Notes on the readings for the 27th Sunday of Ordinary Times (Cycle B)
Old Testament: Gn :2:18-24
“… he brought [the animals] to the man to see what he would call them”
I love the way Anthony Hecht imagines the scene:
Naming the Animals
By Anthony Hecht
Having commanded Adam to bestow
Names upon all the creatures, God withdrew
To empyrean palaces of blue
That warm and windless morning long ago,
And seemed to take no notice of the vexed
Look on the young man's face as he took thought
Of all the miracles the Lord had wrought,
Now to be labelled, dubbed, yclept, indexed.
Before an addled mind and puddled brow,
The feathered nation and the finny prey
Passed by; there went biped and quadruped.
Adam looked forth with bottomless dismay
Into the tragic eyes of his first cow,
And shyly ventured, "Thou shalt be called 'Fred.' "
Epistle: Hebrews (Heb 2:9-11)
“it was fitting that he … should make [Jesus] perfect through suffering”
Why in the world was that fitting?
The whole idea of what’s “fitting” has, I suspect, led to all sorts of mischief throughout history. It’s “fitting” that Mary be a perpetual virgin, for example, because Augustine didn’t want to imagine her under the covers with Joseph or, later, screaming in pain during childbirth. The fact that our savior was born “a marginal jew” shows that what’s “fitting” is a bad guide to what’s true.
Gospe: (Mk 10:2-16)
Two unrelated pericopes. The first concerns marriage:
“Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife”
The pharisees were “testing” Jesus, which I would typically interpret as meaning they’re trying to trick him into something. If so, he walks right into the trap. He says Moses’s law is wrong in allowing divorce. I’m surprised the pharisees didn’t arrest him right then.
Some modern (liberal) interpretations suggest that Jesus wasn’t really talking about divorce, but rather about abandoning someone poor and weak. Maybe. But I’m curious what criteria should be applied to decide which of Jesus’s injunctions are universal and which are conditioned by the time and place he lived.
I’m actually fine with the liberal interpretation. Catholics should be able to divorce, but I’d like to see us admit that, rather than futz around with this annulment sham.
“the two shall become one flesh”
When unmarried priests use this gospel to preach on marital love, it grates on my ears. At the very least, a priest needs to start with a humble disclaimer: “OK, so I haven’t been married, but I’ve observed a lot of marriages, so allow me to share this outsider’s view of the institution; take it for what it’s worth.”
The second pericope talks about kids:
“the kingdom of God belongs to such as these”
We frequently think of children as innocent, pure. Here, I prefer to see them as weak, aware of their total dependence, uninhibited, and asking for what they need — recognizing, as Bernanos’s country priest does, that “all is gift.”
No comments:
Post a Comment