FOURTH SUNDAY OF LENT

 

First Reading (Jos 5:9a, 10-12)

 

Before leaving Egypt, the people of Israel had celebrated a great feast, the Pasch. They had kept vigil for the whole night, had eaten the whole night, had eaten the lamb and then, in the dark, had their journey towards the land God had promised to their fathers. Led by Moses and protected by the Lord they crossed the Red Sea and entered into the desert where they were to stay for forty long years.

The reading of today is the account of the conclusion of this long journey. After so much wandering, Israel arrived at Gilgal, in the Jericho plain. They are free and out of the desert at last and are about to take possession of a fertile land. Every family will receive a field to cultivate; they will live on agriculture and sheep rearing, no longer on manna and the poor products of the desert. God had kept the promises he had made to Abraham. To manifest their great joy they decide to celebrate again the great feast of the Pasch, Passover, just as their fathers had done on the night they had left Egypt.

The history of this people is an image of what happens to the Christians nowadays. Like the people of Israel, they are also led out of the land of slavery, that is, from the state of sin where they were before baptism, and become children of God. The Hebrews made a great feast at Gilgal to celebrate their liberation; Christians celebrate their salvation in the Eucharist, the sacrament that makes present once more the Passover, the Easter of Christ, his death and resurrection.

 

Second Reading (2 Cor 5:17-21)

 

The theme of this passage is "reconciliation". We find this word five times in the few verses of the reading, and it does not mean only "to agree once again with each other", "remove the unfriendliness” "be purified of one's sins"; it implies also the birth of a completely new creature.

"Reconciliation" with God is not the result of the good will of man. It is the work of God; he is the one taking up the initiative in order to restore peace (19).

How does this reconciliation take place? It is achieve through the preaching of the Apostles: it is as if God were persuading people through them. This is why Paul addresses the Christians of Corinth the heart-rending appeal: “Be reconciled to God", open up your hearts to the message I am announcing you! (20).

 

Gospel (Lk 15:1-3.11-32)

 

And here we are to meditate on the most beautiful of all the parables we find in the gospels. In order to help the animators of the word to get the full meaning and significance of it, I begin by proposing them nine questions, which they are invited to answers possibly together with the catechist of their community or of the neighboring communities. One must, of course, first read the text, slowly and more than once and with great attention.

1.      What title would you give to this parable?

2.      To whom is this parable directed and why does Jesus recount it?

3.      Why does the father let his son go away without even saying a word?

4.      Is the younger son, on his return, sorry or not

5.      If one day you were to be told that God will forgive all people and will take everybody into his house, would you agree? Why?

6.      You certainly don’t like the elder son. But, on thinking it over, wouldn’t you agree with what he says to his father? Setting aside his rather emotional way of speaking, isn't his reaction justified?

7.      Let us change the end of the parable a bit. Imagine it to run like this: “The younger son, on feeling terribly hungry, set out. He arrived home early in the morning, but his father was not there since he had not gone to the market to sell cattle. The elder son who had got up very early to carry out the work, looking out of the window, saw his brother approaching, in a poor state and in rags…” (Now you go on and conclude the story!)

8.      Read the parable once again: How many times does the elder son use the word “father”? How many times instead does the younger son use it? What can you infer from this?

9.      The parable is not finished. What does the father reply to the accusation of his eldest son that he has never given him even a kid? Does the eldest son take part in the feast or not? Does the younger son begin to behave, or does he leave again after one or two months? Can you conclude the story?

Here are the nine questions that should stimulate your reflection. Go on reading my comments only after you have tried to answer carefully all of them.

1. This parable is known as the parable of the ‘prodigal son’. But this title is not quite the most suitable, since only the first part is an account of the younger son and of his misdeeds; the second part is about the elder son. And there is also another person who is the real protagonist of the whole story: the father.

A good title would then be one, which makes reference to him and to his love. Such a title should also include the two sons, who do not understand him, though for different reasons. The younger son sees him as a tyrant who imposes his will, who does not let him do what he likes, and does not allow him to satisfy all his whims; the elder one looks on him as the master, whose orders are to be obeyed in order to get a reward.

2. This parable is often used for reconciliation liturgies, to move the heart of the most obstinate sinners. But Jesus did not report it to convince them to change their style of lives. In verses 2-3 we read that, while he is among the publicans and the sinners, the scribes and Pharisees begin to criticize him. They question themselves: how can this man announce the kingdom of God if he is always keeping company with such people? It is to these, the spiritual guides of Israel, that he must justify his behavior; it is to these ‘just’ that he must teach a lesson and he does it by telling them a parable.

The scribes and Pharisees are here represented by the elder son. They are the ones who kept all the commandments and precepts of the law and they are convinced that in so doing they have acquired merits in front of God, so they can despise their brethren and refuse to sit at table with those who have gone wrong, with sinners. Good, these "perfect” people are, in the words of Jesus, running the very big risk of being left out of the feast. The parable is addressed to them, not to the sinners.

3. The younger son one day decides to abandon his house. The father does not stop him, he doesn't even say a word. This attitude is to show the respect that God has for the freedom of man. Does this same respect for the choices of our children exist in our families?

I have already hinted in no. 1 to the reasons that might have urged the younger son to abandon his home: he wanted exciting adventures. It would be unjust to think that all who leave our Christian communities do it only to seek enjoyment or to satisfy their passions. Often the “elder brothers" bear responsibilities for these defections. Don’t "elder brothers often think that they have the right to judge and condemn those who do not see eye to eye with them? Aren't they, at times, the very ones that make up a religion founded only on external things, formalism, liturgies that are only shows? Aren't they the very ones that celebrate the Eucharist amidst divisions, envies, jealousies and mean gossip? Evidently if in the Father's house we have an unbearable situation, some may decide to leave it. We must certainly strive to lead back into the community anybody who has gone astray or left it, but we should first question ourselves in all honesty whether we bear any responsibility for these defections.

4. Far from his father's house, the younger son does not find the happiness he hoped for. The search for pleasure, drugs, false friends, sexual aberrations, all end up by causing disgust. Adventures don’t satisfy anyone; a person needs to possess an interior equilibrium, otherwise he or she will feel like "dying of hunger”. The experience of disappointments makes one "come to [one's] senses”.

But is the younger son sorry or not? It doesn't seem so. Let us read verses 17 to 19 carefully: the young man is not preoccupied by the sorrow he caused his father, all he worries about is hunger. It would be different if he, once he had "come to his senses", had thought: “Look where I ended up! I have been a very bad son. I will die like a dog, but I first want to beg my father's pardon, I want to embrace him once more. I will then leave him again, immediately, without accepting even a cup of tea, because I do not deserve it." Had he spoken or thought like this, then he would have given signs of repentance but all he wants is to get some food to eat. Even the short speech he prepares has the aim of convincing his father to give him food.

And here lies the "scandalous" aspect of the whole story: the father does not examine his son to see if he has repented; he embraces him without asking any question. Had Jesus received “repented sinners”, nobody would have complained. Even scribes and Pharisees forgave those that admitted their mistakes or sins and promised to correct themselves. Their irritation arose because Jesus was friendly with the publicans who kept doing their job, and was entering into the house of unrepentant sinners.

The attitude of Jesus reveals to us the feelings of God: he does not love only the just or the repentant sinners; he loves all, always and unconditionally. Jesus asks us to "love those who do evil to us”; he does not tell us to love the enemies that beg our pardon, and wants us to do them good even if they continue to persecute us. He demands this of us because it is the Father who is in heaven who sets the example: he makes the sun rise on the just and on the wicked (not on the repentant wicked! (Mt 5:44-48). If he were to put up barriers between the good and the wicked, if he were to love the ones and hate the others, how could he stop us from doing likewise?

5. We now consider a couple of objections. One is: has Jesus revealed to us that God is a friend of publicans and sinners (cf Lk 7:34; Mt 9:12-13), but for how long? Won't there be a time when he changes altitude towards them? And if God loves also the wicked, why endeavor to be good?

Normally the answer given to the first question is: sinners have time up to the end of their lives to convert, then it is all over. At the moment of death God will no longer be good to them and will act as a severe judge. But don't you find this change of attitude rather strange? How can Jesus here on earth sit at table with publicans and sinners and refuse them a place at his heavenly banquet?

Somebody explains thus: at the end of time it is not God who condemns, it will be the sinner himself who punishes himself. Oh, my God! How can we think that meeting the Lord, instead of enlightening and purifying the sinner, will harden the sinner in his or her wickedness and unhappiness? Who can believe that there will be a time when Jesus will resign himself to lose a friend? Who could believe that, at a certain point, evil will triumph (eternally!) over the all-powerful love of God?

The wish of witnessing the condemnation of the sinner comes from a wish for revenge and, why not, also from some kind of sadism present in the human heart. Many “just people" are convinced that those who commit a sin are shrewd people who are just enjoying themselves; they thus envy them, are jealous and expect God to punish them. They don’t seem to realize that their life is all a tragedy. The uncontrolled search for pleasure leads to despair, not to happiness and interior peace. Doesn’t the prodigal son exclaim, tired of sex and orgies: “I am here dying of hunger”? Isn't the life of an adulterer like hell because of the shame, or isn't it the same for a thief who must keep running away and keep hiding or for one whose heart is full of hate and revengeful thoughts? Whoever wants God to punish sinners is one who hasn't yet understood that one must not behave well in view of a reward in the other life, but in order to be happy now, in this world.

I believe that all humankind will be saved. This is the virtue of hope. One needs a lot of courage to believe, against all appearances, that the love of God will finally be stronger than the human wickedness. I am not saying that at the end of time God will "close an eye", “will feign not to see the evil" and will let all into paradise. This is not salvation. If a man is seriously ill, his physique thin and face ruined by fever, colored and sparkling clothes will make no difference to him, painting his face so that he looks nice and healthy will not make him healthy. He must be treated, not dressed up. The sinner cannot be happy as long as he remains a sinner, as long as he does not open up his heart to the love of the Father.

And what if he never opens up to this love? Love certainly respects freedom, it cannot be imposed. But we know what happens when a young man falls madly in love with a girl. Does he get discouraged? Does he give up only after the first refusals? No. He keeps insisting, seeks her out, invents ways to draw her attention, makes her nice gifts, says sweet words and promises. Well... my experience tells me that sooner or later he will win over that girl and will get from her the "yes” he expects, a free and joyful "yes"! If this is what happens among two people, could God who can love much more than humans, accept defeat? He leaves everyone’s freedom, certainly, but he "persecutes" him with his love, and since his is an "all-powerful" love, how can one think that it will not be successful?

6. Though the words of the elder are somewhat bad-mannered, they are however right according to our logic. This is how also the scribes and Pharisees reasoned at the time of Jesus and this is how today many of us deal with God. Yes, we do admit, even if somewhat mumblingly, that he granted us gratuitously all that we have, but deep down in our hearts we are convinced that the just have a credit with him. The paradise is something to be conquered, and one who does not pay for it, must be thrown out or kept out of it.

7. If the elder brother had been in the house, the younger one would not have been allowed to re-enter it, for sure. Even in our communities the "just" are often the greatest hindrance to the return of those who did wrong. We think here of the shame of an unwed mother who wants to take part in our Sunday celebrations. Isn't she often frowned upon and unable to tear the gossip and the looks of commiseration? Isn’t she often forced to look somewhere else for somebody who shows understanding without condemning her?

8. The younger son uses the word "father" five times because for him he is really a father. He well knows that he cannot claim any right; he is convinced that he received all gratuitously and does not deserve a thing. The elder son instead can present his good deeds: he has not been wandering about, didn't squander all his money, worked hard and obeyed orders. But he thus shows that he has been a servant more than a son. For him the father is a master. That is why he never uses the word "father".

The consequence of such a wrong relation with his father is his refusal of the younger brother who is called: "this son of yours” (30). But the father, very delicately, immediately corrects him: “your brother here..." (32).

9. How could we conclude the story? The elder son will surely go back into the house, maybe grumbling, but cannot stay out. He is accustomed to obey and cannot say no to his father. And so? This is what happens, according to me: ... since the father was delaying to come back in, the younger son went out to find out what was the matter. On the door he hears his father saying to the elder son:"certainly, a kid for you and your friends is wasted, since you do not know how to enjoy yourself, you are unable to smile. Whenever you and your friends gather together all you do is keep talking of business, of obeying orders, of gains, of merits. Son, I can assure you that today in this house there is more joy than when there are 99 like you." At this point intervenes the "young": "You know, he tells his brother, in the hall there are people just like me; your friends were all invited, but nobody came, I am sorry." "They will come, they will come", says the father who then turns to the gatekeeper and whispers in his ear: "Do come in to the feast, take these boys of mine in! I will tend the gate, I am expecting many, many people."

A guest later told me that towards evening the elder son began to smile. After a dance, as he passed close to his brother he first shook his hand, almost impersonally, then turned and looked him straight into his eyes and finally embraced him.

 

Theme of the Sunday
SAVED BY THE LOVE OF THE FATHER

 

The first reading prepares the message contained in the gospel. The people of Israel did not reach the land of freedom by themselves, they were not saved by their awn strength, they were guided by God. Also the younger son of the parable did not find his way home by himself, he wasted back by the gratuitous and unlimited love of his father.

Where, how and why do we feel today like one of these two sons? Don’t we find in us something of the younger son, and something of the elder? When do we reason differently from the Father? Isn't there anything we can change?

The second reading is an imitation to accept to be reconciled to God and to the other members of the community, and is thus in harmony with the theme of the Sunday.