Moral or Immoral: The Assessment

Here, The Scholar presents the moral assessment on the case about Mario and Susan.

Holding marriage as the total and indissoluble intimate union of love and life of two consenting partners, man and woman, the church teaches and pronounces that remarriage, with one of the partners still bound by previous marriage, is a marital infidelity and adultery. The sixth commandment and the New Testament forbid it because it “contravenes the plan and the law of God as taught by Christ” and which establishes and govern it (1). It is also considered as an infectious evil that must be faced immediately and with careful discernment (2). Yet, with these, the couple involved is not separated from the church and is highly encouraged to participate in the church practice and celebrations. They must be helped to live Christian lives and be able to share in the life of the church (3). However, they are not allowed to receive the Eucharist for two reasons: [a] The couple’s state and condition breaks the union of Christ and the church signified by the Eucharist. [b] It might lead others into error and sin regarding the indissolubility of marriage. Moreover, reconciliation through the sacrament of penance may be granted but only to those who are truly repentant and ready to live as brothers and sisters that is, precisely without sexual intercourse that should only take place within marriage. Pastors too are forbidden to do any services for any remarried couple (4).

Nevertheless, with the church’s teaching on hand, people still vary in reactions and opinions about remarriage. People who are so called conservatives and those who understand morality and law interchangeably [not to mention their lack of genuine knowledge on the matter] see it as sinful, immoral and adulterous. They get scandalized. On the other hand, there are people who are open-minded and view it in a case-to-case [‘it depends’] basis taking into account what really happened and what lies beneath the real story. Also, there are those who are unaffected, either seeing the case as normal or considering it as none of their business to scrutinize and judge. Others find the drawback in the church which they see incapable of understanding people’s actual plight. Indeed a case like this provokes differing reactions from various groups of people or communities.

I, on the other hand, given the position of the church, the different perspectives of the people plus the enlightening and liberating learning in my moral theology course believe and would argue that the situation or relationship or Mario and Susan is not immoral, adulterous and sinful.
Allow me to present some factors and considerations that would support my argument. First, Mario and Susan’s relationship did not cause any scandal. They were understood and accepted by their immediate family, kinsfolk and local community. Second, Mario is not the one at fault in the separation that happened in his first marriage. The separation too is not in any way detrimental to their children since they had none. Third, Mario’s first marriage is irreparable due to the grave reason of their separation and the fact that Linda had already remarried beforehand. Lastly, the quality of faith, community and family life of Mario’s second marriage exhibit the couple’s love, unity and fidelity not only to themselves as couple but also to their commitment and responsibility as parents, as members of their community and as Christians (5). Their marital state did not hinder them to live normally as a couple and family.
What the church teaches and affirms opens itself to questions and counter arguments. Primarily, the church is right to say that remarriage breaks that relationship of union signified and effected by the Eucharist. However, the Eucharist is beyond that. The Eucharist does not only reinforce and affirm relationships of communion but also heal and strengthen broken relationships (6). Jesus said “This is my blood, the blood of the Covenant, poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.”[Matthew 26:28] “To reconcile and be reconciled is a major effect of the Holy Eucharist as the ‘sacrament of love, a sign of unity, a bond of charity” (7). It reveals God’s own redeeming love which unconditionally reaches out to us.

Secondly, the church’s condition (ie. that reconciliation through the sacrament of penance may be granted if the Mario and Susan are truly repentant and ready to live without sexual intercourse unless after being married) for reconciliation in this particular case may be considered unpastoral and insensitive (8). There exists a limited and narrow understanding of the couple’s act of sharing their being and life in fidelity and love to each other. Marriage is not merely limited to the sexual act of conjugal love but it is also and most importantly, the sharing of the couple’s entire life. The sexual relationship that exists between Mario and Susan is a critical issue too difficult to judge. We are talking here of the person’s being as well as the relationship’s totality. We are talking neither about acts merely singled out nor of certain absolute law or norms. It is here that the question of fundamental option, core freedom, conscience and values come forcefully.

The 10 whole years of Mario and Susan’s life as a couple points back to a positive fundamental option that each of them have, underscores the values they uphold, and crystallizes the clear conscience they had upon their decision to remarry and still believe to be right. They live a humanizing life and nurture their relationships within their small family, with their community and with God through the church in spite of what it deprives them of. They witness to the fact that it is possible to grow and still become a better person in and through their relationship as a remarried couple. Held though by Mario’s marital past, the two of them were able to transcend and go beyond laws without causing damage or any harm to anybody. They might appear violating the law established by the church but the spirit of the law is embedded and alive in their lives. Their actions, decisions, interpersonal relationships, their simple and peaceful life reveal a clean heart. They emanate a happy, free and authentic relationship with God who alone knows what is truly in their hearts. I can say therefore that their family, particularly Mario and Susan’s relationship as a couple, epitomizes a typical happy family in the midst of daily struggles and endeavors as well simple successes and joys.

Mario and Susan need not be judged but must be guided constantly and given concrete pastoral considerations so that they can live a better life, socially and spiritually, more than what they have now. For instance, somebody has to inform and explain to them that their daughter can receive baptism, confirmation and the first communion. Another is to make them aware of or to grant them internal forum that would allow them to take part not only in the celebration of the Eucharist but also in receiving communion. As to the question of scandal, moral theologians deny the church’s position that it can cause a scandal and suggest that document must be provided first for it to be established (9).

At the bottom of all these is the simple but profound question about our right to judge them. Do we have, particularly I for this matter, have an absolute say and answer whether they are immoral or not? Certainly none. We can only try to understand them and give their rights to fully become who they positively choose and want to be as persons and live their lives to the fullest possible, in their own context, in co-existence with their community, and in deeper and growing relationship with [their] God. The truth is totally known only between Mario/Susan and God. We too can ask others and ourselves on what Jesus would say or do had He been here and met Mario and Susan. Would He cast and shun them away because they are sinners, immoral, and adulterous? I strongly believe that He would rather dine and share time with them.

In brief, the case of Mario and Susan helped me to approach and understand their relationship in and from the different perspectives first of the church and then of the people. Following closely still their differing arguments, I pushed for and highlighted my own personal judgment of the case as moral and not adulterous. This I did by invoking some criteria with the support of the counter arguments of moral theologians and by laying the ground to the question of fundamental option, core freedom and conscience of the very person of the couple involved. The person as a whole and adequately considered becomes the departure and not his/her acts.

I realized that any moral issue is a very crucial affair to study and reflect upon. It also entails careful discernment. It is an issue that would oftentimes, if not always, provoke and receive different reactions and judgments depending on the capacity and evaluative knowledge of the one making the judgment. Thus, I believe that no one ever has the right to make a close and unqualified judgment regarding the subject. No one can search and know the person’s heart but God alone.

We cannot end this study without asking, “What does this one-in-a-million case implies?” This should eventually challenge us in order to have a better grasp and understanding of the various situations that we encounter in our pastoral work and in the life of the church. Let me share some:

First, the education of the person engaged in pastoral work is basically important. At stake in every case is the well being of the person involved and this thing is not a joke. To embark in this kind of ministry requires a thorough and careful preparation. We cannot trivialize people’s experiences. We must do justice to them.

Second, when we are actually confronted with a moral case, fundamental is the knowledge of the centrality of the whole human person. The person’s acts and institutional laws must not be taken independently of the whole human person. The being of the human person is far greater than and beyond his/her acts and laws. Sin and morality is not absolutely bounded, defined and determined by laws.

Third, the church must provide people with an informed education on its laws and decrees and not just merely impose them. It must be quite realistic in whatever it teaches. This is a need that must be taken seriously today.

Finally, the church must be a true Mother of the people with whom every person can feel love and compassion and experience a flourishing of their humanity as they grow in relationship with God, people and creation.



Endnotes:

1. John Paul II, “Familiaris Consortio,” In Vatican Council II Vol. II ed. Flanerry, A. (Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1982), 823; Catechism of the Catholic Church (New York: Doubleday, 1995), 462-3, 632.
2. John Paul II, “Familiaris Consortio,” 888.
3. Ibid., 888-9 “…listen to the Word of God, to attend the sacrifice of the Mass, to persevere in prayer, to contribute to works of charity and to community efforts in favor of justice, to bring up their children in the Christian faith, to cultivate the spirit and practice of penance and thus implore, day by day, God’s grace.”; CCC, 463.
4. Ibid., 822, 888-9; S.C.D.F., “Personae humanae,” In Vatican Council II Vol. II, 490-1.
5. Notes on Moral Theology course. “Criteria on the questions of justice, irreparability of the first marriage and quality of life.”
6. Ibid.
7. E.C.C. C. E., The Catholic Faith Catechism (Makati: Word and Life Publications, 1994), 370,376; A. Flanerry, ed., “Sacrosanctum Concilium,” In Vatican Council II Vol. I (Pasay City: Paulines, 2001), 16; CCC, 390-1.
8. Notes.
9. Notes.


Bibliography:

E.C. C. C. E. The Catholic Faith Catechism. Makati: Word and Life Publications, 1994.

Flanerry, A. ed. Vatican Council II Vol. II. Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1982.

Flanerry, A. ed. Vatican Council II Vol. I. Pasay City: Paulines, 2001.

_______. Catechism of the Catholic Church. New York: Doubleday, 1995.

Notes on Moral Theology course.

Moral or Immoral?

Read and answer the question at the end of the story and get a FREE gift!

The Story

Mario and Linda got married but parted ways after three years. The problem started to arise when Mario discovered that Linda, wanting not to get pregnant, was taking medicines every time her menstruation was delayed. The arguments went on for a few months because the two of them were unable to make an agreement on having a baby. Linda was far too stubborn and seemed not in any way convinced to conceive. In effect, Mario stopped insisting to discuss the matter with Linda in order to give his wife some space. Eventually, the issue died down for a while until a more sensitive problem arose. The rumors about Linda flirting with another man gradually spread in their place. This was an issue that Mario and his family ignored and considered as mere gossips. The rumors continued until one day, Mario discovered for and by himself Linda's infidelity. The rumors have been confirmed. It was the last straw in their relationship that Mario asked for separation.

When the families of both parties discussed the matter, Linda went back to her parents' house. From then on, no communication existed between them. After two years, news came that Linda was already living with another man. Another year passed when Mario met and had a regular contact with Susan, a widow with two children. After some time, the two finally decided to live together and treated Susan's children as his own. After a year, they were blessed with a child. They are now living as a couple for 10 years with Susan's children and their daughter, Angelica.

Mario tries his best to give Susan and their children a decent life. As a jeepney driver, he works hard to provide for the needs of his family as well as for the education of his children. Mario is a faithful husband, a loving father and a responsible head of the family while Susan, a loving mother and wife, remains at home to take care of Mario and the children. They maybe poor but they are a happy family.

Even if they wish to marry in church and become a legally married couple, Mario and Susan cannot be married because of Mario's previous marriage. Annulment was out of the question since it is costly and Mario cannot afford it. They belong to a below average bracket in society that the sustenance of their basic needs has been an everyday struggle. Unfortunately, because they are not married, their only daughter was never baptized and confirmed. In addition to that, Angelica was not able to receive her first communion, something they consider as a great deprivation. No one have helped or advised them on the possibilities regarding the matter and left them clueless and unguided.

Despite these, particularly their marital situation, Mario's second family is faithful and active churchgoers. They participate in Parish activities and in the celebration of the Eucharist but receiving communion had remained a mere desire. They have a good relationship with their community and their relationship is well accepted by their families and relatives.

Are they immoral? Adulterous? Living a sinful life all those years?

Answer the questions and receive a free copy of
the "Angel Whispers" compilation!
Please place your answers/comments by clicking the "comments" link below this post. If you are unable to post a comment through this page, you may email the answers/comments at mhm_tri@yahoo.com :) Don't forget to give us your email addresses to receive a free PDF copy of "Angel Whispers" by MHM. Thank you! We will be waiting for your posts :)


Note: Names of the persons in the post, "Moral or Immoral?" have been altered for the secrecy of the identity of the persons involved.

God’s Little Schemes

It was a day unlike the usual. We received a phone call saying that we passed the professional board exam! A day of good news for my Arl and me, I must say. But why was I feeling a bit edgy? You see, I was having a little problem just how exactly we will celebrate the day.

A couple of hours had passed and I was still wondering what to do when Arl’s best friend unexpectedly met and joined us in the mall. “I came to celebrate the day with you,” he said. Was I surprised? You bet I was! He was the answer to my hours of unproductive planning and imagining.

To make the story short, we dined together in a fine restaurant outside the mall, laughed over a funny movie we decided to watched, and spent the rest of the day talking while enjoying a plate of kikiam and squid balls. It was simple. Yet, it was great.

Oftentimes, we plan and think too much. We want things to be perfect. No hassle. No error. We want things and events in our lives just the way we imagine them.

There is a very big danger to thinking and planning too much. Without us knowing, this could become a habit. We can be trapped. If this happens, we will become persons who never get to action. We will become persons who are so obsessed with planning a celebration that at the end of the day we will realize that we have never celebrated at all.

Think about this: we are already given enough reasons to be happy, yet we still plan how to make happiness happy.

There is another way out of this controlling fear of being out-of-control. We can let God take control. His little schemes are far better than ours. And the only thing which God requires from us is our openness and acceptance. We should realize that it is not how perfect we plan and think. It is how God in that particular moment touches and changes us and how, as a result, we make other people share and enjoy His presence too.

God wants us not merely to be happy but to be happiest. He wants our joy to be complete. God, therefore, surprises us in many ways. He uses events, people, even the ways we so least expect. But are we always ‘in’ for God’s surprises? Are we present to enjoy His little schemes? Or are we too busy, too preoccupied to notice the little miracles that He sends our way?

I believe this is the part where we should think.

The Power of Seeing

Have you experienced looking for something and not finding it, only to realize later that you have been staring at it? Or have you experienced finding something you thought you will never find? Let me tell you a story.

I was half asleep one late evening when I heard my friend uttered a word of dismay. Awakened, I asked her what happened. A piece of her new sunglasses was lost she said. I saw her turned her bag inside out where she kept her sunglasses but found nothing. She looked on the table, then on the floor, but still did not find anything. I, wanting to help her, got out of bed, checked her sunglasses and found out that it was the screw she lost. With a flashlight in my hand, I started the search.

I rechecked my friend’s bag. I rechecked table. I looked diligently through every corner of the room. Yet there was nothing. My friend began to feel hopeless and told me that it is over. She wanted to terminate the search. But the desire to find the screw grew inside me. I became more eager. So I kept looking until suddenly, I heard a very light click on the floor. I knew it was the screw! I must have kicked it when I moved to the door. Slowly, I sat down to scan the floor. And behold! There was the screw lying on our doorstep – the tiny 4mm screw! Like a precious gem, I carefully picked up the screw and held it before my eyes. I was jubilant!

From the start, I had this strong feeling that I will find that screw as much as I believe that innate to every one of us is the determination and will to find what we have been searching for. I believe that if we want to find and if we believe we can find whatever it is we wanted to get, we will find it. It is the wanting, the desire, the drive, the perseverance that count, not the looking. There are no lazy eyes, only lazy minds.

God gave us two extraordinary gifts: the eyes and the power to see. What we are looking for, more often than not, is right in front of us, waiting to be found. Waiting for our attention. But the question is, “Do you want to see?” “Do you wish to find what you are looking for?” “Are the things you are looking for the things you really, truly want?” “Are you seeing what you are called to see or only the things you wanted to see?” “Do your eyes see beyond what you see?”

Like the two blind men who saw the light of Jesus in the dark (Matthew 9:27-31) and the man born blind who sees (John 9:1-40), we are able to see even the tiniest. This is a free gift, a unique power. Not [to want] to use this gift could be amountable to self-blasphemy.

Angel Whispers

True humility IS NOT the ability to say "I am humble." IT IS knowing not that I am humble.

Angel Whispers

We were gifted with eyes but we see only what we wanted to see. We enjoy a few good things but we miss more than a few. The moment we learn how to really see, we will see every indispensable little good thing that falls right to our footsteps.

Angel Whispers

Sow violence and you will gain enemies. Sow selfishness and you will gain emptiness. Sow friendship and you will gain friends. Sow knowledge and you will gain wisdom. Sow forgiveness and you will gain wholeness. Sow mercy and you will gain abundance. Sow love and you will gain life. What else could be more sufficing than sowing the things that give us a perfect reaping!

Angel Whispers

Anger narrows a person’s vision. Hatred murders the being of man. But forgiveness heals a broken soul.

Angel Whispers

A lot of people do not want change. What they want is what sells to the world. Oftentimes they even call it reaching out, belonging, or blending. The truth has been a victim of compromise ever since.

Angel Whispers

Love without trust is fragile. Trust without love cannot last. Both are essential. Complement them with hope and you will be one of the few who knows what it takes to be a true human.

Angel Whispers

Happy thoughts make a person jolly, honest thoughts make a person pure, but sincere actions make a person whole.

Angel Whispers

We are good and beautiful, just the way we are. But why do we stray? Why we are not contented? Unless we had the courage to acceptance, we will never be satisfied, we will be lost forever.

Angel Whispers

Happiness is neither made nor given, it is willed.

Angel Whispers

Love is always there. Waiting for us. But only those who are not frightened to receive it, are gifted with it.

Angel Whispers

Struggles may be inevitable and pain unpredictable, but for a heart that holds dear what is True, triumph is possible!

Angel Whispers

Healing starts not in forgetting but in continuous forgiving.

Angel Whispers

When you are in the place of hopelessness, be patient. The place you’re standing is exactly where miracle could happen.

Angel Whispers

Without us knowing, God’s blessings do come in drizzles. But to those who have learned the art of asking, God’s blessings come in rain.

THE PARABLE OF THE UNMERCIFUL SERVANT (MATTHEW 18:23-35)

Relationship is an integral and crucial part of our human becoming. We are interconnected beings whose continual emergence happens not apart and in isolation from God, the other, the community, the world and the rest of creation. Nevertheless, our relationship must be an empowering relationship that promotes life and growth. Relationship ceases to be when it anchors itself in deception, insecurity, dominance, rapacity, and greed and deprives the other access to better [human] living. The latter plagues our present world. Today, we live in an up-and-coming world inhabited by “People of the Lie”(1) and their victims: suffering, broken and wounded people and nature. Situations and people are hurting and everything, everybody get hurt, raped, smashed and killed. The cosmos cries out for healing and wholeness. What have gone wrong? What have become of us? Did not God create everything beautiful, unique, interconnected, gracefully complementing one another and enormously endowed with riches for its flourishing? Did not God give us the power to re-create beauty to continue to reveal God-self?

The woe in the world ranging from small to wider relationships awfully disturbs me and oftentimes catches and leaves me off guard. I wish to be enlightened and to assist me is the Parable of the Unmerciful Servant (Matthew 18: 23-35).

In this study, I invite the reader to delve with me into the meaning conveyed by this parable about relationships and the [kind of] God that is being presented to us. With the aid of redaction criticism and the scholars’ viewpoint and commentaries, I shall go through Matthew’s editorial and literary works and purpose and try to present the parable as Jesus shaped it. From there I will dig deeper on the possible existing meaning of the parable that I hope would illumine what I want to bring to the fore. Lastly, I shall pose a challenge to be brought home, pondered and gave birth to.

THROCKMURTON(2)

< < < < < < < < < < < < < <> > MARK 9:50 – LUKE 9:50

< < < < < < <> > > > > >
< < < < < < < < < < < < < < <> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

23[“Therefore] [the kingdom of heaven may be compared] to a king who wished to settle accounts with his servants. 24When he began the reckoning, one was brought to him who owed him ten thousand talents; 25and as he could not pay, his lord ordered him to be sold, with his wife and children and all that he had, and payment to be made. 26So the servant fell on his knees, imploring him, ‘Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay you everything.’ 27And out of pity for him the lord of that servant released him and forgave him the debt. 28But that same servant, as he went out, came upon one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii; and seizing him by the throat he said, ‘Pay what you owe.’ 29So his fellow servant fell down and besought him, ‘Have patience with me, and I will pay you.’ 30He refused and went and put him in prison till he should pay the debt. 31When his fellow servants saw what had taken place, they were greatly distressed, and they went and reported to their lord all that had taken place. 32Then his lord summoned him and said to him, ‘You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you besought me; 33and should not you have had mercy on your fellow servant, as I had mercy on you?’ 34And in anger his lord delivered him to the jailers, till he should pay all his debt. 35[So also my heavenly Father will do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother from your heart.”]

The Parable of the Unmerciful Servant (18: 23-35), not traceable either from Mark or Luke, is a Matthean sondergut taken from the special material of Matthew in his tradition or community.(3) It is located at the close of Matthew’s community discourse (chapter 18), which is the fourth among Matthew’s gospel discourses. It is written right after Peter’s question about forgiveness (18:21-22) and before the beginning of the narrative on Authority and Invitation (19:1ff).

Verse 35 is parallel to 6:14-15 and appears to be Matthew’s conclusion to chapter 18. It gives a command, a rule or a law that Matthew leaves for his audience. I noticed Matthew’s use of formative words and expressions reflecting Semitic language and rabbinic usage like ‘Kingdom of heaven’ (v. 23) and ‘heavenly Father’ (v. 35) in the parable. The mention of “wife and children” (v. 25) to be sold with the servant and all his properties evokes in me an opposing reaction having reminded of patriarchy that treats children and women as male’s properties.

I observe the first and the second servants’ use of the same words in verses 26 & 29 as well as the huge difference between the two debts in verses 24 & 28. Furthermore, it is the action of the king towards the first servant (v. 27) and the first servant’s response to the second servant (v. 30) and the fate that befalls the former (v. 34) that catch my attention most. It seems to me that the emphasis moves from the king’s action to the first servant’s action and fate to the audience.

Commentators like Manson, Dodd and Crossan, encountered tension and difficulty on the connection between verses 21-22 and 23-35. Crossan for instance, sees the inconsistency of God’s action (v. 34) in the parable to the exhortation to forgive “seventy-seven times” in v. 22.(4) B. Viviano, in addition, sees the parable as loosely attached to the teaching about Genesis 4:15,24 and a homiletic midrash on Mathew’s instruction in 6: 12, 14-15.(5) Nevertheless, Herzog says that majority (i.e. Donahue, Oesterley, Fuchs, etc.) had less difficulty and easily recognized the complementarities of the two.(6) Matthew situated the parable in its present context and used the connective “Therefore” (v. 23) to place the parable and connect it to the preceding text. Matthew shifts the focus on forgiveness from its quantitative nature in verse 22 to a qualitative precondition, and at the same time, of the parable’s meaning by adding the introductory formula “the kingdom of heaven may be compared…” (v. 23), and verse 35 that reflects Matthew’s tendency to frame the parable in terms of law.(7)

With that, the parable must not be taken out of the context where Matthew placed and purposely intended it because it has a sound and potent tendency to condition and measure God’s forgiveness and contradict and nullify Jesus’ teaching in 18:21-22 and 5:44-5.(8) Matthew’s editorial comment (v. 35) is directed as a warning for his community. This clearly exhibits his primordial and pastoral concern about his community, who is vulnerable to painful division and factions and like a ‘ship beaten by waves’ (8:23-27).(9) Matthew is [known] as an ecclesial Gospel (16:18-19, 18:18, 20:20-21) and the Church officially claims it as such.(10)

At this point, allow me to treat the parable one step backward from Matthew’s editorial and literary works and purpose and look into how Jesus himself probably shaped the parable.

I take the position that the connective “Therefore” and the formulaic introduction “the Kingdom of heaven may be compared…” (v. 23), plus verse 35 are Matthew’s authorial works and additions to the original text. Yet, others opine that without them, the heart of the parable of Jesus can still be read and explored.(11) Crossan holds that the emphasis lies on the servant’s lack of mercy and stupidity of showing it (vv. 28, 30) rather than on the master’s mercy (v. 27) while Hare takes the latter.(12) Herzog, using the positions of Eta Linnemann and Jeremias as springboard, presents that the meaning of the parable can be examined from the point of the king’s action and verdict (vv. 27, 34) which emphasizes God’s forgiveness and the first servant’s shifting fates (27b, 34) which stresses human response and responsibility.(13)

I, on the other hand, closely following the perspectives that Crossan, Hare and Herzog put forward, would like to underscore two views in the context of relationship that I am trying to present. After understanding Matthew’s authorial works, the first major view, is the king’s action (v.27) toward the first servant because it generates an awesome atmosphere and response and foremost, it is a good point to open and ground my position that everything comes to us as a gift. Gift here means life wrapped in surprise freely given from the ‘Being’ of the Giver who from the beginning wants to unite and reunite us to Her/Himself, completely restore us and bring us wholeness. This is the premise that leads to a demanding question: how must we live by it? The diverse action of the first servant (v. 30), emphasized most by the huge difference of the two debts (vv. 24, 28) and the same words used in verses 26 and 29(14), evokes in us a violent response and condemnation as in v. 34. This is the crucial view but fittest to blow off the heart of Jesus’ parable. Before I proceed, let me pose a warning that I am not talking of allegory here.(15) We are deeply and enormously endowed with a gift but this does not mean power and superiority over the other. The gift must be received with open eyes and awareness, must make us humbler and change us to persons capable to effect restoration, healing and wholeness for others as well. The gift must move us to decide and act at the full service of life, freedom and the fulfillment of the gift itself. The parable shows us that consequences inevitably result from the decisions and actions we make.(16) Decisions and actions that, if done at the expense of freedom, [human] life, growth and becoming of every creation, are first and foremost self-destructive isolating us from the movement of life and the rest of all creation.

In summary, redaction criticism plus the scholars’ point of view helps me to read and understand the parable in two ways: as Matthean interpretation and as Jesus’ parable. I come face to face with Matthew’s important role as author of the parable who takes it from his special material and makes editorial works (“Therefore” “the kingdom of heaven may be compared…” v. 23) and concluding moral (v. 35) in order to place it in its present context (community discourse) and stress his pastoral concern (v. 35). I also tried to understand the parable as Jesus shaped it first by presenting three positions of different scholars on where the key to Jesus’ parable lies: a) the first servant’s lack of mercy and foolishness by showing it, b) the king’s mercy and c) the king’s action and the first servant’s shifting fates. Then, following similar fashion, I present the king’s action and the first servant’s opposing action and fall and ground it in the context of relationship highlighting our God-given-ness and the inevitability of result of the decision and action that we make.

I believe that The Parable of the Unmerciful Servant (18:23-35) is appropriate, exact and central to all our relationships – with God, other, creation, and ourselves. This, however, does not limit the parable to itself. The parable [and the other parables] could be approached in and through multi-perspectives. They never run dry of meaning in the evolving time and history. Thus, clarity of the context of the text and the perspective where we view the same text are vital in the act of reading and understanding. This enables us to gain focus on the message that we want to study and convey.

Following are the four interlocking implications that I hope would benefit us with profound understanding of our life and spirituality and an inspiration to live by them.

First, basic to every one of us is the awareness of how much we are enormously endowed by God with a gift that knows no limit. From this awareness, the God who Jesus proclaimed is manifest, the God who can only create and wills flourishing (5:45, 6:25-34, 8: 1-4, 5-13, 28-34,9:1-818-34,12: 1-8, 11-12, 18:27 NAB)) and fulfillment of all that were created (27: 45-56, 28: 1-8, 16-20 NAB). The knowledge that everything comes to us as a gift is a key to a life of humility and growing and healthy relationships.

Second, sharing the gift received and gratitude are the appropriate response because “To receive without giving is self-destructive”(17) and detrimental of a wider reality as well. Possession of gifts ruins and kills relationships and the process of becoming both of the oppressor and the victims.

Third, forgiveness is fundamental in all relationships (18:21-22, 27, 5:7, 43-45). It “is an order of existence: this shatters our legalistic understanding of life.”(18) If we allow forgiveness to touch us, we will be healed and able to truly forgive and repair broken relationships between the offender and the offended.

Lastly, we are interconnected and all of our living is interpersonal. Real living is acting in a true relational, responsive and human passion and in solidarity and fellowship with the totality of creation, ever faithful to the movement of life. “Love and Relationship…is the nature of God and therefore of creation”(19) Left with us is the massive challenge and constant call –

…to conversion, transformation, the favor of God and graceful living, calling us to be human, to be words and actions of God, in turn, forgiving, restoring, doing restitution, repairing the world, encouraging and giving hope and speaking a word that heartens and draws forth life even in the face of despair and death, sin and evil… to heal, reconcile, forgive do justice, gather into our heart and community, do the works of mercy and worship our God with Jesus in the Spirit’s grace…to worship and to honor God by being human, just, merciful and compassionate, non-violent, embracing our enemies and making friend of strangers and aliens. …to be words of God, children of God, brothers and sisters of Jesus, driven by the Spirit, sent by God, missioned to heal the broken world and the broken-hearted people and set loose the power of the resurrection shared with us in the story that seems never to end and to grow more unbelievable with each telling.(20)



Endnotes

1. M. Scott Peck, People of the Lie (London: Arrow, 1990).
2. B. Throckmurton, Gospel Parallels: A Synopsis of the First Three Gospels (New York/Nashville: Thomas Nelson, Inc. Publishers, 1979), 100.
3. W. Herzog, “What If the Messiah Came and Nothing Changed?,” In Parables as Subversive Speech (Louisville/Westminster: John Knox Press, 1994), 131; J. D. Crossan, In Parables (San Francisco: Harper and Row Publishers, 1985), 105.
4. W. Herzog, 132.
5. B. Viviano, “The Gospel According to Matthew,” In The New Jerome Biblical Commentary (Quezon City: Claretian Publications, 1993), 662.
6. W. Herzog, 132.
7. W. Herzog, 132-3; B. Lovett, The Language of Jesus (2001), 5; D. Harrington, Sacra Pagina: The Gospel of Matthew (Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1991), 269.
8. W. Harrington, Parable Told by Jesus (New York: Alba House, 1974), 70-1; J. D. Crossan, 105.
9. W. Harrington, 70-1; J. D. Crossan, 105; W. Herzog, 133; W.Harrington, Key to the Bible 3 (Makati City: St. Paul Publications, 1990), 42; T. Long, Matthew (Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 1997), 209.
10. W. Harrington, 42-3; M. Bourke, et. al., 1057, 1059; B. Viviano,632.
11. W. Herzog, 135; J. Crossan, 107; W. Harrington, Parables, 70.
12. J. Crossan, 107; D. Hare, Interpretation: Matthew (Louisville: John Knox Press, 1993), 218.
13. W. Herzog, 134.
14. J. Crossan, 106.
15. See D. Hare, 217.
16. B. Lovett, 3.
17. Ibid., 5.
18. Ibid., 6.
19. C. Fintan, The Stepping-stone of God: Creation (Ireland: St Pauls, 1995), 52.
20. M. McKenna, Parables: The Arrows of God (Makati City: St. Pauls, 1997), 161-5. Italics mine.


Bibliography

Bourke, M, et al. The New American Bible. Manila: Philippine Bible Society, 1991.

Crossan, J. D. In Parables. San Francisco: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1985.

Fintan, C. The Stepping-stone of God: Creation. Ireland: St Pauls, 1995.

Hare, D. Interpretation: Matthew. Louisville: John Knox Press, 1993.

Harrington, D. Sacra Pagina: The Gospel of Matthew. Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1991.

Harrington, W. Key to the Bible 3. Makati City: St. Paul Publications, 1990.

________. Parables Told by Jesus. New York: Alba House, 1974.

Herzog, W. “What If the Messiah Came and Nothing Changed?” In Parables as Subversive Speech. Louisville/ Westminster: John Knox Press, 1994.

Long, T. Matthew. Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 1997.

Lovett, B. The Language of Jesus. 2001.

McKenna, M. Parables. The Arrows of God. Makati City: St Pauls, 1997.

Scott Peck, M. People of the Lie. London: Arrow, 1990.

Throckmurton, B. Gospel Parallels: A Synopsis of the First Three Gospels. New York/Nashville: Thomas Nelson, Inc. Publishers, 1979.

Viviano, B. “The Gospel According to Matthew.” In The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, ed. R. Brown, et al. Quezon City: Claretian Publications, 1993.

Angel Whispers

When so many things befall you and there seems to be no one you could hold on to, have faith. You’ll soon be amazed to see that God is carrying you!