Can You “Taste and See” the Goodness of the Living Bread of Life at the Father’s “Bakery”?

Many Catholics go to Mass every Sunday. They fill the pews. But, how many of them really "taste and see" both the Word and the Eucharist, which are the two pillars of Catholic Mass? I wonder what is their reason to go to Mass – if they do not taste any. It must be so boring to be at Mass, then.

This is a symptom of a lukewarm faith, which grieves not only the Holy Spirit (i.e  Ephesians 4:30) but also Jesus. He said the below words to St. Faustina:

Souls without love or devotion, souls full of egoism and selfishness, proud and arrogant souls full of deceit and hypocrisy, lukewarm souls who have just enough warmth to keep themselves alive: My Heart cannot bear this. All the graces that I pour out upon them flow off them as off the face of a rock. I cannot stand them because they are neither good nor bad (Diary 1702). 

I have noticed and found it quite puzzling that many of these church-going Catholics are not really "tasting" the gifts from God – grace - at Mass. They just sit and be nice – at least, trying to look nice. Because going to Mass is more like "routine" to make them look "holy" - perhaps, "holier" than those who do not go to Church.

They may look “holier” than their neighbors, who no longer go to Mass, on the surface. But, in substance, who knows?  If their heart is absent from God, as it is preoccupied with worldly matters, as constantly appear on their iphones and smartphones, even during Mass, they may be far from being “holy” inside.

In truth, they are busy looking at their iphones and smartphones, covertly. They are at least courteous enough to put their phones on silent mode so that they are not nuisance and do not disturb Mass.  However, it clearly shows that God is not on their priority, as they are too busy to pay attention to Him, even in a house of worship.  What is on iphones and smartphones, such as Facebook messages, are more important than Mass.

They are physically present but spiritually absent from Mass. Again, it is what lukewarm faith makes, while grieving the Holy Spirit and the Lord. And, it is a symptom of egotism and such psychospiritual problem.

When they come out, their minds are more concerned about how to get the hell out of the church parking lot and what to eat for brunch, rather than savoring the aftertaste of the Word and the Eucharist.

This phenomena can be compared to the crowd that was once fed by Jesus on the shore of the Sea of Tiberius, miraculously out of five barley loaves and two fish, in John 6.  After being fed by Jesus, they kept chasing him and his disciples, even all the way to the other side of the Sea of Tiberius, hoping to get “free food” again and again.  

They were so preoccupied with what to put in their stomach rather than what is to nourish their soul.

Sensing this problem of the crowd, Jesus began to tell the crowd his intention of feeding.  This talk is known as the Bread of Life Discourse (John 6:22-59). We read this for the 18^th Sunday (vv. 24-35), the 51-58) in Ordinary Time on Cycle B to understand , what Jesus meant by multiplying the five loaves of barley bread and two fish and what he meant by his self-identification as the “Bread of Life” and the “Living Bread of Life”.

The crowd was more preoccupied with Jesus’ Nazarean family roots, such as being a son of Joseph the carpenter.  Their mind was obsessed with earthly matter. Because of this, they missed the essence of Jesus and his discourse.  This problem prompted them to become upset with Jesus and his discourse, resulting in their rejection. This means that the crowd’s problem resulted in rejecting the Living Bread of Life, which would lead to their resurrection at the end of time.  They did not care, because they were more concerned about something rather earthly.

To me, these pew-filling Catholics too busy to pay attention to God and His grace through the Word and the Eucharist at Mass, seem to be worth being compared to the crowd, who sought Jesus but rejected in John 6.

What is a problem in this picture  - the problem with the crowd in John 6 and the problem with these pew-filling church going Catholics looking at their high-tech phones during Mass?  And how can we resolve this problem?

One hint is found in the second reading for the 19^th Sunday in Ordinary Time on Cycle B - Ephesians 4:30-5:2.

In Ephesians 4:30, Paul tells,  “Grieve not the Holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption”.

Who gives a grief to the Holy Spirit, who is, in essence, God, as the Son, Jesus, is so?

Who gives a grief to Jesus, who is the Living Bread of Life? And, who gives a grief to God, whose grace as in the Word and the Eucharist are celebrated with our thanksgiving?

How we impose grief to the Holy Spirit – Jesus, the Living Bread of Life – God? 

Paul also reminds us that those who cause grief to the Holy Spirit have a psychospiritual problem. In other words, their heart is filthy as it is defiled.

As written in Mark 7:15, Jesus has also indicated that psychospiritual filth within us – within our heart – can corrupt everything that comes out of us.

If our heart is filled with filth – often resulting from and in earthly matters, as symbolized with what is on iphones and what to fill our stomach,  then, how can we “taste and see the goodness of the Lord” (Psalm 34:8) – the εὐωδία/euodia (sweet aroma) (Ephesians 5:2) in the Living Bread of Life, which is offered at Mass in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, along with the Word, as we cannot live with the bead (not to be confused with the Bread) alone (Deuteronomy 8:3; Matthew 4:4).  In fact, the Word we “tasted and see” leads to the Living Bread of Life, as it is the flesh of Christ (John 6:51, 53, 55), which is what the Word has become to dwell among us (John 1:14).

What is the psychospiritual problem to be so ignorant and indifferent about this priceless Bread, which is not the kind of bread that cannot sustain our life?! How come we can afford to be so stupid to refuse this Living Bread of Life with the εὐωδία/euodia that leads to eternal life through resurrection?

To me, the Father in Heaven, Adonai, the Creator and Provider (just as Joseph, the step father of Jesus is celebrated at the St. Joseph Table Feast on March 19 for), is the baker, bringing us fresh loaf of the Living Bread of Life with sweet aroma.  No wonder we pray, “Give us this day, our daily bread….”.

In this sense, Mass is the Father’s bakery, with sweet aroma.

When we go to Mass, we should not care about what is on our Facebook…who is posting what….who is calling and texting us , as we are busy “tasting and seeing the goodness of the Lord” – the εὐωδία/euodia of the Living Bread of Life, which is also the Word that has become flesh thanks to Immaculate Mary’s cooperation with the Father.  

Let us make sure that our senses are not compromised so that we can appreciate the sweet aroma and savor the Living Bread of Life, “baked” fresh every day.  To have uncompromised sense, our heart must be clean. For this, we must remove all the filths out of our heart (Ephesians 4:31). Let us not grieve the Holy Spirit, either, as we remove filths from our heart.

From now on, we shall attend Mass with our clean heart and clear senses to maximize our savoring of the Living Bread of Life with the Word, amused by the sweet aroma, as we are at the Father’s “bakery”. 

St. Ignatius of Loyola – A Man of Vision, Gutso and Humility for Grace to be Magnified

The end of July is always a day I look forward to in celebrating the feast of St. Ignatius of Loyola, as I was educated in a Jesuit school – Loyola University Chicago.  In honoring St. “Iggy”, let’s reflect on who he really is and what his life can teach us.

What is your impression of St. Ignatius of Loyola, the founding “CEO” of one of the great global “corporation” with more than 450 years of history of operation, a.k.a. the Jesuits? 

The “business” of this global corporation that Ignatius founded is aligned with Jesus’ teaching on the works of mercy, both corporal and spiritual, reflecting Matthew 25:31-37 and Matthew 28:20 with the motto of “Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam”.

To me, Ignatius was a man of vision – a vision of the Kingdom. He is also a man of enthusiasm and passion to drive himself with him companions toward the realization of the vision. In fact, it was his machismo for self-glorification, as a young gung-ho Spanish soldier that gave way to a renewed gutso for greater glory of God (ad majorem Dei gloriam).  As his self-centered machismo transformed into renewed gutso to establish the Kingdom of Heaven on earth for greater glory of God, Ignatius’ fat ego shrunk and his new sense of self emerged with humility to desire to serve as a channel of grace.

As a young man, Ignatius already had a grand vision of a kingdom. But, this vision of a kingdom was for the Spanish Empire to advance with conquistadors, upon putting all other kingdoms in Europe under the royal crown of the Castile.

I am not sure if St. Ignatius had vision for the Kingdom of God in comparison to the Castilian Spanish Empire, as St. Augustine envisioned the Roman Empire to be like the Kingdom of God in his “De Civitate  Dei contra Paganos”. But, it is possible that Ignatius had thought to make the growing Spanish kingdom to be like the Kingdom of God, given it was also the time of Spanish Inquisition.  Of course, any earthly kingdom or empire, such as the Roman Empire and the Castilian Spanish Empire, to the Kingdom of Heaven are not compatible, given the meaning of Jesus’ these words, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm”(John 18:36) to Pontius Pilate.  The Kingdom of Heaven that Jesus has promised to establish and that we are to assist this mission of Jesus is transcendent of all earthly kingdoms, which are also envisioned in Daniel 2 and 7, as it is the eschatological kingdom envisioned in the Book of Revelation.

Whether Ignatius’ early vision for the Kingdom of Heaven was analogically drawn with the Castilian Spanish Empire or the Roman Empire, his vision for the Kingdom was really where glory of God is manifested through our faith and our commitment to faith. It is also where God’s grace is manifested in concrete and tangible ways. In this regard, it is sacramental.

According to a Jesuit psychiatrist, Fr. William Meissner’s posthumous psychoanalysis of St. Ignatius of Loyola,  Ignatius had quite obvious narcissistic disposition. However, this young Spaniard soldier with machismo sublimated his narcissistic ego into his charismatic servant leadership for the Lord. Of course, this psychological cure of narcissism was not done by any physician or psychologist.  This cure of his narcissism did not take place by accident, either. It was, indeed, done by grace of God – perhaps through the Holy Spirit.   That is why Santo Ignacio was very sensitive about the movement of the Holy Spirit, as well reflected in the Ignatian spirituality, in particular, the Spiritual Exercises he composed, based upon his own spiritual struggles and growth.

Just as good fishermen sense how the tide moves to find fish  the Ignatian spirituality teaches us to sense the dynamics of the Holy Spirit in discerning the Will of God for us, in dialectic juxtaposition to self-exploration, which Jesuit theologian, Bernard Lonegan,  calls “self-appropriation”.  This is mean to guide us toward the fullness of who we are in union with God. In this sense, the Ignatian spirituality is similar to the spiritual journey of St. Teresa of Avila, Ignatius’ contemporary another Spanish Saint.

So, has healing grace of God touched narcissistic Ignatius gently? As a matter of fact, no. It was far from being gentle.  It was has painful as a cannon ball hit.

Before getting to know God, Ignatius was heading toward the Machiavellianism, which was a popular philosophy among young soldiers with fat ambitions.  Ignatius has his enough share to push himself in this. But, his inflating narcissistic ego was shattered by a cannon ball shot by the French army during the Battle of Pamplona in 1521.

It the near-fatal impact of the cannon ball made Ignatius die with his narcissistic ego to let Christ live in him, in light of these words of Paul, “I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me”(Galatians 2:20).

As Paul rejoiced and became so grateful for his new life in Christ and in spirit as he let his old sinful life die with Christ’s death on the Cross, reflecting on the Yom Kippur atonement aspect of the Crucifixion, Ignatius gradually became grateful and rejoiced in his new life of self-appropriation in God’s light.

One way to assess this transcendental transformation of life in spiritual growth is our abilities to appreciate grace. The more we become able to sense and appreciate a tiny bit of grace, the further transformation we have made from a life in flesh to a life in spirit, as Paul addresses in Romans 8.

For Paul, after stating, “I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me”(Galatians 2:20), he says, “I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could e gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!”(Galatians 2:21).  Further more Paul says:

Although if I should wish to boast, I would not be foolish, for I would be telling the truth. But I refrain, so that no one may think more of me than what he sees in me or hears from me because of the abundance of the revelations. Therefore, that I might not become too elated,^* a thorn in the flesh was given to me, an angel of Satan, to beat me, to keep me from being too elated.Three times I begged the Lord about this, that it might leave me, but he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for power is made perfect in weakness.” I will rather boast most gladly of my weaknesses,^* in order that the power of Christ may dwell with me. Therefore, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and constraints, for the sake of Christ; for when I am weak, then I am strong.  (2 Corinthians 12:6-10)

Wow!

Paul, who used to pride himself for persecuting those who followed the teaching of Jesus, have become such a passionate follower of him, as he became enlightened to the power of grace. Paul was no longer a slave of the law but became, as he puts it, a slave of Christ (1 Corinthians 7:22), for true freedom.

Given the similarities between Ignatius and Paul, these men’s conversion processes make an interesting parallel.  While Ignatius’ transformation was prompted by a near-fatal cannon ball, Paul’s transformation was prompted by the divine lightening that totally knocked him into 3-day comma. When Ignatius came out of the recovery process, his heart began to seek the greater glory of the Lord, rather than self-glorification for himself. Likewise, when Paul came out of the comma, his heart was open to Christ and became ready to fight for Christ, not against him. Both Ignatius and Paul, however, retained the same gutso, which was once used for wrong purposes but directed to advance in God’s mission, upon their conversion of heart.

Like Paul’s case, the conversion journey of Ignatius reminds us that God’s grace can touch us with a hard painful hit, like a cannon ball shot for Ignatius and like a lightening hit for Paul, if our ego is so hardened to be cracked open.  But, once our heart is opened by grace, we become better able to see that grace of God is all we need and we no longer feel insecure about our own weakness – because we know we are strong when we are weak, as Paul said paradoxically in 2 Corinthians 12:10.

We do not need to be strong, as our strengths may become a stumbling block for God’s grace to be manifested through us. What we think as our strengths can be nothing but our own illusion, stemming from our narcissistic disposition. Therefore, we transform our ego-driven strengths into our weakness, namely, our humility, we become a more effective catalyst of God’s grace to be expanded.  In juxtaposition to the Puline teaching of grace, this is what a life of St. Ignatius of Loyola teaches us. 

In honoring Ignatius’ humility, let us join him in his below prayer to offer up all we have for the sake of God’s grace to become more fruitful. After all, it is a prerequisite for us to march on with Ignatian gutso,  in light of “Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam”! 

This prayer of humility for grace can be sung with below songs, too. 

From Five Loaves of Bread and Two Fish into the Kingdom – Ex Quinque Panibus et Duobus Piscibus ad Regnum Dei

Out of his compassion, Jesus fed the hungry crowd, who followed him in an as large in number as five thousand men, plus many women and children, with only five loaves of bread and two fish (Mark 6:30-44; Matthew 14:13-21; Luke 9:10-17; John 6:5-13).

To our ordinary common sense, this phenomena makes us wonder, how could it be possible? – as Mary thought upon the Annunciation (Luke 1:34). But, through the mouth of Angel Gabriel, God assured Mary that nothing is impossible with God (Luke 1:37), though it may seem impossible to human wisdom.  The Gospel narrative on Jesus’ miraculous feeding of the crowd out of a scant amount of food reflects this truth of God’s enabling power, especially in light of love. After all, God is love (1 John 4:8).

Though John’s Gospel describes this miracle somewhat differently from the way it is written in the Synoptic Gospels, this miraculous feeding of Jesus is mentioned all four Gospels. It suggests that this particular miracle weighs more than other miracles of Jesus that are not necessarily mentioned in all the Gospels. 　

Of course, it is not to say that other miracles were less important. Rather, this miracle of Jesus feeding such a large crowd out of a meager amount of bread and fish has a distinct significance in understanding and appreciating the teaching of Jesus.

So, what is the significance of this particular miracle of Jesus feeding the great crowd?

The significance is multifold, of course.

 I am not sure if I can unpack it completely. But, allow me to try at least a few.

First, this is about the importance of compassion of Christ – Misericordia Christi.  It was the motivation to feed them all, in spite of his disciples’ initial worries about not being able to feed them.

Ordinary human common sense sure tells that there is no way to feed such a huge crowd with a tiny amount of food, five loaves of bread and two fish. That can barely feed the disciples themselves.

Dictated by the human common sense, the disciples’ response was to send the crowd away – though they might be sympathetic to the hunger of the crowd. They might have felt helpless as they did not have enough food to feed them all.  Maybe they were afraid of losing their own food for the crowd or feared panic-like chaos of the crowd fighting for such a tiny amount of food. But, the compassion of Jesus clearly overrode and transcended such typical human worries.  This confidence of Jesus in the power of God the Adonai is also reflected in Elisha’s trust in Adonai’s providential power in feeding people out of twenty barley loaves that a man from Baal-Shalisha had (2 Kings 4:42-44).  As Elisha did, Jesus resolutely ordered the disciples to direct the crowd to dine. Then, he took the five loaves of bread and two fish, looking up to heaven and gave thanks. Then, voile! The tiny amount of bread and fish became more than sufficient to feed everyone to their satisfaction.

As a result of Jesus’ compassion-driven miracle for the hungry, nobody was hungry any more, and there were still plenty of leftovers.

So, the second point of this miracle episode is that whatever God provide suffices, as nobody was left hungry as a result of Jesus miraculously feeding such a large crowd out of only a small amount of food.

What Jesus provided out of meager amount of bread and fish to people as many as at least 5,000, symbolizes God’s grace.  Philip’s skepticism to feed such a great number of people out of very limited resources (John 6:5-7), on the other hand, represent typical human tendency to feel skeptical about God’s grace and its power, resulting in worries. This also reflects our tendency of skepticism about faith, as well.  But, in this Gospel narrative, Jesus overrides such skepticism and demonstrate the power of God’s grace by feeding everyone in the crowd to their satisfaction.

What comes to me in regard to this story about the multitude being satisfactorily fed is these words of Jesus to Paul, “My grace is enough for you..”(2 Corinthians 12:9).

This echoes a humble and grateful prayer of St. Ignatius of Loyola, “Suscipe”, based on 2 Corinthians 12:9, sufficiency of grace from God through Christ.

Take, O Lord, and receive my entire liberty, my memory, my understanding and my whole will. All that I am and all that I possess, Thou hast given me: I surrender it all to Thee to be disposed of according to Thy will. Give me only Thy love and Thy grace; with these I will be rich enough and will desire nothing more. Amen.  Spiritual Exercises 234

“Suscipe” means “to receive or to accept”.  If you recall these Latin words in offertory prayer, “Suscipe, sancte Pater, omnipotens aeterne Deus, hanc immaculatam hostiam” (Accept, O Holy Father, Almighty and eternal God, this spotless host), you know the context of this Latin word is used. And, it is in the context of humility and willingness.

In this prayer, St. Ignatius is offering his whole self, including his free will, to God, out of his desire to unity his will to the will of God. He believes that it is the way to overcome struggles of his own desires, which Paul regards as a thorn in his flesh (2 Corinthians 12:7). As he move from the struggle to peace, St. Ignatius recognize that the love and grace of God is what suffices his need, as Paul recognized so.

Sufficient grace of God may come as something as small in its quantity as only five loaves of bread and two fish, though our undisciplined desire and a thorn in our flesh may foolishly think that such an amount of bread and fish is not enough.  What the disciples had though in thinking to drive away the crowd is juxtaposed to a thorn in flesh – fear and anxiety, while what St. Ignatius expresses in his “Sucipe” prayer and what Paul says in 2 Corinthians 12:9 is juxtaposed to Jesus’ thinking. And, the Gospel narratives on Jesus’ miraculous feeding of the multitude  (Mark 6:30-44; Matthew 14:13-21; Luke 9:10-17; John 6:5-13) affirms that what we have and received from God as a gift (grace) is enough to meet our needs, not to confuse our needs and desires.

So, this also echoes these words of David, “The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not be in want”(Psalm 23:1).  With this kind of our trust in the sufficiency of God’s providence, we also know that what God provides us may come as banquet as imaged in Psalm 23:5, Revelation 19:17-18.  This is also relevant to Jesus’ parable of the wedding banquet (Mathew 22:1-14) in explaining what the Kingdom of Heaven is like and the Last Supper, which Jesus instituted the Sacrament of the Eucharist (Matthew 26:17-30; Mark 14:12-26; Luke 22:7-20).

Perhaps, the Gospel narrative of Jesus feeding the hungry crowd out of five loaves of bread and two fish (Mark 6:30-44; Matthew 14:13-21; Luke 9:10-17; John 6:5-13) may give an impression of picnic lunch rather than a banquet. But, in regard to the truth of sufficiency in God’s providence, this “picnic lunch” on the shore of the Sea of Galilee is like the kind of banquet in Psalm 23:5. Because the banquet in Psalm 23:5 echoes the heavenly banquet in Revelation 19:17-18, it is meant to be a banquet not only sufficiently meets our needs but also to supplies enough strengths to withstand our enemies – whether it is external, such as Satan and his servants or internal, such as a thorn in our flesh (2 Corinthians 12:7). In fact,  the Last Supper took place while Satan’s influence was present (Luke 22:21-38; Mark 14:17-21; Matthew 26:21-25, 31-35).

Because the hungry crowd was like sheep without a shepherd (Mark 6:34), it was likely that they were put astray due to Satan’s servants, such as false prophets or false shepherds. The crowd was not ready to appreciate the spirit of “suscipe” at that time, as they were more likely suffering from insecurity-driven material attachment to bread and fish. To them, food, as represented by five loaves of bread and two fish, was nothing but another object of attachment – or in the context of 2 Kings 4:42-44, it was another “shalisha” (thing, object of idolatry) – or “skandha”, which Buddhism teaches to detach ourselves from.

That is why that the miraculous feeding of the crowd (Mark 6:30-44; Matthew 14:13-21; Luke 9:10-17; John 6:5-13) is followed by Jesus’ bread of life discourse (John 6:25-59) to guide the crowd to understand their need to overcome what Paul calls a thorn in flesh (2 Corinthians 12:7) in order to truly recognize that God’s grace is enough, as said in St. Ignatius’ “Suscipe”. However, in reality, this transition from a life in flesh to a life in spirit to appreciate the Bread of Life, which is the Body of Christ, as reflected on Corpus Christi Sunday, many deserted Jesus as written in John 6:60-71.  This is like those who refuse to come to the wedding feast a wedding feast that a king prepared for his son (Matthew 22:1-22), indicating those who are absent from the heavenly banquet in Revelation 19:17-18, further alluding to those who may not enter into the new paradise, which is imaged in Revelation 22.

So, there is a linkage of Jesus’ miraculous feeding of the hungry crowd out of five loaves of bread and two fish  (Mark 6:30-44; Matthew 14:13-21; Luke 9:10-17; John 6:5-13) to the Kingdom of Heaven.  Now, this gives the third point of this story. It is that the five loaves of bread and two fish that can feed more than give thousand people are like a tiny mustard seed that grows into great tree to provide a refuge for birds.  In Mark 4:30-34; Matthew 13:31-32; Luke 13:18-19).

Jesus began to plant seeds of the Kingdom. But, he needed collaborators in making the Kingdom on earth as it is in heaven.  That is why he recruited the disciples, starting with some fishermen in Galilee, such as Peter, Andrew, James, and John.  He taught and trained them before his death on the Cross and after his Resurrection until his Ascension.  Upon receiving the Holy Spirit, which is the  dynamin (power)  ( Acts 1:8) ) and parakletos (advocate and comforter) (John 14:16), they became very powerful Apostolic Missionaries. Then, Paul joined them to further strengthen the  Apostolic power. Today, we are the apostles of Christ, sent to build the Kingdom by planting seeds.

One way of building the Kingdom is to practice the Works of Mercy. Feeding the hungry is one Corporal Work of Mercy, while teaching is one Spiritual Work of Mercy. The former can be compared to the way Jesus fed the great crowd out of only five loaves of bread and two fish, trusting in the sufficiency of God’s providence – God’s grace.  The latter can be compared to sowing a mustard seed as teaching the Word of God to satisfy the spiritual hunger of the world.  Given how Jesus’ miraculous feeding of the large crowd out of five loaves of bread and two fish by the Sea of Galilee leads to Jesus’ spiritual teaching on the Bread of Life discourse in John 6, we must demonstrate that we cannot live with bread (and fish) alone as we also need to be fed with the Word of God.  This also reminds us why the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist are the two pillars of Catholic Mass.

The five loaves of bread and two fish shall be the powerful fuel to make us seek the Word of God and the Corporis et Sanguinis Christi as the Eucharist to build the Kingdom of Heaven on earth.

The five loaves of bread and two fish were seeds of Jesus’ compassion also planted in our hearts so that we can continue to sow the Seminas de Misericordia Christi pro Mundo (seeds of Christ’s mercy for the world).  Because of this, we can actively engage in the Corporal Works of Mercy, as Jesus has taught in Matthew 25:31-46.

We are called to sow the Seminas de Misericordia Christi pro Mundo, symbolized with five loaves of bread and two fish that Jesus used to food – not just to feed the hungry but to lead this Corporal Work of Mercy leads the recipients to be enlightened to the spirit of “sucipe”, willingness to offer whatever they have – as the boy in the crowd offered the five loaves of bread and two fish to Jesus so that the rest of the people in the crowd can be fed to their satisfaction.  

In this sense, the Seminas de Misericordia Christi pro Mundo  with its prototype in Quinque Panibus et Duobus Piscibus are tiny yet potent seeds to cultivate our faith to overcome our tendency for attachment to material things, including food. To put in Buddhist teaching, it is a seed for  viraaga, detachment from raga (material desire), in order to cultivate the heart of karuna, which may be compared to misericordia or compassion in Jesus’ teaching, as addressed in Matthew 25:31-46.  Therefore, the five loaves of bread and two fish are the symbolic seed to enable us to transcend hunger and hunger-related suffering. This liberation is, after all, a form of salvation in the Kingdom. 

戦後７０年目の思いがけない“戦争終結”と喜びの共有

先日、あるフィリピン人老人の日本との戦争がシカゴでやっと終わりました。そして、この老人と奥さんと共に、この戦争終結の喜びを分かちあいました。

                                ＊＊＊＊＊

“絶対に日本人なんかと口きくものか。。。フィリピンへ里帰りする途中に日本の上空を飛ぶとしたら、それこそ空から‘糞’撒き散らしてやりたい、とずっと思ってましたけど、まさか、この年になって、日本人の先生から聖書について学ぶなんて夢にだに思いませんでしたよ。本当に、神に感謝です。”

先日、日本統治時代のフィリピンで少年時代を過ごした９０に近いシカゴ在住のフィリピン人の方から言われました。

この老人と奥さんは、私が毎週日曜日の夕方、シカゴのカトリック教会で教える聖書の勉強会に参加されている方です。

この老人、戦時中、父が日本の憲兵隊によって、抗日ゲリラの疑いで銃殺され、彼らが住んでいたビザヤ地方のイロイロ島の村は焼き払われました。こうした経験から、彼の日本への憎しみは相当なものでした。戦後、年数が経つにつれ、その憎しみの激しさはある程度緩やかになったとはいえ、７０年近くの長年にわたり日本に対して非常に複雑な感情を抱き続けていました。

敬虔なカトリック信者なので、当然、キリストの“汝の敵を愛するがゆえ赦すべし”という教えを知っています。同じように日本統治時代に言葉では言い現せきれないような辛い体験をされた奥様が、日本に対していつまでも複雑な感情を持ち続ける夫にこうしたキリストの隣人愛による赦しの教えに従うことを促しても、この老人にとっては、“はい、わかりました”、とすんなりと実践できるものではありませんでした。それだけに、この人は更に悩み、奥さんも悩み続けたのです。赦しの難しさの現実との葛藤の中で。

それゆえ、今までずっと、フィリピンへ里帰りする時、いくら高くついても、絶対に日本経由で行くことをしなかったというのです。

しかし、既に日本への憎しみを昇華させた奥様の辛抱強い祈りの成果と、私が教える聖書の勉強会という巡り合せ、仏教的にいえば、“縁起”、を通して、今まで長年にわたって抱き続けていた複雑な対日感情も変わり、今度、フィリピンに里帰りする時はぜひ東京経由で、できれば、東京で２～３日観光してみたいとのこと思うようになりました。それに、もうこれが最後の里帰りになるかもしれないので、ともおっしゃいました。

この老夫婦曰く、初めて、私が日本人であると知った時、驚いたそうです。はじめは、私のことをタガログ語などのフィリピン語を知らずにアメリカで育ったフィリピン人か、中国系アメリカ人の神学の先生だと思っていたそうです。私の略した名前が“マサ”なので、皆から、“マサ先生”、と呼ばれており、“マサ”といえば年配のフィリピン人にも馴染みのあるスペイン語ではパンなどを作るのに小麦粉と水や油を一緒に捏ねた材料、そして、フィリピンのタガログ語でも同じ意味。また、タガログ語では、“マサヤ”といえば、幸せな、という意味になり、“マサラップ”という言葉は、おいしい、という表現に使われる。だから、“マサ”という名前から私が日本人だとはすぐに想像できなかったんでしょう。

今まで、こうした聖書の勉強会で教えていた人は、フィリピン人、アメリカ人、スペイン人、メキシコ人などの神父や神学者だったからです。それに、終戦以来、日本人との接触は一切なかった、というか、避けていたそうです。最後に覚えている日本人との接触は、彼が多感な少年であった１９４５年に家族を殺した日本兵や憲兵隊。村を焼き払い、自分達を野垂れ死に寸前にまで追いやった日本兵なのです。そして、いくら日本がその年に無条件降伏し、日本とフィリピンの国交が１９５６年に回復し、日本とフィリピンとの交流が活発になったとはいえ、この老夫婦、とくに、この老人、にとって日本人に対して心を開くことはいつまでも非常に難しいことでした。

歴史という形の上での戦争はもう７０年前に終わっていても、この老人にとって、心の中では、まだ終わっていなかったのです。

私が、このフィリピン人老夫婦に、“こんなに長い間、本当に辛い思いをされ続けてきたのですね。しかし、奥様の粘り強い祈りと神の恵みによって、やっと心の中での戦争も終わりましたね。だからこそ、神の計らいにより、私達は今こうして一緒に神の恵みを喜びのうちに享受できるのですね。本当に神に感謝です。そして、奥様、パウロがコリント人への第一の手紙で申したように、愛とは辛抱強さである、ということをあなたが最愛の夫に実践してきたからこそ、今、私達はみな、こうして喜びと感謝の気持ちに満たされるのですよ”、と言葉をかけると、皆で抱き合い、ただ、ただ、“神に感謝！”、"神に感謝！“。

私もここに、神の恵みの力がいかにして私達の苦しみの中から湧きあがり、共有できる喜びと新しい希望へと導き得るかということ、そして、こうして恵みの成果を体験するには並大抵ではない辛抱強さのある祈りで示される信仰心が必要であることを改めて、この老夫婦と共に実感しました。仏教的にいえば、それゆえに、いい“縁起”も訪れるのですから。

このフィリピン人老夫婦が近いうちにフィリピンへの里帰りの途中に日本を訪問され楽しまれることを願います。

神に感謝。合掌。

Narcissism and Free Will is a Deadly Combination – A Lesson from Comparing and Contrasting the Nathan’s Parable to David (2 Samuel 12:1-7) and Jesus’ Parable to the Religious Leaders (Matthew 21:33-46)

Jesus was sent to this world to covert our hearts and minds from a life of sin to a life in God. God the Father sent His only begotten Son to this world for this purpose, because God so loved the world that we might not perish and might have eternal life as we believe in him (John 3:16). God did this because He really loves us, regardless of our sinfulness, and wants us to come to Him. And the only way to God the Father, whose desire is to have us closer to Him, is through the Son (John 12:44; 13:20; 14:6), as our Good Shepherd to follow (John 10:11,14). But, the wickedness of the leaders of the God’s house of prayer killed the Son that the Father in heaven sent, by conspiring the Roman civil authority to crucify him.

Before Jesus, God sent various prophets to turn our sinful hearts back to God. However, these prophets were persecuted (Matthew 23:24). Jesus was like a stone that builders rejected and cast out (Matthew 21:42; Psalm 118:22). But, the Father, who sent the Son, Jesus, who became the rejected stone, will make him a cornerstone (Matthew 21:42; Psalm 118:23), as it is the Father, who raised the Son from his death on the third day.

The parable of the tenant vineyard worker (Matthew 21:33-46), in conjunction with Isaiah 5:1-7, reflects this progression of unrepentant sinfulness and its consequence.

Jesus told this parable specifically to the hypocrite religious leaders of the time, who turned the Temple, the God’s house of prayer, on earth, into the house of thieves (Matthew 21:13) to point out their sinfulness, by juxtaposing them to the tenant vineyard workers, who hijacked the vineyard and stole the inheritance of the vineyard owner’s son, upon killing all of the vineyard owner’s servants and his son.

Through parables spoken by prophets and Jesus, God teaches us a lesson of acknowledging our own sinfulness and need of repentance to reconcile with him.  Some learn the lesson and turn their sinful hearts and minds from sin and back to God. But, others refuse to convert and choose to remain in sin.

In this regard, this is a striking contrast between Jesus’ parable of the tenant vineyard workers to the hypocrite religious leaders (Matthew 21:33-46) and prophet Nathan’s parable of the rich man and the poor man’s ewe lamb to David (2 Samuel 12:1-13).

Nathan was a prophet to David, the King of Israel, offering spiritual advice to him as God commanded.

David humbly listened to and obeyed the word of God, as spoken to him by Nathan (2 Samuel 12:7). However, once experiencing sensual temptation upon seeing a bathing scene of Bathsheba, a beautiful wife of Uriah, a David’s royal guard, David was succumbed into double mortal sins:  conspiring of murder and adultery (2 Samuel 11).

The Nathan’s parable comes to David to point out David’s sinfulness.

In response to David’s sinful acts of stealing Uriah’s beautiful wife, Bathsheba, by conspiring to have Uriah killed, God spoke to her through Prophet Nathan, in the parable of the rich man and the poor man’s ewe lamb.  In this parable, the rich man, who had a great flocks and herds, took the poor man’s only ewe lamb and slaughtered to serve for his guest’s dinner.  The poor man basically lost all he had, as he loved his only ewe lamb so much and took a great care of her. To this parable, David became very angry at the rich man and uttered that the rich man should to be put to death, while the poor man should be compensated four-fold for his loss. David was so angry because the rich man had no regard for the poor man.

Obviously, David grew so indignant out of his compassion for the poor man. This shows that David was a man of kind heart. However, until Nathan reminded David that the man he became angry at for his ruthless and pitiless act was a metaphoric projection of David himself for arranging to have Uriah killed in order to have Uriah’s wife, Bathsheba, as his own.

David could have killed Nathan, if he were a narcissistic man, as pointing out his sins could have irritated him. However, David humbled himself and acknowledged his great sins and repented (2 Samuel 13:13), and this is also reflected in Psalm 51, which David wrote. 

David’s humble response and repentance in response to the Nathan’s parable (2 Samuel 12:1-13) draws sharp contrast with the hypocrite religious leaders’ response to the Jesus’ parable (Matthew 21:33-46).

In the parable of the tenant vineyard workers (Matthew 21:33-40), Jesus juxtaposed the sins of the religious leaders to the wickedness of the tenant vineyard worker in the parable and projected this back to them.

As these leaders corrupted the Temple by their own narcissistic ambitions, turning the God’s sacred house of prayer into a den of thieves (Matthew 21:12-13), the tenant vineyard workers turned a fertile vineyard into a field of abomination (Matthew 21:33-39). The religious leaders were entrusted by God to take a good care of the Temple as the God’s sacred house of prayer. However, instead of doing the will of God to take care of the Temple, these hypocrite leaders abused their free will and run amok with the Temple as a den of thieves.

David also forgot about the will of God when he was seduced by the bathing scene of Bathsheba (2 Samuel 11:2-5). It was when he was abusing his free will without the consideration for the will of God, carried by a powerful sensual temptation.  The hypocrite religious leaders were also living only with their free will, ignoring the will of God, to hijack the Temple to do whatever they willed to do.

Though both of them committed serious sins, the difference between David and the hypocrite religious leaders is that former repented but the latter refused to repent, when they were given opportunities to turn their hearts and minds from sins to God through the parables.

Like David, even a humble person can lose our sight on God and the will of God when there is a certain temptation and slip into an abuse of free will. When we abuse the God-given gift of free will, we do whatever we will, without any regard to the will of God, the will of the very one who gave us the free will. Psychologically, narcissists tend to practice the abuse of free will in their own relentless pursuit of the objects of what they will.

It was grace of God that came to David as the parable that Nathan spoke. The words in the parable were of God to give David a chance to use free will to wake up to his own sinfulness and repent. And David did so and was forgiven by God (2 Samuel 12:13).

On the other hand, the hypocrite religious leaders used free will not to repent, even though they realized that Jesus’ parable was sharply pointing their sinfulness. Instead of acknowledging their sinfulness and repenting, they continued to abuse free will to decide to silence him (Matthew 21:46).

It was the narcissism of them that made the hypocrite religious leaders refuse to repent. Rather, they decided to arrest Jesus and kill him – just as metaphorically said in the Jesus’ parable, as the wicked tenant vineyard workers not only killed the landowners’ servants but also the very son of him and stoke his inheritance. So, Jesus became the stone that the builders rejected (Matthew 21:42; Psalm 118:22).

Because David was not narcissistic, all he needed was God’s grace through the parable to let him turn free will to be used for the will of God.

Psychological studies, such as Williams & Leopendorf (1990), Kenis & Sun (1994),  and Paulhus & Williams (2002), indicate that narcissism makes it difficult to have remorse. For us to repent, we must have remorse, as repentance is contingent upon remorse.

In response to grace of God, through the teaching message of the parables, David felt remorse over his sins and repented, while the hypocrite religious leaders did not but decided to attack the agent of the grace. This comparison of David and the hypocrite religious leaders indicates that narcissism, which is a stumbling block of remorse, impairs our abilities to repent and reconcile. As the above-cited studies indicate, narcissism is what let us continue to abuse free wills until we hijack what God has leased us and destroy His servants and Son, as the wicked tenant vineyard workers did with the vineyard and the landowner – as the hypocrite religious leaders did with the God’s sacred house of prayer and His son, Jesus Christ.

But, as God has turned the rejected stone into the cornerstone (Matthew 21:42, Psalm 118:22-23), God already raised the Son, who was killed by the devil of the narcissism of the hypocrite religious leaders, from the dead. Though the world that God so loved and sent His only Son (John 3:16) has been plagued by the evil of our narcissism, especially among the ministers of the Church, God will renew the world, as prophesized in the Book of Revelation. In this cleansing process toward the end of time, those who refuse to overcome their narcissism and refuse to repent will face due judgement. God will take away what they have hijacked and clung to, as also prophesized in Isaiah 5:1-7.

A lesson from the comparison of the above two parables is that narcissism and free will make a deadly combination, as it can disable us to have remorse over our own sinfulness and repent. As we refuse to repent but continue to sin, pursuing objects of what our free will dictates without any regard to God and His will, we will eventually lose everything – even salvation at the end.

As we use God-given free will to fight our narcissistic disposition, we can keep ourselves from becoming narcissistic. Therefore, using the free will to overcome our narcissistic tendency is a necessary condition to our salvation. For this, as David did for his repentance, we need God’s grace. In order to be merited by God’s grace, we must turn our hearts and mind to the Word of God, which may come in parables (Psalm 78:2).  

The Word of God, especially in the parable spoken by God’s servants, prophets, and His Son, Jesus, are vehicles of God’s saving grace to help us stay on the right course so that we can use free will to do the will of God. And this is how we journey into salvation. Even we stumbled by temptations, God still gives a chance with parables, as He did to David. But, it is ultimately up to us in deciding what to do with free will: to remorse and repent or not to do so. 

For God’s grace to make its intended effect, it needs our free will to turn to God. Psychologically, our battle with Satan is our war against narcissistic disposition, which is what we gained upon the very first abuse of free will, committed by Adam and Eve.

Kernis, M. H. & Sun, C. (1994).  Narcissism and reactions to interpersonal feedback,   Journal of Research in Personality, 28(1), 4-13

Paulhus, D. L. & Williams, K. M. (2002). The dark triad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy, Journal of Research in Personality, 36, 556-563

Williams, N. & Lependorf, S. (1990).  Narcissistic pathology of everyday life: the Denial of remorse and gratitude, Contemporary Psychoanalysis, 26(3), 430-451