26th SUNDAY IN ORDINARY TIME
1 Timothy 6:11-16
Luke 16:19-31
"My child, remember that you received what was good
... while Lazarus likewise received what was
bad,"
When the church launched her insistent campaign to side with the poor, she undoubtedly faced all kinds of reactions, and course, harsh ones coming from the circle of the rich. This Lukan story of the rich man and Lazarus certainly teaches us a deeper insight on the evangelic mandate regarding preferential option for the poor. Hopefully, this may offer us a well founded understanding why every Christian soul must side with the poor. Among the important reasons for such preferential option, today's gospel teaches the following.
1. We must show our preferential option for the poor not because the poor are good but simply because they are poor. This is the clearest point in the gospel. Yet, this point is the most difficult one to take. And the difficulty lies precisely on the experience we use to have in our daily encounter with the poor. Is it not true that countless poor are themselves lazy, drunkards, troublemakers, swindlers? How many times in the past when we lent our time, talent and treasure out of pity for the poor, but only to find out later on that they simply made stories in order to make money? Is this the poor for whom we must give our preferential option? True, this is too difficult to reconcile. But this is precisely what the gospel wants to resolve.
The gospel does not say at all that Lazarus was good and the rich man was a crook. It does not even give us the slightest hint of any maltreatment made or done by the rich man on Lazarus. In fact, when they both died, the rich man would even plead before Abraham to send Lazarus to him for water. This would suggest that there was not any hurt feeling between them. If the gospel does not say that they were friends because both of them were good or bad, neither does it say that they became enemies because one was good and the other was bad. Nothing is said about it. Yet, at the final countdown, Lazarus came out to enjoy the favors of heaven, while the rich man had to take heaven’s wrath. And this is because Lazarus was poor. In other words, the eyes of heaven fell on Lazarus not because he was good but simply because he was poor.
2. The other reason why we must give our preferential option for the poor is suggested by the life of the rich man. Again, nothing is said that this rich man maltreated Lazarus, that he scolded him bitterly, that he kicked him out of the gate, etc. But his life of abundance and comfort made him insensitive to others especially to the poor.
The initial level of this insensitivity is his inability to recognize the presence of the poor man Lazarus. Being unable to move (he could not even drive away the dogs licking his sores), Lazarus seemed to be non-existent. Given such situation, the rich man might not have simply noticed Lazarus. Perhaps, this was without any malice at the start. But certainly this failure to notice could not last for long. In due time, he must have known that someone was lying at his door, feeding with whatever scraps that fell from his table. But sadly, his insensitivity had gone up higher to the level of omission. He simply let the situation go without doing anything. And although Lazarus was not driven out scornfully, this poor man was there as if he were just a part of the landscape or perhaps one of the furniture in the rich man's kingly home.
If the gospel does not point out any direct bad thing the rich man did to Lazarus, neither does it point out any good thing he did to the poor man. This makes the omission sinful. It does not do any bad but it fails to do any good either. And by failing to do what is good, it lets the bad situation continue. So, in the last analysis, not doing good is in fact doing bad. This is then the reason why the church insists on one's preferential option for the poor. It is that kind of option which abhors indifference and urges one to take sides.
3. The third point which enforces this preferential option for the poor is founded on the concept of divine justice. "My child, remember that you received what was good during your lifetime while Lazarus likewise received what was bad; but now he is comforted here, whereas you are tormented.” This seems to sum up the message of divine justice in the gospel. To dress in purple garments and fine linen and dine sumptuously each day, as the rich man did, is not that bad in itself. After all, he was using his own money for it. But to dress in purple garments while others are naked, to wear fine linen while others are covered with sores, to dine sumptuously while others simply contend themselves with leftovers ... all these things make the situation totally different. Certainly, it makes a big blow against God's divine purpose of creation. It becomes so awful before the eyes of heaven to see .that amidst the earth's abundance some or few would feast while others or the multitude suffer want and go hungry. This may be the reason why the rich man himself seems to be surprised why he ended up in hell. So, he would now honestly beg Abraham to warn his brothers by sending Lazarus back.
The redemptive justice of God is all-encompassing and is never inseparable from the whole economy of salvation. It records every due and undue starting from the moment of creation up to the final day of reckoning. Thus, the gospel portrays a clear "turning of tables." The poor Lazarus who used to contend with the fallen scraps now sits at Abraham's table, while the rich man who used to dine sumptuously must now suffer the dire want even of a drop of water. This is heaven's justice. Heaven has to reward Lazarus with every good because during his lifetime he received what was bad. Would it be making any sense of justice if after suffering so much in this life, Lazarus would end up with another terrible suffering in hell? That would be doubly unfair!
Today's gospel, therefore, enlightens us about the
evangelic meaning of our preferential option for the poor. True, the citizens
of heaven must be good. But the gospel's point is clear. We must love the poor
not because they are good but because they are poor. After all, if we love the
poor because they are good, then there would be no need of teaching about preferential
option for the poor. Every good is by nature lovable. This applies to all,
including the rich. Thus, loving the lovable does not make the act more
virtuous. One is simply doing what is normal. That is why even sinners love
those who love them (cf Lk