Readings - http://www.usccb.org/nab/021311.shtml
Today’s Gospel Reading was rather long. It comes from Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, where Matthew presents Jesus as handing down to the people God’s “New Law.” As such it’s supposed to be dramatic and if one looks at the length of the books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy, all things considered Jesus’ “New Law” is not altogether _that long_.
At the beginning of the Gospel Reading, Jesus reminds the people that he did not come to abolish the Old Law but rather to fulfill it. As such, the Gospel Reading today could be understaood as Jesus’ commentary and addition to the Law which the Israelites received by way of Moses at Sinai.
It is clear that Jesus asks the people to follow the _Spirit_ of the Law (of Moses) rather than its Letter.
He gives a series of examples whose goal is to make us humble.
He tells the people that it is not good enough to simply “not kill” anybody. Jesus tells us that to simply be angry at someone is basically the same thing. It’s an exaggeration but it makes a point. Hopefully most of us here have not actually killed anybody, however, probably many of us have at times reduced someone to ashes by what we’ve said to them, or even by the way we _looked at them_. Teenagers are often particularly “good” at reducing people (classmates, “friends”, parents, siblings) to the extent that their victims come to “wish they were dead.” But people of all ages can do this and Jesus reminds us here that it’s of little use to say “Well, I didn’t kill anybody ...” when we may have damaged all kinds of people by what we’ve said and done to them otherwise.
Jesus similarly notes that the sin of adultery really begins far earlier than at its final consumation. That’s the final stage. But it’s a long journey from the time when one begins to play with the temptation to commit adultery to finally committing it. And Jesus again reminds the people that it’s not good enough to simply “not actually have committed adultery” (or perhaps even worse ... simply “not having been caught committing adultery.” The value strived at here is much more than that.
Finally, Jesus talks about oath taking.
This may come across as somewhat strange in the context of the other teachings which Jesus gives here, which _all_ have the aim of making one more humble. Jesus’ instruction to not take too many oaths appears at the outset more _liberating_ than _humbling_. However on further reflection, it does perhaps return us (and certainly our leaders) to a state of greater humility. Let me explain ...
Now it could be said that in our time, oath taking is not taken nearly as seriously as it was taken a generation or two ago. And this has had its negative consequences. People say all the time today that they have much more difficulty trusting people than they did before.
However, this has also had its positive consequences. And those POSITIVE CONSEQUENCES I’d like to stress here.
For instance, there are those who would argue that World War II would not have taken place if people in general, but in particular people in Germany, took the same view of oath taking then as people take today.
In the past, people really took oaths seriously and perhaps _too seriously_ to the extent that it caused them moral quandries when obvious moral evils stared them in the face.
Again, bear with me ...
Early in Hitler’s reign in Germany he ordered that EVERYONE in the German Armed Forces took a personal loyalty oath to him (as Fuhrer).
Now this may have made sense in 1934, when Hitler was trying to turn the country around from the chaos that it was in previously. It may have even made sense in 1936, when things were, in fact, going better for Germany as a result of _some_ of Hitler’s policies (and mostly the enthusiasm that the Nazis created around their policies).
But by 1938-39 this oath _should_ have already become problematic with the Nazi invasions of Czechoslovakia and Poland. It should have become really difficult to follow this oath by 1941 when the Nazis invaded of the Soviet Union and German troops were ordered suddenly to treat Soviet prisoners of war as “untermensch” (subhuman). Soon afterwards came the decrees to start rounding up and shooting/exterminating the Jews.
Then even though the war was obviously lost, Hitler’s regime continued to spew out increasingly insane orders, YET THEY WERE FOLLOWED. And even to the _closing hours_ of the war ON THE STREETS OF BERLINE the SS was still summarily _hanging_ people for desertion and disobeying insane orders to resist.
What to make of this? Even in 1939, when Hitler ordered the invasion of Poland (and actually before that with his order to invade the OBVIOUSLY CZECH TERRITORIES of Czechoslovakia) rather than BLINDLY “following orders” A LEGITIMATE QUESTION COULD HAVE BEEN ASKED BY EVERYBODY FROM THE GENERAL STAFF TO THE SMALLEST PRIVATE – WHY?????? What did the Czechs ever do to Germany? What did Poland ever do to Germany?
Of course the propaganda of the time would have answered “all kinds of things.” BUT THIS IS THE HUGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 1939 and TODAY. In 1939 ALMOST NO ONE WOULD HAVE ASKED THAT QUESTION - of “WHY? WHY INVADE POLAND? What did it ever REALLY DO TO US? Today, _all kinds of people_ WOULD ASK THAT QUESTION.. It would still not be popular to do so, BUT ALL KINDS PEOPLE DO UNDERSTAND THAT governments _do lie_ at times.
The French apparently had a similar quandry during World War II. After losing to Germany, MILLIONS OF FRENCHMEN COULD NOT TAKE THEMSELVES OUT OF THE IDEOLOGICAL COUL DE SAC that said -- “Our authorities surrendered to the Germans. Our authorities now tell us to live in peace (collaborate) with the Germans. Therefore we will do what our authorities tell us what to do.”
Now there were millions of Frenchmen and women who didn’t care and joined the Resistance. But millions did not. More to the point, when the Orders came from Vichy for FRENCH POLICE TO START ROUNDING UP THE JEWS, BY AND LARGE, THE FRENCH POLICE OBEYED. They _didn’t_ necessarily LIKE the orders, BUT THEY OBEYED THEM.
TODAY such blind obedience is relatively difficult to imagine. THANKS TO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH and the MAINLINE PROTESTANT CHURCHES in Europe and the U.S., we _do_ understand now THAT WE DO NOT HAVE TO FOLLOW UNJUST ORDERS ... THAT OUR VOWS ARE NOT ABSOLUTE.
So Jesus’ call here to NOT make too many vows is again a call to humility AND IT IS, IN FACT, LIBERATING.
We’re told to live our lives _as simply as possible_. "Let our Yes mean Yes and our No mean No" and ANYTHING MORE EXTRAVAGANT – ie “Oaths to the Great Leader” – do in fact "come from the Evil one."
NO OATH CAN BE USED THEN AGAINST US, TO COMPEL US TO DO SOMETHING EVIL. If it does, then the Oath itself “comes from the Evil one.”
So then, let us seek to live humbly and live free.
And when the world asks us to go out and hate somebody or some group, let us be able to have the courage to ask “why? what have these supposed evil-doers du jour actually done to us?”
There _may_ be an answer, but we have a right to scrutinize the response then for exaggerations and lies.
If we live by the Spirit of God, no one ought to compel us then to do evil.
No comments:
Post a Comment