Archbishop of Sydney

32nd Sunday in Ordinary Time

St. Mary’s Cathedral, Sydney
1 Kg 17:10-16; Heb 9:24-28; Mk 12:38-44

By + Cardinal George Pell
Archbishop of Sydney
12/11/2006

St. Paul told the people of Corinth that God loves a cheerful giver and generosity is the central theme in the first reading and the second half of today’s gospel, although neither of the widows commended appears to have been particularly cheerful!

At this stage in the sequence of readings the Old Testament prophet Elijah from the ninth century B.C. makes only the briefest appearance as a backdrop for and as the instigator of the widow’s generosity.  Elijah in many ways is a contemporary figure, not simply because of the many years of drought be called down on the people for their sins but because of his successful battle against the prophets of Baal to vindicate the claims of the one true God.

While the percentage of Australians who said explicitly that they had no religion dropped dropped in the 2001 census for the first time in 100 years (more recently it had been increasing dramatically), we could do with a few successful Elijah’s to persuade people of the importance of faith.  It will be interesting to see what the figures for unbelievers are when the results of this year’s census are published next year.

Here Elijah persuades a woman to share the little food she has for herself and her son.  And she does this fully expecting to die in the famine the drought has induced.

She shares the little she has, she gives what she cannot afford to share and the store of food for herself and her son is miraculously replenished every time she uses it.

The New Testament story of Jesus watching the donors at the great temple in Jerusalem has many similarities, although Jesus works no miracle to reward the generosity of the poor widow.

The incident appears to be straight forward and the message from it quite straight forward too, although it has provoked significant differences among the commentators.

Part of the difficulty comes from the ordering of the teachings and events in this chapter of Mark.  Why are they grouped in this way and what points was Mark trying to emphasise?

It is occasionally suggested that Mark portrays Jesus as being hostile to the Temple and all it stands for, but this is an oversimplification and a distortion.  Our Lord was passionately devoted to the purity of worship; determined that the priests, scribes and Pharisees be genuine in their religious teaching and enthusiasm and not using their religious position for personal financial gain, nor to boost their egos and separate themselves from the also-rans.

This is straight forward enough but its connection with the widow’s generosity is not immediately clear, which is an example of the genuine faith in God and generosity the Temple was able to inspire.

Biblical scholars have noted that the scribes are seen as Jesus’ principal opponents in Mark’s gospel, mentioned nearly twice as many times as the Pharisees and the High priests and much more frequently than the elders and the Herodians.

The Pharisees had a more highly regarded position as interpreters of the law and tradition, which the scribes were lower in the pecking order as writers or bookmen, recorders or collectors of opinions on the Jewish teachings. They were often argumentative and keen to inflate their importance. Not surprisingly in many of the country areas where Jesus travelled to preach, they would have been his regular opponents.

As the Temple in Jerusalem still existed, the synagogues were not primarily places of worship, but places of learning and instruction.

We often fail to notice how much Judaism has changed since Jesus’ time.  The Temple in Jerusalem has not been rebuilt since its destruction by Vespasian and Titus in 70 A.D., as the site is now occupied by a Moslem shrine.  There is now no priesthood and no sacrifice offered.  It is a little bit like the Catholic religion being continued only by pastoral associates, but these differences should not detain us at this point!

Whatever the exact historical meaning is of “swallowing the property of widows” the general point that vulnerable persons should not be exploited by religious officials is clear enough; and necessary in every age.

I do not believe there is any reason to believe that Our Lord was hostile to the generosity of the rich.  Nor do I believe that he was advocating imprudence; that a person should give to the detriment of her personal and family responsibilities.

Part of what Jesus was pointing out is that mean people rarely find themselves in a position where they can afford to give, while generous people, perhaps especially if they are poor, are regularly able to find something for others.

Christians are called to be givers, not takers, whether we are young or old, rich or poor.  Young Christians and Catholics are called to learn the art of generosity by starting young, by helping others from their small store of pocket money or what they earn from part-time work.

It is not unchristian to be rich, although being rich can be dangerous for our faith and our salvation.  But it is deeply unchristian to be rich and mean and it is unchristian also to be poor and mean.

If we cannot manage to be cheerful givers, we should still give!

In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.  Amen.