Tag: Fr. Robert

Conversion is a journey towards who we really are before the Lord, to our authentic identity in God: Sinful yet Beloved!

The German Jesuit priest Fr. Alfred Delp, who wrote powerful meditations from prison on “the spiritual meaning and lessons of Advent” before being martyred by the Nazis in a Nazi death camp in 1945, said that it is only when we experience being shaken and awaken that we begin to become capable of Advent. The experience of being shaken to awakening makes us realize that “all of life is Advent,” a journey towards encountering God.

On this Second Sunday of Advent, the Old Testament prophet Isaiah and John the Baptist are our Advent figures who try to shake us to conversion in preparation for the coming of the Lord. John’s call to conversion is based on an earlier summons made by Isaiah “to prepare the way of the Lord.” However, Isaiah’s original line, “A herald’s voice that cries: in the desert prepare the way,” is changed to “A herald’s voice that cries in the desert: prepare the way,” making John the voice of God calling us into the desert of conversion.

In Hebrew, the word “shubh” for conversion indicates that one has taken a wrong direction and is summoned to return to God. In Greek, the word metanoia (“change of heart”) connotes not just a static compunction but a dynamic and determined turn-around and a commitment to a new way of life in God. In both cases, conversion is not purely a human decision or endeavor but a human response to God’s prior initiative. In the New Testament, conversion is a response to Jesus in whose person, words and deeds God’s Kingdom becomes an emerging reality.

Advent is intended to shake us to conversion or on-going conversion as our response to the new dawn that Jesus Christ has brought into the world. And this cannot be a half-baked conversion. Matthew tells us that many of the Pharisees and adducees come to listen to John and to be baptized by him. But John attacks them with his strong words: “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?” Perhaps these Pharisees and Sadducees are toying with a change of heart, but not to the point of completely making a turn-around and committing themselves to God and to a new way of life. “Bearing fruit worth of repentance” is the only indicator of an experience of real and authentic conversion.

Fr. Delp, in his reflection on Advent on December 7, 1941, considered that one of the challenges of Advent is the call to authenticity. He said: “Someone who encounters the Ultimate, who knows about the end, must let go of every compromise. In the presence of the Ultimate the only thing that survives is what is authentic. All compromise shatters this. All cheap negotiating shatters this. All half-truths, and all double meanings, and all masks, and all poses shatter this. The only thing that stands the test is what is authentic.”

To embrace the Advent challenge of conversion is to embrace authenticity. John the Baptist shows the way to authenticity by knowing who he is before Jesus. He is not the Messiah; Jesus is the Messiah. Thus, he points to Jesus as the one who is stronger than he, the one who baptizes with the Spirit and the one who separates the wheat from the chaff.

Conversion is a journey towards who we really are before the Lord, to our authentic identity in God: Sinful yet Beloved! It is also a journey towards meeting others as we truly are in relation to one another: Brothers and Sisters in God! When we are finally shaken to our authentic identity in God and in relation to others, then we become capable of truly encountering the Lord in Himself and in others. Only when we are shaken to our true selves that we begin to become Advent people who are awake and ready for the Lord and his manifold visitations.

About Fr. Robert and his reflections

“One achieves uprightness before God not by one’s activity but by a contrite and humble recognition of one’s own sinfulness.” – J. A. Fitzmeyer

The parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector is a story of divine reversal that challenges us to reexamine our value systems and the way we evaluate ourselves and other people. We find in it the two characters’ contrasting interior attitudes, external behaviors and their respective self evaluations.

On the one hand, the Pharisees were known for their strict religious observance. The man in the story is a model of Pharisaic practice. Religiously speaking, he is beyond reproach. Dianne Bergant says that he is perhaps accurate in his self-description and in his negative evaluation of the tax collector.

On the other hand, tax collectors were despised as traitors by the Jewish people for being part of the economic system put in place by the Roman occupiers. They were also considered corrupt for often helping themselves with their tax collections. It is significant to note that the tax collector in the parable does not deny his involvement in such common practices. In fact, his prayer for mercy can be interpreted as an admission of his culpability.

The contrast in the internal disposition of the tax collector and the Pharisee is also very evident in their respective demeanor. The tax collector stands at a distance while the Pharisee may either be standing in front or in the midst of those in the Temple. He does not raise his eyes to heaven while the Pharisee easily does this. He beats his breast while the Pharisee’s arms are highly outstretched to the heaven. His demeanor is that of a repentant sinner while that of the Pharisee shows exaggerated self-confidence and even self-righteousness.

The two characters of the parable, according to Bergant, have described themselves correctly. However, the surprise in the development of the parable is when Jesus’ evaluation turns the story upside down. The Pharisee’s self-assessment is really a self-eulogy. Some commentators say that he is actually praying to himself and not to God. While he may be living an upright life, he takes credit for this and claims superiority over others by comparing himself with the tax collector. He is making himself justified before the Lord. The repentant tax collector, on the other hand, acknowledges that justification comes only from God. He prays that his sins be forgiven and his prayer is answered. The Pharisee does not need God for anything. He is sufficient by himself and so he receives nothing from God.

According to Patricia Datchuck Sanchez, Jesus’ parable, which is directed toward “those who believed in their self-righteousness,” returns the prerogative of judgment to God. By judging himself and others, the Pharisee is not only doing self-eulogy; he is also guilty of some sort of self-idolatry. J. A. Fitzmeyer says that “one achieves uprightness before God not by one’s activity but by a contrite and humble recognition of one’s own sinfulness.” Between the two characters in the story, it is the tax collector who has been given such righteousness before God. Sanchez is definitely correct in saying that “forgiveness, reconciliation and redemption are gifts from God that only the humble will recognize and only the needy will receive.”

as published on October 27, 2013, Parish Bulletin
About Fr. Robert and his reflections

All of us are in need of continuous homecoming to God who is unconditional in his love and who alone can lead us to proper relationships with him and with one another.

Today’s gospel pericope (Luke 15:1-32) is considered by many Biblical scholars as the heart of the gospel of Luke. If one gets the message of this passage, he gets not only the entire message of the Lukan gospel but also the entire message of Jesus Christ. The message is that God does not only love sinners or the lost unconditionally; he persistently seeks after them and welcomes them with joy.

Consisting of a trio of parables (the parable of the lost sheep, the parable of the lost coin and the parable of the lost son), the pericope is regarded as Jesus’ response to the criticism of the scribes and the Pharisees that those who are considered worthless and lost are actually the predilect of the Kingdom of God. The lost sheep, the lost coin and the lost son would have been judged not worth searching for by the scribes and the Pharisees. Patricia Datchuck Sanchez comments: “After all, what logical person would leave a herd of 99 sheep to search for a stray? And who would actually sweep clean a house to find one coin when they had nine others? And who would open him/herself to greater misery by seeking out a prodigal child who had disgraced the family name and disassociated himself from the sacred heritage when you have another fine and upright son at home?”

While the first two parables are given to set the stage for the increase of the pathos of the message of the pericope, all the three of them are actually intended to show the “illogical” ways of God and to challenge the readers to similarly open themselves to an unconditional and forgiving acceptance of and care for others, especially those considered the lost as well as the last and the least by the society.

The third parable has been traditionally called the parable of the prodigal son. This may not be a very appropriate title. The lost son in the story is only recklessly extravagant in wasting his inheritance, but the father is actually the one who shows limitless prodigality in his love for, forgiveness of and patience with both sons. Thus, the story, as some commentators say, may be better renamed as the parable of the prodigal father.

In this reflection, we prefer to call the third story the parable of the prodigal father and the two lost sons. The father’s unconditional love is never diminished by the faults of both sons. His love for his younger son remains despite his going wayward. It is a love that waits for, seeks, welcomes and rejoices at the homecoming of his lost son. His love for his elder son is appreciative and patient. While he recognizes his elder son’s fidelity for always being with him, he tries to lead him to a relationship with him that goes beyond the sense of filial duties and to a relationship with his younger brother that is more embracing, welcoming, forgiving and unconditional. “Son, you are always with me, and all that is mine is yours. It was fitting to make merry and be glad, for this your brother was dead, and is alive; he was lost, and is found.”

An in-depth reflection on the story reveals that both sons are actually lost and in need of conversion and that both need to return to their father and to one another. The younger son’s faults include leaving his father and brother and their home, asking for his inheritance prematurely as his father is still alive, squandering his inheritance and living a disrepute life away from home. The elder son’s faults include seeing himself more as a servant of his father rather than as a son, not truly recognizing his younger brother as his brother (“When this son of yours…”), harboring resentment against his younger brother and his return, and failing to rejoice with his father at the return of his brother.

In the story, the homecoming of the younger son to the welcoming embrace of his prodigal father is accomplished. He gets reconciled with his father who unconditionally and lavishly forgives, welcomes and reinstates him to his status as one of his two sons. We do not really know what happens to the elder son in relation to his father and to his younger brother. The parable is open-ended and is still being told. It continues to be a reminder of the need for everyone to always return to the compassionate God, as represented by the father, and to our brothers and sisters, as represented by the younger son. All of us are in need of continuous homecoming to God who is unconditional in his love and who alone can lead us to proper relationships with him and with one another.

as published on September 15, 2013, Parish Bulletin
About Fr. Robert and his reflections

This is the paradox of Jesus’s coming. While he brings peace and eternal life, those who refuse to receive the fire of purification, conversion and renewal that he offers bring upon themselves discord and death.

In the gospel passage today, Jesus describes his mission in terms of fire and baptism. By doing this, he makes it clear that there is no neutrality to his presence, his words and his deeds.

Early in Jesus’ public life, John the Baptist presents Jesus as one who is coming to baptize with Spirit and fire (Lk. 3:16). Patricia Datchuck Sanchez notes that fire, a familiar biblical symbol, “is a frequent metaphor for God Himself and for his intervention among his people.” For example, God communicates his presence to Abraham (Gen. 3:16), to Moses (Ex. 3:2), to Israel in the desert (Ex. 13:21-22) and on Mt. Sinai (Ex. 19:18) through the phenomenon of fire. The prophet Jeremiah compares God’s word to fire (Jer. 23:29). Fire is also a symbol of God’s holiness and protection (Zech. 2:5) and is considered as God’s servant (Psalm 194:4; Heb. 1:7).

Fire possesses destructive and purifying qualities. As such, it is also a fitting symbol for the action of God among his sinful, disobedient and wayward people. Zechariah associates the Day of the Lord with the cleansing fire of God’s intervention (Zech. 13:9). The Israelites’ exile in Babylon is described as a purification by fire (Is. 43;2; Psalm 66:12). Sanchez notes that “in his desire to ignite fire upon earth, Jesus is aware that he is to be the crucible wherein all humanity will be judged, purified, refined and enkindled in an eschatological conflagration.” Furthermore, he manifests “himself as filled with an ardent longing to illuminate the world by the fire of the Spirit, which is the ultimate goal of his work” (Days of the Lord, Vol. 6, 169).

Baptism, in the context of the gospel passage, does not refer to one
of the seven sacraments of the Church. From the Greek “baptizein” (Hebrew, “tabal”), baptism here means, “to be bathed, dipped or immersed.” Jesus is referring to the inevitable ordeal that he will suffer in the hands of those who will reject and oppose him and his message. The gospel of Mark renders this baptism as “a bath of pain,” referring clearly to Jesus’ passion and death (Mk 10:30). The biblical scholar C. Talbert, according to Sanchez, says that “Jesus’ baptism is the precondition for the release of fire upon the earth.” Through the baptism of passion and death of Jesus, the fire of divine judgment and purification is unleashed.

Jesus’ igniting of fire brings about inevitable discord and division because his presence of a blazing fire cannot be ignored or downplayed. No one can remain neutral in the presence of the Son of Man. Walter Brueggemann et al. declare that “the very presence of Jesus precipitates a crisis, a division among people in terms of how they respond to him.” By the radical nature of his presence, words and deeds, Jesus demands of a choice, a decision. Those who receive the fire of his purification and penetrating truth are converted and those who reject it perish. In other words, in Jesus’ coming, each person is presented with an ultimatum. Each must decide whether to accept him and his message or not and the terms of this decision are more binding and demanding than the blood ties that keep the family together.

Family members, because of the decision that each has to take in favor or against Jesus and his message, must be ready to face the possibility of division. This is the paradox of Jesus’ coming. While he brings peace and eternal life, those who refuse to receive the fire of purification, conversion and renewal that he offers bring upon themselves discord and death.

Actually, “the pivotal point,” as Joyce Ann Zimmerman et al. assert, “is that neither Jesus nor we choose division and strife.” These result from our being true and faithful to Jesus and his message. The gospel of Jesus can be jolting. Fidelity to the gospel of Jesus can bring about “a clash of values, of principles, of priorities.” As we try to receive the fire that Jesus brings into the world and as we do our best in helping set the world on fire with the Kingdom values of love, peace and justice, we must be ready, following the lead of Jesus, to be baptized into the waters of suffering and pain. As Dietrich Bonhoeffer puts it, “When Christ calls a man, he bids him come and die” (The Cost of Discipleship).

as published on August 18, 2013, Parish Bulletin
About Fr. Robert and his reflections

13th Sunday in Ordinary Time, Year C

Last Saturday, I officiated the beautiful wedding of a wonderful couple named Christian and Chassie. One of the highlights of the ceremony was the couple’s touching personally written exchange of vows. This was done before the official and canonical exchange of vows prescribed by the Church, which can never be done away with to make the wedding valid.

In the said exchange of vows, one could clearly sense the strong commitment made for the present and the future. The bride and the groom pledged themselves to each other and to unconditional and faithful love in marriage and family life. They appeared, using the words in the gospel today, “resolutely determined” to make their marriage work or succeed and to keep their vows till death do them part. According to them, without using the words, there was no more turning back. They were, as if, burning their bridges.

The idiomatic expression “to burn one’s bridges” can mean “cutting the way back where you came from, making it impossible to retreat” or “making decisions that cannot be changed in the future.” Etymologically, it is based on the military action of burning a bridge you have just crossed to prevent the enemy from crossing it after you.

Nil Guillemette says that an equivalent expression of this idiom “to burn one’s bridge” is “to burn one’s boat.” This expression is an allusion to Julius Caesar and other military officers who burned their boats or ships when they invaded an enemy country to make their soldiers realize that retreat would be impossible and that they must either win the battle or die.

“To burn one’s bridges” or “to burn one’s boats” is to give everything to succeed, to make an unchangeable decision, to get rid of everything that can distract or deter one from pursuing what one has set oneself on.”

Burning one’s bridge or one’s boat is, I believe, the challenge of the readings today.

In the First Reading from the First Book of Kings, when God called Elisha to be a prophet through the prophet Elijah, we see Elisha burning his bridges and boats to respond resolutely to the prophetic call of God. He threw his cloak over Elijah. He left the oxen. He acceded that he could not even kiss his parents to bid goodbye. God’s call was urgent and Elisha responded promptly.

The Second Reading from the Letter of St. Paul to the Galatians tells us of freedom given to us by God so that we can stand firm and not succumb to the yoke of slavery. This freedom enables us to love and serve others and to be always guided by God. Indeed, one who can be truly be firm is free and one who is unfree will have a hard time being resolute.

The Gospel according to Luke tells us that Jesus was “resolutely determined to journey to Jerusalem.” Jesus was fully aware of what awaited him in Jerusalem – suffering and death. Twice in Luke he had predicted his passion and death before today’s gospel passage.

According to Guillimette, Jesus’ being resolutely determined to journey to Jerusalem can be rendered in Greek as ‘he hardened his face” or “he stiffened his face.” Any of these is a metaphor that indicates “determination and courage in overcoming fear.” Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem was the beginning of his passion and death as God’s Suffering Servant. By showing resolute determination, he was burning his bridges and his boats. There was no more turning back for him.

While on the way to Jerusalem, Jesus passed through Samaria and was met with unwelcoming reactions of the Samaritans. The Jews and the Samaritans were enemies. The Jews considered the Samaritans inferiors and outsiders because of their association with foreigners. They refused their help to build the temple in Jerusalem. In return, the Samaritans built their own temple on Mount Gerizin as an alternative to the temple in Jerusalem.

The gospel passage clearly states that the Samaritans did not welcome Jesus because he was on his way to Jerusalem. This led James and John to suggest to him to respond to the Samaritans’ inhospitality by sending a consuming fire upon them. Jesus rebuked James and John. In doing this Jesus, in effect, reminded them that his Gospel is not involved in wiping people out of vengeance and violence. They must never allow themselves to be dictated by the mean reactions of people against him. They must always act out of graciousness and compassion. And in this particularly incident, they must not allow the adverse reactions of the Samaritans to distract them from their journey to Jerusalem. So, Jesus instructed his disciples to be focused on their journey to Jerusalem and to move on.

Indeed, what can distract us from pursuing what we need to pursue are not only inviting alternatives but also difficulties and adverse reactions along the way. Thus, being resolutely determined is a quality that is most needed so that we can reach what we need to reach or achieve what we need to achieve. And these include giving up – things, relationships, attitudes, values, ways – that can make us out of focus.

In the gospel we find also three prospective disciples of Jesus. Fundamental in the exchange between Jesus and the prospective followers was the question: “How does one follow Jesus?” Jesus, in his individual responses to the prospective disciples, outlined a triple demand: anyone who follows the Lord must give up all security and put his security only in God; one must subordinate everything without delay to the following of Jesus and the duty of evangelizing; and, one must forget the past and face the future. In short, anyone who wants to follow the Lord must act decisively and burn one’s bridges or boats.

Indeed, following Jesus requires resolute, courageous, firm decision and action. There can never be discipleship if we do not want to pay the price. There is cost in following Jesus, as Dietrich Bonhoeffer put it in his book “The Cost of Discipleship.” We either follow the Lord faithfully or not.

This is also very true in the different forms of Christian life and commitment we embrace. One who decides to get married cannot remain a bachelor in his lifestyle. One who decides to be a priest or a religious cannot but be single-hearted in his commitment to the Lord and to God’s people. One who decides to change the direction of his life cannot keep on looking back to his former life. One who decides to turn to the Lord cannot but turn away from sin or from what is not of God. In short, one must burn his bridges or boats.

It seems this is one of the big problems regarding decisions and commitments. Many of them are not made and sustained with resolute determination by the grace of God. There is really no burning of bridges and boats as we often want to enjoy both worlds.

St. John of the Cross, the great Carmelite mystic, had a beautiful insight into this resolute determination and single-heartedness of purpose and action. He said: “The soul that is attached to anything however much good there may be in it, will not arrive at the liberty of divine union. For whether it be a strong wire rope or a slender and delicate thread that holds the bird, it matters not, if it really holds it fast; for, until the cord be broken the bird cannot fly.”

To put is simply, a bird cannot fly whether what binds it is a strong rope or a slender and delicate thread. The cord must be broken before it can be free to really fly.

What are those bridges and boats that we need to burn so that we can truly be true and faithful to the commitments that we have made in life?

About Fr. Robert and his reflections