1. In the Gospels we find another fact that attests to Jesus' consciousness of possessing divine authority, and the persuasion that the evangelists and the early Christian community had of this authority. In fact, the Synoptics agree that Jesus' listeners "were amazed at his teaching, because he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes" (Mk 1:22; Mt 7:29; Lk 4:32). This is valuable information that Mark gives us from the very beginning of his Gospel. It attests to the fact that the people had immediately grasped the difference between Christ's teaching and that of the Israelite scribes, and not only in the manner, but in the very substance: the scribes based their teaching on the text of the Mosaic Law, of which they were the interpreters and commentators; Jesus did not at all follow the method of a "teacher" or a "commentator" of the ancient Law, but behaved like a legislator and, ultimately, like one who had authority over the Law. Note: the listeners were well aware that this was the divine Law, given by Moses by virtue of a power that God himself had granted him as his representative and mediator with the people of Israel.

The evangelists and the first Christian community who reflected on that observation of the listeners about Jesus' teaching, realised even better its full significance, because they could compare it with the whole of Christ's subsequent ministry. For the Synoptics and their readers, it was therefore logical to move from the affirmation of a power over the Mosaic Law and the entire Old Testament to that of the presence of a divine authority in Christ. And not just as in an Envoy or Legate of God as had been the case with Moses: Christ, by attributing to himself the power to authoritatively complete and interpret, or even give in a new way, the Law of God, showed his consciousness of being "equal to God" (cf. Phil 2:6).

2. That Christ's power over the Law entails divine authority is shown by the fact that he does not create another Law by abolishing the old one: "Think not that I am come to abolish the law or the prophets; I am not come to abolish but to fulfil" (Mt 5:17). It is clear that God could not 'abolish' the Law that he himself gave. It can instead - as Jesus Christ does - clarify its full meaning, make its proper sense understood, correct the false interpretations and arbitrary applications, to which the people and their own teachers and leaders, yielding to the weaknesses and limitations of the human condition, have bent it.

This is why Jesus announces, proclaims and demands a "righteousness" that is superior to that of the scribes and Pharisees (cf. Mt 5:20), the "righteousness" that God Himself has proposed and demands with the faithful observance of the Law in order to the "kingdom of heaven". The Son of Man thus acts as a God who re-establishes what God willed and placed once and for all.

3. In fact, of the Law of God he first proclaims: "Verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass away, not one iota or one sign of the law shall pass away, and all things shall be fulfilled" (Mt 5:18). It is a drastic declaration, with which Jesus wants to affirm both the substantial immutability of the Mosaic Law and the messianic fulfilment it receives in his word. This is a "fullness" of the Old Law, which he, teaching "as one having authority" over the Law, shows to be manifested above all in love of God and neighbour. "On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets" (Mt 22:40). It is a matter of a "fulfilment" corresponding to the "spirit" of the Law, which already transpires from the "letter" of the Old Testament, which Jesus grasps, synthesises, and proposes with the authority of one who is Lord also of the Law. The precepts of love, and also of hope-generating faith in the messianic work, which he adds to the ancient Law by explicating its content and developing its hidden virtues, are also a fulfilment.

His life is a model of this fulfilment, so that Jesus can say to his disciples not only and not so much: Follow my Law, but: Follow me, imitate me, walk in the light that comes from me.

4. The Sermon on the Mount, as it is reported by Matthew, is the place in the New Testament where one sees clearly affirmed and decisively exercised by Jesus the power over the Law that Israel has received from God as the hinge of the covenant. It is there that, after having declared the perennial value of the Law and the duty to observe it (Mt 5:18-19), Jesus goes on to affirm the need for a "justice" superior to "that of the scribes and Pharisees", that is, an observance of the Law animated by the new evangelical spirit of charity and sincerity.

The concrete examples are well known. The first consists in the victory over wrath, resentment, and malice that easily lurk in the human heart, even when an outward observance of the Mosaic precepts can be exhibited, including the precept not to kill: "You have heard that it was said to the ancients, 'You shall not kill; whoever kills shall be brought into judgment. But I say to you, whoever is angry with his brother will be brought into judgment" (Matt 5:21-22). The same thing applies to those who offend another with insulting words, with jokes and mockery. It is the condemnation of every yielding to the instinct of aversion, which potentially is already an act of injury and even of killing, at least spiritually, because it violates the economy of love in human relationships and harms others, and to this condemnation Jesus intends to counterpose the Law of charity that purifies and reorders man down to the innermost feelings and movements of his spirit. Of fidelity to this Law Jesus makes an indispensable condition of the same religious practice: "If therefore you present your offering at the altar and there you remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar, and go first to be reconciled with your brother and then return to offer your gift" (Mt 5:23-24). Since it is a law of love, it is even irrelevant who it is that has something against the other in his heart: the love preached by Jesus equals and unifies all in wanting good, in establishing or restoring harmony in relations with one's neighbour, even in cases of disputes and legal proceedings (cf. Mt 5:25).

5. Another example of perfecting the Law is that of the sixth commandment of the Decalogue, in which Moses forbade adultery. With hyperbolic and even paradoxical language, designed to draw attention and shake the mood of his listeners, Jesus announces. "You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery, but I say to you . . ." (Mt 5:27); and he also condemns impure looks and desires, while recommending the flight from opportunities, the courage of mortification, the subordination of all acts and behaviour to the demands of the salvation of the soul and of the whole man (cf. Mt 5:29-30).

This case is related in a certain way to another one that Jesus immediately addresses: "It was also said: Whoever repudiates his wife, let him give her the act of repudiation; but I say to you . . ." and declares forfeited the concession made by the ancient Law to the people of Israel "because of hardness of heart" (cf. Mt 19:8), prohibiting also this form of violation of the law of love in harmony with the re-establishment of the indissolubility of marriage (cf. Mt 19:9).

6. By the same token, Jesus contrasts the ancient prohibition against perjury with the prohibition not to swear at all (Mt 5:33-38), and the reason that emerges quite clearly is still founded in love: one must not be unbelieving or distrustful of one's neighbour when he is habitually frank and loyal, and rather one must on the one hand and on the other follow this fundamental law of speech and action: "Let your language be yes, if it is yes; no, if it is no. The more is from the evil one" (Mt 5:37).

[John Paul II, General Audience 14 October 1987]

Today’s liturgy presents us with another passage of the Sermon on the Mount, which we find in the Gospel of Matthew (cf. 5:17-37). In this passage, Jesus wants to help his listeners to reread the Mosaic law. What had been said in the ancient covenant was true, but that was not all: Jesus came to bring to fulfillment and to promulgate in a definitive way the Law of God, up to the last iota (cf. v. 18). He manifests its original aims and fulfils its authentic aspects, and he does all this through his preaching and, even more, with the offering of himself on the Cross. In this way, Jesus teaches how to fully carry out God’s will, and he uses these words: with a ‘righteousness’ that ‘exceeds’ that of the scribes and the Pharisees (cf. v. 20). A righteousness enlivened by love, charity, mercy, and hence capable of fulfilling the substance of the commandments, avoiding the risk of formalism. Formalism: this I can, this I cannot; up to this point I can, up to this point I cannot.... No: more, more.

In particular, in today’s Gospel, Jesus examines three aspects, three commandments [that regard] murder, adultery and swearing.

With regard to the commandment ‘you shall not kill’, he states that it is violated not only by murder in effect, but also by those behaviours that offend the dignity of the human person, including insulting words (cf. v. 22). Of course, these insulting words do not have the same gravity and culpability as killing, but they are set along the same line, because they are the pretext to it and they reveal the same malevolence. Jesus invites us not to establish a ranking of offences, but to consider all of them damaging, inasmuch as they are driven by the intent to do harm to one’s neighbour. Jesus gives an example. Insulting: we are accustomed to insulting; it is like saying “good morning”. And that is on the same line as killing. One who insults his brother, in his heart kills his brother. Please do not insult! We do not gain anything....

Another fulfillment is generated by the matrimonial law. Adultery was considered a violation of man’s property right over the woman. Instead, Jesus goes to the root of the evil. As one comes to killing through injuries, offences and insults, in this way one reaches adultery through covetous intentions in regard to a woman other than one’s own wife. Adultery, like theft, corruption and all the other sins, are first conceived in the depth of our being and, once the wrong choice is made in the heart, it is carried out in concrete behaviour. Jesus says: one who looks with a covetous spirit at a woman who is not his own is an adulterer in his heart, has set off on the path towards adultery. Let us think a little bit about this: about the wicked thoughts that go along this line.

Jesus then tells his disciples not to swear, as swearing is a sign of the insecurity and duplicity with which human relationships unfold. God’s authority is exploited so as to guarantee our human narrative. Instead, we are called to establish among ourselves, in our families and in our communities, a climate of clarity and mutual trust, so that we can be considered sincere without resorting to greater tactics in order to be believed. Mistrust and mutual suspicion always threaten peace!

May the Virgin Mary, a woman of listening and joyful obedience, help us to draw ever closer to the Gospel, to be Christians not ‘of façade’, but of substance! This is possible with the grace of the Holy Spirit, who allows us to do everything with love, and thus to wholly fulfil the will of God.

[Pope Francis, Angelus 12 February 2017]

(Mt 5:27-32)

In Semitic matrimonial law, woman was valued as property of her husband: she was not considered a juridical person, but a man’s possession, who could dominate her.

Also in the First Testament the adultery’ sin was evaluated as a sort of serious violation of the male’s right of property, as well as impurity of blood [the mixing of which was abhorred].

It may seem strange to our mentality, but this had greater weight than the same moral transgression.

Jesus instead reveals the value of the person as such.

He brings to the fore the sense of approaches and violations that harm and offend the existence of the weak.

Even introduces the announcement of equal dignity between man and woman.

Marriage is community of love, not union that can be dissolved by caprice and material calculation.

Situation that will eventually censor the defenseless woman - who then [abandoned] for a living will be condemned to suffer other violations of herself (v.32).

With sharp words, the Lord recalls the need for a harsh intransigence towards every pedestrian deviation of selfishness, which humiliates the innocent without safeguards.

To save love and give it vigour, the Master also proposes painful amputations. Making the most serious sacrifices can free the "strong" from his delirium.

An attraction without self-giving doesn’t express the person to the person, it’s the unripe fruit of wandering immaturity and leads to alienation.

The woman - that is, the weak and innocent, who loves more and seriously - is not a creature liable to mockery, nor reducible to possession, what, consumer good, only useful to the landlord.

Albertine Tshibilondi Ngoyi writes as follows:

«The African woman is neither a reflection of the man nor a slave. She has no need to imitate man in order to express her personality. She secretes an original civilization with her work, her personal genius, her concerns, her language and her customs. She did not allow herself to be colonized by man and by the prestige of male civilization».

To internalize and live the message:

Do you have a look that opens the door to betrayal? Don’t you think it manifests in action a lightness of approach and a poor choice of life?

Don't you think that the disintegrated heart is a sign of a deeper restlessness and dissatisfaction, which goes beyond moral infidelity?

Do you reflect on how to invest the energies that travel your call and mission?

[Friday 10th wk. in O.T.  June 13, 2025]

The term agape, which appears many times in the New Testament, indicates the self-giving love of one who looks exclusively for the good of the other. The word eros, on the other hand, denotes the love of one who desires to possess what he or she lacks and yearns for union with the beloved. The love with which God surrounds us is undoubtedly agape. Indeed, can man give to God some good that he does not already possess? All that the human creature is and has is divine gift. It is the creature, then, who is in need of God in everything. But God's love is also eros. In the Old Testament, the Creator of the universe manifests toward the people whom he has chosen as his own a predilection that transcends every human motivation. The prophet Hosea expresses this divine passion with daring images such as the love of a man for an adulterous woman (cf. 3: 1-3). For his part, Ezekiel, speaking of God's relationship with the people of Israel, is not afraid to use strong and passionate language (cf. 16: 1-22). These biblical texts indicate that eros is part of God's very Heart: the Almighty awaits the "yes" of his creatures as a young bridegroom that of his bride. Unfortunately, from its very origins, mankind, seduced by the lies of the Evil One, rejected God's love in the illusion of a self-sufficiency that is impossible (cf. Gn 3: 1-7). Turning in on himself, Adam withdrew from that source of life who is God himself, and became the first of "those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong bondage" (Heb 2: 15). God, however, did not give up. On the contrary, man's "no" was the decisive impulse that moved him to manifest his love in all of its redeeming strength.

[Pope Benedict, Message for Lent 2007]

Building the new ethical sense through the rediscovery of values

1. We come in our analysis to the third part of Christ's statement in the Sermon on the Mount (Mt 5:27-28). The first part was: "You have heard that it was said: you shall not commit adultery. The second: "But I say to you, whoever looks at a woman to lust after her", is grammatically connected to the third: "he has already committed adultery with her in his heart".

The method applied here, which is to divide, to "break" Christ's utterance into three parts, which follow one another, may seem artificial. However, when we are looking for the ethical sense of the whole utterance, in its entirety, the division of the text we use can be useful, provided it is not applied disjunctively but subjunctively. And this is what we intend to do. Each of the distinct parts has its own content and connotations that are specific to it, and this is precisely what we wish to emphasise by dividing the text; but at the same time it should be pointed out that each of the parts is explained in direct relation to the others. This refers in the first place to the main semantic elements by which the utterance constitutes a whole. Here are these elements: committing adultery, desiring, committing adultery in the body, committing adultery in the heart. It would be particularly difficult to establish the ethical meaning of 'desiring' without the element indicated here last, namely 'adultery in the heart'. The preceding analysis has already taken this element into account to a certain degree; however a fuller understanding of the component: "committing adultery in the heart" is only possible after a special analysis.

2.

As we already mentioned at the beginning, it is a question here of establishing the ethical sense. Christ's statement in Matthew 5: 27-28 begins with the commandment "Thou shalt not commit adultery", to show how it is to be understood and put into practice, so that the "righteousness" that God Yahweh as Lawgiver willed abounds in it: so that it abounds to a greater extent than the interpretation and casuistry of the Old Testament doctors. If Christ's words in this sense tend to build the new ethos (and on the basis of the commandment itself), the way to this is through the rediscovery of values, which - in the general anti-Constitution understanding and application of this commandment - have been lost.

3.

From this point of view, the wording of Matthew 5: 27-28 is also significant. The commandment 'thou shalt not commit adultery' is formulated as an interdiction that categorically excludes a certain moral evil. It is well known that the Law itself (Decalogue), besides the prohibition "thou shalt not commit adultery" also includes the prohibition "thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife" ( Ex 20:14 . 17 ; Deut 5:18 . 21 ). Christ does not nullify one prohibition over the other. Although it speaks of "desire", it tends towards a deeper clarification of "adultery". It is significant that after he mentions the prohibition "not to commit adultery", as known to his listeners, he later changes his style and logical structure from normative to narrative-affirmative. When it says: "Whoever looks at a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart", it describes an inner fact, the reality of which can be easily understood by the hearers. At the same time, through the fact thus described and qualified, he indicates how the commandment "thou shalt not commit adultery" is to be understood and put into practice, so that it leads to the "righteousness" desired by the Lawgiver.

4.

Thus we come to the expression 'he committed adultery in his heart', a key expression, as it seems, to understand its proper ethical meaning. This expression is at the same time the main source for revealing the essential values of the new ethos: of the ethos of the Sermon on the Mount. As is often the case in the Gospel, here too we encounter a certain paradox. How, in fact, can "adultery" take place without "committing adultery", that is, without the outward act, which enables the act prohibited by the Law to be identified? We have seen how committed the casuistry of the "doctors of the Law" was to specifying this problem. But even irrespective of the casuistry, it seems evident that adultery can only be detected "in the flesh" (cf. Gen 2:24 ), i.e. when the two: man and woman, who are joined together so as to become one flesh, are not legal spouses: husband and wife. What meaning, then, can "adultery committed in the heart" have? Is this not a merely metaphorical expression, used by the Master to highlight the sinfulness of concupiscence?

5.If we were to admit such a semantic reading of Christ's statement ( Mt 5:27-28 ), we would have to reflect deeply on the ethical consequences that would follow, i.e. the conclusions regarding the ethical regularity of the behaviour. Adultery occurs when the two: man and woman, who are joined together so as to become one flesh (cf. Gen 2:24 ), i.e. in the proper manner of spouses, are not legal spouses. The identification of adultery as a sin committed 'in the body' is strictly and exclusively linked to the 'outward' act, to marital cohabitation, which also refers to the status of the acting persons, recognised by society. In the case in question, this state is improper and does not authorise such an act (hence the name: "adultery").

6.

Moving on to the second part of Christ's utterance (i.e. the part in which the new ethos begins to take shape), one would have to understand the expression: "whoever looks at a woman to lust", in the exclusive reference to persons according to their marital status, i.e. recognised by society, whether or not they are married. Here the questions begin to multiply. Since there can be no doubt that Christ indicates the sinfulness of the inward act of concupiscence expressed through the gaze directed at any woman who is not the wife of the man who looks at her in this way, we can and even must ask ourselves whether by the same expression Christ admits and substantiates such a gaze, such an inward act of concupiscence, directed at the woman who is the wife of the man who looks at her in this way. In favour of an affirmative answer to this question seems to be the following logical premise: (in the present case) only the man who is the potential subject of 'adultery in the flesh' can commit 'adultery in the heart'. Since this person cannot be the man-husband with regard to his lawful wife, therefore the 'adultery in the heart' cannot refer to him, but can be blamed on any other man. If a husband, he may not commit it with regard to his wife. He alone has the exclusive right to 'desire', to 'look with concupiscence' at the woman who is his wife, and it can never be said that because of such an interior act he deserves to be accused of 'adultery committed in the heart'. If by virtue of marriage he has the right to "unite himself with his wife", so that "the two shall be one flesh", this act can never be called "adultery"; similarly, the inner act of "lust" referred to in the Sermon on the Mount cannot be called "adultery committed in the heart".

7.

This interpretation of Christ's words in Matthew 5: 27-28, seems to correspond to the logic of the Decalogue, in which, in addition to the commandment "thou shalt not commit adultery" (VI), there is also the commandment "thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife" (IX). Moreover, the reasoning that has been made in its support has all the characteristics of objective correctness and accuracy. Nevertheless, it remains open to question whether this reasoning takes into account all the aspects of revelation as well as the theology of the body that must be considered, especially when we want to understand Christ's words. We have already seen above what is the "specific weight" of this locution, how rich are the anthropological and theological implications of the only phrase in which Christ returns "to the origin" (cf. Mt 19:8 ). The anthropological and theological implications of the utterance of the Sermon on the Mount, in which Christ appeals to the human heart, also give the utterance a "specific weight" of its own, and at the same time determine its coherence with the whole of the Gospel teaching. And so we must admit that the interpretation presented above, with all its objective correctness and logical precision, requires some broadening and, above all, deepening. We must remember that the appeal to the human heart, expressed perhaps paradoxically (cf. Mt 5:27-28 ), comes from the One who "knew what is in every man" ( Jn 2:25 ). And if His words confirm the commandments of the Decalogue (not only the sixth, but also the ninth), at the same time they express that science about man, which - as we have noted elsewhere - enables us to unite the awareness of human sinfulness with the prospect of the "redemption of the body" (cf. Rom 8:23 ). Precisely such "science lies at the foundation of the new ethos" that emerges from the words of the Sermon on the Mount.Taking all this into consideration, we conclude that, just as in understanding "adultery in the flesh" Christ subjects to criticism the erroneous and one-sided interpretation of adultery that results from the non-observance of monogamy (i.e. marriage understood as the indefectible covenant of persons), so too in understanding "adultery in the heart" Christ takes into consideration not only the actual legal status of the man and woman in question. Christ makes the moral evaluation of 'desire' depend above all on the personal dignity of the man and woman themselves; and this has its importance both when they are unmarried and - perhaps even more so - when they are married, wife and husband. From this point of view, we should complete our analysis of the words of the Sermon on the Mount, and we will do so next time.

[Pope John Paul II, General Audience 1 October 1980]

Psychological and theological interpretation of the concept of concupiscence

1. Today I would like to complete the analysis of the words uttered by Christ in the Sermon on the Mount about "adultery" and "concupiscence", and in particular the last component of the utterance, in which "concupiscence of the eye" is specifically defined as "adultery committed in the heart".

We have already noted above that the above words are usually understood as the desire for another's wife (i.e. according to the spirit of the 9th commandment of the Decalogue). It seems, however, that this - more restrictive - interpretation can and should be broadened in the light of the global context. It seems that the moral evaluation of concupiscence (of "looking in order to lust"), which Christ calls "adultery committed in the heart", depends above all on the personal dignity of the man and woman themselves; this applies both to those who are not joined in marriage, and - and perhaps even more so - to those who are husband and wife.

2.

The analysis we have made so far of the statement in Matthew 5:27-28: "You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery; but I say to you, whoever looks at a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart'", indicates the need to broaden and especially to deepen the interpretation presented above, regarding the ethical meaning that this statement contains. Let us dwell on the situation described by the Master, a situation in which the one who "commits adultery in his heart", by means of an inner act of concupiscence (expressed by looking), is the man. It is significant that Christ, when speaking of the object of such an act, does not emphasise that it is "someone else's wife", or the woman who is not one's own wife, but says generically: the woman. Adultery committed 'in the heart' is not circumscribed within the limits of the interpersonal relationship. It is not these limits that decide exclusively and essentially the adultery committed "in the heart", but the very nature of concupiscence, expressed in this case through the gaze, that is, through the fact that that man - of whom, by way of example, Christ speaks - "looks to lust". Adultery 'in his heart' is committed not only because the man 'looks' in this way at the woman who is not his wife, but precisely because he looks at a woman in this way. Even if he were to look in this way at the woman who is his wife, he would commit the same adultery "in the heart".

3.

This interpretation seems to take into account, in a broader way, what has been said in the present analysis on concupiscence, and in the first place on the concupiscence of the flesh, as a permanent element of man's sinfulness (status naturae lapsae). The concupiscence that, as an interior act, arises from this basis (as we have tried to indicate in the previous analysis), changes the very intentionality of the woman's existence "for" the man, reducing the richness of the perennial call to communion of persons, the richness of the profound attraction of masculinity and femininity, to the mere gratification of the sexual "need" of the body (to which the concept of "instinct" seems to be more closely connected). Such a reduction means that the person (in this case, the woman) becomes for the other person (for the man) above all the object of the potential fulfilment of his own sexual 'need'. This deforms the reciprocal 'for', which loses its character of communion of persons in favour of the utilitarian function. The man who 'looks' in this way, as Matthew 5:27-28 writes, 'makes use' of the woman, of her femininity, to satisfy his own 'instinct'. Although he does not do so by an outward act, he has already assumed this attitude in his innermost being, inwardly so deciding with respect to a particular woman. This is precisely what adultery 'committed in the heart' consists of. Such adultery 'in the heart' can also be committed by the man with regard to his wife, if he treats her merely as an object of gratification of instinct.

4.

It is not possible to arrive at the second interpretation of the words of Matthew 5: 27-28, if we limit ourselves to the purely psychological interpretation of concupiscence, without taking into account what constitutes its specific theological character, namely the organic relationship between concupiscence (as an act) and the concupiscence of the flesh, as, so to speak, a permanent disposition that derives from man's sinfulness. It seems that the purely psychological (i.e. 'sexual') interpretation of 'concupiscence' is not a sufficient basis for understanding the relevant text of the Sermon on the Mount. If, on the other hand, we refer to the theological interpretation, - without underestimating what in the first interpretation (the psychological one) remains unchangeable - it, that is, the second interpretation (the theological one) appears to us as more complete. Thanks to it, the ethical significance of the key statement of the Sermon on the Mount, to which we owe the proper dimension of the ethos of the Gospel, also becomes clearer.

5.

In delineating this dimension, Christ remains faithful to the Law: "Think not that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I came not to abolish, but to fulfil" ( Mt 5:17 ). Consequently, it shows how much we need to go deeper, how much we need to thoroughly unveil the darkness of the human heart, so that this heart can become a place of 'fulfilment' of the Law. The statement of Matthew 5: 27-28, which makes manifest the inner perspective of adultery committed "in the heart" - and in this perspective points out the right ways to fulfil the commandment: "Thou shalt not commit adultery" - is a singular argument. This utterance ( Mt 5,27-28 ) in fact refers to the sphere in which "purity of heart" (cf. Mt 5,8 ) (an expression which in the Bible - as is well known - has a wide meaning) is particularly dealt with. We shall also have occasion elsewhere to consider how the commandment "Thou shalt not commit adultery" - which, in terms of the way it is expressed and its content, is an unequivocal and severe prohibition (like the commandment "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife") ( Ex 20:17 ) - is fulfilled precisely through "purity of heart". The severity and strength of the prohibition is indirectly testified to by the subsequent words of the text of the Sermon on the Mount, in which Christ speaks figuratively of "plucking out the eye" and "cutting off the hand", when these members were the cause of sin (cf. Mt 5:29-30 ). We noted earlier that the Old Testament legislation, while abounding in severe punishments, nevertheless did not contribute "to the fulfilment of the Law", because its casuistry was marked by multiple compromises with the concupiscence of the flesh. Christ, on the other hand, teaches that the commandment is fulfilled through "purity of heart", which is not imparted to man except at the price of firmness towards everything that originates from the concupiscence of the flesh. He acquires "purity of heart" who knows how to consistently demand it from his "heart" and from his "body".

6.

The commandment "Thou shalt not commit adultery" finds its justification in the indissolubility of marriage, in which man and woman, by virtue of the Creator's original design, are united so that "the two become one flesh" (cf. Gen 2:24 ). Adultery, by its very essence, contrasts with this unity, in the sense that this unity corresponds to the dignity of persons. Christ not only confirms this essential ethical meaning of the commandment, but tends to consolidate it in the very depths of the human person. The new dimension of the ethos is always connected with the revelation of that depth, which is called "heart" and with the liberation of it from "concupiscence", so that in that heart man can shine forth more fully: male and female in all the inner truth of their mutual "for". Freed from the constraint and impairment of the spirit that brings with it the concupiscence of the flesh, the human being: male and female, find themselves reciprocally in the freedom of the gift that is the condition of all cohabitation in truth, and, in particular, in the freedom of mutual self-giving, since both, as husband and wife, must form the sacramental unity willed, as Genesis 2,24 says, by the Creator himself.

7.

As is evident, the demand, which Christ poses in the Sermon on the Mount to all his current and potential listeners, belongs to the inner space in which man - the very one who listens to him - must see again the lost fullness of his humanity, and want to regain it. That fullness in the reciprocal relationship of persons: of man and woman, the Master vindicates in Matthew 5:27-28, having in mind above all the indissolubility of marriage, but also every other form of cohabitation of men and women, of that cohabitation which constitutes the pure and simple fabric of existence. Human life, by its very nature, is 'co-educative', and its dignity, its balance depend, at every moment in history and at every point of longitude and geographical latitude, on 'who' she will be to him, and he to her.

The words spoken by Christ in the Sermon on the Mount undoubtedly have such universal and at the same time profound significance. Only in this way can they be understood in the mouth of the One, who to the very depths "knew what is in every man" ( Jn 2:25 ), and who, at the same time, carried within himself the mystery of the "redemption of the body" as St. Paul would express it. Should we fear the severity of these words, or rather trust in their salvific content, in their power?In any case, the accomplished analysis of the words pronounced by Christ in the Sermon on the Mount opens the way to further reflections that are indispensable to be fully aware of 'historical' man, and especially of contemporary man: of his conscience and his 'heart'.

[Pope John Paul II, General Audience 8 October 1980]

A prayer "for discarded women, for used women, for girls who have to sell their dignity to get a job". The Pope asked for it in the homily of the Mass celebrated today at Santa Marta, in which, starting from today's Gospel, he recalled the words of Jesus: "Whoever looks at a woman to desire her has already committed adultery" and "whoever repudiates his wife exposes her to adultery". Women are "what all men lack to be the image and likeness of God", said Francis, according to Vatican news reports: Jesus pronounced strong, radical words that "changed history" because up until that moment woman "was second class", to put it mildly, "she was a slave", "she did not even enjoy full freedom". "And Jesus' doctrine on the woman changes history," the Pope commented, "And it is one thing the woman before Jesus, another thing the woman after Jesus. Jesus dignifies the woman and puts her on the same level as the man because he takes that first word of the Creator, both are 'the image and likeness of God', both; not first the man and then a little lower the woman, no, both. And the man without the woman beside him - whether as mother, as sister, as wife, as workmate, as friend - that man alone is not the image of God'. "In television programmes, in magazines, in newspapers," he denounced, "women are made to be seen as an object of desire, of use," as in a "supermarket". The woman, perhaps in order to sell a certain quality "of tomatoes", becomes precisely an object, "humiliated, without clothes", causing the teaching of Jesus who "dignified" her to fall.We don't have to go 'that far', the Pope pointed out: it also happens 'here, where we live', in 'offices', in 'firms', women are 'the object of that disposable philosophy', like waste material', where they don't even seem to be 'people'. "This is a sin against God the Creator, to reject woman because without her we males cannot be the image and likeness of God," Francis' warning, according to which "there is a fury against woman, an ugly fury. Even without saying it... But how often do girls have to sell themselves as disposable objects to get a job? How many times? 'Yes, father I heard in that country...'. Here in Rome. Do not go far".The Pope then wondered what we would see if we made a 'night pilgrimage' to certain places in the city, where 'so many women, so many migrants, so many non-migrants' are exploited 'as in a market': to these women, he continued, men 'approach not to say: 'Good evening', but 'How much do you cost?' And to those who wash their 'consciences' by calling them 'prostitutes', the Pontiff said: 'You have made her a prostitute, as Jesus says: whoever repudiates exposes her to adultery, because you do not treat the woman well, the woman ends up like that, even exploited, a slave, many times. So it is good to look at these women and think that, in the face of our freedom, they are slaves to this thought of discard'. All this, for the Pope, 'happens here, in Rome, it happens in every city, the anonymous women, the women - we can say - 'without a look' because shame covers the look, the women who do not know how to laugh and many of them do not know, do not know the joy of breast-feeding and of being called mother. But, even in daily life, without going to those places, this ugly thought of rejecting the woman, she is a second-class object". "This passage from the Gospel helps us to think in the market of women, in the market, yes, the trafficking, the exploitation, that is seen; also in the market that is not seen, what is done and not seen. The woman is trampled on because she is a woman," Francis' exhortation. Jesus, the Pope concluded, 'had a mother', he had 'many friends who followed him to help him in his ministry' and to support him. And he found 'so many despised, marginalised, discarded women', whom he lifted up with such 'tenderness', giving them back their dignity.

[Pope Francis, homily s. Martha; https://www.agensir.it/quotidiano/2018/6/15/papa-francesco-a-santa-marta-sfruttare-le-donne-e-peccato-contro-dio/]

Pentecost Sunday (Year C)  [8 June 2025]

May God bless us and the Virgin protect us! On the feast of Pentecost, like Mary and the apostles, let us prepare our hearts to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit who transforms us into fire and light of love. Today, the first reading and the responsorial psalm are common to years A, B, and C, while the second reading and the Gospel are different each year.

*First reading from the Acts of the Apostles (2:1-11)

Jerusalem is not only the city where Jesus instituted the Eucharist, died and rose again, but it is also the city where the Spirit was poured out upon humanity. It was the year of Jesus' death, but the people in the city had probably never heard of his death, let alone his resurrection, so the feast of Pentecost was like any other for them. The Jewish Pentecost was very important because it was the feast of the giving of the Law, one of the three feasts of the year for which people went on pilgrimage to Jerusalem, and the list of all the nationalities present on that occasion proves its great interest. For the disciples of Jesus, who had seen, heard and touched him after his resurrection, nothing was the same as before, even if they did not expect what was about to happen. Luke helps us to understand what is happening by choosing his words carefully and evoking at least these three texts from the Old Testament: the gift of the Law at Sinai, a prophecy of Joel, and the episode of the Tower of Babel. First of all, Sinai. The tongues of fire and the sound like a mighty wind recall what happened at Sinai when God gave the tablets of the Law to Moses (Exodus 19:16-19).  Following this line, Luke helps us understand that Pentecost was not simply a traditional pilgrimage, but a new Sinai, where God gave his Law to teach the people how to live in the Covenant. At Pentecost, He gave His own Spirit, and from then on, His Law, the only true path to freedom and happiness, was no longer written on stone tablets but in the hearts of men, as Ezekiel had prophesied (Ezekiel 11:19-20; 36:26-27). The prophet Joel: Luke certainly wanted to evoke a word of Joel: 'I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh, says God' (Joel 3:1), that is, on all humanity. For Luke, those devout Jews from all nations under heaven, as he calls them, are a symbol of the whole of humanity, for whom Joel's prophecy is finally fulfilled, and this means that the long-awaited 'Day of the Lord' has come. The Tower of Babel is an event that can be summarised in two acts: Act 1: Men, who speak the same language and the same words, decide to build an immense tower between the earth and the sky. Act 2: God stops them and scatters them across the earth, confusing their languages, and from that moment on they no longer understand each other. What is the meaning of this story? God certainly does not want to stifle man's potential, and if He intervenes, He does so to spare humanity the false path of single-minded thinking and a human project that excludes God. It is as if He were saying: you are seeking unity, which is a good thing, but you are going about it the wrong way, because unity in love does not come through standardisation, but through diversity. And this is the message of Pentecost: at Babel, humanity learns diversity; at Pentecost, it learns unity in diversity, 'conviviality' (as Don Tonino Bello writes), because all nations hear the proclamation, each in its own language, of the one message: 'Magnalia Dei, the great works of God' (Acts 2:11).

*Responsorial Psalm (103 (104), 1.24, 29-30, 31.34)

This psalm has 36 verses of praise and wonder at the works of God, a beautiful poem. It is proposed for the feast of Pentecost because Luke, in the book of the Acts of the Apostles, recounts that on the morning of Pentecost, the apostles, filled with the Holy Spirit, began to proclaim in all languages the 'great works of God' of creation. All civilisations have poems about the beauty of nature. In particular, a poem written by the famous pharaoh Akhenaten (Amenhotep IV) was found in Egypt in the tomb of a pharaoh, a hymn to the Sun God. Amenhotep IV lived around 1350 BC, at a time when the Jews were probably in Egypt and may have known this poem. There are similarities in style and vocabulary between the pharaoh's poem and Psalm 103/104, but what is interesting is to note the differences marked by God's revelation to the people of the Covenant. First difference: God alone is God, an essential difference for the faith of Israel: God is the only God, there are no others, and the sun is not a god. The account of creation in the book of Genesis puts the sun and moon in their place: they are not gods, but luminaries, themselves simple creatures. Several verses show God as the only Lord of creation using royal language: God presents himself as a magnificent, majestic and victorious king. Second peculiarity: Creation is all good, and here there is an echo of Genesis, which repeats tirelessly: 'And God saw that it was good'. This psalm evokes all the elements of creation with the same wonder: 'I rejoice in the Lord', and the psalmist adds (in a verse not read this Sunday): 'I will sing to the Lord as long as I live, I will sing praise to my God while I have my breath'. However, evil is not ignored: the end of the psalm mentions it and invokes its disappearance, since it was already understood in the Old Testament that evil does not come from God, because all creation is good and one day God will remove all evil from the earth: the victorious King will eliminate everything that hinders human happiness. Third peculiarity: Creation is continuous, not an act of the past, as if God had thrown the earth and man into space once and for all, but a perennial relationship between the Creator and his creatures. When we say in the Creed: "I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth," we are not only affirming our faith in an initial act, but we are recognising that we are in a necessary relationship with him, and this psalm reiterates this by speaking of God's constant action: "All wait for you... You hide your face, they are dismayed... You take away their breath, they die and return to their dust. You send forth your spirit, they are created, and you renew the face of the earth." Another peculiarity: Man is the culmination of creation. According to the Jewish faith, man is at the summit of creation, the king of creation, and for this reason he is filled with the breath of God. And this is precisely what we celebrate at Pentecost: the Spirit of God who is in us vibrates and resonates with man and with all creation, and the psalmist sings: 'Let God rejoice in his works! I rejoice in the Lord." In conclusion, creation makes sense in the light of the Covenant: In Israel, every reflection on creation is placed in the perspective of the Covenant, since Israel first experienced liberation by God and only afterwards meditated on creation in the light of this fundamental experience. There are visible traces of this in the psalm: First of all, the name of God used is always the famous tetragrammaton YHWH, which we translate as Lord, the name of the God of the Covenant, revealed to Moses. Furthermore, in the expression, 'Lord, my God, how great you are', the possessive is a reference to the Covenant, since God's plan in the Covenant was precisely this: 'You shall be my people, and I will be your God'. This promise is fulfilled in the gift of the Spirit to all flesh, as the prophet Joel proclaims, and every person is invited to receive the gift of the Spirit to become a true child of God.

*Second Reading from the Letter of Saint Paul the Apostle to the Romans (8:8–17)

 The main difficulty in this text lies in the word 'flesh', which in St Paul's vocabulary does not have the same meaning as in our vocabulary, where the two components of the human being, body and soul, are often contrasted, with the risk of misinterpreting what Paul means when he speaks of flesh and Spirit. What he calls 'flesh' is not what we call body, and what he calls 'Spirit' does not correspond to what we call soul; indeed, he specifies several times that it is the Spirit of God, 'the Spirit of Christ'. He does not contrast two words, 'flesh' and 'Spirit', but two expressions: 'living according to the flesh' and 'living according to the Spirit', that is, choosing between two ways of living, or rather deciding whom to follow and what course of action to take. Here we return to the theme of the two paths that every Jew, like St Paul, knows well: choosing between two paths, between two possible attitudes in the face of difficulties or trials: trust in God or distrust; the certainty of never feeling abandoned by God or the doubt and suspicion that God does not really seek our good; fidelity to his commandments because we trust him, or disobedience because we consider ourselves capable of autonomous decisions. The history of Israel in the Bible (think of Massah and Meribah in the Book of Exodus) presents numerous examples of mistrust in the face of life's trials, especially in the desert, where the people faced many trials, including hunger and thirst. When the people suspected that God had abandoned them, they put God and Moses on trial. Even Adam, faced with the limits placed on his desires, suspected and disobeyed the Lord. The temptation of Adam and Eve in Eden is repeated in our lives every day: it is the constant problem of trust and distrust, the so-called 'original' sin in the sense that it is at the root of all human disasters. Opposed to suspicion and rebellion against God is Christ's attitude of trust and submission because he knows that God's will is only good. Especially in the face of the challenges of pain in all its forms and death, there are two opposing attitudes that Paul calls 'living according to the flesh' or 'living according to the Spirit'. For him, living according to the flesh means behaving like slaves who do not trust and obey out of obligation or fear of punishment. "Living according to the Spirit," on the other hand, means "behaving like children," that is, weaving relationships of trust and tenderness which, following Christ's example, lead to life. Living under the influence of the flesh (i.e., in an attitude of distrust and disobedience towards God) leads to death, while living through the Spirit is to put to death the works of sin. In other words, the attitude of a slave is destructive, while the attitude of a child is the way to peace and happiness. The Spirit of God, who dwells in us through baptism, enables us to call God 'Abba-Father', and on the day when all humanity recognises God as Father, the divine plan will be fulfilled, and we will all enter into his glory together. A few verses later, Paul notes that creation eagerly awaits the revelation of the children of God. Finally, today's text reminds us that since we are children of God, we are also heirs of God, co-heirs with Christ, on condition that we suffer with him in order to be with him in glory. This text can be read in two ways: the slave imagines a God who sets conditions on inheritance; instead, the son considers God as Father even and above all in suffering. Suffering is inevitable, as it was for Christ, but lived with him and like him, it becomes a path to resurrection, and then 'on condition that we suffer with him' means: on condition that we are with him, that we remain united to him at all times, even in inevitable suffering.

*From the Gospel according to John (14:15-16, 23b-26)

 This well-known Gospel passage takes on new meaning today thanks to the other biblical texts proposed for the feast of Pentecost. For example, we are tempted to think of the Holy Spirit in terms of inspiration, ideas, discernment, intelligence, but for the feast of the gift of the Spirit, today's Gospel speaks only of love. Jesus says here that the Spirit of God is something else entirely: it is Love, Love personified. This means that on the morning of Pentecost in Jerusalem, when the disciples were filled with the Holy Spirit, it was love itself, which is God, that filled them. In the same way, we too, baptised and confirmed, know that our capacity to love is inhabited by the love of God himself. The responsorial psalm 103/104 reminds us of this when it proclaims: You send forth your Spirit, and we, created in the image of God, are called to resemble him more and more, constantly moulded by him in his image. The Spirit is the potter who works his clay, and every vessel becomes more and more refined in the hands of the craftsman. We are the clay in God's hands, so our likeness to Him is refined more and more as we allow ourselves to be transformed by the Spirit of Love. In the second reading, St. Paul speaks of our relationship with God, summarising it in one sentence: we are no longer slaves, but children of God, while in the Gospel, Jesus links our relationship with God to our relationship with our brothers and sisters: "If you love me, you will keep my commandments" (Jn 14:15), and we know well what his commandment is: 'that you love one another as I have loved you' (Jn 13:34).  If Jesus is referring to the gesture of washing feet, that is, to a decisive attitude of service, we can translate "if you love me, you will keep my commandments" as "if you love me, you will serve one another". God's love and love for our brothers and sisters are inseparable, so inseparable that it is by the quality of our service to our neighbour that the quality of our love for God is judged and therefore "if you do not serve your brothers and sisters, do not claim to love me!"  A little further on, Jesus takes up a similar expression and develops it: "If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him" (Jn 14:23). This does not mean that the Father in heaven does not love us if we do not serve our brothers and sisters, because there are no conditions or blackmail in him. On the contrary, the characteristic of mercy is precisely to bend down even more towards the poor, as we are all poor, at least in terms of love and service to others. Love is learned by practising it, but what the Lord is telling us here is something we know well: the ability to love is an art, and every art is learned by practising it. The Father's love is boundless, infinite, but our capacity to receive it is limited and grows as we practise it. We can therefore translate this as follows: 'If anyone loves me, he will put himself at the service of others and little by little, his heart will expand; the love of God will fill him more and more, and he will be able to serve others even better... and so on to infinity," that is, in unlimited progress. Let us conclude by returning to the term "Paraclete," which can be translated as comforter and defender. Yes, we need a defender, but not before God, and St. Paul makes this clear in the second reading: The Spirit you have received does not make you slaves, people who are still afraid, but rather the Spirit who makes you children (cf. Rom 8:15).  We are therefore no longer afraid of God and we do not need a lawyer before Him. But then why does Jesus say that he will pray to the Father, and he will give us another defender, to remain with us forever? Yes, we need an advocate, who defends us from ourselves, from our reluctance to serve others, from our lack of trust in God's power, who constantly defends the cause of others against our selfishness because, in doing so, he actually defends us, since true happiness consists in allowing ourselves to be moulded every day by God in his image, overcoming all selfish resistance.

+Giovanni D'Ercole

(Mt 5:20-26)

«I tell you in fact that unless your righteousness will abound more [that] of the scribes and pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven»

In the churches of Galilee and Syria there were different and conflicting opinions about the Law of Moses: for some an absolute to be fulfilled even in detail, for others now a meaningless frill (v.22).

The disputants went so far as to insult, to ridicule the opposing party.

But as the Tao Tê Ching (xxx) says: «Where the militias are stationed, thorns and brambles are born». Master Wang Pi comments: «He who promotes himself causes unrest, because he strives to affirm his merits».

Mt helps all community sisters and brothers to understand the content of the ancient Scriptures and grasp the attitude of ‘continuity and cut’ given by the Lord: «You have heard that [...] Now I say to you» (vv.21-22).

‘Arrow’ of the ancient codes was shot in the right direction, but only understanding its range in the spirit of concordance sustains trajectory to the point of providing the energy needed to hit the “target”.

Ideal of ancient religiosity was to present oneself pure before God, and in this sense the Scribes official theologians of the Sanhedrin emphasised the value of the rules that they believed were nestled in the First Testament ‘prison of the letter’.

Sadducees - the priestly class - focused on the sacrificial observances of the Torah alone.

Pharisees, leaders of popular religiosity, emphasised the respect for all traditional customs.

Teaching of professionals of the sacred produced in the people a sense of legalistic oppression that obscured the spirit of the Word of God and of Tradition itself.

Jesus brings out the goal: the greater Justice of Love.

The splendor, beauty and richness of the Glory of the living God is not produced in observing, but in the ability to manifest Him Present.

The right position before Father becomes - in Jesus' proposal - the right position before one's own history and that of one’s neighbor.

First «debt» is therefore a ‘global understanding’: here the Eternal is revealed.

Justice is not the product of the accumulation of righteous deeds, in view of merit: this would manifest narrowness, detachment and arrogance (a type of man of unquestioning thought).

The new Justice chases complicity with evil up to the secret roots of the heart and ideas. But not to accentuate the sense of guilt, nor to make us pursues external dreams.

Observance that does not abide in friendship, in tolerance even of oneself, in Christ who orients, would arise from an ambiguous relationship with the norm and doctrines.

We can overlook the childish need for approval.

The Life of God transpires in a world not of sterilised or pure and phlegmatic one-sided people, but in a conviviality of differences that resembles Him.

To internalize and live the message:

Where do you find the emotional nourishment you need?

What do you think of exclusive groups and their idea of ​​the ultimate court?

 [Thursday 10th wk. in O.T.  June 12, 2025]

(Mt 5:20-26)

«I tell you in fact that unless your righteousness will abound more [that] of the scribes and pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven»

In the churches of Galilee and Syria there were different and conflicting opinions about the Law of Moses: for some an absolute to be fulfilled even in detail, for others now a meaningless frill (v.22).

The disputants went so far as to insult, to ridicule the opposing party.

But as the Tao Tê Ching (xxx) says: «Where the militias are stationed, thorns and brambles are born». Master Wang Pi comments: «He who promotes himself causes unrest, because he strives to affirm his merits».

Mt helps all community sisters and brothers to understand the content of the ancient Scriptures and grasp the attitude of ‘continuity and cut’ given by the Lord: «You have heard that [...] Now I say to you» (vv.21-22).

‘Arrow’ of the ancient codes was shot in the right direction, but only understanding its range in the spirit of concordance sustains trajectory to the point of providing the energy needed to hit the “target”.

Ideal of ancient religiosity was to present oneself pure before God, and in this sense the Scribes official theologians of the Sanhedrin emphasised the value of the rules that they believed were nestled in the First Testament ‘prison of the letter’.

Sadducees - the priestly class - focused on the sacrificial observances of the Torah alone.

Pharisees, leaders of popular religiosity, emphasised the respect for all traditional customs.

Teaching of professionals of the sacred produced in the people a sense of legalistic oppression that obscured the spirit of the Word of God and of Tradition itself.

Jesus brings out the goal: the greater Justice of Love.

The splendor, beauty and richness of the Glory of the living God is not produced in observing, but in the ability to manifest Him Present.

The right position before Father becomes - in Jesus' proposal - the right position before one's own history and that of one’s neighbor.

First «debt» is therefore a ‘global understanding’: here the Eternal is revealed.

Justice is not the product of the accumulation of righteous deeds, in view of merit: this would manifest narrowness, detachment and arrogance (a type of man of unquestioning thought).

The new Justice chases complicity with evil up to the secret roots of the heart and ideas. But not to accentuate the sense of guilt, nor to make us pursues external dreams.

Observance that does not abide in friendship, in tolerance even of oneself, in Christ who orients, would arise from an ambiguous relationship with the norm and doctrines.

We can overlook the childish need for approval.

The Life of God transpires in a world not of sterilised or pure and phlegmatic one-sided people, but in a conviviality of differences that resembles Him.

To internalize and live the message:

Where do you find the emotional nourishment you need?

What do you think of exclusive groups and their idea of ​​the ultimate court?

Discord even with creation

If man is not reconciled with God, he is also in discord with creation. He is not reconciled with himself, he would like to be something other than what he is and is therefore not reconciled with his neighbour either. Also part of reconciliation is the ability to acknowledge guilt and ask for forgiveness - from God and from each other. And finally, part of the process of reconciliation is the readiness to do penance, the readiness to suffer to the end for a fault and allow oneself to be transformed. And part of it is that gratuitousness of which the Encyclical 'Caritas in veritate' speaks repeatedly: the readiness to go beyond what is necessary, to go beyond reckoning, but to go beyond what mere legal conditions require. This includes that generosity of which God himself has given us an example. Let us think of Jesus' words: 'If you present your offering at the altar and there you remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar, go first and be reconciled with your brother, and then come back and offer your gift' (Mt 5:23f.). God, who knew that we are not reconciled, who saw that we have something against Him, rose up and came to meet us, even though He alone was on the side of reason. He came to meet us up to the cross, to reconcile us. This is gratuitousness: the readiness to take the first step. To first go out to meet the other, to offer him reconciliation, to take on the suffering that entails giving up one's own right. Do not give in to the desire for reconciliation: God has given us an example of this, and this is the way to become like Him, an attitude we need again and again in the world. We must today relearn the ability to recognise guilt, we must shake off the illusion that we are innocent. We must learn the capacity to do penance, to let ourselves be transformed; to go out to meet the other and to let God give us the courage and the strength for such a renewal.

[Pope Benedict, Address to the Roman Curia 21 December 2009].

Jesus' attitude with respect to the Jewish Law: deep motivation, hidden wisdom. Precept - demand of love

The Gospel [...] is still part of the so-called 'Sermon on the Mount', the first great preaching of Jesus. Today the theme is Jesus' attitude towards the Jewish Law. He states: 'Do not believe that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish, but to fulfil' (Mt 5:17). Jesus therefore does not want to cancel the commandments that the Lord gave through Moses, but wants to bring them to their fullness. And immediately afterwards he adds that this "fulfilment" of the Law requires a higher justice, a more authentic observance. For he says to his disciples: "Unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven" (Mt 5:20).

But what does this "full fulfilment" of the Law mean? And in what does this superior justice consist? Jesus himself answers us with some examples. Jesus was practical, he always spoke with examples to make himself understood. He starts from the fifth commandment of the Decalogue: "You have heard that it was said to the ancients, 'You shall not kill'; ... But I say to you, whoever is angry with his brother shall be subject to judgment" (vv. 21-22). With this, Jesus reminds us that even words can kill! When you say of a person that he has a serpent's tongue, what do you mean? That his words kill! Therefore, not only must one not attempt the life of one's neighbour, but neither should one pour the poison of wrath upon him and strike him with slander. Not even gossip about him. We come to chatter: chatter, too, can kill, because it kills people's reputation! It is so bad to talk! At first it may seem like a pleasant, even amusing thing, like sucking a candy. But in the end, it fills our hearts with bitterness, and it also poisons us. I tell you the truth, I am convinced that if everyone made the resolution to avoid gossip, he would eventually become a saint! That's a good way! Do we want to become saints? Yes or no? [Piazza: Yes!] Do we want to live attached to chatter as a habit? Yes or no? [Piazza: No!] Then we agree: no chatter! Jesus proposes to those who follow him the perfection of love: a love whose only measure is to have no measure, to go beyond all calculation. Love of neighbour is such a fundamental attitude that Jesus goes so far as to say that our relationship with God cannot be sincere if we do not want to make peace with our neighbour. And he says: "If therefore you present your offering at the altar and there you remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar, go first and be reconciled with your brother" (vv. 23-24). Therefore we are called to be reconciled with our brothers before we manifest our devotion to the Lord in prayer.

It is clear from all this that Jesus does not simply attach importance to disciplinary observance and outward conduct. He goes to the root of the Law, focusing above all on the intention and therefore on the human heart, from where our good or evil actions originate. Good and honest behaviour requires not just legal rules, but deep motivations, the expression of a hidden wisdom, the Wisdom of God, which can be received through the Holy Spirit. And we, through faith in Christ, can open ourselves to the action of the Spirit, who enables us to experience divine love.

In the light of this teaching, each precept reveals its full meaning as a requirement of love, and all are reunited in the greatest commandment: love God with all your heart and love your neighbour as yourself.

[Pope Francis, Angelus 16 February 2014]

In this [...] Liturgy we continue to read Jesus’ so-called “Sermon on the Mount”. It is contained in chapters 5, 6 and 7 of Matthew’s Gospel. After the Beatitudes, which are the programme of his life, Jesus proclaims the new Law, his Torah, as our Jewish brothers and sisters call it. In fact, on his coming, the Messiah was also to bring the definitive revelation of the Law and this is precisely what Jesus declares: “Think not that I have come to abolish the Law and the Prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them”.

And addressing his disciples, he adds: “unless your righteousness exceeds that of the Scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the Kingdom of Heaven” (Mt 5:17,20). But what do this “fullness” of Christ’s Law and this “superior” justice that he demands consist in?

Jesus explains it with a series of antitheses between the old commandments and his new way of propounding them. He begins each time: “You have heard that it was said to the men of old…”, and then he asserts: “but I say to you”…. For example, “You have heard that it was said to the men of old, ‘you shall not kill; and whoever kills shall be liable to judgement’. But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgement” (Mt 5:21-22).

And he does this six times. This manner of speaking made a great impression on the people, who were shocked, because those words: “I say to you” were equivalent to claiming the actual authority of God, the source of the Law. The newness of Jesus consists essentially in the fact that he himself “fulfils” the commandments with the love of God, with the power of the Holy Spirit who dwells within him. And we, through faith in Christ, can open ourselves to the action of the Holy Spirit who makes us capable of living divine love.

So it is that every precept becomes true as a requirement of love, and all join in a single commandment: love God with all your heart and love your neighbour as yourself. “Love is the fulfilling of the Law”, St Paul writes (Rom 13:10).

With regard to this requirement, for example, the pitiful case of the four Rom children, who died last week when their shack caught fire on the outskirts of this city, forces us to ask ourselves whether a more supportive and fraternal society, more consistent in love, in other words more Christian, might not have been able to prevent this tragic event. And this question applies in the case of so many other grievous events, more or less known, which occur daily in our cities and our towns.

Dear friends, perhaps it is not by chance that Jesus’ first great preaching is called the “Sermon on the Mount”! Moses went up Mount Sinai to receive the Law of God and bring it to the Chosen People. Jesus is the Son of God himself who came down from Heaven to lead us to Heaven, to God’s height, on the way of love. Indeed, he himself is this way; all we have to do in order to put into practice God’s will and to enter his Kingdom, eternal life, is to follow him.

Only one creature has already scaled the mountain peak: the Virgin Mary. Through her union with Jesus, her righteousness was perfect: for this reason we invoke her as Speculum iustitiae. Let us entrust ourselves to her so that she may guide our steps in fidelity to Christ’s Law.

[Pope Benedict, Angelus 13 February 2011]