23 January 2013

Silence is not the right answer

2nd Week OT (W)
Fr. Philip Neri Powell, OP
St. Dominic Church, NOLA

When given the chance to speak out in defense of their most deeply held convictions, the Pharisees choose instead to play games with a man's life. Jesus calls the man with the damaged hand up before the assembly and asks, “Is it lawful to do good on the sabbath rather than to do evil, to save life rather than to destroy it?” This is a clever question b/c it forces the Pharisees to consider the consequences of obeying the Law beyond just the repair of a man's hand. In effect, Jesus is asking, “Is it legal for me to save a man' life on the Sabbath, or should I let him die?” To the Pharisees' way of thinking, if saving a life on the Sabbath is a form of work. . .well, they'll have to think about that and get back us. I can't tell you how they answered Jesus' question b/c after he asked it, “they remained silent.” They remain silent while a rabbi violates the Sabbath in the synagogue! What's more important to them: honoring God's Law, or playing gotcha games with an ideological opponent? Jesus knows their hearts, “Looking around at them with anger and grieved at their hardness of heart,” Jesus heals the man. God' love is God's law, so silence cannot be the right answer to the question of sin. 

For most tough questions, silence is almost always the right choice, the prudent choice, but not always. I was once told by a wise and learned friar, “Br. Philip, prudence is the art of knowing when to keep your big mouth shut.” Well, I've never been particularly good at art, or keeping my big mouth shut. I'm not built intellectually to let a challenge go unanswered. However, even with my tendency to imprudence, I recognize the genius of the way Jesus sets up the Pharisees. They have two choices in answering his challenge: 1) admit or deny that the Sabbath Law forbids life-saving work; or 2) remain silent. The first choice either exposes them as heartless, legalistic religious robots; or opens the door for reckless disobedience. Not good P.R. either way. The second choice (silence) leaves them looking slightly foolish but at least they have plausible deniability if someone accuses them of being heartless, legalistic, or reckless. Unfortunately for them, their silence angers the Lord and verifies for us that their hearts have grown hard in following the Law. What this tells us is that there is something more fundamental and vastly more important than the Law: God's infinite love for His creation. Christ is that love given human flesh. He is the promise of God sent to save our lives, the Law fulfilled. 

Neither the Law nor the law can save us; that is, neither the Law of Moses nor the law of man can reach to heaven and heal the wound between God and His creation. However, when a civil law reflects or embodies God's law of love, the edges of the wound can be drawn closer together, if not closed completely. Conversely, if a civil law violates the law of love, the edges of the wound are spread farther apart and infected by sin. When challenged to defend one of their most cherished laws, the Pharisees remain silent. Why? For nothing more than political advantage over an enemy. Their silence is complicity, participation in the violation. When we are challenged to defend God's law of love, our silence—fear, cowardice, or political calculation—is complicity, participation in the legal vandalism of divine love. Man-made law is just when it reflects and embodies God's law of love. However, when civil law demands that we sin, to violate God's law of love, our resounding NO! to that demand ought to shake the earth and rattle some teeth. The Pharisees missed their chance to stand up for their deeply held convictions, selling their integrity for a chance to kill one inconvenient enemy. If we will not stand up for God's law of love, then we become our own enemy for sake of convenience. 
_____________

Follow HancAquam or Subscribe ----->

11 comments:

  1. Anonymous8:42 AM

    I believe that any organized effort on the part of the Church to refuse to comply will be doomed before it gets started because the very vast majority of all of the institutions affected by the HHS mandate are run by LCWR congregations of Sisters or the Jesuits, and both of these entities have already demonstrated (over and over again) that they do not and will not stand with the Church. Sorrypriest

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bishops can always withdraw priestly faculties. Kinda hard to function as a priest that way.

      Delete
  2. Amen. I guess one could argue that becoming so swept up in the law of man, it can become a kind of idolatry of sorts. And, I suppose remaining silent in the face of injustice is a kind of infidelity to God. But, I like what and the way you express how man-made law reflecting God’s law can be a kind of proper justice here on earth.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The central heresy of progressivism is its belief that natural human rights are granted/invented by the State. B.O. and his quasi-Marxist allies falsely believe in a postmodern of nominalism: words mean whatever those with the most power say they mean. Thus, their disdain for the plain language of the Constitution.

      Delete
  3. Solid. Love always trumps law. Perfect Love overcomes fear, so if I am afraid to speak up for God's law of love I need to find, or cultivate or allow that Perfect Love to take over my heart. Not doing so is complicity with the evil against which I should be speaking. (Mixing a couple of homilies together)

    On a funny note, as I read through this I missed the "r" in "even with my tendency to imprudence"...so I initially read it as impudence. That works, too, right? :-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I certainly have my impudent moments!

      Delete
  4. Anonymous5:35 AM

    Reading this three days later, and reflecting on the March for Life and St Paul after his conversion, and also Dr King, seems to me God is calling us to be more vocal (but always in love) in condemning abortion and same sex marriage and then for us to be willing to pay the price a furious culture may demand.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And we can be absolutely sure that the culture will be furious. It's just a matter of time now.

      Delete
  5. What was the violation of the law? My understanding is that the restriction of work on the Sabbath came from the fact that the same verb used in the commandment was also used in relation to building the temple, so things that would be related to building the temple (sewing, metal work, stone work, cooking, etc) was forbidden on the Sabbath. But I don't see anything about healing or curing. I don't doubt that Jesus was correctly challenging the Pharisees on their interpretation of the Law, but I don't understand what they considered "work" in this case.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Healing on the Sabbath may have been considered worked IF the healing actually involved work. Do miracles count as work? I dunno. The question of what counted as what and when was a constant source of bickering btw factions in Judaism. We know from the reading that they were setting Jesus up so that they could accuse him, so they must've thought something was wrong with healing on the Sabbath.

      Delete
  6. Anonymous9:46 PM

    thanks for share...

    ReplyDelete