"Cain rose up against his brother Abel, and killed him" (Gen 4:8): the roots of violence against life 

7. "God did not make death, and he does not delight in the death of the living. For he has created all things that they might exist ... God created man for incorruption, and made him in the image of his own eternity, but through the devil's envy death entered the world, and those who belong to his party experience it" (Wis 1:13-14; 2:23-24).

The Gospel of life, proclaimed in the beginning when man was created in the image of God for a destiny of full and perfect life (cf. Gen 2:7; Wis 9:2-3), is contradicted by the painful experience of death which enters the world and casts its shadow of meaninglessness over man's entire existence. Death came into the world as a result of the devil's envy (cf. Gen 3:1,4-5) and the sin of our first parents (cf. Gen 2:17, 3:17-19). And death entered it in a violent way, through the killing of Abel by his brother Cain: "And when they were in the field, Cain rose up against his brother Abel, and killed him" (Gen 4:8).

This first murder is presented with singular eloquence in a page of the Book of Genesis which has universal significance: it is a page rewritten daily, with inexorable and degrading frequency, in the book of human history.

Let us re-read together this biblical account which, despite its archaic structure and its extreme simplicity, has much to teach us.

"Now Abel was a keeper of sheep, and Cain a tiller of the ground. In the course of time Cain brought to the Lord an offering of the fruit of the ground, and Abel brought of the firstlings of his flock and of their fat portions. And the Lord had regard for Abel and his offering, but for Cain and his offering he had not regard. So Cain was very angry, and his countenance fell. The Lord said to Cain, ?Why are you angry and why has your countenance fallen? If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; its desire is for you, but you must master it'.

"Cain said to Abel his brother, ?Let us go out to the field'. And when they were in the field, Cain rose up against his brother Abel, and killed him. Then the Lord said to Cain, ?Where is Abel your brother?' He said, ?I do not know; am I my brother's keeper?' And the Lord said, ?What have you done? The voice of your brother's blood is crying to me from the ground. And now you are cursed from the ground, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother's blood from your hand. When you till the ground, it shall no longer yield to you its strength; you shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth'. Cain said to the Lord, ?My punishment is greater than I can bear. Behold, you have driven me this day away from the ground; and from your face I shall be hidden; and I shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will slay me'. Then the Lord said to him, ?Not so! If any one slays Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold'. And the Lord put a mark on Cain, lest any who came upon him should kill him. Then Cain went away from the presence of the Lord, and dwelt in the land of Nod, east of Eden" (Gen 4:2-16). 

8. Cain was "very angry" and his countenance "fell" because "the Lord had regard for Abel and his offering" (Gen 4:4-5). The biblical text does not reveal the reason why God prefers Abel's sacrifice to Cain's. It clearly shows however that God, although preferring Abel's gift, does not interrupt his dialogue with Cain. He admonishes him, reminding him of his freedom in the face of evil: man is in no way predestined to evil. Certainly, like Adam, he is tempted by the malevolent force of sin which, like a wild beast, lies in wait at the door of his heart, ready to leap on its prey. But Cain remains free in the face of sin. He can and must overcome it: "Its desire is for you, but you must master it" (Gen 4:7).

Envy and anger have the upper hand over the Lord's warning, and so Cain attacks his own brother and kills him. As we read in the Catechism of the Catholic Church: "In the account of Abel's murder by his brother Cain, Scripture reveals the presence of anger and envy in man, consequences of original sin, from the beginning of human history. Man has become the enemy of his fellow man".10

Brother kills brother. Like the first fratricide, every murder is a violation of the "spiritual" kinship uniting mankind in one great family, 11 in which all share the same fundamental good: equal personal dignity. Not infrequently the kinship "of flesh and blood" is also violated; for example when threats to life arise within the relationship between parents and children, such as happens in abortion or when, in the wider context of family or kinship, euthanasia is encouraged or practised.

At the root of every act of violence against one's neighbour there is a concession to the "thinking" of the evil one, the one who "was a murderer from the beginning" (Jn 8:44). As the Apostle John reminds us: "For this is the message which you have heard from the beginning, that we should love one another, and not be like Cain who was of the evil one and murdered his brother" (1 Jn 3:11-12). Cain's killing of his brother at the very dawn of history is thus a sad witness of how evil spreads with amazing speed: man's revolt against God in the earthly paradise is followed by the deadly combat of man against man.

After the crime, God intervenes to avenge the one killed. Before God, who asks him about the fate of Abel, Cain, instead of showing remorse and apologizing, arrogantly eludes the question: "I do not know; am I my brother's keeper?" (Gen 4:9). "I do not know": Cain tries to cover up his crime with a lie. This was and still is the case, when all kinds of ideologies try to justify and disguise the most atrocious crimes against human beings. "Am I my brother's keeper?": Cain does not wish to think about his brother and refuses to accept the responsibility which every person has towards others. We cannot but think of today's tendency for people to refuse to accept responsibility for their brothers and sisters. Symptoms of this trend include the lack of solidarity towards society's weakest members-such as the elderly, the infirm, immigrants, children- and the indifference frequently found in relations between the world's peoples even when basic values such as survival, freedom and peace are involved. 

9. But God cannot leave the crime unpunished: from the ground on which it has been spilt, the blood of the one murdered demands that God should render justice (cf. Gen 37:26; Is 26:21; Ez 24:7-8). From this text the Church has taken the name of the "sins which cry to God for justice", and, first among them, she has included wilful murder. 12 For the Jewish people, as for many peoples of antiquity, blood is the source of life. Indeed "the blood is the life" (Dt 12:23), and life, especially human life, belongs only to God: for this reason whoever attacks human life, in some way attacks God himself.

Cain is cursed by God and also by the earth, which will deny him its fruit (cf. Gen 4:11-12). He is punished: he will live in the wilderness and the desert. Murderous violence profoundly changes man's environment. From being the "garden of Eden" (Gen 2:15), a place of plenty, of harmonious interpersonal relationships and of friendship with God, the earth becomes "the land of Nod" (Gen 4:16), a place of scarcity, loneliness and separation from God. Cain will be "a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth" (Gen 4:14): uncertainty and restlessness will follow him forever.

And yet God, who is always merciful even when he punishes, "put a mark on Cain, lest any who came upon him should kill him" (Gen 4:15). He thus gave him a distinctive sign, not to condemn him to the hatred of others, but to protect and defend him from those wishing to kill him, even out of a desire to avenge Abel's death. Not even a murderer loses his personal dignity, and God himself pledges to guarantee this. And it is pre- cisely here that the paradoxical mystery of the merciful justice of God is shown forth. As Saint Ambrose writes: "Once the crime is admitted at the very inception of this sinful act of parricide, then the divine law of God's mercy should be immediately extended. If punishment is forthwith inflicted on the accused, then men in the exercise of justice would in no way observe patience and moderation, but would straightaway condemn the defendant to punishment. ... God drove Cain out of his presence and sent him into exile far away from his native land, so that he passed from a life of human kindness to one which was more akin to the rude existence of a wild beast. God, who preferred the correction rather than the death of a sinner, did not desire that a homicide be punished by the exaction of another act of homicide".13

"What have you done?" (Gen 4:10): the eclipse of the value of life 

10. The Lord said to Cain: "What have you done? The voice of your brother's blood is crying to me from the ground" (Gen 4:10).The voice of the blood shed by men continues to cry out, from generation to generation, in ever new and different ways.

The Lord's question: "What have you done?", which Cain cannot escape, is addressed also to the people of today, to make them realize the extent and gravity of the attacks against life which continue to mark human history; to make them discover what causes these attacks and feeds them; and to make them ponder seriously the consequences which derive from these attacks for the existence of individuals and peoples.

Some threats come from nature itself, but they are made worse by the culpable indifference and negligence of those who could in some cases remedy them. Others are the result of situations of violence, hatred and conflicting interests, which lead people to attack others through murder, war, slaughter and genocide.

And how can we fail to consider the violence against life done to millions of human beings, especially children, who are forced into poverty, malnutrition and hunger because of an unjust distribution of resources between peoples and between social classes? And what of the violence inherent not only in wars as such but in the scandalous arms trade, which spawns the many armed conflicts which stain our world with blood? What of the spreading of death caused by reckless tampering with the world's ecological balance, by the criminal spread of drugs, or by the promotion of certain kinds of sexual activity which, besides being morally unacceptable, also involve grave risks to life? It is impossible to catalogue completely the vast array of threats to human life, so many are the forms, whether explicit or hidden, in which they appear today! 

11. Here though we shall concentrate particular attention on another category of attacks, affecting life in its earliest and in its final stages, attacks which present new characteristics with respect to the past and which raise questions of extraordinary seriousness. It is not only that in generalized opinion these attacks tend no longer to be considered as "crimes"; paradoxically they assume the nature of "rights", to the point that the State is called upon to give them legal recognition and to make them available through the free services of health-care personnel. Such attacks strike human life at the time of its greatest frailty, when it lacks any means of self-defence. Even more serious is the fact that, most often, those attacks are carried out in the very heart of and with the complicity of the family-the family which by its nature is called to be the "sanctuary of life".

How did such a situation come about? Many different factors have to be taken into account. In the background there is the profound crisis of culture, which generates scepticism in relation to the very foundations of knowledge and ethics, and which makes it increasingly difficult to grasp clearly the meaning of what man is, the meaning of his rights and his duties. Then there are all kinds of existential and interpersonal difficulties, made worse by the complexity of a society in which individuals, couples and families are often left alone with their problems. There are situations of acute poverty, anxiety or frustration in which the struggle to make ends meet, the presence of unbearable pain, or instances of violence, especially against women, make the choice to defend and promote life so demanding as sometimes to reach the point of heroism.

All this explains, at least in part, how the value of life can today undergo a kind of "eclipse", even though conscience does not cease to point to it as a sacred and inviolable value, as is evident in the tendency to disguise certain crimes against life in its early or final stages by using innocuous medical terms which distract attention from the fact that what is involved is the right to life of an actual human person. 

12. In fact, while the climate of widespread moral uncertainty can in some way be explained by the multiplicity and gravity of today's social problems, and these can sometimes mitigate the subjective responsibility of individuals, it is no less true that we are confronted by an even larger reality, which can be described as a veritable structure of sin. This reality is characterized by the emergence of a culture which denies solidarity and in many cases takes the form of a veritable "culture of death". This culture is actively fostered by powerful cultural, economic and political currents which encourage an idea of society excessively concerned with efficiency. Looking at the situation from this point of view, it is possible to speak in a certain sense of a war of the powerful against the weak: a life which would require greater acceptance, love and care is considered useless, or held to be an intolerable burden, and is therefore rejected in one way or another. A person who, because of illness, handicap or, more simply, just by existing, compromises the well-being or life-style of those who are more favoured tends to be looked upon as an enemy to be resisted or eliminated. In this way a kind of "conspiracy against life" is unleashed. This conspiracy involves not only individuals in their personal, family or group relationships, but goes far beyond, to the point of damaging and distorting, at the international level, relations between peoples and States. 

13. In order to facilitate the spread of abortion, enormous sums of money have been invested and continue to be invested in the production of pharmaceutical products which make it possible to kill the fetus in the mother's womb without recourse to medical assistance. On this point, scientific research itself seems to be almost exclusively preoccupied with developing products which are ever more simple and effective in suppressing life and which at the same time are capable of removing abortion from any kind of control or social responsibility.

It is frequently asserted that contraception, if made safe and available to all, is the most effective remedy against abortion. The Catholic Church is then accused of actually promoting abortion, because she obstinately continues to teach the moral unlawfulness of contraception. When looked at carefully, this objection is clearly unfounded. It may be that many people use contraception with a view to excluding the subsequent temptation of abortion. But the negative values inherent in the "contraceptive mentality"-which is very different from responsible parenthood, lived in respect for the full truth of the conjugal act-are such that they in fact strengthen this temptation when an unwanted life is conceived. Indeed, the pro- abortion culture is especially strong precisely where the Church's teaching on contraception is rejected. Certainly, from the moral point of view contraception and abortion arespecifically different evils: the former contradicts the full truth of the sexual act as the proper expression of conjugal love, while the latter destroys the life of a human being; the former is opposed to the virtue of chastity in marriage, the latter is opposed to the virtue of justice and directly violates the divine commandment "You shall not kill".

But despite their differences of nature and moral gravity, contraception and abortion are often closely connected, as fruits of the same tree. It is true that in many cases contraception and even abortion are practised under the pressure of real- life difficulties, which nonetheless can never exonerate from striving to observe God's law fully. Still, in very many other instances such practices are rooted in a hedonistic mentality unwilling to accept responsibility in matters of sexuality, and they imply a self-centered concept of freedom, which regards procreation as an obstacle to personal fulfilment. The life which could result from a sexual encounter thus becomes an enemy to be avoided at all costs, and abortion becomes the only possible decisive response to failed contraception.

The close connection which exists, in mentality, between the practice of contraception and that of abortion is becoming increasingly obvious. It is being demonstrated in an alarming way by the development of chemical products, intrauterine devices and vaccines which, distributed with the same ease as contraceptives, really act as abortifacients in the very early stages of the development of the life of the new human being. 

14. The various techniques of artificial reproduction, which would seem to be at the service of life and which are frequently used with this intention, actually open the door to new threats against life. Apart from the fact that they are morally unacceptable, since they separate procreation from the fully human context of the conjugal act, 14these techniques have a high rate of failure: not just failure in relation to fertilization but with regard to the subsequent development of the embryo, which is exposed to the risk of death, generally within a very short space of time. Furthermore, the number of embryos produced is often greater than that needed for implantation in the woman's womb, and these so-called "spare embryos" are then destroyed or used for research which, under the pretext of scientific or medical progress, in fact reduces human life to the level of simple "biological material" to be freely disposed of.

Prenatal diagnosis, which presents no moral objections if carried out in order to identify the medical treatment which may be needed by the child in the womb, all too often becomes an opportunity for proposing and procuring an abortion. This is eugenic abortion, justified in public opinion on the basis of a mentality-mistakenly held to be consistent with the demands of "therapeutic interventions"-which accepts life only under certain conditions and rejects it when it is affected by any limitation, handicap or illness.

Following this same logic, the point has been reached where the most basic care, even nourishment, is denied to babies born with serious handicaps or illnesses. The contemporary scene, moreover, is becoming even more alarming by reason of the proposals, advanced here and there, to justify even infanticide, following the same arguments used to justify the right to abortion. In this way, we revert to a state of barbarism which one hoped had been left behind forever. 

15. Threats which are no less serious hang over the incurably ill and the dying. In a social and cultural context which makes it more difficult to face and accept suffering, the temptation becomes all the greater to resolve the problem of suffering by eliminating it at the root, by hastening death so that it occurs at the moment considered most suitable.

Various considerations usually contribute to such a decision, all of which converge in the same terrible outcome. In the sick person the sense of anguish, of severe discomfort, and even of desperation brought on by intense and prolonged suffering can be a decisive factor. Such a situation can threaten the already fragile equilibrium of an individual's personal and family life, with the result that, on the one hand, the sick person, despite the help of increasingly effective medical and social assistance, risks feeling overwhelmed by his or her own frailty; and on the other hand, those close to the sick person can be moved by an understandable even if misplaced compassion. All this is aggravated by a cultural climate which fails to perceive any meaning or value in suffering, but rather considers suffering the epitome of evil, to be eliminated at all costs. This is especially the case in the absence of a religious outlook which could help to provide a positive understanding of the mystery of suffering.

On a more general level, there exists in contemporary culture a certain Promethean attitude which leads people to think that they can control life and death by taking the decisions about them into their own hands. What really happens in this case is that the individual is overcome and crushed by a death deprived of any prospect of meaning or hope. We see a tragic expression of all this in the spread of euthanasia-disguised and surreptitious, or practised openly and even legally. As well as for reasons of a misguided pity at the sight of the patient's suffering, euthanasia is sometimes justified by the utilitarian motive of avoiding costs which bring no return and which weigh heavily on society. Thus it is proposed to eliminate malformed babies, the severely handicapped, the disabled, the elderly, especially when they are not self-sufficient, and the terminally ill. Nor can we remain silent in the face of other more furtive, but no less serious and real, forms of euthanasia. These could occur for example when, in order to increase the availability of organs for transplants, organs are removed without respecting objective and adequate criteria which verify the death of the donor. 

16. Another present-day phenomenon, frequently used to justify threats and attacks against life, is the demographic question. This question arises in different ways in different parts of the world. In the rich and developed countries there is a disturbing decline or collapse of the birthrate. The poorer countries, on the other hand, generally have a high rate of population growth, difficult to sustain in the context of low economic and social development, and especially where there is extreme underdevelopment. In the face of over- population in the poorer countries, instead of forms of global intervention at the international level-serious family and social policies, programmes of cultural development and of fair production and distribution of resources-anti-birth policies continue to be enacted.

Contraception, sterilization and abortion are certainly part of the reason why in some cases there is a sharp decline in the birthrate. It is not difficult to be tempted to use the same methods and attacks against life also where there is a situation of "demographic explosion".

The Pharaoh of old, haunted by the presence and increase of the children of Israel, submitted them to every kind of oppression and ordered that every male child born of the Hebrew women was to be killed (cf. Ex 1:7-22). Today not a few of the powerful of the earth act in the same way. They too are haunted by the current demographic growth, and fear that the most prolific and poorest peoples represent a threat for the well-being and peace of their own countries. Consequently, rather than wishing to face and solve these serious problems with respect for the dignity of individuals and families and for every person's inviolable right to life, they prefer to promote and impose by whatever means a massive programme of birth control. Even the economic help which they would be ready to give is unjustly made conditional on the acceptance of an anti-birth policy. 

17. Humanity today offers us a truly alarming spectacle, if we consider not only how extensively attacks on life are spreading but also their unheard-of numerical proportion, and the fact that they receive widespread and powerful support from a broad consensus on the part of society, from widespread legal approval and the involvement of certain sectors of health-care personnel.

As I emphatically stated at Denver, on the occasion of the Eighth World Youth Day, "with time the threats against life have not grown weaker. They are taking on vast proportions. They are not only threats coming from the outside, from the forces of nature or the ?Cains' who kill the ?Abels'; no, they are scientifically and systematically programmed threats. The twentieth century will have been an era of massive attacks on life, an endless series of wars and a continual taking of innocent human life. False prophets and false teachers have had the greatest success".15 Aside from intentions, which can be varied and perhaps can seem convincing at times, especially if presented in the name of solidarity, we are in fact faced by an objective "conspiracy against life", involving even international Institutions, engaged in encouraging and carrying out actual campaigns to make contraception, sterilization and abortion widely available. Nor can it be denied that the mass media are often implicated in this conspiracy, by lending credit to that culture which presents recourse to contraception, sterilization, abortion and even euthanasia as a mark of progress and a victory of freedom, while depicting as enemies of freedom and progress those positions which are unreservedly pro-life.

"Am I my brother's keeper?" (Gen 4:9): a perverse idea of freedom  

18. The panorama described needs to be understood not only in terms of the phenomena of death which characterize it but also in the variety of causes which determine it. The Lord's question: "What have you done?" (Gen 4:10), seems almost like an invitation addressed to Cain to go beyond the material dimension of his murderous gesture, in order to recognize in it all the gravity of the motives which occasioned it and the consequences which result from it.

Decisions that go against life sometimes arise from difficult or even tragic situations of profound suffering, loneliness, a total lack of economic pros- pects, depression and anxiety about the future. Such circumstances can mitigate even to a notable degree subjective responsibility and the consequent culpability of those who make these choices which in themselves are evil. But today the prob- lem goes far beyond the necessary recognition of these personal situations. It is a problem which exists at the cultural, social and political level, where it reveals its more sinister and disturbing aspect in the tendency, ever more widely shared, to interpret the above crimes against life as legitimate expressions of individual freedom, to be acknowledged and protected as actual rights.

In this way, and with tragic consequences, a long historical process is reaching a turning-point. The process which once led to discovering the idea of "human rights"-rights inherent in every person and prior to any Constitution and State legislation-is today marked by a surprising contradiction. Precisely in an age when the inviolable rights of the person are solemnly proclaimed and the value of life is publicly affirmed, the very right to life is being denied or trampled upon, especially at the more significant moments of existence: the moment of birth and the moment of death.

On the one hand, the various declarations of human rights and the many initiatives inspired by these declarations show that at the global level there is a growing moral sensitivity, more alert to acknowledging the value and dignity of every individual as a human being, without any distinction of race, nationality, religion, political opinion or social class.

On the other hand, these noble proclamations are unfortunately contradicted by a tragic repudiation of them in practice. This denial is still more distressing, indeed more scandalous, precisely because it is occurring in a society which makes the affirmation and protection of human rights its primary objective and its boast. How can these repeated affirmations of principle be reconciled with the continual increase and widespread justification of attacks on human life? How can we reconcile these declarations with the refusal to accept those who are weak and needy, or elderly, or those who have just been conceived? These attacks go directly against respect for life and they represent a direct threat to the entire culture of human rights. It is a threat capable, in the end, of jeopardizing the very meaning of democratic coexistence: rather than societies of "people living together", our cities risk becoming societies of people who are rejected, marginalized, uprooted and oppressed. If we then look at the wider worldwide perspective, how can we fail to think that the very affirmation of the rights of individuals and peoples made in distinguished international assemblies is a merely futile exercise of rhetoric, if we fail to unmask the selfishness of the rich countries which exclude poorer countries from access to development or make such access dependent on arbitrary prohibitions against procreation, setting up an opposition between development and man himself? Should we not question the very economic models often adopted by States which, also as a result of international pressures and forms of conditioning, cause and aggravate situations of injustice and violence in which the life of whole peoples is degraded and trampled upon? 

19. What are the roots of this remarkable contradiction? 

We can find them in an overall assessment of a cultural and moral nature, beginning with the mentality which carries the concept of subjectivity to an extreme and even distorts it, and recognizes as a subject of rights only the person who enjoys full or at least incipient autonomy and who emerges from a state of total dependence on others. But how can we reconcile this approach with the exaltation of man as a being who is "not to be used"? The theory of human rights is based precisely on the affirmation that the human person, unlike animals and things, cannot be subjected to domination by others. We must also mention the mentality which tends to equate personal dignity with the capacity for verbal and explicit, or at least perceptible, communication. It is clear that on the basis of these presuppositions there is no place in the world for anyone who, like the unborn or the dying, is a weak element in the social structure, or for anyone who appears completely at the mercy of others and radically dependent on them, and can only communicate through the silent language of a profound sharing of affection. In this case it is force which becomes the criterion for choice and action in interpersonal relations and in social life. But this is the exact opposite of what a State ruled by law, as a community in which the "reasons of force" are replaced by the "force of reason", historically intended to affirm.

At another level, the roots of the contradiction between the solemn affirmation of human rights and their tragic denial in practice lies in a notion of freedom which exalts the isolated individual in an absolute way, and gives no place to solidarity, to openness to others and service of them. While it is true that the taking of life not yet born or in its final stages is sometimes marked by a mistaken sense of altruism and human compassion, it cannot be denied that such a culture of death, taken as a whole, betrays a completely individualistic concept of freedom, which ends up by becoming the freedom of "the strong" against the weak who have no choice but to submit.

It is precisely in this sense that Cain's answer to the Lord's question: "Where is Abel your brother?" can be interpreted: "I do not know; am I my brother's keeper?" (Gen 4:9). Yes, every man is his "brother's keeper", because God entrusts us to one another. And it is also in view of this entrusting that God gives everyone freedom, a freedom which possesses an inherently relational dimension. This is a great gift of the Creator, placed as it is at the service of the person and of his fulfilment through the gift of self and openness to others; but when freedom is made absolute in an individualistic way, it is emptied of its original content, and its very meaning and dignity are contradicted.

There is an even more profound aspect which needs to be emphasized: freedom negates and destroys itself, and becomes a factor leading to the destruction of others, when it no longer recognizes and respects its essential link with the truth. When freedom, out of a desire to emancipate itself from all forms of tradition and authority, shuts out even the most obvious evidence of an objective and universal truth, which is the foundation of personal and social life, then the person ends up by no longer taking as the sole and indisputable point of reference for his own choices the truth about good and evil, but only his subjective and changeable opinion or, indeed, his selfish interest and whim. 

20. This view of freedom leads to a serious distortion of life in society. If the promotion of the self is understood in terms of absolute autonomy, people inevitably reach the point of rejecting one another. Everyone else is considered an enemy from whom one has to defend oneself. Thus soci- ety becomes a mass of individuals placed side by side, but without any mutual bonds. Each one wishes to assert himself independently of the other and in fact intends to make his own interests prevail. Still, in the face of other people's analogous interests, some kind of compromise must be found, if one wants a society in which the maximum possible freedom is guaranteed to each individual. In this way, any reference to common values and to a truth absolutely binding on everyone is lost, and social life ventures on to the shifting sands of complete relativism. At that point, everything is negotiable, everything is open to bargaining: even the first of the fundamental rights, the right to life.

This is what is happening also at the level of politics and government: the original and inalienable right to life is questioned or denied on the basis of a parliamentary vote or the will of one part of the people-even if it is the majority. This is the sinister result of a relativism which reigns unopposed: the "right" ceases to be such, because it is no longer firmly founded on the inviolable dignity of the person, but is made subject to the will of the stronger part. In this way democracy, contradicting its own principles, effectively moves towards a form of totalitarianism. The State is no longer the "common home" where all can live together on the basis of principles of fundamental equality, but is transformed into a tyrant State, which arrogates to itself the right to dispose of the life of the weakest and most defenceless members, from the unborn child to the elderly, in the name of a public interest which is really nothing but the interest of one part. The appearance of the strictest respect for legality is maintained, at least when the laws permitting abortion and euthanasia are the result of a ballot in accordance with what are generally seen as the rules of democracy. Really, what we have here is only the tragic caricature of legality; the democratic ideal, which is only truly such when it acknowledges and safeguards the dignity of every human person, is betrayed in its very foundations: "How is it still possible to speak of the dignity of every human person when the killing of the weakest and most innocent is permitted? In the name of what justice is the most unjust of discriminations practised: some individuals are held to be deserving of defence and others are denied that dignity?" 16 When this happens, the process leading to the breakdown of a genuinely human co-existence and the disintegration of the State itself has already begun.

To claim the right to abortion, infanticide and euthanasia, and to recognize that right in law, means to attribute to human freedom a perverse and evil significance: that of an absolute power over others and against others. This is the death of true freedom: "Truly, truly, I say to you, every one who commits sin is a slave to sin" (Jn 8:34).

"And from your face I shall be hidden" (Gen 4:14): the eclipse of the sense of God and of man 

21. In seeking the deepest roots of the struggle between the "culture of life" and the "culture of death", we cannot restrict ourselves to the perverse idea of freedom mentioned above. We have to go to the heart of the tragedy being experienced by modern man: the eclipse of the sense of God and of man, typical of a social and cultural climate dominated by secularism, which, with its ubiquitous tentacles, succeeds at times in putting Christian communities themselves to the test. Those who allow themselves to be influenced by this climate easily fall into a sad vicious circle: when the sense of God is lost, there is also a tendency to lose the sense of man, of his dignity and his life; in turn, the systematic violation of the moral law, especially in the serious matter of respect for human life and its dignity, produces a kind of progressive darkening of the capacity to discern God's living and saving presence.

Once again we can gain insight from the story of Abel's murder by his brother. After the curse imposed on him by God, Cain thus addresses the Lord: "My punishment is greater than I can bear. Behold, you have driven me this day away from the ground; and from your face I shall be hidden; and I shall be a fugitive and wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will slay me" (Gen 4:13-14). Cain is convinced that his sin will not obtain pardon from the Lord and that his inescapable destiny will be to have to "hide his face" from him. If Cain is capable of confessing that his fault is "greater than he can bear", it is because he is conscious of being in the presence of God and before God's just judgment. It is really only before the Lord that man can admit his sin and recognize its full seriousness. Such was the experience of David who, after "having committed evil in the sight of the Lord", and being rebuked by the Prophet Nathan, exclaimed: "My offences truly I know them; my sin is always before me. Against you, you alone, have I sinned; what is evil in your sight I have done" (Ps 51:5-6). 

22. Consequently, when the sense of God is lost, the sense of man is also threatened and poisoned, as the Second Vatican Council concisely states: "Without the Creator the creature would disappear ... But when God is forgotten the creature itself grows unintelligible".17 Man is no longer able to see himself as "mysteriously different" from other earthly creatures; he regards himself merely as one more living being, as an organism which, at most, has reached a very high stage of perfection. Enclosed in the narrow horizon of his physical nature, he is somehow reduced to being "a thing", and no longer grasps the "transcendent" character of his "existence as man". He no longer considers life as a splendid gift of God, something "sacred" entrusted to his responsibility and thus also to his loving care and "veneration". Life itself becomes a mere "thing", which man claims as his exclusive property, completely subject to his control and manipulation.

Thus, in relation to life at birth or at death, man is no longer capable of posing the question of the truest meaning of his own existence, nor can he assimilate with genuine freedom these crucial moments of his own history. He is concerned only with "doing", and, using all kinds of technology, he busies himself with programming, controlling and dominating birth and death. Birth and death, instead of being primary experiences demanding to be "lived", become things to be merely "possessed" or "rejected".

Moreover, once all reference to God has been removed, it is not surprising that the meaning of everything else becomes profoundly distorted. Nature itself, from being "mater" (mother), is now reduced to being "matter", and is subjected to every kind of manipulation. This is the direction in which a certain technical and scientific way of thinking, prevalent in present-day culture, appears to be leading when it rejects the very idea that there is a truth of creation which must be ac- knowledged, or a plan of God for life which must be respected. Something similar happens when concern about the consequences of such a "freedom without law" leads some people to the opposite position of a "law without freedom", as for example in ideologies which consider it unlawful to interfere in any way with nature, practically "divinizing" it. Again, this is a misunderstanding of nature's dependence on the plan of the Creator. Thus it is clear that the loss of contact with God's wise design is the deepest root of modern man's confusion, both when this loss leads to a freedom without rules and when it leaves man in "fear" of his freedom.

By living "as if God did not exist", man not only loses sight of the mystery of God, but also of the mystery of the world and the mystery of his own being. 

23. The eclipse of the sense of God and of man inevitably leads to a practical materialism, which breeds individualism, utilitarianism and hedonism. Here too we see the permanent validity of the words of the Apostle: "And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct" (Rom 1:28). The values of being are replaced by those of having. The only goal which counts is the pursuit of one's own material well-being. The so-called "quality of life" is interpreted primarily or exclusively as economic efficiency, inordinate consumerism, physical beauty and pleasure, to the neglect of the more profound dimensions-interpersonal, spiritual and religious-of existence.

In such a context suffering, an inescapable burden of human existence but also a factor of possible personal growth, is "censored", rejected as useless, indeed opposed as an evil, always and in every way to be avoided. When it cannot be avoided and the prospect of even some future well-being vanishes, then life appears to have lost all meaning and the temptation grows in man to claim the right to suppress it.

Within this same cultural climate, the body is no longer perceived as a properly personal reality, a sign and place of relations with others, with God and with the world. It is reduced to pure materiality: it is simply a complex of organs, functions and energies to be used according to the sole criteria of pleasure and efficiency. Consequently, sexuality too is depersonalized and exploited: from being the sign, place and language of love, that is, of the gift of self and acceptance of another, in all the other's richness as a person, it increasingly becomes the occasion and instrument for self-assertion and the selfish satisfaction of personal desires and instincts. Thus the original import of human sexuality is distorted and falsified, and the two meanings, unitive and procreative, inherent in the very nature of the conjugal act, are artificially separated: in this way the marriage union is betrayed and its fruitfulness is subjected to the caprice of the couple. Procreation then becomes the "enemy" to be avoided in sexual activity: if it is welcomed, this is only because it expresses a desire, or indeed the intention, to have a child "at all costs", and not because it signifies the complete acceptance of the other and therefore an openness to the richness of life which the child represents.

In the materialistic perspective described so far, interpersonal relations are seriously impoverished. The first to be harmed are women, children, the sick or suffering, and the elderly. The criterion of personal dignity-which demands respect, generosity and service-is replaced by the criterion of efficiency, functionality and usefulness: others are considered not for what they "are", but for what they "have, do and produce". This is the supremacy of the strong over the weak. 

24. It is at the heart of the moral conscience that the eclipse of the sense of God and of man, with all its various and deadly consequences for life, is taking place. It is a question, above all, of the individual conscience, as it stands before God in its singleness and uniqueness. 18 But it is also a question, in a certain sense, of the "moral conscience" of society: in a way it too is responsible, not only because it tolerates or fosters behaviour contrary to life, but also because it encourages the "culture of death", creating and consolidating actual "structures of sin" which go against life. The moral conscience, both individual and social, is today subjected, also as a result of the penetrating influence of the media, to an extremely serious and mortal danger: that of confusion between good and evil, precisely in relation to the fundamental right to life. A large part of contemporary society looks sadly like that humanity which Paul describes in his Letter to the Romans. It is composed "of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth" (1:18): having denied God and believing that they can build the earthly city without him, "they became futile in their thinking" so that "their senseless minds were darkened" (1:21); "claiming to be wise, they became fools" (1:22), carrying out works deserving of death, and "they not only do them but approve those who practise them" (1:32). When conscience, this bright lamp of the soul (cf. Mt 6:22-23), calls "evil good and good evil" (Is 5:20), it is already on the path to the most alarming corruption and the darkest moral blindness.

And yet all the conditioning and efforts to enforce silence fail to stifle the voice of the Lord echoing in the conscience of every individual: it is always from this intimate sanctuary of the conscience that a new journey of love, openness and service to human life can begin.

[Pope John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae]

One can never close the door in the face of parents who ask for baptism for their child, even if they are not married in church: the Christian, and especially the pastor, should never forget the gratuitousness of salvation, the closeness of God and the concreteness of works of mercy, whether material or spiritual. This is the strong invitation to always open the door to others, and also to oneself, suggested by Pope Francis in the mass celebrated on Thursday morning, 19 October, at Santa Marta.

"This passage from the Gospel," the Pope immediately pointed out, referring to the passage from Luke (11:47-54), "enters into that style of the evangelist" that is proper to "both Luke and Matthew". It is "we could say" a "style" that indicates "trouble: Woe to you, teachers of the law: woe to you, Pharisees". In fact, Francis explained, 'the Lord is very strong, very strong: he strikes with such force'. In particular, "in today's passage there is an expression that makes one think: 'Woe to you teachers of the Law, who have taken away the key of knowledge; you did not enter, and those who wanted to enter you prevented'".

In reality, the Pontiff acknowledged, "this verse is a bit obscure: what does it mean to 'take away the key of knowledge', with the consequence of not entering the Kingdom and not even letting others in?" And so, said the Pope, "this taking away of the ability to understand God's revelation, to understand God's heart, to understand God's salvation - the key to knowledge - we can say that it is a serious forgetfulness". Because "one forgets the gratuitousness of salvation, one forgets God's closeness and one forgets God's mercy". And precisely 'those who forget the gratuitousness of salvation, God's closeness and God's mercy have taken away the key to knowledge'. So much so that, the Pope insisted, "one cannot understand the Gospel without these three things".

"They have forgotten gratuitousness," therefore. And "Paul speaks of this in the first reading," Francis said again, referring to the passage in the letter to the Romans (3:21-30): "You are justified freely by his grace." But, the Pontiff warned, "these people forget that everything is free, that it was God's initiative to save us, and they take the side of the law and try to cling to it, and the more detailed, the better: salvation is there for them". And "thus," he continued, "they are so clinging to the law that they do not receive the power of God's righteousness: there is a deception behind justifying oneself with the law: "I do this, this, this and I am happy, I am justified" - "But how am I to do this?" - "No, you have to do it like this, like this, like this" - "But this "like this" how should I do it?" - "Like this, like this, like this"'.

Here, said the Pope, they "arrive at a pile of prescriptions and for them this is salvation: they have lost the key to intelligence which, in this case, is the gratuitousness of salvation". In reality, "the law is a response to God's gratuitous love: it is He who has taken the initiative to save us, and because you have loved me so much, I try to go your way, the way you have shown me", in a word "I fulfil the law". But 'it is a response' because 'the law, always, is a response and when one forgets the gratuitousness of salvation one falls, one loses the key to the intelligence of salvation history'.

And, again, the Pontiff relaunched, those people "have lost the key to intelligence because they have lost the sense of God's closeness: for them God is the one who made the law" but "this is not the God of revelation". In reality "the God of revelation is God who began to walk with us from Abraham to Jesus Christ: God who walks with his people". Therefore "when we lose this close relationship with the Lord, we fall into this obtuse mentality that believes in the self-sufficiency of salvation through the fulfilment of the law".

Here, then, is "the closeness of God", remarked Francis, referring to "such a beautiful passage, almost at the end of Deuteronomy, in chapter 31; when Moses finishes writing the law, he hands it over to the Levites, those who guarded the ark, and tells them 'take this book of the law and put it beside the ark, close to God, because I know your rebellion - he is speaking to the people - and the hardness of your neck'".

"Instead, close to the Lord," the Pope pointed out, "the law is a revelation of the Lord, but it becomes detached, the law becomes autonomous and becomes dictatorial, when God's closeness is lacking". Moreover, he suggested, "we think in prayer: when prayer is lacking, one cannot teach doctrine, not even do theology or moral theology". Moreover, he relaunched, 'theology is done on one's knees, always close to God: these people had lost that sense of closeness, they had forgotten the closeness of God'.Moreover, the Pontiff explained, in doing so those people had also 'lost the memory of God's mercy'. In fact, "in the word of God, the Lord repeats much, much and much 'mercy I want, not sacrifices'". And "this closeness of God, of which we have spoken, reaches the highest point in Jesus Christ crucified". The same "Paul reminds us that we have been justified by the blood of Christ, the flesh of Christ, the blood of Christ". Instead, those people end up forgetting precisely "the flesh of Christ: they forget mercy and therefore end up not knowing the core of the law, which is mercy, always". So much so that, Francis explained, "the works of mercy are the touchstone of the fulfilment of the law, because" they allow us to "touch the flesh of Christ, to touch Christ suffering in a person, both corporally and spiritually".

In this regard, the Pope invited us to think of "the rich man Epulone who in hell asked Abraham to send one of the dead to his brothers to preach, so they could be saved". But "what does Abraham say: 'No, this will not do, for if they are not able to listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they listen to one who rises from the dead'". In fact, "if they do not have mercy as he did - Epulon had none - nothing is worthwhile!" Francis therefore presented 'these three forgetfulnesses' that 'are the root: forgetfulness of the gratuitousness of salvation, forgetfulness of God's closeness, and forgetfulness of mercy'. And so the turning away from salvation is also at the root of "taking away the key to knowledge: one does not know salvation this way". Hence the Pontiff's exhortation to ask: "What are the consequences?".

Precisely "today's Gospel passage points to two," was the reply. "First of all the closure: 'You did not enter, and those who wanted to enter, you prevented'". Yes, 'these people closed the door to the faithful and the faithful did not understand: they, all their moral theology, made intellectual mannerism, but it did not reach the people and, with that, they drove people away. No, this is not the religion I wanted: this is not the truth of salvation in Jesus Christ'. And, the Pontiff pointed out, "here I think of the responsibility we pastors have: when we pastors lose or take away the key to intelligence, we close the door to ourselves and to others".

"I am reminded", he confided, "and I say this for our edification" of the fact that "in my country I have heard many times of pastors who did not baptise the children of single mothers, because they were not born in canonical marriage: they closed the door, they scandalised the people of God because the heart of these pastors had lost the key to knowledge". More: 'Without going so far back in time and space, three months ago, in a town, a mother wanted to baptise her newborn son, but she was civilly married to a divorced man. The parish priest said 'yes, yes, I will baptise the child but your husband is divorced, stay out, he cannot be present at the ceremony'". And 'this happens today', he said, because 'the Pharisees, the doctors of the law are not things of those times: even today there are many of them'.

For this reason, the Pope said, "it is necessary to pray for us pastors, so that we do not lose the key to knowledge and do not close the door to us and to the people who want to enter".

"And the second consequence," he continued, "is also what the Gospel says: 'When he had gone out from there, the scribes and Pharisees began to treat him in a hostile manner and to make him speak on many subjects, laying snares for him in order to surprise him with a few words that came out of his own mouth'". This is "a corrupt attitude" and "this is the second consequence: when one loses the key to knowledge, whether in the gratuitousness of salvation or in the nearness of God or in works of mercy, one arrives at corruption". And "how do the pastors of those times end up? By laying snares for the Lord to make him fall into the trap and then be able to accuse and condemn him, as they did". In conclusion, the Pontiff suggested asking "the Lord for the grace of the memory of our salvation, of the gratuitousness of salvation, of the closeness of God - and this let us pray - and for the concreteness of the works of mercy that the Lord wants from us, whether material or spiritual, but concrete". With the hope that the Lord "gives us this grace" so that "we can become people who help open the door and to ourselves and to others."

[Pope Francis, St. Martha, in L'Osservatore Romano 20/10/2017]

28th Sunday in Ordinary Time (year A)  [11 October 2026]

First Reading from the Book of the Prophet Isaiah (25:6–10a)

To describe the fulfilment of God’s plan, the prophet Isaiah chose the image of a banquet. This plan is a humanity finally at peace: sitting at the same table, sharing the same meal, celebrating together – a true image of peace. ‘The Lord of hosts will prepare for all peoples, on his mountain, a feast of rich food and choice wines, a feast of succulent meat and refined wines.’ It is a poetic and symbolic evocation: Isaiah is not seeking to give a realistic description of what will actually happen. He means that wars, suffering and injustices will come to an end, and all peoples will be celebrating. If this passage dates, as many believe, from during or after the Babylonian Exile, it is understandable why the dream of celebration is expressed through images of abundance. If the prophet considers it worthwhile to proclaim: “On that day it will be said: “Behold, this is our God; we have hoped in him, and he has saved us”, he probably does so to try to lift the spirits of his compatriots. And so we might translate it as: Take heart, my brothers and sisters; tell yourselves that in time you will not regret having placed your trust in him… and I will tell you how the story will end: we are walking slowly but surely towards the day of definitive peace. The only truly good reason to believe in this is that it is a promise from God: ‘The Lord has spoken’, says Isaiah. Here is the central phrase of the text that justifies the prophet’s unshakeable optimism – he who knows and has experienced God’s ceaseless work to liberate his people. One cannot be a prophet (or simply a witness to the faith) unless, in one way or another, one has a personal or collective experience of God’s work; and Israel takes care to continually nourish its faith through the remembrance of God’s work. And it is precisely because it never forgets this that it is able to endure times of trial. Just as God delivered his people from the bonds of Egypt, so he continues, down through the centuries, to deliver them; and mankind’s worst bonds are the inability to live in peace, to practise justice, and to remain in the Covenant with God. If God brings his work to fulfilment (and Isaiah has no doubt that he will), the day will come when all peoples will live in peace and in faithfulness to the Covenant. For it is he, the Lord, who has promised it.

There is, however, one phrase that remains difficult: ‘He will swallow up death for ever’. When we read this phrase today, we are tempted to interpret it in the light of our present Christian faith and thus to attribute to the prophet thoughts that were not his own. Only God knows, of course, what Isaiah had in mind, but it is highly unlikely that this passage constitutes an affirmation of the Resurrection in the Christian sense of the term; the people of Israel gradually came to discover, even before Christ, a belief in the resurrection of the body, but this was long after the Book of Isaiah had been definitively committed to writing. It is a truth that has become increasingly established over the centuries.

Responsorial Psalm (22/23)

This psalm, known as the Psalm of the Good Shepherd, may seem like a simple pastoral image, but in reality it speaks of the fundamental themes of life: life and death, fear of enemies, and faith in God, which is stronger than any threat. It speaks of life within the Covenant with God: for the believer, only this relationship with God truly deserves the name ‘Life’, whilst a break with God represents ‘Death’. The ‘House of the Lord’ is the Temple in Jerusalem. Those who could truly say, ‘I shall dwell in the House of the Lord all the days of my life’, were the Levites, descendants of Levi. The tribe of Levi did not receive a territory like the other tribes of Israel, because it was consecrated to the service of worship. The Levites lived in the towns of the other tribes, received tithes and travelled to Jerusalem to take their turn in serving in the Temple, which they guarded day and night. The psalm therefore expresses the joy of a life completely consecrated to God: ‘Goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life; I shall dwell in the house of the Lord for ever’. However, the Levite also becomes a symbol of the experience of the whole people of Israel. Just as the Levite has a special place amongst the people of Israel, so Israel has a special role amongst the nations. God freely chose this people and offered them a Covenant. Israel acknowledges this choice with wonder and continually remembers what God did to deliver them from Egypt. Being the chosen people does not, however, mean selfishly enjoying God’s closeness. Israel is called to pave the way for other peoples, so that all humanity too may enter into intimacy with God. This ties in with Isaiah’s message: the banquet prepared by God on his mountain is intended for all peoples. In short, this Psalm teaches that God is the shepherd who accompanies and protects his people. Israel was chosen to live within the Covenant and to bear witness to God’s love before other nations. Ultimately, however, salvation and communion with God are intended for all humanity.

Second Reading from the Letter of Saint Paul the Apostle to the Philippians (4:12–14, 19–20)

Paul writes to the Christians in Philippi whilst he is probably in prison in Ephesus, in the 50s AD. He thanks them for the financial aid they sent him via Epaphroditus. Paul explains that he has learnt to live in both poverty and abundance: he knows how to be full or hungry, to live in plenty or in want. His freedom from material possessions stems from his faith: ‘I can do all things through him who strengthens me’, that is, Christ. Paul is not ashamed to speak of money or to accept help when he needs it. True freedom does not mean pretending not to need material possessions, especially when so many people live in poverty. But are riches an opportunity or a risk? In this regard, the Bible presents three fundamental ideas: First of all, riches are a positive possibility: they are not evil in themselves and can be regarded as a gift from God when they enable one to live and enjoy one’s work. However, riches can become a risk: when they are accumulated for their own sake, they can turn into a form of slavery. An excessive desire to possess leads to a loss of freedom. Finally, the accumulation of wealth can create poverty: when some accumulate too much, others may be deprived of the necessary resources. This is why prophets, such as Amos and Isaiah, strongly criticise injustice and the hoarding of wealth. We must never forget that we are not owners, but stewards of the goods we have, both for ourselves and for others. During the Eucharist, the bread and wine represent all the riches of the earth and the work of humankind. In offering them, we are not simply giving something to God: we acknowledge that everything already belongs to Him and has been entrusted to us. In short: money and wealth are not evil in themselves. They become a problem when they enslave us, when they are hoarded selfishly, or when they lead to poverty and injustice. Christians are called to use them freely and responsibly, remembering that they are merely stewards of these things.

From the Gospel according to Matthew (22:1–14)

These two parables follow one another and, at first glance, do not seem to have much in common: the parable of the invitation to the wedding feast and that of the man turned away because he was not wearing wedding clothes. Some believe that, originally, these two parables were not connected: it would indeed seem contradictory to demand formal attire from someone who had been picked up off the street. But if Matthew deliberately placed them side by side, it means that we can draw a lesson from this connection. Let us examine them one by one. ‘A king was celebrating his son’s wedding.’ And this is not just any king, for right from the start we are told that we are speaking of the ‘Kingdom of Heaven’: this expression alone immediately suggests to us that it concerns the Covenant between God and humanity, a Covenant fulfilled in Jesus Christ; in the Gospels, he presents himself as the bridegroom. Moreover, the word ‘wedding’ occurs seven times in this parable. This wedding symbolism is not very common in our Christian language today; yet it is precisely in these terms that the later texts of the Bible describe God’s plan for humanity. From the final prophecies of Isaiah right through to the Book of Revelation, via the Song of Songs and the Wisdom Literature, to name but a few, God’s love for humanity is described in terms of conjugal love. And it is precisely for this reason that Saint Paul says that marriage is ‘the best image of God’s relationship with humanity’.

In the Old Testament, it was clear that the proclamation and fulfilment of the universal salvation of humanity were to come through Israel. The chosen people had a mission for the whole of humanity. It is in this sense that we have learnt to interpret God’s words to Abraham: ‘All the families of the earth shall be blessed through you’ (Gen 12:3). Returning to the wedding analogy, we might say that the Jews were the first to be invited to the wedding; the host was counting on them to then extend the invitation and bring in, in their wake, the whole of humanity. But we know how it turned out: the vast majority of Jews refused to recognise Jesus as the Messiah. In the parable, they are represented by the guests who refuse to come to the wedding and even go so far as to mistreat the servants who had gone to summon them. What will happen? In the parable, the servants fill the banquet hall with guests summoned at the last moment. In the Letter to the Romans, Paul comments that this rejection by Israel will not only fail to prevent the wedding, but will actually facilitate the entry of all peoples into the banquet hall. ‘The servants went out into the streets, gathered everyone they found, both good and bad, and the wedding hall was filled with guests’. Let us move on to the second parable: a man, invited at the last moment, enters without a wedding garment. He is utterly unable to answer the question: ‘Friend, how did you get in here without a wedding garment?’ He is then thrown out. This certainly does not mean that he had to meet a particular behavioural requirement, nor that the wedding garment symbolises any kind of merit. As soon as we speak of ‘merit’, we risk distorting the meaning of God’s grace, which by definition is free! With God, there are no conditions to fulfil. The first parable clearly states that everyone was allowed to enter, both the good and the bad. So, what might this second parable mean? Let us look at the crowd entering the wedding banquet hall. Whether good or bad, everyone was invited; everyone accepted and put on the wedding garment: they were able to welcome the unexpected invitation and prepare themselves.

Only one person did not deem it necessary to do so: he failed to appreciate the good fortune of this unhoped-for offer and to accept it with gratitude. When asked, ‘How did you manage to get in here without the wedding garment?’, he does not know what to say. A word of apology or repentance would have sufficed, but he remains silent. Failing to prepare for a banquet means attaching no importance to the invitation and showing contempt for the one who invites us. Ultimately, just like the first guests, he has sinned through indifference or presumption. In conclusion: the first virtue required of us is humility.

Commentary: The first guests refused the invitation and others took their place. Historically, this is precisely what happened. In the Acts of the Apostles we see the same scenario repeated several times: whenever Paul arrives in a new city, he first goes to the synagogue and proclaims to the Jews that Jesus is the long-awaited Messiah. Some believe him and become Christians. However, when Paul’s preaching goes beyond the confines of the synagogue and even the pagans begin to become Christians, the Jews who have not been persuaded become frightened and drive Paul out. This is what happened in Antioch of Pisidia: ‘It was necessary to proclaim the word of God to you first. But since you reject it and do not consider yourselves worthy of eternal life, we turn to the pagan nations.’ The same thing subsequently happened in Iconium and Thessalonica. Precisely because the apostles were driven out from one city to another, the Gospel spread from one city to another. One of the lessons of the first parable is therefore that Israel’s rejection cannot permanently halt God’s plan. Just as prostitutes and tax collectors took the place of the religious authorities in Jesus’ time, so, a few years later, when Matthew was writing his Gospel, pagans entered the Church in great numbers precisely because of the rejection by some Jews.

God always manages to bring good out of evil. There is also another interpretation of the wedding garment. In New Testament language, the wedding garment is that of the baptised. We know, in fact, that what we today call the ‘baptismal garment’ is in reality a ‘wedding garment’. The second parable would therefore concern the baptised: it is they who have entered the wedding hall. But we know that you cannot judge a book by its cover. Here, Jesus would be reminding us of the demands that stem from our Baptism. As he himself says: ‘Not everyone who says to me, “Lord, Lord,” will enter the Kingdom of Heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven’ (Mt 7:21).

+Giovanni D’Ercole

Serving oneself and "the audience"

(Lk 11:42-46)

The conflict between Jesus and the religious authorities takes on violent features.

Ideological or devout choice can be lost in the formalism of those who endlessly discuss minutiae and forget the goals of inner commitment, in favor of a sort of circus show (v.43).

When the notables disdain service and choose honors, the simple passing by them causes to contract the same impurity of the soul: average and normal life, internal corruption.

In short, the Divine Law has been so burdened as to make devout practice suffocating, worried about quibbles.

For those who can bear the procedures, then, perfection in outward things can nourish pride even in interhuman relationships. And the Grace that enriches will no longer dictate the conduct.

The willingness to build up the Church in Christ requires us to be authentic and simple, not dehumanized; a sign of the Covenant, not hateful.

There is a counter-witness that stifles the growth of life and crushes the freedom of those who are animated by Spirit of God.

Among other things, leaders and “jurists” willingly leave their privacy outside the provisions they impose on others (v.46).

In short, the care for details is good and propulsive (v.42) only if it joins the intimate discovery of one’s Mission and Call, character that promotes growth and our future.

While Mt 23:27 speaks of whitewashed tombs, Lk speaks of hidden sepulchers, which are not seen (v.44).

Simple, naïve, pure people who approach it, do not realize that they are insisting on dead idols.

In the Semitic mentality, touching or trampling on a tomb meant contracting impurities.

Jesus means that we must be very careful of these dangerous people, who seize and plagiarize souls, turning them away from God in the name of God.

Manipulative guides, who distract from the sense of the Good News in our favor, inoculating a mentality that annihilates growth.

At all times the recitation of disembodied, schematic, off-scale or confusing and empty holiness retains deviant appearances.

But the proponents of the soul’s death are immediately recognized: they are those who insist on sophisticated worldviews, on abstract ideas; on the trifles of habits, or disciplinary appearances - and forget the goals of the Kingdom.

The topic is crucial:

«We want to be a Church that serves, that leaves home and goes forth from its places of worship, goes forth from its sacristies, in order to accompany life, to sustain hope, to be the sign of unity […] to build bridges, to break down walls, to sow seeds of reconciliation» (FT n.276).

Resolutive work, obtained in a laborious, «craftsmanship» way (n.217).

As with fashions, attention to the too great or to the unincarnated modes brings people closer to skeletons.

Let us therefore help ourselves to bring the Word back inside, so that it becomes our active face, without duplicity, with broad hope, separated from the present scene and from any narcissistic workshop.

[Wednesday 28th wk. in O.T.  October 14, 2026]

Serving oneself and "the public”

(Lk 11:42-46)

The conflict between Jesus and the religious authorities takes on violent overtones, as the poltronists get hung up on the details and neglect the essentials.

In particular, the experts disdain the experience of Communion - which is indeed a project, but on the contrary a life insurance [with power and privileges].

According to the young Rabbi, the religious choice itself can be burdensome and intolerable.

Unfortunately, the devout option is not infrequently lost in the formalism of those who endlessly discuss petty precepts and forget the goals of inner commitment, in favour of a sort of circus show (v.43).

Indeed, there is no shortage of official notables who disdain service and choose honours, so that simply passing by them causes them to contract the same impurity of soul: average and normal life, internal corruption.

In short, the divine Law has been so burdened as to make sacred practice all artificial, asphyxiating, out of scale or preoccupied with minutiae.

For those who can stand the rigmarole, then, perfection in external things can feed pride even in inter-human relations.

The ancient spiritual fathers used to say that pride is a thief, because in the case of good deeds, self-love steals gratuitousness and feeds arrogance. Thus the Grace that enriches us no longer dictates our conduct.

Our readiness to build the Church in Christ demands that we be authentic and simple, not dehumanised; a sign of the Covenant, not hateful.

There is a counter-witness that stifles the growth of life and curtails the freedom of those who are animated by the Spirit of God: that of the popular leaders [Pharisees] and the hard-line jurists [scribes].

Not for nothing do they willingly leave privacy out of the arrangements they impose on others (v.46).

The experience of Love is 'law', not for the sake of a body, a pack, a group of interests, but for a rich conviviality of differences.

This is the 'norm', the 'canon' - if you like - but not to construct the impersonal good of the pressure group, and to be protected by it.

Although it would guarantee prestige in society - even ecclesial - it would become a sprawling, intrusive imposition.

The abstract, overly cerebral, ideological or fanciful gaze, and bigoted mummies, make the environment arid, dissipate energy, and make the experience of faith vacuous.

They insist on fulfilments, models, designs and penances, or conversely dissipations that drive love away, and discourage attempts to read oneself and dispositions from within.

Perhaps in every religion, observances - or 'big ideas' - have created that 'ancient' hypnotism of habitual mechanisms and enveloping atmospheres that make God a reassuring totem, a sacraliser of established positions.

He is a corrosive, punishing worm of passion, ruining people and the destiny of the whole people.

It is a matter, then, of running the utmost risk united with Christ - not to give in to the always lurking temptation to feel better: in favour of a long inner adventure; to touch those spaces where the Call by Name resembles no other.

It is in the intimate and in the candid relationship that we encounter our profound Calling, the unexpressed talents, the divine Author's signature.

In the uniqueness of character, from the Core, the Seed that does not lie guides the vocation; the Risen One who is present reveals himself to be understanding, gentle, attentive, absolutely genuine, personal.

Attention to details and trifles is only good and propulsive (v.42) if it is united with the intimate discovery of one's own singular Mission and Calling, a character that promotes growth, and our future.

Here the call to values that do not grow old, substantial - attentive to situations - does not imply contempt and disregard for what may seem secondary (but is unrepeatable): recognising the concrete woman and man.

Otherwise, the motive for our actions would remain the concern for our own fictitious fame. This would render petty and discredited the experience of Faith that activates us to explore, to make Exodus.

When the Law does not evolve within us and with us, in our inwardness and personality without measure, it will find a way to impose itself, torment us and slow down our experience of life, or contaminate and devastate it.

While Mt 23:27 speaks of whitewashed tombs, Lk speaks of hidden tombs, which cannot be seen (v.44).

The simple, naive, pure people who approach it do not realise that they are insisting on dead idols.

Even false teachers codify everything, and would like to normalise even belief and its expressions.

In the Semitic mentality, touching or treading on a tomb meant contracting impurity.

Jesus means that one must be very very careful of these very dangerous people.

Even in the primitive Christian communities, they gherminated and plagued souls, leading them away from God in the name of God.Manipulative guides, they diverted people away from the sense of the Good News in our favour, inoculating drop by drop a mentality that annihilated growth.

The recitation of disembodied, confusing, narrow and empty holiness (folklore and undergrowth) still retains deviant appearances.

But the proponents of the death of the soul are immediately recognisable: they are the ones who insist on sophisticated worldviews, on abstract ideas; on the quirks of idle pleasures, or of disciplinary appearances - and forget the objectives of the Kingdom.

The issue is crucial.

As Pope Francis reiterated in the encyclical Fratelli Tutti, quoting one of his homilies (in Santiago de Cuba):

"We want to be a Church that serves, that leaves home, that leaves its temples, its sacristies, to accompany life, to sustain hope, to be a sign of unity [...] to build bridges, to break down walls, to sow reconciliation" (no.276).

Decisive work, achieved in a laborious and "artisanal" manner (no.217).

Even among his own people today, the Risen One does not mince his words, and he speaks out decisively against certain insuppressible diseases - abstract [too big] worldviews or attention to the unimportant - that bring people closer to the skeletons.

The living Christ strikes out in invective at the formalism of doctrines and outward practices, which delude themselves into extracting and chiselling lofty earthly situations, obsessively attending only to themselves.

The only thing that Jesus condemns without appeal here is the vain ambition in the exercise of pretended authority - by pomp - considering it a narcissistic workshop (by washed-up histrions).

Let us therefore help ourselves to bring the Word back inside, so that it becomes our factual face, without duplicity, with a broad hope, separated from the present scene.

To internalise and live the message:

Have you renounced the law of death, of manner and quiddity, preferring the law of life?

Or do you serve yourself and 'the public'?

“Beware of practising your piety before men in order to be seen by them” (Mt 6:1). In today’s Gospel Jesus reinterprets the three fundamental pious practices prescribed by Mosaic law. Almsgiving, prayer and fasting characterize the Jew who observes the law. In the course of time these prescriptions were corroded by the rust of external formalism or even transformed into a sign of superiority. 

In these three practices Jesus highlights a common temptation. Doing a good deed almost instinctively gives rise to the desire to be esteemed and admired for the good action, in other words to gain a reward. And on the one hand this closes us in on ourselves and on the other, it brings us out of ourselves because we live oriented to what others think of us or admire in us. 

In proposing these prescriptions anew the Lord Jesus does not ask for formal respect of a law that is alien to the human being, imposed by a severe legislator as a heavy burden, but invites us to rediscover these three pious practices by living them more deeply, not out of self-love but out of love of God, as a means on the journey of conversion to him. Alms-giving, prayer and fasting: these are the path of the divine pedagogy that accompanies us not only in Lent, towards the encounter with the Risen Lord; a course to take without ostentation, in the certainty that the heavenly Father can read and also see into our heart in secret.

[Pope Benedict, Ash Wednesday homily 9 March 2011]

2. The present-day mentality, more perhaps than that of people in the past, seems opposed to a God of mercy, and in fact tends to exclude from life and to remove from the human heart the very idea of mercy.

15. Let us offer up our petitions, directed by the faith, by the hope, and by the charity which Christ has planted in our hearts. This attitude is likewise love of God, whom modern man has sometimes separated far from himself, made extraneous to himself, proclaiming in various ways that God is "superfluous." This is, therefore, love of God, the insulting rejection of whom by modern man we feel profoundly, and we are ready to cry out with Christ on the cross: "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do."137 At the same time it is love of people, of all men and women without any exception or division: without difference of race, culture, language, or world outlook, without distinction between friends and enemies. This is love for people-it desires every true good for each individual and for every human community, every family, every nation, every social group, for young people, adults, parents, the elderly-a love for everyone, without exception. This is love, or rather an anxious solicitude to ensure for each individual every true good and to remove and drive away every sort of evil.

[Pope John Paul II, Dives in Misericordia]

When it is said of someone that they are a person with a double life, it is not to pay them a compliment. On the contrary. It is those people who irritate, cause outrage, or often even cause disgust with behaviour that contradicts the things that they are paying lip service to. Whether it is a politician or a neighbour makes little difference: discovering, so to speak, a 'double life', is something that always hurts. And let us not mention the disillusionment it can generate, especially in young people.

But if preaching well and braying badly is always an irritating thing, when it is a priest doing it, it is even more intolerable. Because there is something more at stake. Pope Francis said it very clearly, and as always in a very direct and effective style, a few days ago. When, in the homily of the morning Mass at Santa Marta, he stressed how "it is ugly to see pastors of double life", indeed it is a real "wound in the Church". For the Pope, they are "sick pastors, who have lost their authority and go on in this double life"; and, he added, "there are many ways of carrying on the double life: but it is double ... And Jesus is very strong with them. Not only does he tell people not to listen to them but not to do what they do, but what does he say to them? "You are whited sepulchres": beautiful in doctrine, from the outside. But inside, rottenness. This is the end of the pastor who has no closeness with God in prayer and with people in compassion'.

For it is this that makes the difference. Francis reiterates it firmly: 'What gives a pastor authority, or awakens the authority that is given by the Father, is closeness: closeness to God in prayer and closeness to people. The pastor detached from the people does not reach the people with the message. Closeness, this double closeness. This is the anointing of the pastor who is moved by God's gift in prayer, and can be moved by people's sins, problems, illnesses: let the pastor be moved. The scribes ... had lost the 'ability' to be moved precisely because 'they were not close either to the people or to God'". And without this closeness, or when for whatever reason it is lost, 'the shepherd ends up in inconsistency of life'.

It seems like re-reading the words that John Paul II, in his Holy Thursday letter addressed to priests around the world in 1986, dedicated to the Holy Curate of Ars, pointing to him, on the second centenary of his birth, as an example for all priests. 'It is certainly not a matter of forgetting,' wrote Benedict XVI, again on St John Mary Vianney, in his letter of indiction for the 2009 Year for Priests, 'that the substantial effectiveness of the ministry remains independent of the holiness of the minister; but neither can we overlook the extraordinary fruitfulness generated by the encounter between the objective holiness of the ministry and the subjective holiness of the minister. The Curé d'Ars immediately began this humble and patient work of harmonisation between his life as a minister and the holiness of the ministry entrusted to him, deciding even to 'inhabit' his parish church materially: 'As soon as he arrived, he chose the church as his dwelling... He would enter the church before dawn and only leave it after the evening Angelus. There one had to look for him when one needed him,' reads the first biography'. Consistency, then. Not duplicity. Because God's people need everything except whitewashed sepulchres.

[Pope Francis, St. Martha; Salvatore Mazza in Avvenire 13 January 2018]

Faith and religious sense

(Lk 11:37-41)

Ablutions before the meal (v.38) were an imposed religious obligation.

But the Eucharistic banquet [read in filigree] does not celebrate detachments, nor is it affected by purist idolatry.

The severe spirit - "dry cleaning" type - still today gives a white lime hand to the reality of the Father.

Indeed, impurity does not proceed from lack of form (as in the façade religiosity), but from the behaviour that reveals a substantial void.

What stains is all inside, and hatches despite the beautiful petitions of principle, or good manners - which cover bad habits.

In short, what is offered is pure; what is kept, impure (v.41).

From a spiritual point of view, only those who give themselves are without blemish; impure those who think only of themselves in a trivial way, or turn to their neighbour to manipulate him.

Thus, often the external norms or ideas of men do not go to the root: they fossilize us.

They do not tear or integrate from within the malicious contents, the unfair desires - the real goals.

Observances themselves often create spiritual competition.

In this way they annihilate the spirit of charity and hospitality - compendium of the Law - from which those same ancient signs were born, in the first assemblies of faith. 

Of course, Justice plays a decisive role, but it is an existential commitment. The ’right position’ is for life, not to putting things “right” [things that are sometimes lifeless, however sophisticated or abstract they may be].

According to the Gospels, God must not be confused with the precepts, nor ideologies of the future, if schematic and disembodied.

The Lord wants to enter our concrete existence - and the excess of minutiae or fantasies can make us lose the fundamental orientation of his Call, corrupting sensitivity to the signals in which He reveals himself.

Legalism, habits, or abstruse and imported fashions, can make us incapable of corresponding to the missionary vocation.

They become hoods that prevent us from serving the individual freedoms of the shaky.

They make us awkward in accompanying people so that they increase their capacity for life and character.

Here Jesus invites the “Pharisees” [those in his Church] to understand the freedom of God and not to transform the Faith into any devout, cunning, or abstract (no backbone) creed.

It is not the supposed uncontaminatedness or ‘right-just thinking’ that enables us in His Presence and makes us proceed along endless paths.

We experience this in the global crisis.

It is meeting Him that consecrates and makes adequate, pure, realized, already complete.

‘Perfect ones’ - for the type of Seed we are called to plant in the world.

Enough worries on top of that, wich leave everyone in the lurch, in torment, and with no way out.

As if even in the People of Sons it was permissible to impose and see cages, lanes, forced worldviews, and padlocks everywhere.

To internalize and live the message:

What was the key moment when you felt forgiven and pure? Were you copying someone in the old-fashioned way or the trendy way?

[Tuesday 28th wk. in O.T.  October 13, 2026]

The interior and the society of the exterior

(Lk 11:37-41)

"Now you Pharisees clean the outside of the cup and tray, but your inside is full of robbery and wickedness" (Lk 11:39).

The ablutions before the meal (v.38) were an imposed religious obligation.

But the Eucharistic banquet [which we read in the watermark] does not celebrate detachment, nor does it suffer from purist idolatries.

The stern, 'dyeing' spirit - as Pope Francis would say - still gives a coat of whitewash to the Father's reality [at that time, it also served to protect the spirit of robbery of the veterans: v.39].

Indeed, the impurity does not proceed from shortcomings of form (as in façade religiosity), but from behaviour that denounces a substantial void.

That which stains is all within, and broods despite fine petitions of principle, or good manners - which cover up bad habits.

In short, what is offered is pure; what is withheld is impure (v.41).

From a spiritual point of view, only those who give themselves are without blemish; impure are those who think only of themselves in a trivial way, or who turn to their neighbour to manipulate him.

Thus, often the external norms or ideas of men do not go to the root: they fossilise.

They do not tear out or integrate from within the malign contents, the unrighteous desires - the true goals.

Dispositions devoid of inner conviction build at best seemingly impeccable people and a ritualistic world that (as it happens) turns to the most degrading corruption.

It is denoted in all the centres of power - again - all well covered by fatuous theatrical forms, and exaggerated catwalks.

In short, in order not to interrupt our thread of life, we can no longer stand there on studied and well-thought-out rules, believing that we have solved it.

Make-up does not capture the core.

In fact, even impeccable jurisdiction, or reason and intelligence, do not preserve from disheartenment, humiliation, loneliness - from what is authentic and continually surfacing.

Those forms of contract - so devious or conspicuous - do not restore a healthy balance, nor do they reach the lives of ordinary people.

It seemed to be pedagogy, but it is not: we see it.

Common religion itself sometimes lives by outward signs - often almost indecipherable or meaningless in themselves, when they flaunt, masking pyramids, and now increasingly blatant hypocrisies.

Not infrequently, the observances themselves create spiritual competition.

In doing so, they annihilate the spirit of charity and hospitality - the compendium of the Law - from which those same ancient signs were born, in the first assemblies of faith. 

Certainly, Justice plays a decisive role, but it is an existential commitment, not a cultic or scenographic one.

The 'righteous position' is for life, not for setting things right [dead things, or sophisticated and abstract things that are].

For the Gospels, one must not confuse God with precepts or ideologies of the future, if schematic and disembodied.

The Lord wants to enter into our concrete existence - and the excess of minutiae or fantasies can make us lose the fundamental orientation of his Calling, corrupting our sensitivity to the signs in which he reveals himself.

Legalism, habit, or abstruse and imported fashions can make us unable to correspond to the missionary Vocation.

They become shrouds that prevent us from serving the individual freedoms of the sick.

They make us clumsy in accompanying people so that they increase their capacity for life and character.

Why is Christ's victory His people?

Only the spirit of hospitality of the Sons in a relationship of mutual care, sensitive, able to perceive, creates the living environment that enables us to better connect our souls with the Mystery of the Hidden King, the great Meaning of our desires and His "intentions".

Here Jesus invites the Pharisees back to His Church to understand God's freedom and not to turn the Faith into just any pious, cunning, or abstract (spineless) creed.

It is not the supposed untaintedness or 'right' thinking that empowers us in his presence and makes us proceed on endless paths.

We experience Him, in the global crisis.

It is meeting Him that consecrates and makes us adequate, pure, fulfilled, already complete.

"Perfect" - for the kind of Seed we are called to plant in the world.

No more added worries that leave everyone in the worm, in torment, and with no way out.

As if even in the People of the Sons it is permissible to impose and see cages, lanes, obligatory worldviews, and padlocks everywhere.

To internalise and live the message:

What was the key moment when you felt forgiven and pure? Copying someone?

On an occasion when you experienced total gratuitousness, or deserved it?

On an occasion when you were true to yourself, or all outwardly projected?Misrepresented holiness: there is no sacred and profane in itself

Hypocritical traditions and ideal order: purity of advantage

(Mk 7:1-8.14-15.21-23)

Under the Herod dynasty, the sense of clan and community was crumbling.

Because of survival problems, families were forced to close in on themselves, loosen their bonds, think of their own needs.

This closure was reinforced by the religion of the time in every respect. In vv.10-12 we see an incredible example of this: those who dedicated their inheritance to the Temple could leave their parents without help!

Offence and offering: injustice and normative behaviour - a strange connection, in the apparent form of an exemplary accent.

The observance of purity norms was a factor of ordinary marginalisation for many people.

The wretched, in particular, were considered ignorant and cursed, because they were unable to comply; consequently, they lacked the consoling blessing promised to Abraham.

A daily drip that undermined the profound meaning of existing together.

In particular, ablutions were a kind of ritual during which a satisfying divarication between the sacred and the profane was celebrated - in the detachment from people and situations considered impure.

By staying away from the supposed filthiness, never could any of the unwashed be uplifted.

So the rules were not a source of peace, but of bondage. To extend a charitable hand would even have been sacrilegious.

In short, inhuman trifles were placed before the Law itself, thwarting its inclusive spirit (fraternity would have benefited the enthusiasm to exist).

Jesus could not tolerate the closed world of conformist religiosity being bent and used to ascertain the existence of others with judgement, to divide and discriminate - to annihilate relationships.

This is why the control of the Pharisees is opposed by the freedom of the disciples (v.2), who refuse to obey that which does not make sense for concrete life - where visible love feeds ideal love.

In ancient cultures, the religious and mythical view of the world led people to appreciate any reality from the category of holiness as detachment and separateness, even inaccessibility.

Purity laws indicated the conditions necessary to stand before God.

At the time of Mk some Jewish converts believed they could abandon their ancient customs and approach the pagans; others were of the opposite opinion: indeed, it would be like rejecting substantial parts of the Torah (e.g. Lev 11-16 and 17ff).

In fact, the Gospel emphasises that the problem is "in the house" (v.17 Greek text: "within the house") i.e. in the Church and among its members.

Christ must insist on teaching, now not addressed to strangers, but precisely to the habitués, incapable - unlike the crowds - of "understanding" (v.14) the abc of spiritual things.

There is no sacred and profane in itself.

In order to educate the stubborn ones still "devoid of intellect" (v.18) who consider themselves masters, the Lord does not go to just any dwelling place - but to the place where, unfortunately, expectations far removed from the people are cultivated (vv.14.17).

In short, only Jesus in Person frees the crowd of the voiceless and lost from the obsession of torments and fears, from always being on the defensive.

And even if some leaders accuse, let us learn not to feel dismay that we are not religiously 'successful' - but Firstfruits!