in the Sanhedrin to govern.
Jesus response was to emphasise that the true torah/law was not something codified but rather a practice inspired by love and justice. Taking the first and 2cnd Commandments he gave a prophetic re-reading of the law radicalising it. The only obligation was to make a free and responsible choice in the light of these basic criteria. In the Kingdom of Abba being justified before God was inseparable from one’s attitude to the brothers and sisters since all were in the kingdom. Jesus challenged society’s tendency to exalt individuals and elites and oppress the majority materially and morally.
Jesus’ approach to the law was flexible and realistic e.g. eating grain on the Sabbath (cf. Mk 2: 23-27). Basic human need, in this case hunger, over-rides Law. He accepts possible conflict and contradiction between texts in the face of the Pharisees attempt to harmonise them. He does not impose a theory but accepts the need to make choices if real historical contradictions are to be overcome. The norm for interpretation is the rule of love. He read the law from the vantage point of the poor, the Pharisees didn’t. He is not bound by convention. He discerns each case as it happens.
D THE ESSENES This was an elite group who abandoned the evils of the city and the corruption of the false Jerusalem leaders of the temple. They were superior, elitist, sectarian, ritualistic and legalistic and set up a community of perfection in the desert where, by a life based on study of the law, prayer, manual work and ritual washings, they prepared themselves for a final apocalyptic war.
Jesus on the other hand proclaimed a kingdom that was inclusive, no-one even the sick and the crippled and the morally challenged were excluded. Uncleanness was to be situated in the heart (Mk. 7:18-23). He mingled with the crowds, the sinners, and the unclean. Salvation came from encountering the sinner not condemning her. What he offered was a community in which it was possible to receive a free grace and acceptance, to be supported in a life of reconciliation and conversion where God’s rule broke into the ordinary frame of daily life.
At the heart of the renewal Jesus offered was not a call to arms but a new relationship based on forgiveness. The only times he withdraws is to pray and only so he can throw himself back into the crowds again. The emphasis is not on some future apocalyptic battle but on the kingdom of God/Abba in the present everyday ordinary world, which is not so ordinary after all.
E THE ZEALOTS We hear more of these after Jesus death and the first Jewish War in which they played a leading and ultimately tragic role. Like Jesus they preached the coming of God’s Kingdom but their focus was on a battle with the Romans. They held on to the radical freedom of the original Israel and desired to realise that freedom anew. They wanted to overthrow the Jerusalem puppet government and reform both government and Temple.
Jesus’ preaching of the kingdom sounds similar and he is just as critical of the political leadership - they are false shepherds. At least one of his disciples, Simon, is called a Zealot. And Judas Iscariot may be a reference to a sicarii/ a dagger wearer. When he is taken in the Garden two of his disciples draw swords to protect him.
But while Jesus denounces the misuse of the temple and the manipulation of its worship, he is not interested in it as a national symbol. It is not an absolute for him. Indeed, he can coolly say “not one stone will stand upon another” (Mk. 13:2). This in itself was disturbing. It implied a radical reversal of values which was potentially destabilising. His own mission gradually expands out from the poor of Israel in fidelity to Abba who is not just the God of the Jews (Cf. His encounter with the Siro-Phoenician woman). This combination of radicalism and universalism will bring down on Jesus the condemnation of the Jewish leadership and of the representatives of Empire.
PART 3 JESUS' PROJECT
There are two main themes in Jesus’ ministry:
To do this he takes the offensive and to reveal the presence of the kingdom shares day by day the living conditions of the mass of the people and takes part in ongoing dialogue with them. He attends to basic needs. This closeness to the oppressed masses will play a key role in his condemnation by the establishment. His proclamation will inevitably be seen as opposed to the status quo.
So, the disciples of Jesus are provoked into having a different point of view and the criteria for their being chosen is their willingness to enter into a radical solidarity with their poorer brothers and sisters. The kingdom was to be located among the nobodies, the children, the ignorant, the suffering, the disorientated and the destitute.
Jesus’ God is
The logic of the kingdom is a movement of communion, starting with the poor, accepting the criterion of truthfulness and so facing the real, and underpinned by ties which provide consistency and stability. The sign of the kingdom is Jesus calling God Abba. The awesome Lord of history, the Creator, whose name cannot be uttered is now to be encountered in the everyday, in the very struggles of history.
Jesus life did not offer an alternative based on abstract ethical demands. It is not a worked-out system. But it does provide some basic principles for an alternative critical practice - the practice of the reign of Abba, based on a common life of mutual compassion, forgiveness and engagement. His life inspired his disciples to prolong the logic of his practice in the new historical situations they would have to face. The main reason for the Church to exist is to bear witness to the possibility of that practice of Jesus continuing in the world.
At the economic level of production and the circulation of goods the logic of the kingdom is one of gift and communion with the poor in direct opposition to the logic of systematic and exclusive accumulation of wealth. “Give and there will be gifts for you, a full measure, pressed into your lap; because the amount you measure out, is the amount you will be given back” (Luke 6:38). Communion must be material if it is to be genuinely spiritual. It is a logic of cultivated and shared abundance versus a logic of debt, which subjects and humiliates, attributing guilt to the poor even though it is the system which keeps them that way. The kingdom speaks of accumulation for all at the expense of no-one.
At the political level the Kingdom is about a particular exercise of authority, an enabling power in the service of the masses. It implies a basic equality based on justice and compassion. The Roman Empire was built on domination of the masses, their exploitation and manipulation, on the acceptance of abuses based on lack of truth. Power based on lies or subterfuge. In the kingdom power is for service, not for exploitation for personal profit. “I am with you as one who serves” (Luke. 22: 24f)The power of the empire alienates through wealth accumulation and greed. Corrupt power leads to arbitrary violence, denies equality, and promotes division through rigidly stratified social categories.
At the level of social behaviour Jesus’ practice provoked a collective spirituality with relationships based on ethical ties with a logic of freedom and compassion. In contradistinction the Empire promoted generalised fear through manipulated debt and selfishness. It accepted inequality as normal and necessary. The kingdom calls for decisiveness, tenacity and faithfulness. The practice focused around Jesus’ preaching of the kingdom is dominated by a logic that interweaves the economic, political and social and contradicts the logic of the empire as:
The logic of the kingdom is a logic of divine love. It is a dialectic of life that takes us through struggle, denunciation and criticism but not to retaliation. Rather to new justice establishing reconciliation among individuals and groups creating communion and peace.
In every age the disciples of Jesus have to discover concrete ways of maintaining this dialectic of forgiveness and judgement.
FURTHER READING
Borg, M. (1993) Jesus a New Vision, London: SPCK
Crossman, J. D. (1994) Jesus: A Revolutionary biography, San Francisco:
Harper Collins
Rousseau, J. J. & Arav, R. (1995) Jesus and His world, London: SCM
Theissen, G. & Merz, A. (1998) The Historical Guide, London: SCM
Borg, M. (1993) Jesus a New Vision, London: SPCK
Crossan, J. D. (1994) Jesus: A Revolutionary biography, San Francisco:
Harper Collins
Dorr, D. (2004) Time for a Change: Afresh look at spirituality, Sexuality, Globalisation and the Church, Dublin: The Columba Press
Dorr, D. (1991) The social justice Agenda: Justice, Ecology, Power and the Church, Dublin: Gill and Macmillan
Dorr, D. (1984) Spirituality and Justice, Dublin: Gill and Macmillan
Nolan, A. (1994) (revised ed.) Jesus before Christianity, London: DLT
O’ Shea, E. Radcliife, T. et al, (2004) Spirituality and Poverty in a Land of Plenty, Dublin: Dominican Publications
Pagola, J. M. (2009) Jesus: An Historical Approximation. Miami: Florida
Rousseau, J. J. & Arav, R. (1995) Jesus and His world, London: SCM
Theissen, G. & Merz, A. (1998) The Historical Jesus a Comprehensive Guide, London: SCM.
THE WORLD IN WHICH JESUS LIVED AND THE WAY HE RESPONDED TO IT.
Originally these talks were given to a large gathering of CAFOD supporters some years ago and have been updated. We are very grateful to Fr McLoughlin and hope you will benefit from reading them. They are in three parts;
PART ONE JESUS’ WORLD
PART TWO JESUS AND OTHER GROUPS
PART THREE JESUS' PROJECT
Rev. David B.Mcloughlin did his philosophical and initial theological studies for ministry at Oscott College, Birmingham. Then went to the Gregorian University in Rome for his B.Th and STL. In 1977 he was invited to Cambridge as an Ecumenical Scholar at the Divinity School. After Pastoral work in Christ the King Parish, Kingstanding, Birmingham, he became Senior Lecturer in Theology at Oscott College (1979-1999). Then in 1999 he became chaplain and lecturer at Newman, becoming Senior Lecturer in 2001 and Emeritus Fellow in Christian theology in 2018. He is a member of Pax Christi Theology Group and at various times he has been Theological Consultant to Caritas Europa & CSAN, Member of Cafod’s Theology Reference Group, Advisor to Birmingham Education Dept. SACRE Committee, Vice President of the European Association of Catholic Theology, President of Catholic Theological Association of Great Britain and Member of Theology Committee of Bishops’ Conference of England & Wales.
THE WORLD IN WHICH JESUS LIVED AND THE WAY HE RESPONDED TO IT.
PART ONE JESUS’ WORLD
The aim of this first part is to explore the political and economic context in which Jesus lived and taught. The aim overall is the see him as an actor is his own time and to allow his teaching and practice to emerge in context. This teaching and practice were radical and critical and it led to his death but also to the establishing of the community which keeps that teaching and practice alive in history. There are no simple answers to political and economic issues of our time to be found in the New Testament but there is a provocation to think and act in the light of Jesus’ teaching and practice so as to come up with our own radical and critical responses in our own time. Although it is unlikely that anyone will crucify us – at present!
PALESTINE UNDER THE ROMAN EMPIRE.
In AD 6 Judea became a Roman Province. The beginning of Luke’s Gospel (Luke. 2:1-2) starts with a census by Quirinius the Roman Governor of Syria – the Province to the north of Palestine. There is a registration and assessment of the population, closely followed by the levying of an indiscriminate new head/poll tax. New economic and political structures were being imposed which would lead to the breakdown of traditional Jewish Society and the substitution of a new means of production.
The Land, God’s gift to Israel, is effectively no longer Israel’s – the people can use it and even have their own government, the Sanhedrin, to administer it but they will never again, until the 20th century. own it. This would contradict their deepest collective beliefs and identity. The result was the gradual build up of a mute and bitter resistance throughout Jesus lifetime leading to a general uprising 30 years after his death which would be dealt with brutally and finally with the razing of the temple in Jerusalem, never to be built again. In the mean-time the ruling Jewish aristocracy, King Herod and his sons and the High Priestly families collaborated with the Romans to their advantage but not in the interest of the mass of the people. One of the early centres of resistance was Sepphoris, a new city built near Nazareth, perhaps with the help of Joseph and his young son. It was razed to the ground. So, the period in which Jesus grew up was marked by political and economic change and growing discontent with Galilee a centre of unrest (Cf. Acts 5:37 and the reference to the freedom fighter – Judas the Galilean). Hardly surprising then that Jesus’ enemies in Jerusalem should say of him “Can anything good come out of Galilee?” The Jerusalem authorities saw Galilee as multi-cultural and multi-racial and therefore under foreign influences including, potentially, foreign gods.
THE ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF ROMAN OCCUPATION:
The Roman provinces sustained the Empire’s administration. There were two forms of taxes:
- Direct - collected by Rome in the form of a land tax amounting to up to 25% of what the land produced and a money and property tax which varied with wealth.
- Indirect taxes like custom duties, import and export duties of up to 5%, road tolls and a sales tax on slaves, produce and any articles in the market.
There were also so-called voluntary taxes from every Jewish male over 20.
- A half shekel Temple Tax (cf. Matthew 17:24)
- The Priest’s tithe amounting to one percent of the produce of the land
- A “Second Tithe” obligation to spend a certain amount in Jerusalem to contribute to the city’s prosperity.
Hardly surprising then that remission of debt becomes an image of divine grace (Matthew 18:23ff). There were of course also natural disasters and famine. Josephus speaks of Galilee being overpopulated (Jewish Wars, 3.3.2.). Archaeologists tell us that over 90% of land was under cultivation. There were serious disturbances. Act 4:37 speaks of opposition and in particular of an uprising led by a certain Judas the Galilean who was executed.
The Palestinian economy was massively based on agriculture and ancillary industries. Poor soil and limited technology gave a limited yield sufficient for local consumption. The land was relatively densely populated and some 97% of it was under cultivation. The new tax meant that produce had to be used in payment, but this often led to peasant farmers getting into debt. To pay their debt they would mortgage their land, then falling behind on their payments they would have to sell the land to pay off the debts. Those that did not end up in indentured service/slavery or as beggars, became part of a growing force of day workers who waited in the market each morning to be hired by the stewards of the local estates (Cf. the parable of the workers in the vineyard Matthew 20:1-15). This situation was not unknown in Israel’s history hence the need for Sabbath and Jubilee years to free the enslaved and the landless to redress the balance.
But under the Romans this was not a haphazard process. The Romans used it throughout the empire. Under Roman imperial policy the land became increasingly concentrated in large estates, under wealthy landowners, who often lived distantly in the cities leaving a steward to manage local affairs. The steward would then send on the profits of the estate to fund the increasingly luxurious urban lifestyles of their masters. The basis of many of these estates was land that was originally communally owned; so here is a classic shift from public to private economic discourse. The Gospels have plenty of references to the role of good and bad stewards (cf. Luke 12:42; 16:1-9) and to the decadence of the rich (Luke 12:16-21)
This forced sale of land freed up a large cheap labour force, unorganised and insecure who were hireable for a denarius a day – sufficient for the bare necessities of a small family. The discontent of the mass of the people was growing throughout Jesus’ lifetime and exploded in the war of rebellion of 66 AD. The result was the destruction of the Jerusalem temple and of the Jewish way of life. Only two groups would survive - the Pharisaic movement we now identify with Rabbinic Judaism and the followers of Jesus of Nazareth who will eventually be expelled from Judaism. Jesus’ life spans the origin of this unrest. And in great part the context explains the reservation towards Jesus and the early Christian community among the Jewish leadership (cf. Acts 4:17,21; 5:26).
But the popular unrest was initially unfocused because the source of the oppression – Roman Imperial policy – was effectively disguised by what seemed to be local Jewish Government. While Rome was creaming off surplus production through its custom houses, Caesarea Philippi in the North and Jericho in the South, organised by Pilate the Jerusalem based procurator or imperial Finance Officer – the actual collecting of taxes was sublet every few years to Jewish tax-collectors. They bid for the right to collect the taxes, of course levying their own percentage at the same time. They were figures of hate in the popular mind and embodied the whole system of exploitation.
The Jerusalem based local government, the Sanhedrin, was made up of Aristocratic Landowners and Priests, Merchants and some Scholars. As intermediaries between the Imperial Authorities and the Masses they effectively hid the occupation behind seemingly autonomous government. The Sanhedrin effectively assured the people’s loyalty and submission to the empire. Screening the exploited from their exploiters.
However, throughout the Gospels Jesus is presented as being aware of this. The people are “Sheep without Shepherds.” They are betrayed by their own leaders who he calls hirelings and yet the mass of the people are unaware of it (cf. Jn.10:11-13). They are unaware that they are slaves. But their leaders know and yet they keep quiet, profiting by their silence. In the amazing trial scene in John’s Gospel when Pilate presents Jesus, saying, “Behold your King!” (John 19:15) the Leaders cry out “We have no King but Caesar!” And even when the masses show signs of recognising the real situation their response is to replace one absolute authority with another (cf. Jn 6:15). After the feeding of the 5000 they propose Jesus as a messiah King who would take over power in Jerusalem. Jesus had faced this temptation to use the power of force at the outset of his ministry (cf. Luke 4:6)
“The devil said: “I will give you all this power and the glory of these kingdoms, for it has been committed to me and I give it to anyone I choose.”
But such a change of figurehead would change nothing. In Jesus’ teaching power, the power embodied in the structures, motivated by an unconstrained desire for wealth, what he calls mammon, is a social or institutional evil, the realm of Satan. God’s kingdom and Caesars’ are incompatible. Jesus’ teaching about the Kingdom or rule of God establishes a different concept of power. Power is no longer domination that degrades, enslaves, dehumanises, but rather service, primarily service of the powerless ones, i.e. the mass of the workers. In developing this line of reflection Jesus was taking up and making more radical a tradition in the prophets (cf. Jer.5:17; Is. 56:11; Ps. 53 and the “greedy dogs!” of Ez. 34:3), with solidarity with the masses as the only true power.
JESUS' DEVELOPING PRACTICE
Jesus’ response was to take up a critical stance against the Temple. It comes through his teaching again and again. E.g. the parable of the Good Samaritan where robbers, priests and temple officials are all lumped together. He shifts the centre of real religion from temple and concerns for ritual purity to the unprejudiced love of a heretic Samaritan. This was corrosive social criticism. It seems that Jesus himself went through a conversion as regards the Samaritans and foreigners in general as a result of an encounter with the Siro-Phoenician mother. The parable of the Good Samaritan reveals him as a leader of the poor looking with contempt on the mighty of Israel. Elsewhere Luke records him cursing them:
Woe to you rich – you have received your consolation
Woe to you who are full now – you will hunger
Woe to you who laugh now, you will mourn and weep
Woe to you when men speak well of you,
for so their Fathers did of the prophets. (Lk. 6:24-26)
The curses on the rich parallel the promises to the poor. These promises respond with anger and compassion to the shocking contrasts in society: the wealth blinding the rich to the poor’s lack, their comfort making them indifferent to hunger, their easy life leading to complacency before oppression. Poor here are not those at the other end of a scale but those who have fallen off the scale, the destitute, the living dead – those who have no value and are shunned by all. Jesus critique takes shape as he responds to different groups he encounters in his increasingly fractured world.
To the wealthy Priests, Nobles and Sadducees who saw their wealth and power as a sign of God’s favour and poverty as a sign of God’s disfavour he says they are immoral. In the society of the time with its rigid social hierarchy and its politics of holiness, to be poor and to be a sinner were often seen as the same and so in some way to be poor was to be guilty. Jesus proposed a different view of God and of the poor and a different view of the exercise of power. In Luke. 22:25 God is Father primarily of the little ones. “I am among you as one who serves.” The rule of God is the opposite of the existing order. Service as opposed to dominion.
It was this wealthy class and power elite who were responsible for his death. The reasons are clear. Note the basis of his critiques of their power and authority – it lacked justice and truth. “What is truth?” Pilate asks and under pressure saves himself. The question expresses the void undermining Pilate’s own authority. Their wealth is at others expense, that of their neighbour. Not to love one’s neighbour is for Jesus not to know the God who is the father of the neighbour.
Jesus saw the misuse of power as arising inevitably out of the profit motive – mammon (Luke. 12:21-23; Matthew. 6:19-20) The rich lost their chance of knowing God, their minds clouded by desire to enrich themselves, leading inevitably to an insensitivity towards the brother in need (Cf. the parable of Lazarus and Dives in Luke 16: 19-31). For Jesus to be deaf to the cry of the poor is to be deaf to God. So, he chooses disciples from the poor masses or if they are wealthy, he calls them to strip themselves of wealth in favour of the poor (cf. Zacchaeus in Luke.19:1-9). Such solidarity with the poor made him a threat to the Jerusalem power elite.
THE TEMPLE.
As his ministry developed his critique focused more and more on the temple. The temple in Jerusalem was one of the wonders of the ancient world. It was vast, about the size of three international football stadiums. Its walls were dressed in white stone that shone as the pilgrims walked up the rift valley along the Jordan and saw it in the distance. Its great doors were covered in sheet gold and silver. At its centre was the holy of holies where every year the High priest after three days of ritual preparation and fasting would enter in to the sanctuary to seek the healing and reconciliation of the whole people. It was the holiest of Jewish places and a meeting place for Jews from around the entire Mediterranean at the annual feast of Passover when Jerusalem’s population doubled. It was the centre of government and of justice. It was a centre of trade and of banking.
Huge revenues went into the Temple from donations, trade in sacrificial victims which had to be purchased from the temple and it was a centre of taxation including temple taxes, money paid for the redemption of vows and promises, and it was the centre of administration of temple lands. In other words, it was the centre of Judea’s entire economic system and was a factor in all political decisions. It also regulated ideological control over the Jewish masses, regulating religious practice and expression.
So, it was both a bank and a marketplace. A seat of political authority, a regulator of religious symbols, a place of prayer, and an enclosure within which just about every type of human transaction took place. What was happening in the country had direct implications for what happened in the Temple. So, a religious challenge to the temple was a challenge to enormous vested economic and political interests.
Jesus shared a growing open reserve towards the Temple. He clearly saw the links connecting it with power and exploitation. His attitudes imply a political and social challenge. Hence the power of the story of the Good Samaritan. There is a growing awareness throughout the ministry of Jesus, a developing critique and analysis which he gradually puts together. This can inspire our own gradually development and growth in awareness. No-one is born a prophet!
PART TWO JESUS AND OTHER GROUPS
I think that the practice that emerges around Jesus points to an inner coherence and an original point of view. It was a practice that had to be structured to achieve its purpose. Let us try to get the shape of that practice by contrasting it to other contemporary groups.
A THE WEALTHY
These included:
- the high priestly families some of whom were great landowners. Controlling the Temple treasury, they effectively controlled trade and finance. They filled the major political and administrative posts and were among the official representatives of Religion.
- the Lay nobles were predominantly landowners and leading merchants like Nicodemus.
- the Sadducees. These were the conservative ideologues. They interpreted salvation as this worldly to be realised within a theocratic state. Their wealth was a sign of God’s blessing and so of their righteousness.
Oppressive power is always precarious. Consistently Jesus critiques the power of domination and the amassing of wealth at the cost of others, usually the weakest. Mammon is acquired at the expense of others and its accumulation meant that those involved became impoverished in their relationship with God. The misuse of power here is nearly always linked to the uncontrolled desire for riches. “So, it is when someone stores up treasure for himself instead of becoming rich in the sight of God” (Cf. Luke 12:21-33, Matthew 6:19-20) and He tells them the story of the lilies of the field.
And so, to heighten this contrast (the community of Jesus is always a contrast society) Jesus chooses collaborators from among the poor, or if they are wealthy demands, they divest themselves of wealth in favour of the poor (Cf. the story of Zacchaeus Lk. 19:1-9). The rich have no share in the kingdom unless they make the poor part of their life. It’s important to recognise that Jesus had rich friends and supporters. Martha Mary and Lazarus lived in wealthy Bethany, Nicodemus was a member of the Sanhedrin but they all used their wealth and influence for the Kingdom of God. These very public gestures of solidarity with the poor and compassion towards them made the Jerusalem wealthy see Jesus as a threat to their power.
B THE SCRIBES These were teachers who were close to the people. They had considerable moral and intellectual prestige and huge influence through their interpretation of the Law in the synagogue. The best of them had considerable moral authority from their simplicity of life, many were craftsmen and small merchants like Paul the tent-maker (Acts 18:3). Many lived in near poverty and some followed a celibate life.
Jesus adopted and radicalised their lifestyle, choosing as the norm for himself and his close collaborators a life of poverty as an itinerant preacher and teacher. But his mode of teaching with its radical freedom and personal authority was a reproach to the scribes. His critique of them is that they monopolise knowledge and make it incomprehensible for others so that the liberating word of God is no longer life giving (Luke. 11:52). It has to wait for an interpreter. Jesus frees the text and puts God’s liberating word within reach of the masses by simplifying it and concentrating on the essential.
C THE PHARISEES: “the separated ones” These were mostly laymen from the artisan and small trader class. Their life was a symbolic form of resistance against the Romans and the corruption of Israel by external forces and cultures. Their intransigence and purity of practice nourished an ethnic identity with a vague expectation of an ultimate struggle leading to national autonomy. They followed all the rules and regulations that only bound the priests (613 precepts). This scrupulous observance set them apart from the ordinary people of the land “ An ignorant man cannot be saintly” (*Parke Avot 2,6). They fasted twice a week, prayed several times a day and gave to charitable works. Although a minority they were popular with the people and so provoked the envy of the Aristocracy who had to include them with the Sadducees in the Sanhedrin to govern.
Jesus response was to emphasise that the true torah/law was not something codified but rather a practice inspired by love and justice. Taking the first and 2cnd Commandments he gave a prophetic re-reading of the law radicalising it. The only obligation was to make a free and responsible choice in the light of these basic criteria. In the Kingdom of Abba being justified before God was inseparable from one’s attitude to the brothers and sisters since all were in the kingdom. Jesus challenged society’s tendency to exalt individuals and elites and oppress the majority materially and morally.
Jesus’ approach to the law was flexible and realistic e.g. eating grain on the Sabbath (cf. Mk 2: 23-27). Basic human need, in this case hunger, over-rides Law. He accepts possible conflict and contradiction between texts in the face of the Pharisees attempt to harmonise them. He does not impose a theory but accepts the need to make choices if real historical contradictions are to be overcome. The norm for interpretation is the rule of love. He read the law from the vantage point of the poor, the Pharisees didn’t. He is not bound by convention. He discerns each case as it happens.
D THE ESSENES This was an elite group who abandoned the evils of the city and the corruption of the false Jerusalem leaders of the temple. They were superior, elitist, sectarian, ritualistic and legalistic and set up a community of perfection in the desert where, by a life based on study of the law, prayer, manual work and ritual washings, they prepared themselves for a final apocalyptic war.
Jesus on the other hand proclaimed a kingdom that was inclusive, no-one even the sick and the crippled and the morally challenged were excluded. Uncleanness was to be situated in the heart (Mk. 7:18-23). He mingled with the crowds, the sinners, and the unclean. Salvation came from encountering the sinner not condemning her. What he offered was a community in which it was possible to receive a free grace and acceptance, to be supported in a life of reconciliation and conversion where God’s rule broke into the ordinary frame of daily life.
At the heart of the renewal Jesus offered was not a call to arms but a new relationship based on forgiveness. The only times he withdraws is to pray and only so he can throw himself back into the crowds again. The emphasis is not on some future apocalyptic battle but on the kingdom of God/Abba in the present everyday ordinary world, which is not so ordinary after all.
E THE ZEALOTS We hear more of these after Jesus death and the first Jewish War in which they played a leading and ultimately tragic role. Like Jesus they preached the coming of God’s Kingdom but their focus was on a battle with the Romans. They held on to the radical freedom of the original Israel and desired to realise that freedom anew. They wanted to overthrow the Jerusalem puppet government and reform both government and Temple.
Jesus’ preaching of the kingdom sounds similar and he is just as critical of the political leadership - they are false shepherds. At least one of his disciples, Simon, is called a Zealot. And Judas Iscariot may be a reference to a sicarii/ a dagger wearer. When he is taken in the Garden two of his disciples draw swords to protect him.
But while Jesus denounces the misuse of the temple and the manipulation of its worship, he is not interested in it as a national symbol. It is not an absolute for him. Indeed, he can coolly say “not one stone will stand upon another” (Mk. 13:2). This in itself was disturbing. It implied a radical reversal of values which was potentially destabilising. His own mission gradually expands out from the poor of Israel in fidelity to Abba who is not just the God of the Jews (Cf. His encounter with the Siro-Phoenician woman). This combination of radicalism and universalism will bring down on Jesus the condemnation of the Jewish leadership and of the representatives of Empire.
PART 3 JESUS' PROJECT
There are two main themes in Jesus’ ministry:
- the coming of Abba’s Kingdom
- the call to conversion and acceptance of that Kingdom
To do this he takes the offensive and to reveal the presence of the kingdom shares day by day the living conditions of the mass of the people and takes part in ongoing dialogue with them. He attends to basic needs. This closeness to the oppressed masses will play a key role in his condemnation by the establishment. His proclamation will inevitably be seen as opposed to the status quo.
So, the disciples of Jesus are provoked into having a different point of view and the criteria for their being chosen is their willingness to enter into a radical solidarity with their poorer brothers and sisters. The kingdom was to be located among the nobodies, the children, the ignorant, the suffering, the disorientated and the destitute.
Jesus’ God is
- free from convention,
- free for sharing: the banquet of strangers
- free for the new, for potential
- shared joy
- inclusive table fellowship
- shalom – the peace of a re-creation
- limitless giving
- Luke 15 the open banquet, the lost sheep
- Matthew 20,1-16) the unemployed workers who all get paid
The logic of the kingdom is a movement of communion, starting with the poor, accepting the criterion of truthfulness and so facing the real, and underpinned by ties which provide consistency and stability. The sign of the kingdom is Jesus calling God Abba. The awesome Lord of history, the Creator, whose name cannot be uttered is now to be encountered in the everyday, in the very struggles of history.
Jesus life did not offer an alternative based on abstract ethical demands. It is not a worked-out system. But it does provide some basic principles for an alternative critical practice - the practice of the reign of Abba, based on a common life of mutual compassion, forgiveness and engagement. His life inspired his disciples to prolong the logic of his practice in the new historical situations they would have to face. The main reason for the Church to exist is to bear witness to the possibility of that practice of Jesus continuing in the world.
At the economic level of production and the circulation of goods the logic of the kingdom is one of gift and communion with the poor in direct opposition to the logic of systematic and exclusive accumulation of wealth. “Give and there will be gifts for you, a full measure, pressed into your lap; because the amount you measure out, is the amount you will be given back” (Luke 6:38). Communion must be material if it is to be genuinely spiritual. It is a logic of cultivated and shared abundance versus a logic of debt, which subjects and humiliates, attributing guilt to the poor even though it is the system which keeps them that way. The kingdom speaks of accumulation for all at the expense of no-one.
At the political level the Kingdom is about a particular exercise of authority, an enabling power in the service of the masses. It implies a basic equality based on justice and compassion. The Roman Empire was built on domination of the masses, their exploitation and manipulation, on the acceptance of abuses based on lack of truth. Power based on lies or subterfuge. In the kingdom power is for service, not for exploitation for personal profit. “I am with you as one who serves” (Luke. 22: 24f)The power of the empire alienates through wealth accumulation and greed. Corrupt power leads to arbitrary violence, denies equality, and promotes division through rigidly stratified social categories.
At the level of social behaviour Jesus’ practice provoked a collective spirituality with relationships based on ethical ties with a logic of freedom and compassion. In contradistinction the Empire promoted generalised fear through manipulated debt and selfishness. It accepted inequality as normal and necessary. The kingdom calls for decisiveness, tenacity and faithfulness. The practice focused around Jesus’ preaching of the kingdom is dominated by a logic that interweaves the economic, political and social and contradicts the logic of the empire as:
- Life opposed to death
- New opposed to old
- Grace opposed to sin
The logic of the kingdom is a logic of divine love. It is a dialectic of life that takes us through struggle, denunciation and criticism but not to retaliation. Rather to new justice establishing reconciliation among individuals and groups creating communion and peace.
In every age the disciples of Jesus have to discover concrete ways of maintaining this dialectic of forgiveness and judgement.
FURTHER READING
Borg, M. (1993) Jesus a New Vision, London: SPCK
Crossman, J. D. (1994) Jesus: A Revolutionary biography, San Francisco:
Harper Collins
Rousseau, J. J. & Arav, R. (1995) Jesus and His world, London: SCM
Theissen, G. & Merz, A. (1998) The Historical Guide, London: SCM
Borg, M. (1993) Jesus a New Vision, London: SPCK
Crossan, J. D. (1994) Jesus: A Revolutionary biography, San Francisco:
Harper Collins
Dorr, D. (2004) Time for a Change: Afresh look at spirituality, Sexuality, Globalisation and the Church, Dublin: The Columba Press
Dorr, D. (1991) The social justice Agenda: Justice, Ecology, Power and the Church, Dublin: Gill and Macmillan
Dorr, D. (1984) Spirituality and Justice, Dublin: Gill and Macmillan
Nolan, A. (1994) (revised ed.) Jesus before Christianity, London: DLT
O’ Shea, E. Radcliife, T. et al, (2004) Spirituality and Poverty in a Land of Plenty, Dublin: Dominican Publications
Pagola, J. M. (2009) Jesus: An Historical Approximation. Miami: Florida
Rousseau, J. J. & Arav, R. (1995) Jesus and His world, London: SCM
Theissen, G. & Merz, A. (1998) The Historical Jesus a Comprehensive Guide, London: SCM.
Talk on Pope Francis’ Encyclical “AMORIS LAETITIA” By Sr Patricia Madden
Hello, everybody! I’m delighted to be here this evening to share with you some of the insights Pope Francis has so ably set forth in his letter, “Amoris Laetitia”. At the end of my talk may I suggest a 5 min period of silence in order to reflect on the points raised, to reflect, too, on your own experience of married and family life and then to decide what you agree with, disagree with and how you feel your Parish could better support young married people or indeed, couples and families at any stage
As you probably know this document has attracted a lot of criticism from some high-ranking conservatives in the Vatican as they feel Francis has been too vague on the question of communion for the divorced in 2nd marriages. They feel he needs to clarify the Church’s position and establish more definite rules. Francis, on the other hand, argues that mercy should take precedence and that life is not black and white but grey. He says that mercy is the foundation of the Church’s life. All her pastoral activity should be caught up in the tenderness she shows to believers. What is needed is wise discernment and that word occurs dozens of times in the letter. Francis does not say that rules and regulations don’t matter but discernment, undertaken with the guidance of the Holy Spirit in prayer, will guide all of us in the complex issues many face.
What everybody agrees on is that this letter is truly remarkable in its breadth, its recognition of the complexity and challenges of family life today and its emphasis on the need for mercy in the Church’s dealings with all aspects of marriage and family. It is a document that holds out hope to all who value marriage as well as mercy to those in irregular situations. It speaks the language of care and compassion and of the need for the Church to journey with the married with patience and sensitivity. This is in addition to the provision of stimulating and challenging pre-marriage courses and continuing support, practical help and meaningful rituals and meetings for the newly married. Francis says time and time again that, “The Lord’s presence dwells in real and concrete families with all their daily troubles, struggles, joys and hopes”
This evening I can only touch on the main thrust of the Pope’s thoughts on what is an institution of the utmost importance to the well-being, both of the Church and of society. In many countries, particularly in the West, marriage is in crisis for many reasons and, in your discussions; you may like to name some of them.
The Scriptures are full of family situations. The families we see there are like families everywhere with stories of marriages, births, deaths, jealousies, feuds, forgiveness and lack of it, resentments, bereavements and occasions of celebration and hospitality.
The family is the place where there is self-giving and a sharing in the creativity of God. The family is the domestic Church with Christ seated at the table in its midst, where parents are the teachers of faith for their children. This sounds a bit like a fairy tale but it’s also a place of realism with sibling jealousy, poverty, unemployment, disabilities, addictions, sickness, violence and sometimes murder. Not all is light and Jesus is aware of the tensions and anxieties lived by families and weaves them into parables; children leaving home to seek adventure and quite often coming back when it all goes wrong, troublesome children, embarrassment at the wedding feast, failure of invited guests to turn up, anxiety of a poor family at the loss of a coin, lack of employment which takes its toll on families. It has all happened before!
What is central in all this is the fact that Jesus presents the law of love as his distinctive sign. Tenderness is emphasised; not well regarded in our cut-throat, competitive world. The Word of God tells us that the family is entrusted to a man and woman and their children so that they may become a communion of persons in the image of the Trinity. Bringing children into the world mirrors God’s creative work. A child is a gift, unique and irreplaceable. Francis does not ignore the pain of the childless couple who will mirror God’s creativity in other ways. The raising of children presents many difficulties today; the need for freedom balanced by discipline and control, the use of technology, the ever-present threat of the misuse of social media.
The welfare of families is decisive for the future of the world and society. We all know the family, in all its complexity, faces challenges galore; unemployment, distribution of family responsibilities, lack of time for leisure and communication, the challenge of an individualistic culture, of work/ life balance, people getting caught up with possessions, technology which threatens personal encounter, seeking pleasure without responsibility-----all of which leads to a culture of ME-ism, a culture of self-centredness and a fear of commitment. Francis puts forward 3 essential words for a harmonious family life PLEASE, THANK YOU and SORRY.
Many feel that the Church does not adequately reflect the attitude of Jesus and is judgemental and harsh, paying little attention to human frailty and to the challenging situations that people find themselves in.
There is, too, the growing culture of “disposable” relationships----have your fling and move on. This is obviously a misguided notion of freedom and independence which seems incapable of looking beyond its own immediate fulfilment. The Church needs to zoom in on the inherent generosity of youth, inviting them to the challenge and joy of a lifelong commitment but how does a Parish do this?
The Pope says there seems to be a growing hesitancy in welcoming new life as couples want to continue on their career path and their present lifestyle and, at the other end of life, a tendency to view the elderly as a problem. The Pope does, of course, recognize there are many unsung saints and many happy families who enrich both the Church and society by their openness, welcome and generosity of service. There are, too, many elderly couples with complex medical needs who are an inspiration.
There are many things which militate against a healthy, generous, joyful family life and, I’m sure, that you have all experienced one or more of the following; unemployment, long working hours, weakening of faith and practice, difficulty of dealing with disability in the family, fathers working away, drug and alcohol abuse, proliferation of phones , I pads and computers. I’m sure you can think of dozens more. Story of children at a wedding---all on their phones!
Where is the family to access the help they need to live this challenge? Many feel the Church presents an ideal that is outdated. Francis says the Church needs to offer a word of life and hope. He says time and time again that there is no stereotypical family. All have challenges, problems, joys and sorrows peculiar to themselves.
All this sounds very negative but the Pope insists that the Church’s teaching on marriage and the family is inspirational. Marriage is a gift from the lord who accompanies the couple, healing and transforming their love, enabling them to live in a communion of love. Another Papal document defines marriage as, “a community of life and love which involves mutual self-giving, includes and integrates the sexual and affective dimensions in accordance with God’s plan”
The sacrament of Matrimony is a call to holiness, to bear witness to the gospel of God’s love. It is not merely a social convention but a sign of the love between Christ and his Church. The gift of sexuality is a path of growth for the couple in accepting the gift of each other in the fullest sharing of their lives. Love is always fruitful and creative and often results in the gift of a child.
In irregular situations the church has a duty of care, discerning in a non-judgemental way. The experience of love in the family is a source of life for both family members and for the Church. Francis uses the beautiful hymn to love of St Paul. It’s a “to-do” list to promote a loving family circle where all show concern, forgiveness, joy in others’ achievements, acceptance of weakness, understanding and loving kindness, ready to listen and encourage. These virtues foster trust and enable the family to cope with adversity positively. Joy comes from the recognition that marriage is a mixture of joy, sorrow, trials, celebration, success and failure. It is recognition that, after the first few starry months of romance, you have married an imperfect human being like yourself.
What is essential in family life is communication----talking and listening. How often do we hear spouses complain, “He never listens to me”; “She’s just waiting for me to stop talking”; “she’s always changing the subject”. It may seem simplistic to say that looking at one another with eyes of love and esteem could solve many problems. We then see beyond the human frailties which we all carry. How often do we hear sayings like, “Please look at me when I’m talking to you”; “my husband acts as if I were invisible”; “my wife never looks at me. She has eyes only for the children”. In my home nobody cares about me; it is as if I did not exist”. We are all guilty of failing to see the beauty of the people we live with and whose path we cross daily.
Emotions, feelings and passion are part of a healthy marriage. The Church has often been criticised for not recognising this. The sexual expression in marriage enriches the couples’ relationship and, even in later life, when physical and emotional needs change, the steadfast love of a couple is a vibrant sign to the world of the joy of love.
Francis emphasises that love is always fruitful and a child is a unique, irreplaceable gift whose growth to maturity is the responsibility of the couple. What helps couples to answer this summons to fruitfulness is the Eucharist which encourages and supports an openness to life and service. “The celebration of the Eucharist thus becomes a constant summons for everyone to examine himself/ herself, to open the doors of the family to greater fellowship with the underprivileged”
The Pope is insistent that rules and regulations will not achieve this. The church must be a beacon for married couples from their pre-marriage course into their old age. What is needed for this to be a reality is the presence of well-informed priests, counsellors, catechists. Seminarians need to spend time in parishes with real people to keep them grounded. Young people need to learn to pray in the family but this is increasingly difficult. Young marrieds need to grow in knowledge of their partner and those preparing for their wedding need to resist the pressures on them to have the right outfit, the glitziest hotel, the most exotic honeymoon. Many marry not knowing the person they intend to spend the rest of their life with. Marriage counsellors will tell you that top of the list of marriages in difficulty is one with too great expectations. The wedding ceremony is only the beginning of a journey of discovery. Pre-marriage courses are of variable quality and that is something Bishops need to address. It is good sometimes to spend a few moments reminding yourselves of what you promised on the day of your wedding.
The church should be at the coalface at every stage of a couple’s life. Some of the areas that need attention are responsible parenthood, support in sickness and bereavement, child guidance, liturgical celebrations, meetings to share experiences, easier access to nullity and, in general, a more caring, supportive parish environment which welcomes all. Francis wants the Church to be a “field hospital” where couples can find support, solace and help - Not a rigid, bureaucratic organisation with so many people lacking understanding of their commitment. Francis shuns a cold morality which drives people away.
For those in mixed marriages Francis has words of encouragement when he says their marriages are an opportunity for ecumenical encounter and growth. For the single, Francis has these words, “Many people who are unmarried are not only devoted to their own family but often render great service in their group of friends, in the church community and in their professional lives”. Consecrated celibates too, are called to a life of love, communion and service.
Finally Francis emphasises that family life grows by a series of small gestures and a recognition that no one person can fulfil all the needs of another. Marriage is a path to holiness if the family is centred on Christ, open to life and to others, so mirroring the church’s motherhood. A family with Christ at its table will shine out as a beacon to others of the faithfulness of God.
Francis ends this exhortation with these words-;
“May we never lose heart because of our limitations or ever stop seeking the fullness of love and communion which God holds out before us”.
For The Vatican Press Summary of AMORIS LAETITIA go to https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/.../160408b.html.
As you probably know this document has attracted a lot of criticism from some high-ranking conservatives in the Vatican as they feel Francis has been too vague on the question of communion for the divorced in 2nd marriages. They feel he needs to clarify the Church’s position and establish more definite rules. Francis, on the other hand, argues that mercy should take precedence and that life is not black and white but grey. He says that mercy is the foundation of the Church’s life. All her pastoral activity should be caught up in the tenderness she shows to believers. What is needed is wise discernment and that word occurs dozens of times in the letter. Francis does not say that rules and regulations don’t matter but discernment, undertaken with the guidance of the Holy Spirit in prayer, will guide all of us in the complex issues many face.
What everybody agrees on is that this letter is truly remarkable in its breadth, its recognition of the complexity and challenges of family life today and its emphasis on the need for mercy in the Church’s dealings with all aspects of marriage and family. It is a document that holds out hope to all who value marriage as well as mercy to those in irregular situations. It speaks the language of care and compassion and of the need for the Church to journey with the married with patience and sensitivity. This is in addition to the provision of stimulating and challenging pre-marriage courses and continuing support, practical help and meaningful rituals and meetings for the newly married. Francis says time and time again that, “The Lord’s presence dwells in real and concrete families with all their daily troubles, struggles, joys and hopes”
This evening I can only touch on the main thrust of the Pope’s thoughts on what is an institution of the utmost importance to the well-being, both of the Church and of society. In many countries, particularly in the West, marriage is in crisis for many reasons and, in your discussions; you may like to name some of them.
The Scriptures are full of family situations. The families we see there are like families everywhere with stories of marriages, births, deaths, jealousies, feuds, forgiveness and lack of it, resentments, bereavements and occasions of celebration and hospitality.
The family is the place where there is self-giving and a sharing in the creativity of God. The family is the domestic Church with Christ seated at the table in its midst, where parents are the teachers of faith for their children. This sounds a bit like a fairy tale but it’s also a place of realism with sibling jealousy, poverty, unemployment, disabilities, addictions, sickness, violence and sometimes murder. Not all is light and Jesus is aware of the tensions and anxieties lived by families and weaves them into parables; children leaving home to seek adventure and quite often coming back when it all goes wrong, troublesome children, embarrassment at the wedding feast, failure of invited guests to turn up, anxiety of a poor family at the loss of a coin, lack of employment which takes its toll on families. It has all happened before!
What is central in all this is the fact that Jesus presents the law of love as his distinctive sign. Tenderness is emphasised; not well regarded in our cut-throat, competitive world. The Word of God tells us that the family is entrusted to a man and woman and their children so that they may become a communion of persons in the image of the Trinity. Bringing children into the world mirrors God’s creative work. A child is a gift, unique and irreplaceable. Francis does not ignore the pain of the childless couple who will mirror God’s creativity in other ways. The raising of children presents many difficulties today; the need for freedom balanced by discipline and control, the use of technology, the ever-present threat of the misuse of social media.
The welfare of families is decisive for the future of the world and society. We all know the family, in all its complexity, faces challenges galore; unemployment, distribution of family responsibilities, lack of time for leisure and communication, the challenge of an individualistic culture, of work/ life balance, people getting caught up with possessions, technology which threatens personal encounter, seeking pleasure without responsibility-----all of which leads to a culture of ME-ism, a culture of self-centredness and a fear of commitment. Francis puts forward 3 essential words for a harmonious family life PLEASE, THANK YOU and SORRY.
Many feel that the Church does not adequately reflect the attitude of Jesus and is judgemental and harsh, paying little attention to human frailty and to the challenging situations that people find themselves in.
There is, too, the growing culture of “disposable” relationships----have your fling and move on. This is obviously a misguided notion of freedom and independence which seems incapable of looking beyond its own immediate fulfilment. The Church needs to zoom in on the inherent generosity of youth, inviting them to the challenge and joy of a lifelong commitment but how does a Parish do this?
The Pope says there seems to be a growing hesitancy in welcoming new life as couples want to continue on their career path and their present lifestyle and, at the other end of life, a tendency to view the elderly as a problem. The Pope does, of course, recognize there are many unsung saints and many happy families who enrich both the Church and society by their openness, welcome and generosity of service. There are, too, many elderly couples with complex medical needs who are an inspiration.
There are many things which militate against a healthy, generous, joyful family life and, I’m sure, that you have all experienced one or more of the following; unemployment, long working hours, weakening of faith and practice, difficulty of dealing with disability in the family, fathers working away, drug and alcohol abuse, proliferation of phones , I pads and computers. I’m sure you can think of dozens more. Story of children at a wedding---all on their phones!
Where is the family to access the help they need to live this challenge? Many feel the Church presents an ideal that is outdated. Francis says the Church needs to offer a word of life and hope. He says time and time again that there is no stereotypical family. All have challenges, problems, joys and sorrows peculiar to themselves.
All this sounds very negative but the Pope insists that the Church’s teaching on marriage and the family is inspirational. Marriage is a gift from the lord who accompanies the couple, healing and transforming their love, enabling them to live in a communion of love. Another Papal document defines marriage as, “a community of life and love which involves mutual self-giving, includes and integrates the sexual and affective dimensions in accordance with God’s plan”
The sacrament of Matrimony is a call to holiness, to bear witness to the gospel of God’s love. It is not merely a social convention but a sign of the love between Christ and his Church. The gift of sexuality is a path of growth for the couple in accepting the gift of each other in the fullest sharing of their lives. Love is always fruitful and creative and often results in the gift of a child.
In irregular situations the church has a duty of care, discerning in a non-judgemental way. The experience of love in the family is a source of life for both family members and for the Church. Francis uses the beautiful hymn to love of St Paul. It’s a “to-do” list to promote a loving family circle where all show concern, forgiveness, joy in others’ achievements, acceptance of weakness, understanding and loving kindness, ready to listen and encourage. These virtues foster trust and enable the family to cope with adversity positively. Joy comes from the recognition that marriage is a mixture of joy, sorrow, trials, celebration, success and failure. It is recognition that, after the first few starry months of romance, you have married an imperfect human being like yourself.
What is essential in family life is communication----talking and listening. How often do we hear spouses complain, “He never listens to me”; “She’s just waiting for me to stop talking”; “she’s always changing the subject”. It may seem simplistic to say that looking at one another with eyes of love and esteem could solve many problems. We then see beyond the human frailties which we all carry. How often do we hear sayings like, “Please look at me when I’m talking to you”; “my husband acts as if I were invisible”; “my wife never looks at me. She has eyes only for the children”. In my home nobody cares about me; it is as if I did not exist”. We are all guilty of failing to see the beauty of the people we live with and whose path we cross daily.
Emotions, feelings and passion are part of a healthy marriage. The Church has often been criticised for not recognising this. The sexual expression in marriage enriches the couples’ relationship and, even in later life, when physical and emotional needs change, the steadfast love of a couple is a vibrant sign to the world of the joy of love.
Francis emphasises that love is always fruitful and a child is a unique, irreplaceable gift whose growth to maturity is the responsibility of the couple. What helps couples to answer this summons to fruitfulness is the Eucharist which encourages and supports an openness to life and service. “The celebration of the Eucharist thus becomes a constant summons for everyone to examine himself/ herself, to open the doors of the family to greater fellowship with the underprivileged”
The Pope is insistent that rules and regulations will not achieve this. The church must be a beacon for married couples from their pre-marriage course into their old age. What is needed for this to be a reality is the presence of well-informed priests, counsellors, catechists. Seminarians need to spend time in parishes with real people to keep them grounded. Young people need to learn to pray in the family but this is increasingly difficult. Young marrieds need to grow in knowledge of their partner and those preparing for their wedding need to resist the pressures on them to have the right outfit, the glitziest hotel, the most exotic honeymoon. Many marry not knowing the person they intend to spend the rest of their life with. Marriage counsellors will tell you that top of the list of marriages in difficulty is one with too great expectations. The wedding ceremony is only the beginning of a journey of discovery. Pre-marriage courses are of variable quality and that is something Bishops need to address. It is good sometimes to spend a few moments reminding yourselves of what you promised on the day of your wedding.
The church should be at the coalface at every stage of a couple’s life. Some of the areas that need attention are responsible parenthood, support in sickness and bereavement, child guidance, liturgical celebrations, meetings to share experiences, easier access to nullity and, in general, a more caring, supportive parish environment which welcomes all. Francis wants the Church to be a “field hospital” where couples can find support, solace and help - Not a rigid, bureaucratic organisation with so many people lacking understanding of their commitment. Francis shuns a cold morality which drives people away.
For those in mixed marriages Francis has words of encouragement when he says their marriages are an opportunity for ecumenical encounter and growth. For the single, Francis has these words, “Many people who are unmarried are not only devoted to their own family but often render great service in their group of friends, in the church community and in their professional lives”. Consecrated celibates too, are called to a life of love, communion and service.
Finally Francis emphasises that family life grows by a series of small gestures and a recognition that no one person can fulfil all the needs of another. Marriage is a path to holiness if the family is centred on Christ, open to life and to others, so mirroring the church’s motherhood. A family with Christ at its table will shine out as a beacon to others of the faithfulness of God.
Francis ends this exhortation with these words-;
“May we never lose heart because of our limitations or ever stop seeking the fullness of love and communion which God holds out before us”.
For The Vatican Press Summary of AMORIS LAETITIA go to https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/.../160408b.html.