Thirty-first Sunday in Ordinary Time
Something is happening within Catholicism in the United States. On the one hand, over the past few decades, many people have disaffiliated themselves from organized religion, and Catholicism has been particularly affected. On the other hand, there is a movement from a section of Catholics who find new energy in the more traditional Catholicism characterized by the Latin Mass, mantillas, Communion rails, Communion on the tongue, a heightened emphasis on doctrine, rituals, vestments, incense etc. People who think this way are convinced that Catholics disaffiliated themselves from Catholicism because of the loss of Catholic identity and the dilution of Catholic rituals and doctrines since Vatican II.
And then there are the mainstream Catholics. Many of us believe that the present crisis in Catholicism is caused not by Vatican II but that Vatican II offers ways for the church to be relevant in the modern world, if only we have the willingness to implement its vision. These Catholics do not believe that going backwards is the answer to the challenges Catholicism faces today.
As we and try to find the relevance of Catholicism and our faith in today’s world, let us turn to today’s scripture readings to find some guidance.
Understanding Mark 12
Today’s Gospel reading is taken from the 12th Chapter of Mark in which he has three groups of people come and ask Jesus questions mainly to test and trap him. First, the Pharisees came and asked Jesus, “Is it lawful to pay the census tax to Caesar or not?” (Mk 12:14). When Jesus answered them, the Sadducees came to trap him about the resurrection. They presented the hypothetical case of the seven brothers who married the same woman because each of them died after marrying her (Mk 12:18-27), to suggest to Jesus that belief in the resurrection is untenable. Seeing that Jesus had answered his other opponents brilliantly, one of the scribes then came forward to ask, “Which is the first of all the commandments?” (Mk 12:28b).
Much like the difference in opinion among traditional and progressive Catholics about the relevance of faith and religion, the Pharisees, Sadducees, and scribes interpreted Mosaic Law differently. The Sadducees were a priestly class, who believed that the “Written Torah” promulgated by Moses was the only source of revelation, and thus, legally binding. The Pharisees, on the other hand, believed that the Law that God gave to Moses was twofold - the Written Law and the Oral Law (Oral Law consisted of the teachings of the prophets and the oral traditions of the Jewish people). The main reason was that they believed in principle of doctrinal development. They believed that the Torah needed interpretation in applying it to contemporary problems. And then there were the scribes. The scribes were not Pharisees although some were Pharisees. They had knowledge of the law and drafted legal documents. Since there was no separation between the religious and secular institutions in Jesus’ time, scribes became an indispensable and elite class. There was at least one scribe in each village.
It was into such a situation that Jesus came. He belonged to neither of the groups. He was the Son of God and above it all, but he would have to convince the social and religious elites. The hope was that Jesus would unify the people of God under the vision of the Kingdom of God. History and the gospels tell us that this was not what happened. In this time of fierce debates and varying interpretations of the Law, Jesus was eliminated.
It is all about the Interpretation
Why did the Sadducees, scribes, and Pharisees oppose Jesus? The simple answer is that it was all about the ‘interpretation’ of the Law.
The Sadducees opposed Jesus because, like the scribes and Pharisees, Jesus was the proponent of the resurrection. The scribes and Pharisees opposed Jesus because he rejected of their interpretation of the Mosaic Law. Jesus had his own interpretation which the scribes and Pharisees considered blasphemy. For example, Jesus would not only heal on a Sabbath but even forgive sins. Or again, Jesus defended his disciples, who according to the Pharisees, were breaking the Sabbath by pulling wheat grain off the plants, rubbing it in their hands and eating it. Jesus’ interpretation was, “The Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath” (Mk 2:27). The entire Sermon on the Mount was a novel interpretation of the Law, faith, and religion.
The other reason the scribes and Pharisees opposed Jesus was because he broke the law by eating and drinking with sinners and tax collectors. Instead, he praised these outcasts and showed the Pharisees and scribes as needing conversion as well.
Whereas in the gospel of Matthew it was the Pharisees who were the main adversaries of Jesus, in the gospel of Mark it was the scribes. Thus, in today’s gospel reading from Mark, it was a scribe who asked the question, “Which is the first of all the commandments?” (Mk 12:8b). It was a legal question, and everybody was listening. Jesus better get this right.
The First Commandment is Two
Jesus’ answer to the scribe, brought about a new interpretation of the Law. To begin, Jesus directly quoted the Shema Yisrael we heard in today’s first reading, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind" (Deut 6:4-5). But then Jesus took a concept already present in the law – the concept of love of neighbor – and made it central alongside the Shema. By doing so, he essentially said that all other commandments stem from the two core principles of love of God and love of neighbor.
Jesus' answer can be seen as a new way of interpreting and applying the existing commandments. Instead of focusing on just the outward observance of the Law, Jesus’ central focus was on the internal motivations and attitudes behind the observance of the Law. The scribe approved of Jesus’ answer. But Mark tells us that it was not the scribe’s approval of Jesus that mattered. It was Jesus, who has the last word. He told the scribe, “You are not far from the kingdom of God” (Mk 12:34a).
This brings us to the preset crisis in Catholicism. What is authentic Catholicism? Today’s gospel offers me some directions.
First, Jesus and the gospels teach us that if our Mass, our Sacraments, our rituals, our doctrines, our worship, and our devotions do not spring from and do not lead us to genuine love of God and love of neighbor, then whether we do it in Latin or English, whether the priest faces the altar or the people, whether we receive communion kneeling on the tongue or standing in our hands, whether the priests were cassocks or not, whether the women wear mantillas or not, it is irrelevant. Catholicism and all in it is primarily about love of God and love of neighbor.
Second, for me personally, if Catholicism must be relevant in the contemporary world, the answer does not lie in cultural antiquity or in medievalism but, in an authentic living out of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Jesus’s entire life, message, ministry, suffering, death, and resurrection can be summarized in one commandment – Love God AND Love your neighbor. Everything must be based on Jesus and the gospel he proclaimed. It is the Christian Shema!
- Fr. Satish Joseph