Dear Brothers and Sisters,

1. On her pilgrimage to full communion of love with God, the Church appears as "a people made one with the unity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit". St Cyprian's marvellous definition (De Orat. Dom. 23; cf. Lumen gentium, n. 4) takes us into the mystery of the Church, which has been made a community of salvation by the presence of God the Trinity. Like the ancient People of God, she is guided on her new Exodus by the pillar of cloud by day and the pillar of fire by night, symbols of God's constant presence. In this perspective, let us contemplate the glory of the Trinity which makes the Church one, holy, catholic and apostolic. 

2. First of all the Chuch is one. The baptized, in fact, are mysteriously united to Christ and form his Mystical Body by the power of the Holy Spirit. As the Second Vatican Council says:  "The highest exemplar and source of this mystery is the unity, in the Trinity of Persons, of one God, the Father and the Son in the Holy Spirit" (Unitatis redintegratio, n. 2). Although in the past this unity has suffered the painful trial of many divisions, the Church's inexhaustible Trinitarian source spurs her to live ever more deeply that koinonia, or communion, which was resplendent in the first community of Jerusalem (Acts 2: 42; 4: 32).

Ecumenical dialogue draws light from this perspective, since all Christians are aware of the Trinitarian foundations of communion:  we stress "the God-givenness of the koinonia and its Trinitarian character. The point of departure is the baptismal initiation into the Trinitarian koinonia by faith, through Christ in his Spirit. The Spirit-given means to sustain this koinonia are the Word, ministry, sacraments, charisms" (Perspectives on Koinonia, Report from the third quinquennium, 1985-89, of the Catholic-Pentecostal dialogue, n. 31). In this regard the Council reminds all the faithful that "the closer their union with the Father, the Word and the Spirit, the more deeply and easily will they be able to grow in mutual brotherly love" (Unitatis redintegratio, n. 7). 

3. The Church is also holy. In biblical language, even before being an expression of the moral and existential holiness of the faithful, the concept of "holy" refers to the consecration wrought by God through the election and the grace offered to his people. It is the divine presence, then, which "sanctifies" the community of believers "in the truth" (Jn 17: 17, 19). 

The loftiest sign of this presence is constituted by the liturgy, which is the epiphany of the consecration of God's People. In it there is the Eucharistic presence of the Body and Blood of the Lord, but also "our "Eucharist', that is to say, our giving God thanks, our praise of him for having redeemed us by his death and made us sharers in immortal life through his Resurrection. This worship, given therefore to the Trinity of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, above all accompanies and permeates the celebration of the Eucharistic liturgy. But it must fill our churches also" and the life of the Church (Dominicae Cenae, n. 3). And precisely, "if we continue to love one another and to join in praising the Most Holy Trinity ... we will be faithful to the deepest vocation of the Church and will share in a foretaste of the liturgy of perfect glory" (Lumen gentium, n. 51). 

4. The Church is catholic, sent to proclaim Christ to the whole world in the hope that all leaders of the peoples will gather with the people of the God of Abraham (cf. Ps 47: 9; Mt 28: 19). As the Second Vatican Council says:  "The Church on earth is by her very nature missionary since, according to the plan of the Father, she has her origin in the mission of the Son and the Holy Spirit. 

This plan flows from "fountain-like love', the love of God the Father. As the principle without principle from whom the Son is generated and from whom the Holy Spirit proceeds through the Son, God in his great and merciful kindness freely creates us and graciously calls us to share in his life and glory. He generously pours out, and never ceases to pour out, his divine goodness, so that he who is Creator of all things might at last become "all in all' (1 Cor 15: 28), thus simultaneously assuring his own glory and our happiness" (Ad gentes, n. 2).

5. Lastly, the Church is apostolic. In accordance with Christ's command, his Apostles must go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to observe all that he has commanded them (cf. Mt 28: 19-20). This mission is extended to the whole Church, which through the Word is made living, luminous and effective by the Holy Spirit and the sacraments, and thus "fulfils God's plan, to which Christ lovingly and obediently submitted for the glory of the Father who sent him in order that the whole human race might become one People of God, form one Body of Christ, and be built up into one Temple of the Holy Spirit" (Ad gentes, n. 7). 

The one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church is the People of God, the Body of Christ and the Temple of the Holy Spirit. These three biblical images point to the Trinitarian dimension of the Church. In this dimension are found all disciples of Christ, who are called to live it ever more deeply and in an ever more intense communion. Ecumenism itself finds its solid foundation in this reference to the Trinity, because the Spirit "binds the faithful to Christ, the mediator of all salvific gifts, and who through him gives them access to the Father, whom they may invoke as "Abba, Father', in the same Spirit" (Lutheran-Roman Catholic Joint Commission, Church and Justification, n. 64). In the Church, then, we find a magnificent epiphany of Trinitarian glory. Let us therefore accept the invitation which St Ambrose extends to us:  "Rise, you who were lying fast asleep.... Rise and hurry to the Church:  here is the Father, here is the Son, here is the Holy Spirit" (In Lucam, VII).

[Pope John Paul II, General Audience, 14 June 2000]

Today, the Feast of the Holy Trinity, the Gospel of St John gives us part of the long farewell discourse pronounced by Jesus shortly before his Passion. In this discourse, he explains to the disciples the deepest truths about himself, and thus he outlines the relationship between Jesus, the Father and the Holy Spirit. Jesus knows that the fulfillment of the Father’s plan is approaching and will be completed with his death and resurrection. Because of this he wants to assure his followers that he won’t abandon them, because his mission will be prolonged by the Holy Spirit. It will be the Holy Spirit who continues the mission of Jesus, that is, guide the Church forward.

Jesus reveals what this mission is. In the first place, the Spirit guides us to understand the many things that Jesus himself still had to say (cf. Jn 16:12). This doesn’t refer to new or special doctrines, but to a full understanding of all that the Son has heard from the Father and has made known to the disciples (cf. v. 15). The Spirit guides us in new existential situations with a gaze fixed on Jesus and at the same time, open to events and to the future. He helps us to walk in history, firmly rooted in the Gospel and with dynamic fidelity to our traditions and customs.

But the mystery of the Trinity also speaks to us of ourselves, of our relationship with the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. In fact, through baptism, the Holy Spirit has placed us in the heart and the very life of God, who is a communion of love. God is a “family” of three Persons who love each other so much as to form a single whole. This “divine family” is not closed in on itself, but is open. It communicates itself in creation and in history and has entered into the world of men to call everyone to form part of it. The trinitarian horizon of communion surrounds all of us and stimulates us to live in love and fraternal sharing, certain that where there is love, there is God.

Our being created in the image and likeness of God-Communion calls us to understand ourselves as beings-in-relationship and to live interpersonal relations in solidarity and mutual love.

Such relationships play out, above all, in the sphere of our ecclesial communities, so that the image of the Church as icon of the Trinity is ever clearer. But also in every social relationship, from the family to friendships, to the work environment: they are all concrete occasions offered to us in order to build relationships that are increasingly humanly rich, capable of reciprocal respect and disinterested love.

The Feast of the Most Holy Trinity invites us to commit ourselves in daily events to being leaven of communion, consolation and mercy. In this mission, we are sustained by the strength that the Holy Spirit gives us: he takes care of the flesh of humanity, wounded by injustice, oppression, hate and avarice.

The Virgin Mary, in her humility, welcomed the Father’s will and conceived the Son by the Holy Spirit. May she, Mirror of the Trinity, help us to strengthen our faith in the trinitarian mystery and to translate it in to action with choices and attitudes of love and unity.

[Pope Francis, Angelus, 22 May 2016]

Clear and clean

(Mt 5:33-37)

«Yes when it is yes, No when it is no». There is no need to give strength to trust.

Every oath - even sacred ones - is a loophole that does not heal an already dull reality.

The theatre of bombastic formulas only admits the conviction that the Other cannot be fully trusted.

Total transparency in relationships does not need stools to support it. 

It is ludicrous to try to foster reciprocity by inventing the aid of the oath, which reinforces a person's word with something greater than him [capable of punishing in the event of non-compliance; then, be it as it may].

Good relationships, the ideal of justice, credit, and our whole life, come to perfection in a clear way.

There is no need to go round and round, to become artificial, to lean on other cautions that then renege on their words, even if they are well and perfectly staged.

Let us come to the theological point: what counts for the Father is the Person, not his symbolic expressions or his 'merits' - fake props to the you-for-you, to be set up in the window to hijack it.

Face to face is worth the whole lot: far more than what sounds by ear, far more than the accounting of what woman and man have fulfilled.

Our strong loyalty before God is not there; indeed, we need it. It is useless to hide the dust under a carpet of high-sounding mottos and claptrap.

Even the pile of “perfectly” absolved works of law provides no support.

In fact, the scaffolding may seem lofty and phenomenal, but it is an epidermal thing (often unfortunately insincere: castles of paper and papier-mâché) with double goal.

The Father is impressed by his creaturely masterpiece, by the frank heart of woman and man; not by the smoke in the eyes of impersonal hype set up for the purpose.

Nor does He allow himself to be blandened by platitudes of ritual expressions, acronyms, catchphrases; or even by our “heroic” fulfilments that risk undermining the character and Calling by Name.

There is nothing higher than our 'face'; the rest is cunning and lies.  Very dangerous means.

The Puritan laymen used to say: «The greater the forms, the lesser the truth». Not: give to believe.

Actions, behaviour, crisp words. This is what it's worth. 

In short, we must not 'improve' to external models and facsimiles - nor set up more events - except with his ‘Gratuity’, far more reliable, permanent, effective, than our [homologating and sometimes vanity] observances.

The power we have in our dowry cannot even affect the natural colour of a hair; this is the reality - behind the grand scenes we put in place to avoid admitting that... something is wrong.

Integrity that counts is quiet, transparent, spontaneous, forthright: it cannot be our stuff. Useless to make and remake 'oaths' to deceive even God.

To internalise and live the message:

Did you find yourself a merchant at the last fair? Have you ever expressed yourself as a forger?

[Saturday, 10th wk. in O.T. 14 June 2025]

Clear and distinct

(Mt 5:33-37)

«Yes, when it is yes; No, when it is no». There is no need to reinforce trust.

Every oath – even a sacred one – is a loophole that does not heal an already dead reality.

The theatre of bombastic formulas only admits the conviction that the Other cannot be fully trusted.

Total transparency in relationships does not need a stool to support it. 

It is ridiculous to try to encourage reciprocity by inventing the crutch of oaths, which reinforce a person's word with something greater than themselves [capable of punishing them in the event of non-compliance; come what may].

Good relationships, the ideal of justice, credit, and our whole life come to perfection in a clear way.

There is no need to beat about the bush, to become artificial, to rely on other precautions that then go back on their word, even if they are well prepared and perfectly staged.

Let us come to the theological point: what matters to the Father is the Person, not his symbolic expressions or his 'merits' - false props in a face-to-face encounter, to be displayed in the window to divert attention.

The face-to-face encounter is worth the whole game: much more than what sounds good to the ear, far beyond the accounting of what women and men have accomplished.

Our strong loyalty before God is not there; indeed, we need it. It is useless to hide the dust under a carpet of slogans and high-sounding rhetoric.

Even the pile of 'perfectly' fulfilled legal works provides no support.

In fact, the scaffolding may seem lofty and phenomenal, but it is superficial (often unfortunately insincere: castles made of paper and papier-mâché) and serves a dual purpose.

The Father is impressed by his creative masterpiece, by the sincere heart of women and men, not by the smoke and mirrors of impersonal structures set up for the occasion.

Nor is he flattered by ritual expressions, acronyms, clichés, or even heroic deeds that risk damaging the core of one's personality and Calling by Name.

There is nothing higher than our 'face'; the rest is cunning and lies. These are dangerous shortcuts.

The puritanical laymen used to say, 'The greater the form, the less the truth'. Not: give credence.

Clear actions, behaviours, words. This is what counts. 

In short, we must not 'improve' ourselves according to external models and facsimiles - nor organise more events - except with His Free Gift, which is far more reliable, permanent and effective than our [conformist and sometimes vain] observances.

The power we have cannot even affect the natural colour of a hair; this is the reality behind the grand stage we set up to avoid admitting that... something is wrong.

The integrity that matters is calm, transparent, spontaneous, and sincere: it cannot be ours. It is useless to make and remake 'vows' to deceive even God.

To internalise and live the message:

Have you ever found yourself a merchant at the last fair? Have you ever expressed yourself like a forger?

The vain water of the sacred that holds back, and the true Source

(Jn 5:1-3, 5-16)

'But he did many things with him, first of all taking him aside from the crowd. On this occasion, as on others, Jesus always acts with discretion. He does not want to impress people; He is not seeking popularity or success, but only desires to do good to people. With this attitude, He teaches us that good must be done without fanfare, without ostentation, without 'blowing the trumpet'. It must be done in silence.

[…] Healing was for him an 'opening' to others and to the world.

This Gospel story emphasises the need for a twofold healing. First of all, healing from illness and physical suffering, to restore the health of the body, even if this goal is not completely achievable in the earthly horizon, despite the many efforts of science and medicine. But there is a second healing, perhaps more difficult, and that is healing from fear. Healing from the fear that drives us to marginalise the sick, the suffering, and the disabled. And there are many ways to marginalise, even with pseudo-pity or by removing the problem; we remain deaf and mute in the face of the pain of people marked by illness, anguish, and difficulties. Too often, the sick and suffering become a problem, when they should be an opportunity to show a society's concern and solidarity towards the weakest members of society.

[Pope Francis, Angelus, 9 September 2018]

Jesus prefers to break the law than to align himself with the ruthless world and the inviolable society that marginalises the unfortunate.

In the religion of competitive trophies, real abandonment and false or trivial hopes, someone wins the lottery and is healed, but everyone else does not. Only the quickest are healed, not the most needy.In any case, the vast majority remain watching, paralysed by loneliness - on the other hand, those affected ask for life, refreshment; the bubbling song of a truly sacred story.

At that time, in 'holy' places, the cult of sacrifice required a lot of water [to wash the animals before slaughtering and butchering them], especially during major festivals.

Large cisterns collected rainwater, and public baths (to the north) crowded the sick waiting for help or healing from the very isolation to which they were condemned - according to purity rules.

The pools outside were used to wash the lambs before their sacrifice at the Temple, and this method of use gave the water itself an aura of healing holiness.

Many sick people flocked to bathe in the 'motion of the water' (v.3).

It was said that an angel stirred the waters of the public baths [perhaps due to an intermittent spring] and that the first person to enter at the moment when they became restless would be healed.

A symbol of a religion that offers false hope to the infirm, which nevertheless appeals to the imagination of the excluded masses, oppressed by calamities - who do not know the man-God of their destiny.

'But the man who had been healed did not know who it was, for Jesus had withdrawn, being in a crowd of people' (v. 13).

The Face of the Son is unrecognisable in the crowd, despite the plethora of impeccable guides and devotees - who only distract and are content with the habitual forms of the organisation, which are exaggeratedly solemn.

Abundant conduct purified the Temple and neglected the people.

An icon of a rich and miserable religiosity: vain, useless, harmful; abandoning to themselves those whom it is called to support.

The scribes taught the law to students in the sacred enclosure and the rabbis received their clients under Solomon's portico, on the Temple esplanade, towards the east.

Above, the Torah and its commerce; below and outside, nearby, the betrayal of the poor.

Water flowed in the Temple, but it did not cleanse anyone - on the contrary, it made the situation worse.

This had been going on for an entire era - a 'generation' (v. 5). This symbolises the 38 years (Deut. 2:14) that lacked a welcoming mentality.

The official religious institution kept the crowd at a safe distance, revealing only a ridiculous and brutal caricature of the friendly, hospitable and compassionate Face of the Father.

The crowd of needy people who received the miraculous water only by chance and surprise is a parable of humanity in need, dramatically deprived of everything, even authentic spiritual comfort.

Jesus, on the other hand, approaches the needy on his own initiative (vv. 6, 14) and involves himself - at the risk of his life - with those who are most alone, awkward and clumsy.

He is in us: welcoming faces and the active presence of the Father, instinctively drawn not to people who matter, but to the neglected, the sick—those who are unable even to receive miracles.

We are sent not to the deserving and self-sufficient, but precisely to those who are unable to use their own means to come forward.

Those who are faltering - and there is no need for an imprimatur on this: such a rule is divine law.

No joy on the part of the authorities... only inquiries.

It does not matter: no reverential fear. God is not eager to be obeyed; rather, he wants to fulfil us.

Christ himself does not work to be recognised and acclaimed ['he had withdrawn']. Nor does he care for us solely to bring about religious conversion.

He heals because he perceives the need, not so that the sick may believe in God.

The Tao Te Ching [x] says: 'Let creatures live and nourish them, let them live and do not keep them as your own'. 'Talking a lot and scrutinising rationally is worth less than keeping oneself empty' (v).

Let people be free to go through their seasons, not stereotypes.

Let us simply help to open doors that are more genuine and commensurate with the personal journey, even if unexpected or uncontrolled.

We are called upon and sent to accompany each person into the unheard of, the entirely original - guiding them not towards a pre-established sacredness, but towards the plasticity of healthy awareness.

[...] Talking about God means first of all expressing clearly what God we must bring to the men and women of our time: not an abstract God, a hypothesis, but a real God, a God who exists, who has entered history and is present in history; the God of Jesus Christ as an answer to the fundamental question of the meaning of life and of how we should live. Consequently speaking of God demands familiarity with Jesus and his Gospel, it implies that we have a real, personal knowledge of God and a strong passion for his plan of salvation without succumbing to the temptation of success, but following God’s own method. God’s method is that of humility — God makes himself one of us — his method is brought about through the Incarnation in the simple house of Nazareth; through the Grotto of Bethlehem; through the Parable of the Mustard Seed.

We must not fear the humility of taking little steps, but trust in the leaven that penetrates the dough and slowly causes it to rise (cf. Mt 13:33). In talking about God, in the work of evangelization, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, we must recover simplicity, we must return to the essence of the proclamation: the Good News of a God who is real and effective, a God who is concerned about us, a God-Love who makes himself close to us in Jesus Christ, until the Cross, and who in the Resurrection gives us hope and opens us to a life that has no end, eternal life, true life [...]

So it is that talking about God means making people realize through our speech and example, that God is no rival in our existence but rather is its true guarantor, who guarantees the greatness of the human person. Thus we return to the beginning: speaking of God is communicating what is essential, forcefully and simply, through our words and through our life: the God of Jesus Christ, that God who showed us a love so great that he took flesh, died and rose again for us: that God who asks us to follow him and to let ourselves be transformed by his immense love in order to renew our life and our relationships; that God who has given us the Church, so that we may walk together and, through the word and the sacraments, renew the entire city of men and women, so that it may become a City of God.

[Pope Benedict, General Audience 28 November 2012]

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]