2023/01/09

73. The Gate to the Destruction Part 3

There is no information in Luke's Gospel about Mary of Bethany, who is equated with Judas in John's Gospel, except that she sat at Jesus' feet and listened to him (cf. Luke 10:38-42). Martha, on the other hand, welcomed Jesus in Luke as in John. So, in this article, we will discuss Martha. 

Martha was busy with serving because many others had listened to Jesus there. Then Martha went to Jesus and said, "Lord, do you not care that my sister has left me to serve alone? Tell her then to help me" (Luke 10:40). This frank conversation shows the relationship of trust had already been established between them. We see that Jesus had a special closeness to Martha, as he responded to her by calling her name twice in succession, "Martha, Martha." Jesus then said, "[Y]ou are anxious and troubled about many things; one thing is needful. Mary has chosen the good portion, which shall not be taken away from her" (Luke 10:41-42). From this advice, Martha got an insight into the teaching that she should respect the spontaneity of her sister, who chose the better one for herself and should not force her to serve. This fact is reflected in the scene of Lazarus' resurrection, where Martha went out to meet him alone upon hearing that Jesus had come. She did not bother Mary, who had decided to sit at home. 

This teaching of Jesus means that respecting the spontaneity of others first gives the power to open up one's own spontaneity. It elicits dialogue with Jesus. That is because one's spontaneity is "the breath God breathed in" (cf. Genesis 2:7), which calls for the word of God. It is an important teaching the faithful who live aiming for the Mass should keep in mind to get to the Mass amid the everyday interactions with the people they encounter. The faithful go to the Mass to welcome the Word and the Eucharist. So, the faithful, like Martha, can answer, "Yes, Lord; I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God, he who is coming into the world" (John 11:27), to Jesus, who asks, "I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and whoever lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?"(John 11:25-26). 

Now, the faithful must make this answer to Jesus, who is present in the Eucharist. It is in the Mass that we can publicly recite these words. The faithful have a right to express their faith in the Mass to Jesus in the Eucharist. That is because, like Martha, they need to engage openly with Jesus in the Eucharist, create trust, and have a particular intimacy with him. However, the Church has not given the faithful over the world the opportunity to share the experience of Martha. Therefore, even today, many priests and lay people end their lives without confessing their faith to Jesus in the Eucharist. That is as is written, "[T]he gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many" (Matthew 7:13).

Maria K. M.

 2023/01/02

72. The Gate to the Destruction, part 2.

As we have examined, the path that led the Church to the present miserable condition was built by many who saw God, the true parent of man, in the image of matrimony.¹ To examine this path, we will continue to focus on Mary of Bethany in the Gospel of John from the previous article. The first purpose is to find in our biblical understanding clues for reflection. 

At the beginning of the story of the resurrection of Lazarus, the Gospel of John says: "Now a certain man was ill, Laz'arus of Bethany, the village of Mary and her sister Martha. It was Mary who anointed the Lord with ointment and wiped his feet with her hair" (John 11:1-2), telling Mary's future acts in advance. This way of writing seems to be the same method by which the four Gospels foretell the tragedy of Judas Iscariot,² which means the author intended to equate Mary with Judas (cf. this blog № 71). If so, it is no coincidence that Mary's name is withheld in the later verse: "Now Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Laz'arus" (John 11:5). 

Jesus did not enter the village as soon as he arrived in Bethany because he was in danger of being caught. Among the crowd of Jews who had come to comfort Martha and Mary about their brother Lazarus,³ some must have been spies sent by the High Priest and the Pharisees and waiting to catch Jesus at his word.⁴ They wanted to hear how Jesus would plead his case to the sisters who had called him for help with Lazarus' illness. They had come to Mary, as is written in the later verse.⁵ That is why John the Evangelist deliberately stated, "When Martha heard that Jesus was coming, she went and met him, while Mary sat in the house" (John 11:20). These people assumed that Jesus would come to the house because it had been four days since Lazarus was buried. Then Martha returned and whispered to Mary, "The Teacher is here and is calling for you" (John 11:28), which caught her off guard, and she "rose quickly and went to him" (John 11:29). Those who were with her did not grasp what was happening and thought she was going to cry at the tomb. 

Mary, when seeing Jesus, fell at his feet and said, "Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died" (John 11:32). Jesus did not answer her. Unlike Martha, who uttered identical words as soon as she greeted Jesus,6 Mary's words and behavior indicated that she shared the same thought with the Jews who had followed her. When Jesus saw her weeping in anticipation of his apology and the Jews who had come with her also weeping, he was deeply moved in spirit and troubled, saying, "Where have you laid him?" (John 11:34). Jesus decided to raise Lazarus to life and wept to pray to his Father in heaven.⁷ For Jesus, all these events happened that his disciples would come to believe.⁸

[Reference] 1. this blog №58, № 59, № 61-65, № 69  2. Matthew 10:4, Mark 3:19, Luke 6:16, John 6:71  3. John 11:19  4. Luke 20:20  5. John 11:45-46  6. John 11:21-27  7. John 11:35, Hebrews 5:7  8. John 11:14-15

Maria K. M.

 2022/12/26

71. The Gate to the Destruction, Part 1

All three Gospels, except Luke, describe a scene in which Jesus is anointed with the ointment at Bethany. The women of Matthew and Mark's Gospel end with pouring the ointment on Jesus' head (cf. Matthew 26:7, Mark 14:3). Mary in the Gospel of John, on the other hand, performed a peculiar act different from these two. She "anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped his feet with her hair" (John 12:3). By this act, Mary transferred the fragrance of the ointment of nard, which she had applied to Jesus' feet, to her own hair.

At the time, the chief priests and the Pharisees had convened the Sanhedrin to discuss the matter of Jesus and had decided to kill him (cf. John 11:53). Mary may have heard about it from the Jews who had come to her (cf. John 11:45-47) and was prepared for the possibility that this supper might be her last time with Jesus. I wonder if she made herself the "bride of Christ" in the fiction that Jesus might come to her loving the fragrance of the ointment of nard on his feet and seeking her hair with the same fragrance (cf. Song of Solomon 1:12).

The house was filled with the scent of ointment. Then Judas Iscariot said to Mary: "Why was this ointment not sold for three hundred denarii and given to the poor?" (John 12:5). Jesus, in response, chided him, saying, "Let her alone, let her keep it for the day of my burial" (John 12:7). However, even if these words were directed to Judas, who held the money bag and used to steal from what was put into it, his attitude to Mary seems to be much colder than that in the other Gospel scenes. In the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, Jesus firstly said to those who accused the women of anointing with expensive ointment, "Why do you trouble the woman? For she has done a beautiful thing to me" (Matthew 26:10, Mark 14:6). Jesus then explains the motive of her who poured the ointment on his head: "In pouring this ointment on my body she has done it to prepare me for burial" (Matthew 26:12) and "She has done what she could; she has anointed my body beforehand for burying" (Mark 14:8). He further added: "Truly, I say to you, wherever this gospel is preached in the whole world, what she has done will be told in memory of her" (Matthew 26:13, Mark 14:9).

Considering the situation above, another distinctive feature is found in this scene of John's Gospel, that is, among the three Gospels, only the Gospel of John identifies the woman who anointed Jesus with the ointment at Bethany as Mary and the one who condemned the act as Judas Iscariot. This fact seems to suggest that John the Evangelist had the intention to equate Mary of Bethany with Judas Iscariot, who would betray Jesus. The clue to this question must be found in what John the Evangelist wrote at the beginning of the chapter preceding this scene: "It was Mary who anointed the Lord with ointment and wiped his feet with her hair" (John 11:2).

Maria K. M.

 2022/12/19

70. Enter by the Narrow Gate

In the New Testament, there are three narratives about three people who took over God's plan. They are Joseph, who took Mary together with her child Jesus in her womb; the Apostle John, who took Jesus' mother to his home by the cross; and Mary Magdalene, who declared in the presence of the risen Jesus that she would take away Jesus' body. And by the cross of Jesus were the Apostle John and Mary Magdalene, and Mary, the wife of Clopas, was also there, replacing Joseph, who had already died. These people embody the "my church" (Matthew 16:18), which Jesus said he would build on the words that his heavenly Father revealed to Peter. The three who bathed in his blood and water that poured out from the side of Jesus on the cross are witnesses to the new covenant between God and man. So, these three are called to their different roles and bear the names that represent their vocation. 

Clopas' wife, in the "my church" of Jesus, bears the name of Joseph in order to take over the role of Joseph, who, together with Mary, protected and nurtured Jesus. Mary Magdalene, who declared to take the body of Jesus, bears the name of Jesus so that she may take over the role of the human Jesus, who served his parents on the earth, and served his mother after Joseph's death. So, some women, inspired by the image of that name, may feel that they have a priestly vocation, but that is a mistake. As will be noted next, the priestly vocation belongs to the Apostle John, who took the mother of Jesus to his home. As a priest working with the Holy Spirit, who witnesses to the Word, the Apostle John bears the name of Mary, the mother of Jesus, in order to succeed the role of Mary, whom the Holy Spirit descended upon for the first time and the power of the Most High overshadowed. Jesus, on the cross, united his mother and the Apostle in a parent-child bond to guarantee that fact. Jesus sent Peter and John together to prepare the Passover meal (cf. Luke 22:8), which shows that the role of Mary, the mother of Jesus, is to be borne together with Peter. After the Holy Spirit came down, the two prayed and worked together always (cf. Acts 3:1-4:31, 8:14-25). 

These vocational ways may seem to be hard to understand to some people, as Jesus said, "For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few" (Matthew 7:14). Nevertheless, Jesus tells us to "enter by the narrow gate" (Matthew 7:13). When we look at people today in the 21st century, individual differences are more visible and prominent than gender differences. I heard that is because masculinity and femininity that co-exist in each brain are now well balanced. Once accustomed to this understanding, the logic of the Christian vocation described above is not so difficult to accept. The way that led the Church to today's catastrophic situation we have previously discussed has been laid by many who viewed the relationship with God, the true parent of man, in the image of marriage. Such a view bore witness to the following words of Jesus: "the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many" (Matthew 7:13).

Maria K. M.

 2022/12/12

69. Theology

Hagia Sophia (Istanbul)

In the transcript of the interview conducted by Bishop Morerod and Mr Lepon with Father Allaz in July 2016 that we discussed in the previous issue, Father Allaz, recalling his ordination and his first Mass, says, "There was a 'not real me' who was disconnected from reality. But afterwards, I was able to recover through the study of theology. Theology answered the questions I was facing." Coincidentally, on 8 December of the same year, the Congregation for the Clergy issued Ratio Fundamentalis Institutionis Sacerdotalis - The Gift of the Priestly Vocation, perhaps in response to the problems of sexual abuse by priests that have emerged in rapid succession since reports in the USA in 2002. However, the following description quoted and placed in one of its footnotes indicates that the Church, even though it has witnessed such catastrophes, has not yet realised that these expressions are problematic: "But the will of the Church finds its ultimate motivation in the link between celibacy and sacred ordination, which configures the priest to Jesus Christ the head and spouse of the Church. The Church, as the spouse of Jesus Christ, wishes to be loved by the priest in the total and exclusive manner in which Jesus Christ her head and spouse loved her." (Pastores Dabo Vobis, n. 29). 

As we have seen, the expression using marital imagery runs the risk of a sexual bias in the priest's interpersonal relationships (cf. blog № 64). For priests like Father Allaz, who have had problems from the outset, these expressions only fuel the fire. The fact that these expressions are at the root of priestly formation leads priests to see the laity as the Church itself that wishes to be loved by the priest. So, Father Allaz could abuse Daniel in the sacristy immediately after preaching a beautiful sermon. At the same time, the words of the congregation, recited with the priest at the Mass, "Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed" (cf. blog № 68), and the sight of the faithful opening their lips before him and taking communion on their tongues (cf. blog №67), were elements that gratified his desire for domination and drove him towards the Church, namely the boy congregation, who "wishes to be loved by the priest in the total and exclusive manner." The theology that Father Allaz says he could achieve recovery by studying after his ordination may have justified his obscenities in this way. 

At the age of 76, he posed the question, "Why didn't God stop me?" But it was theology, not God, that did not stop him. So, he could irresponsibly say, "I think I have to accept the fact that I will never know what caused me to sin so much." If the Church, while calling God its heavenly Father, does not change its theology expressed in the image of marriage as I described above even in the 21st century, it will not show the truth to the many victims in all positions who want priests to be sincere.

Maria K. M.

 2022/12/05

68. Let There Be Light!

At the end of the memoir of Daniel Pittet, who was sexually abused by a Catholic priest when he was a child, is a record of an interview conducted by Morerod, the Bishop of the diocese, and Mr Lepon, the collaborator of the memoir, with the perpetrator, Father Allaz, the year before its publication. Father Allaz, considering he was 76 years old at the time of the interview, must have been a man who, as we discussed in the previous issue, had himself knelt before priests at communion with lips open and tongue out, and after he was ordained, he would have been one of the priests who would have given the Eucharist to such people. The fact that such a grave crime could remain uncovered for so long is the effect of a combination of great power and authority. And the continued practice of communion in that manner risked making priests dependent on authority and turning them toward acts that would gratify their lust for control (cf. blog №67). In addition, the priests must have recited the words of the centurion with the congregation just before communion at every Mass (cf. Matthew 8:8).

As discussed in blog №66, the centurion's human humility may be more oriented toward stirring up the desire for domination than keeping people away from it. The analogy he drew of his interactions with his subordinate soldiers (cf. Matthew 8:9) shows that his humility stems from the attitude of one who is under the human authority and submits to that authority. So, he could automatically believe that his son (servant) would be healed if Jesus, who was under exceptional authority, commanded. And Jesus' words, "[B]e it done for you as you have believed" (Matthew 8:13), was fulfilled. But he did not return to Jesus to thank him and praise God after his son's (servant's) recovery. That was because, like all people of that time, it never occurred to him that Jesus was God. He must have thought of Jesus as one of the authoritative prophets like Elijah and Jeremiah, just like the people of his time (cf. John 16:13-14). If believers continue to recite these centurion-derived words before the Eucharist at every Mass, there will be a danger of unconsciously falling into a state of "It never occurred to him that Jesus was God," and losing the basis for believing that the Eucharist is Jesus himself.

In the above interview transcript, Father Allaz, who had been forbidden from the priestly ministry and said he had no lingering attachment for liturgy or rituals, asks himself, "Who is God?" "What have I done, O God?" "Who am I?" "Why didn't God stop me?" but he never realized the answer for them. Like the centurion, he could not break through the state of "It never occurred to him that Jesus was God." It was the words of the Heavenly Father given to Peter that broke through this state (cf. Matthew 6:13-20). The words that the priest and the congregation should chant together in the presence of the Eucharist after the priest's words, "Behold the Lamb of God, behold him who takes away the sins of the world. Blessed are those called to the supper of the Lamb," are Peter's confession of faith, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matthew 16:16). The Lamb of God "who takes away the sins of the world" suggests the Son of the living God, the Christ. Therefore, "Blessed are those called to the supper of the Lamb" (cf. Revelation 19:9). Hence, Peter's confession of faith is "true words of God" (Revelation 19:9).

Maria K. M.

 2022/11/28

67. The Holy Communion

Recently, I had the opportunity to see people kneeling to receive Communion at the Mass. The Mass was celebrated by a religious priest, so the way may have been the policy of the congregation to which he belongs. Prayer kneelers were set up at the end of the aisle by the wall of the chapel. The faithful who wish to receive Holy Communion on their tongues with their lips open in front of the priest go there and kneel to receive the Eucharist. Those who receive Communion with their hands line up in the centre aisle and receive the Eucharist standing up. This division of the way of receiving Communion made me realize something I had never thought of before.  

I have heard that the reason why the congregation receive Communion on their tongues opening their lips is that not a single particle of the Eucharist, the body of Christ, should fall to the ground and because some impious people may take the Eucharist home without eating it, and also, I heard the priest is responsible for these things. But the following words of Jesus testify that these concerns are needless. "And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell. Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? And not one of them will fall to the ground without your Father's will. But even the hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not, therefore" (Matthew 10:28-31). 

In addition, as discussed in the last issue, if every communicant proclaimed before the Eucharist, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matthew 16:16), the responsibility to receive the Eucharist correctly would rest with the communicant himself. It is a matter of course that communicants recognized by the Church, even children, are expected to behave responsibly before God. And they must be trained to do so (cf. Blog № 37). Once this is in place, it will become no longer necessary to receive Communion with open lips. The danger would rather lie with the priest himself, who sees people kneeling before him at every Mass with their lips open and tongues out. The priest who stands and looks down on these people is in danger of mistakenly thinking that the authority of the "priesthood" as "spiritual shepherds" who "are representatives of Christ" (Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 37) is his own. 

The lips are one of the most delicate organs of the human body. Therefore, any method of Communion in which the priest's fingers may touch the communicant's lips should be abandoned as soon as possible. Furthermore, among the congregation who receive Communion are women dressed with a plunging neckline and young people and children who innocently open their lively lips. These realities pose a graver danger to some priests. In his memoir, Daniel Pittet, whom I introduced in the blogs № 61 and № 62, prefacing his account by saying, "My words may be offensive at times," wrote: "[The priest] pulled his enlarged 'thing' out of his underwear and forcibly forced it into my mouth. It happened so fast. It was as if I was dreaming. Uncomfortably warm liquid overflew out of his 'thing,' and that was the end." The Church has an obligation to show its sincerity by removing all seeds of danger from its whole body in the face of these enormous numbers of victims.

Maria K. M.