27th Sunday in Ordinary Time – Year B
Mark 10: 2-16
The Pharisees approached Jesus and asked, “Is it lawful for a husband to divorce his wife?” They were testing him. He said to them in reply, “What did Moses command you?” They replied, “Moses permitted a husband to write a bill of divorce and dismiss her.” But Jesus told them, “Because of the hardness of your hearts he wrote you this commandment. But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female. For this reason, a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. So they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, no human being must separate.” In the house, the disciples again questioned Jesus about this. He said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”
And people were bringing children to him that he might touch them, but the disciples rebuked them. When Jesus saw this he became indignant and said to them, “Let the children come to me; do not prevent them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. Amen, I say to you, whoever does not accept the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it.” Then he embraced them and blessed them, placing his hands on them.
Genesis 2:18-24; Hebrews 2:9-11; Mark 10:2-16
Indissolubility: a requirement of love, not a precept
Fernando Armellini
There are situations in which two spouses wonder, with good reason, if it is still worth insisting on trying to fix a relationship that began badly and is proving to be irreparably broken. They no longer love each other, there are incompatibilities of character, they spite each other, speak only to offend each other, and even the children are involved in the failure of the parents. What sense does it make to continue together? Can God demand that we continue living together in a way that is a torment? Is it not better that each one goes his way and rebuilds his or her life?
To these questions, people’s logic responds without hesitation: divorce is better. If so many couples separate after only a few years of marriage, isn’t cohabitation preferable? If things don’t work out, we break up without too many problems.
In no other field, as in that of sexual ethics, is a person tempted to give himself his morality, and so the salt of the evangelical proposal is often rendered insipid by so many ‘buts,’ ‘ifs,’ ‘it depends.’
It is necessary to ‘become like children’ to enter the kingdom of heaven, to understand the difficult, demanding proposal of Christ. Only those who feel small, who believe in the love of the Father and trust him, are in the proper disposition to welcome God’s thoughts. Not everyone can understand them, “but only those to whom it has been given” (Mt 19:11), “hidden from the wise and the learned you have revealed them to the childlike” (Mt 11:25).
Gospel: Mark 10:2-16
Surprisingly, the Pharisees should ask Jesus the question, “Is it lawful for a husband to repudiate his wife?” Like all Israelites without exception, the members of this sect had no doubts about the lawfulness of divorce since the Old Testament contemplated the possibility of a second marriage. The discussion revolved, if at all, around the reasons that might justify it.
Mark’s theme of indissolubility is introduced in the central part of his Gospel, along with other moral issues such as dialogue with non-believers, charity towards the brothers, scandal, relationships with the weak, property, wealth. It is placed in this context because the demand for absolute and unconditional marital fidelity leaves one stunned and bewildered and cannot be understood unless one frames it in the logic of Christ’s love and the gift of life.
Responding to the question put to him, he clarifies the true meaning of the law of Moses, a law which he does not intend to abolish but to explain and bring to fulfillment. The book of Deuteronomy seems to allow divorce: “When a man, after marrying a woman, is later displeased with her because he finds in her something indecent, and he writes out a bill of divorce and hands it to her, thus dismissing her from his house” (Deut 24:1). Some rabbis, the strictest ones, taught that the husband could send his wife back only if she had been unfaithful to him. Still, others, more tolerant and possibilist, claimed that it was enough that the woman had cooked dinner poorly or that the husband had found another more attractive woman.
Before pronouncing on the subject, Jesus clarifies the meaning of the biblical text. It was not Moses—he explains—who introduced divorce. This institution existed long before him and has always been accepted by all as legitimate; he only tried to regulate it, putting a stop to abuses. He did not demand the Israelites, who were still too hard-hearted, a moral behavior superior to that of other peoples; he limited himself to dictating a rule that would protect the woman. He established that the husband should give her the document of repudiation so that she could remarry.
This provision was most suitable because many would drive their wives out of the house, take another, and, if the first one joined another man, they would accuse her of adultery, a crime that carried the death penalty. The precept of Moses had the purpose of defending the woman from this abuse: the document of repudiation declared her free. Some of these acts of repudiation have come down to us, signed by two witnesses; here is one of them: ‘You may go, you may be taken as a wife by anyone, at your pleasure.’
Jesus recognizes the value of the rule established in Deuteronomy and considers it binding. If someone wants to divorce—he asserts—at least respect the rights of women! The tolerance manifested by Moses, however, is not the perfect expression of God’soriginal plan.
After clarifying the meaning of the Old Testament provision, Jesus invites us to go beyond the norm and to consider sexuality in the light, not of foolish reasoning and deteriorating behavior introduced by people, but of God’s plan, revealed from the very first chapters of Genesis: “But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female. For this reason, a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, no human being must separate” (vv. 6-9).
This last injunction, put together by Jesus with the quotation from Genesis, could not but leave astonished his interlocutors who considered divorce, in certain situations, not only a right but a duty. The Rabbis taught that the first precept given by God is that of procreation: “Be fruitful and multiply” (Gen 1:28), and they considered this duty so fundamental that, if children were not born in a marriage, the husband had to send his wife back to have children with another woman.
Jesus takes a break from this traditional conception of his people and affirms, in the most resolute way, that no divorce is part of God’s plan. Men introduced repudiation, which is an attempt to destroy the work of the Lord, who united man and woman in one flesh.
With Jesus, the kingdom of God has come into the world, the prophecies have been fulfilled, and people have been given “a new heart and a new spirit”; from them has been taken away “the heart of stone and put on a heart of flesh” (Ezk 36:26; Jer 31:31-34). The time has come to say no to compromises, pettiness, and deceptions and to aim at the ideal indicated in the beginning by the Creator.
Only monogamous and indissoluble marriage respects God’s plan and achieves the purpose of making people ‘male and female.’ Even if very ancient and culturally explicable, all other forms of cohabitation do not respect the dignity of man and woman.
Faced with the harsh and uncompromising position of the Master, not only the Pharisees but also the disciples were perplexed, almost shocked. When they returned home, they questioned him again on the subject. But Jesus reaffirms: “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her” and adds: “and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery” (vv. 11-12). This affirmation establishes –a phenomenon unheard of until that moment—the perfect equality of rights and duties of man and woman.
How should it be interpreted? Christ did not impose a new law more rigorous than Moses’s; he only recalled God’s original plan that does not contemplate repudiation. The goal is very high, but the steps of people are often uncertain. Since only God knows the frailty of each person, no one can set himself up as a judge of his brothers and sisters; no one has the right to assess their faults and pronounce condemnations. Concrete situations must always be approached with prudence, and each brother or sister must be understood, accompanied, and helped so that he or she can give the best of himself/herself. Showing understanding and patience does not mean softening the Gospel’s demands or adapting to current morality but showing pastoral wisdom.
In the last part of today’s Gospel (vv. 13-16), Jesus takes up the image of the children and invites the disciples to accept the kingdom of God as their own. Those who feel like adults, those who trust in their wisdom, and those who have become sclerotic in their convictions and do not accept that the word of Christ challenges them will never enter the kingdom of God. To understand the indissolubility of marriage, it is necessary to become children again and trust the Father’s thoughts.
The Two Shall Become One Flesh:
“Rediscover the Art of Repairing!”
Fr. Raniero Cantalamessa
The topic of this 27th Sunday of Ordinary Time is marriage. The first reading (Genesis 2:18-24) begins with the well-known words: “The Lord God said, ‘It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.'”
In our days the evil of marriage is separation and divorce, whereas in the time of Jesus it was repudiation. In a certain sense, the latter was a worse evil, because it also implied an injustice in regard to the woman, which, sadly, persists in certain cultures. Man, in fact, had the right to repudiate his wife, but the wife did not have the right to repudiate her husband.
There were two opposite opinions in Judaism, in regard to repudiation. According to one of them, it was lawful to repudiate one’s wife for any reason, hence, at the discretion of the husband. According to another, however, a grave reason was necessary, established by the law.
One day they subjected Jesus to this question, hoping that he would adopt a position in favor of one or the other thesis. However, they received an answer they did not expect: “Because of the hardness of your hearts he [Moses] wrote you this commandment. But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother (and be joined to his wife), and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, no human being must separate.”
The law of Moses about repudiation is seen by Christ as an unwanted disposition, but tolerated by God (as polygamy and other disorders), because of hardness of heart and human immaturity. Jesus did not criticize Moses for the concession made; he recognized that in this matter the human lawmaker cannot fail to keep in mind the reality in fact.
However, he re-proposed to all the original ideal of the indissoluble union between man and woman — “one flesh” — that, at least for his disciples, must be the only form possible of marriage.
However, Jesus did not limit himself to reaffirming the law; he added grace to it. This means that Christian spouses not only have the duty to remain faithful until death; they also have the necessary aids to do so. From Christ’s redeeming death comes a strength — the Holy Spirit — which permeates every aspect of the believer’s life, including marriage. The latter is even raised to the dignity of a sacrament and of living image of the spousal union with the Church on the cross (Ephesians 5:31-32).
To say that marriage is a sacrament does not only mean — as often believed — that in it the union of the sexes is permitted, licit and good, which outside of it would be disorder and sin; it means even more yet, to say that marriage becomes a way of being united to Christ through love of the other, a real path of sanctification.
This positive view is the one that Benedict XVI happily showed in his encyclical “Deus Caritas Est” on love and charity. In it the Pope does not compare the indissoluble union in marriage to another form of erotic love; but presents it as the most mature and perfect form, not only from the Christian, but also from the human point of view.
“It is part of love’s growth toward higher levels and inward purification that it now seeks to become definitive, and it does so in a twofold sense: both in the sense of exclusivity (this particular person alone) and in the sense of being ‘forever.’ Love embraces the whole of existence in each of its dimensions, including the dimension of time. It could hardly be otherwise, since its promise looks toward its definitive goal: love looks to the eternal” (No. 60).
This ideal of conjugal fidelity has never been easy (adultery is a word that resounds ominously even in the Bible!). But today the permissive and hedonist culture in which we live has made it immensely more difficult. The alarming crisis that the institution of marriage is going through in our society is easy for all to see.
Civil laws, such as that in Spain, permit (and indirectly, in this way, encourage!) beginning divorce proceedings just a few months after life in common. Words like: “I am sick of this life,” “I’m going,” “If it’s like this, each one on his own!” are uttered between spouses at the first difficulty.
Let it be said in passing: I believe that Christian spouses should accuse themselves in confession of the simple fact of having uttered one of these words, because the sole fact of saying them is an offense to the unity, and constitutes a dangerous psychological precedent.
In this marriage suffers the common mentality of “use and discard.” If a device or tool is in some way damaged or dented, no thought is given to repairing it — those who did such repairs have disappeared — there is only thought of replacing it. Applied to marriage, this mentality is deadly.
What can be done to contain this tendency, cause of so much evil for society and so much sadness for children? I have a suggestion: Rediscover the art of repairing!
Replace the “use and discard” mentality with that of “use and repair.” Almost no one does repairs now. But if this art of repairing is no longer done for clothes, it must be practiced in marriage. Repair the big tears, and repair them immediately.
St. Paul gave very good counsels in this respect: “Be angry but do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger, and give no opportunity to the devil,” “forbearing one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other,” “Bear one another’s burdens” (Ephesians 4:26-27; Colossians 3:13; Galatians 6:2).
What is important is that one must understand that in this process of tears and repairs, of crises and surmounted obstacles, marriage is not exhausted, but is refined and improves. I perceive an analogy between the process that leads to a successful marriage and one that leads to holiness.
In their path toward perfection, the saints often go through the so-called dark night of the senses, in which they no longer experience any feeling, or impulse.
They have aridity, are empty, do everything through will power alone and with effort. After this, comes the “dark night of the spirit,” in which not only feelings enter into crisis, but also the intelligence and will. There is even doubt that one is on the right road; if it has not all been an error; complete darkness, endless temptations. They go forward only through faith.
Does everything end then? On the contrary! All this was but purification. After they have passed through these crises, the saints realize how much more profound and selfless their love of God now is, in relation to that of the beginning.
For many couples, it will not be difficult to recognize their own experience. They have also frequently gone through the night of the senses in their marriage, in which the latter have no rapture of ecstasy, and if there ever was, it is only a memory of the past. Some also experience the dark night of the spirit, the state in which the profoundest option is in crisis, and it seems that there is no longer anything in common.
If with good will and the help of someone these crises are surmounted, one realizes to what point the impulse and enthusiasm of the first days was but little compared to the stable love and communion matured over the years.
If at first husband and wife loved one another for the satisfaction it gave them, today perhaps they love one another a bit more with a love of tenderness, free of egoism and capable of compassion; they love one another for the things they have gone through and suffered together.
[Translation by ZENIT]
Mission is not to be ashamed to call them brothers and sisters
Romeo Ballan, mccj
By using a poetic and mythical language, God’s Word reveals to us the wonderful truths about the human person – man and woman – the family and cosmos. The first truth is that Adam did not create himself: It was God who created him (I reading). The word Adam, in this case, means both man and woman. This Adam (the man and the woman) lives in loneliness to which God finds a remedy: “It is not good that man should be alone: I will make him a helper suitable for him” (v. 18). If we keep to the biblical text, one could even say that not even God is enough to fill Adam’s loneliness. For his historical existence, Adam is also in need of things, animals, trees… which the Creator provides for him in abundance in the beauty of the universe, giving him even the power to give a name to all living being, that is the power to keep them under his control (v. 19). On the logic of biblical theology, such power of control on things created by God corresponds, obviously, to the human being in its completeness as man and woman, with the same dignity.
God, who called Adam to life, now calls him to communion, to a life of encounters and relationships which take the human person to his/her fullness and maturity. Adam, indeed, is not happy with his power over things: he looks for a suitable helper for him (v. 20), in complete otherness and equality. God himself presents to him such a helper, the woman, Eve, to whom he feels that he cannot give her a name , that is of having power over her, because he recognises her as equal to him, part of him: “bone of my bones, flesh of my flesh” (v. 23). They are both equal in dignity, called to full communion of life. The original plan of the Creator was wonderful but the human sin has come to ruin the equilibrium of the relationships among equals: the desire of control of one partner over the other has substituted the respect for the other, with its well-known and painful consequences. Jesus (Gospel), after reproaching his people for their “hardness of heart” (v. 5), tried to take them back to the original plan of God, but, unfortunately, with little success in his own time as well in our own time.
The Second Vatican Council has words which cast a light on the dignity of marriage and family: “The intimate partnership of married life and love has been established by the Creator and qualified by His laws, and is rooted in the conjugal covenant of irrevocable personal consent. Hence by that human act whereby spouses mutually bestow and accept each other a relationship arises which by divine will and in the eyes of society too is a lasting one. For the good of the spouses and their off-springs as well as of society, the existence of the sacred bond no longer depends on human decisions alone. For, God Himself is the author of matrimony, endowed as it is with various benefits and purposes. All of these have a very decisive bearing on the continuation of the human race, on the personal development and eternal destiny of the individual members of a family, and on the dignity, stability, peace and prosperity of the family itself and of human society as a whole” (Gaudium et Spes, 48). For this reason the prayer of the Church becomes more insistent, “so that man and woman may form one single life, the beginning of a free and necessary harmony which is achieved in love” (prayer).
The shared life of man and woman in marriage is not merely in view of the good of the couple, but it has a missionary influence on the children and the social and ecclesial milieu. After speaking about the family, Jesus turns immediately to the children and, generally speaking, to the weak and the poor, giving them affection, protection, respect and blessing (v. 13-16). Jesus has fully entered in the fabric and meanders of history of humankind, sympathising with it, sharing its origin and suffering. So much so that the author of the letter to the Hebrews (II reading), in moving words affirms that Christ “for this reason is not ashamed to call them brothers” (v. 11). Christ does not exclude anyone from this fraternal relationship, even the most blameworthy and distant person. He is always the most radical model for all missionaries. He is an invitation to all in this missionary month.
Pope Francis’ Reflection
In the Gospel of today’s Liturgy we see Jesus react somewhat unusually: He is indignant. And what is most surprising is that his indignation is not caused by the Pharisees who put him to the test with questions about the lawfulness of divorce, but by his disciples who, to protect him from the crowd of people, rebuke some children who had been brought to Jesus. In other words, the Lord is not angry with those who argue with him, but with those who, in order to relieve him of his burden, distance the children from him. Why? It is a good question: why does the Lord do this?
Let us remember — it was the Gospel reading of two Sundays ago — that while performing the gesture of embracing a child, Jesus had identified himself with the little ones: he had taught that it is indeed the little ones, namely, those who depend on others, who are in need and cannot reciprocate, that should be served first (cf. Mk 9:35-37). Those who seek God find him there, in the little ones, in those in need: in need not only of material goods, but of care and comfort, such as the sick, the humiliated, prisoners, immigrants, the incarcerated. He is there: in the little ones. This is why Jesus is indignant: any affront to a little one, a poor person, a child, a defenceless person, is done to him.
Today the Lord picks up this teaching again and completes it. In fact, he adds: “Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it” (Mk 10:15). Here is what is new: the disciple must not only serve the little ones, but also acknowledge himself as a little one. And does each of us recognise ourselves as being little before God? Let us think about this, it will help us. Awareness of being little, awareness of being in need of salvation is indispensable in welcoming the Lord. It is the first step in opening ourselves up to him. Often, however, we forget about this. In prosperity, in well-being, we have the illusion of being self-sufficient, that we suffice to ourselves, that we do not need God. Brothers and sisters, this is a deception, because each one of us is a person in need, a little one. We must seek out our own smallness and recognise it. And there, we will find Jesus.
In life, recognising oneself as little, is a starting point for growing. If we think about it, we grow, not so much on the basis of our successes and the things we have, but above all in difficult and fragile moments. There, in our need, we mature; there we open our hearts to God, to others, to the meaning of life. Let us open our eyes to others. Let us open our eyes, when we are little, to the true meaning of life. When we feel small in the face of a problem, small in front of a cross, an illness, when we experience fatigue and loneliness, let us not be discouraged. The mask of superficiality is falling away and our radical fragility is re-emerging: it is our common ground, our treasure, because with God frailty is not an obstacle but an opportunity. This would be a beautiful prayer: “Lord, look at my frailties…” and list them before him. This is a good attitude before God.
Indeed, it is precisely in our frailty that we discover how much God takes care of us. The Gospel today says that Jesus is very tender with the little ones: “he took them in his arms and blessed them, laying his hands upon them” (v. 16). The difficulties and situations that reveal our frailties are privileged opportunities to experience his love. Those who pray with perseverance know this well: in dark or lonely moments, God’s tenderness towards us makes itself, so to speak, even more present. When we are little, we feel God’s tenderness more. This tenderness gives us peace; this tenderness makes us grow, because God draws close to us in his way, which is nearness, compassion and tenderness. And, when we feel we are little, small, for whatever reason, the Lord comes closer, we feel he is closer. He gives us peace; he makes us grow. In prayer the Lord draws us close to him, like a father with his child. This is how we grow: not in the illusory pretence of our self-sufficiency — this makes no one grow — but in the strength of placing all our hope in the Father, just like the little ones do; they do this.
Today let us ask the Virgin Mary for a huge grace, that of littleness: to be children who trust the Father, certain that he will not fail to take care of us.
Angelus, 3/10/2021
