data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/14918/1491833344b2a67d59018467ba5d3d1b6840b193" alt=""
The Lord said, I have come to light a fire on the earth and how I wish it were blazing. How can priests light the world with the fire of the Holy Spirit and so be instruments in renewing the face of the earth? St. Anthony Claret has this to say:
hostiam puram + hostiam sanctam + hostiam immaculatam
The pharisees and Herodians began by acknowledging our Lord’s sincerity and detachment from the world: “Teacher, we know you are a truthful man and that you teach the way of God with the truth. And you are not concerned with anyone’s opinion for you do not regard a person’s status.” Rightly did they say so because our Lord was really as they say he was. At the last supper, he spoke about this sense of detachment by saying: “They do not belong to the world as I do not belong to the world.” He was not concerned for earthly honors nor for any human respect. What mattered to him was the favor of the Father who sent him: “Behold my Son, my beloved, in whom my favor rests.”
That is why the question which they posed to him seemed inappropriate: Is it lawful to pay the census tax to Caesar or not? It seemed inappropriate because the issue at hand was that of money. And why should anyone, after acknowledging our Lord’s sense of detachment from worldly honor, ask him about money? Money issues are asked of worldly people like Donald Trump or Bill Gates. But the Lord? If he did not care much about the honors of the world, why should he care about money? St. Teresa of Jesus makes this point about the corelation of desire for honor and love of money: “In (poverty of spirit) lies great dominion. I say that it gives once again to one who doesn’t care about the world’s good things dominion over them all. What do kings and lords matter to me if I don’t want their riches, or don’t care to please them if in order to do so I would have to displease God in even the smallest thing? Nor do I care about their honors if I have understood that the greatest honor of a poor person lies in the fact of his being truly poor? In my opinion honor and money always go together: anyone who wants honor doesn’t despise money, and anyone who despises money doesn’t care much about honor. Let me be clearly understood, for it seems to me that the desire for honor always bring with it some interest in money or income. It would be a wonder if any poor person were honored in the world; on the contrary, even though he may be worthy of honor, he is little esteemed. True poverty brings with it overwhelming honor. Poverty that is chosen for God alone has no need of pleasing anyone but Him.” (Teresa of Jesus, The Way of Perfection II, 5-6.)
The Lord’s sense of detachment from both honor and money is what great men are really made of. Before his retirement, Cardinal Rosales said that the moment Rome appoints a new archbishop of Manila, he will take his maleta and ride to the retirement home in Lipa, Batangas. Last Thursday, when the appointment of the new archbishop of Manila was announced, the good Cardinal was asked what legacy was he leaving the archdiocese. He replied: “Legacy? What legacy? Forget me.” Here was a man who was truly detached from both money and honor. He cared for neither. And this is what great men are made of.
A man who is truly detached will rightly identify what belongs to Caesar and what belongs to God. Because he did not care about Caesar’s favor, he would rightly say that the coin belongs to Caesar but everything else belongs to God…yes, even Caesar belongs to God. Lest Caesar forget, if he has power, it is only because the Lord loaned it to him. To Cyrus the king, the Lord said: “I called you by name, giving you a title, though you knew me not. I am the Lord and there is no other, there is no God but me. It is I who arm you, though you know me not, so that from the rising and setting of the sun, people may know that there is none besides me. I am the Lord, there is no other.”
When a man chooses to serve God and him alone, he finds no need for money nor honor. He is not afraid to lose rich benefactors because he trusts that the Lord will always sufficiently provide for his works. He is not afraid to be judged by human opinion. He is not afraid to lose human respect. The only things that matters is what God would say. The only words he desires to hear would be those of the Lord who, at the end of his service, would say to him: “Well done, good and faithful servant. Enter into the reward prepared for you by my Father in heaven!”
For the past 3 Sundays, we have been listening to parables that likened the Kingdom of God to a vineyard in which the Lord invited us to work and collect for him the harvest. However, lest we say that religion is an oppressive toil for a God who is nothing but a taskmaster, the Lord gives us a parable that likens the His Kingdom to a wedding feast. Instead of hearing the command, “Go and work in my vineyard,” we hear today a very cordial invitation: “Everything is ready. Come to the feast.” It is a feast that the Lord prepared for us on His holy mountain – a feast of “juicy, rich food and pure, choice wines.” It is an invitation too good to resist. First of all, the one who prepared and invited us to this feast is the Lord our God. Better than an English Royal Wedding, the affair is the wedding Feast of God’s Son to His Bride, the Church. Who of us would ever think that he is worthy to be invited as a wedding guest to the marriage of the Lamb and of his Bride? This is indeed an honor too great to pass.
And yet, the surprising thing of all is that so many refuse this invitation because they think they have better things to do: one went to his farm and another to his business. And this is the problem of our modern world: it has measured life according to a paradigm of achievements or accomplishments that it has forgotten the value of feasts. Things have become too bland for a world that has assumed the likeness of a corporation which is higly concerned with mechanical productivity. And so to keep the physical well being, it simply provides for us the gym where play has become an individualistic routine of exercises. We think that time will be used more wisely in work than in accepting the invitation to “Come to the feast.”
And this is a pitiful situation because we do not know the joy we are missing. Being too preoccupied with our own affairs, we fail to appreciate the graces that God lavishes upon us and also the beauty of the eternal life to which He invites us. As St. Faustina remarked in her diary: “O Jesus, I see so much beauty scattered around me, beauty foir which I give You constant thanks. But I see that some souls are like stone, always cold and unfeeling. Even miracles hardly move them. Their eyes are always fixed on their feet, and so they see nothing but themselves.” (Diary 1284.)
God gave us 6 days to work and requires us to return to Him the 7th. He wants to us stop working on the 7th so that we may learn to lift our eyes from being fixed to ourselves and look around to see the wonderful things God has done for us. As He rested on the 7th day to declare the goodness of what He has done, so should we imitate Him in declaring: “:Lord, You are truly good. Everything You have done is good!” Sunday is not a rest day so that we can think about ourselves. It is a rest day so that we can think about God. This is God’s day. This is God’s feast. This is the day that the Lord has made. Let us rejoice and be glad in him!
For once, let us not think about ourselves. For once, let us think about God. Let us trust that we do not lose when we offer this day to Him. Let us trust enough that because we return this day to Him, “God will fully supply whatever you need in accord with the glorious riches in Christ Jesus.” Only by doing so that we shall appreciate life for what it truly is. We shall realize that life is more than the food we eat and the clothes we wear. We shall realize that it is a blessing – it is grace upon grace. We shall realize that we are destined for something greater, for something eternal. And then we shall be grateful. “You have surrounded my life with Your tender and loving care, more than I can comprehend, for I will understand Your goodness in its entirety only when the veil is lifted. I desire that my whole life be but one act of thanksgiving to You, O God.” (Diary, 1285.)
Report Highlights Defects
By Father John Flynn, LC
ROME, OCT. 2, 2011 (Zenit.org).- A report commissioned by the Virginia-based National Religious Broadcasters has revealed substantial problems in the way new media communications platforms treat religion.
Titled "True Liberty in a New Media Age: An Examination of the Threat of Anti-Christian Censorship and Other Viewpoint Discrimination on New Media Platforms," the report looked at many of the leading companies such as Google, Apple, Facebook and Twitter.
NRB is a non-partisan, international association of Christian communicators according to a description of its mission on its Web site.
While it is true that the new means of communications made possible by the Internet have opened up many possibilities for the exchange of ideas and opinions, at the same time the report expressed concern that a small number of large companies have a lot of control of this industry.
When it comes to religion the report saw real problems. "Our conclusion is that Christian ideas and other religious content face a clear and present danger of censorship on Web-based communication platforms," it stated.
The study revealed a number of ways in which the policies of the new media giants affected religion.
Apple
Some of the companies have already banned Christian content, while others have established guidelines that will very probably lead to censorship in the future, the report affirmed. On two occasions Apple has blocked Christian apps on the iTunes App Store due to the religious content.
In fact, the only apps that Apple has blocked due to the views expressed in them are ones that reflect Christian views, according to the report.
In November of 2010, Apple revoked its approval of the Manhattan Declaration App. This declaration was a statement of Christian beliefs about marriage, the sanctity of life and religious liberty. The reason given was that one of the points in the declaration was that homosexual conduct is immoral and this, in Apple's view, was offensive.
Later, in March 2011, Apple also censored the app for Exodus International, a Christian ministry that helps people to leave the homosexual lifestyle. Once again Apple declared that this was offensive and violated its guidelines.
Then, in July 2011, Apple pulled iTunes out of the Christian Values Network, a portal that contributes funds to charities. The report said that this action was caused by complaints that some of the charities had policies critical of homosexual rights initiatives.
In general, the report concluded that several of Apple's policies for its apps are broad and vague, as well as being in some cases censorious on the subject of religion. When it comes to satire, humor or political commentary the norms are quite different, giving wide latitude to content.
For example, its guidelines on religion define content should be prohibited if it is "offensive, mean-spirited" or if it contains material that has "abuse," or is "inappropriate" or "unacceptable." Using such fuzzy terms means that Apple has very wide discretion to determine which religious ideas they prefer and which they will censor, the report pointed out.
There is no doubt, the report concluded, that Apple's policies on religious content would be found "extraordinarily wanting" if they were matched up against the standards for free speech that the Supreme Court has established under the First Amendment.
Turning to Google the report noted that it refused to place a Christian pro-life advertisement from the Christian Institute on its search engine. The ad was refused on the grounds that Google's "policy did not permit the advertisement of Web sites that contain abortion and religion-related content."
The Christian Institute then took Google to court and as a result the ad was allowed and Google changed its policy to allow ads on abortion from religious groups so long as they are framed in a factual way.
Google's policy is still, however, to block any ad on abortion that contains the phrase "abortion is murder," as this is deemed to be "gruesome."
Another problem outlined by the report related to Google's guidelines for its Web tools available for non-profit groups. The free or discounted use of these tools is not allowed for churches, faith groups, or organizations that take religion or sexual orientation into account in hiring employees. According to the report Christian churches who have applied to Google for non-profit status are being rejected.
A further case involving Google was related to a Norwegian site that contained criticism of Scientology. Lawyers representing Scientology protested to Google that the site contained copyrighted content. As a result the pages of the critical site were removed from Google's index.
The NRB report said that this action was troubling as there are a number of Christian groups that expose religious movements for their lack of fidelity to the Bible. In order to do so they need to quote from the original sources. Copyright law allows the fair use of material for reporting and criticism, so Google's approach could unjustly block legitimate Christian groups from engaging in criticism of what they consider to be false teachings.
Google also showed itself willing, during the time it operated in China through a local version of its Web site, to cooperate with the government in blacklisting words from its search engine relating to the Falun Gong religious group and the Dalai Lama.
The report concluded its section on Google by quoting testimony from Scott Cleland, former U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Information and Communication Policy, who has stated that "Google rejects traditional Judeo-Christian values."
Facebook is also guilty of censorship according to the report. It has a policy of erasing anti-homosexual comments from its site and has partnerships with some organizations that promote the homosexual agenda.
Another example in the report was the case of how Facebook removed a posting of a photo of two men kissing. This decision was quickly reversed and Facebook made an apology. By contrast in other cases of photos involving sexual depictions unrelated to homosexuality the material has been permanently removed.
Hate speech
With the exception of Twitter the policies of the main Web-based platforms have very loose definitions of what they regard as hate speech, which the report criticizes as being a danger to free speech. Facebook, for example, prohibits "Inflammatory religious content; Politically religious agendas."
Quoting from the Google guidelines, the report said that it defines hate speech in the following way. "By this, we mean content that promotes hate … towards groups based on …religion … or sexual orientation/gender identity.
Google's rules also block advertising content that is critical of groups for their religion, sexual orientation or gender identity. The report pointed out that this eliminates ads by Christian pro-family groups that oppose what some homosexual advocacy groups are doing to promote the legalization of same-sex marriage. It also means that criticism of other religions or sects as being theologically wrong would violate Google's policy.
The report went on to identify similar problems with other new media organizations, such as MySpace, which also has very broad and ill-defined policies when it comes to hate speech and homosexuality.
The Internet service providers Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon also violate free speech and their rules would allow censorship of Christian content, according to the report.
The report finished with a plea to these companies to change their policies so as to guarantee free speech and also to renounce censorship of lawful Christian viewpoints. A plea that we can only hope will not fall on deaf ears.
We have just come from remembering the tragedy of the storm Ondoy when another powerful storm Pedring hit us. The winds were so strong that we witnessed waves as high as coconut trees hitting the sea walls of Manila Bay and thus causing the flooding of Roxas Boulevard. Until now, people in Bulacan and elsewhere in the north are suffering on account of floods and yet, they have to endure another storm Quiel. Let us pray for them and also come to their aid.
Such destruction caused by an act of God may truly be a reflection of what the Prophet Isaiah said: “Now I will let you know what I mean to do with my vineyard: take away its hedge, give it to grazing, break down its wall, let it be trampled! Yes, I will make it a ruin, it shall not be pruned or hoed, but overgrown with thorns and briers; I will command the clouds not to send rain upon it.” In the parable today, the Lord said, “He will put these wretched men to a wretched death…” Why such anger? Why such destruction? It is because in spite of what the Lord has done for his vineyard, he did not receive any fruit from it: He planted the vineyard, spaded it, cleared it of stones and planted the choicest vines. “What more is there to do for my vineyard that I had not done?”
We have been talking about vineyards for the past 3 Sundays. And everytime, we hear the command to go and work in it. Hired workers, sons, tenants – we all work in the Lord’s vineyard. And as in the first reading and the Gospel parable, the Lord seeks the fruits of his vineyard, he shall also ask from us the same. What fruits will we show him? Will we be able to show him “whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is gracious”? Will we offer him fruit that is excellent and worthy of praise? Or will we yield him wild grapes? Or will we yield him nothing at all?
Perhaps, the breaking of the sea walls should be a warning to us. After all, did not the Lord say: “I will break itsw walls”? In all the destruction of nature happening around us, we should see more than just climate change or global warming. We should see them as messages coming from God. After all, these are not called “acts of God’ for nothing! These acts of God should make us reflect about the fruits that we bear…Are they commensurate to all the graces we have received from God? “Think about these things” The Lord has chosen us and therefore he expects something from us. He has chosen us to bear fruit that will last. Let us return to the Lord and seek his mercy. Let us not reject the Son of God. The Lord refers to Himself as the Stone rejected by the builders which became the cornerstone. take away the capstone and the structure collapses. St. Paul speaks of Christ as the One who holds all things together in Himself. Delete Him from the picture and everything else collapses because no one will hold all these together. Therefore, let us not reject the Son of God. Let us not reject his servants. Let us return to what we have learned and received and heard and seen in Christ so that the God of peace will again be with us.