标签： 主日证道

SHARING WITH THE POOR IS A NECESSITY, NOT AN OPTION
Gospel: Luke 16:19-31

Fr. Jijo Kandamkulathy CMF
Claretian Missionaries

From last Sunday’s gospel onwards, we are seeing Jesus kind of begins a financial consultancy based on divine economics. He advises us how to make use of wealth. Last week, he advised to use dishonest wealth to build relationships and we concluded our reflection saying, “We should serve God and master money.” Today, he gives another principle of divine economics, unshared wealth is a liability for the Kingdom of God. The parable of the rich man and Lazarus that we discuss this Sunday is about the judgment of God on the distribution of wealth in the world.

In no other parable did Jesus assign names to characters. But here, the poor has a name: Lazarus. In this world, who has a name? To whom are the first pages of the newspapers dedicated to? To the rich, to those who have success! For Jesus, the contrary is true. For him, the rich is anyone while the poor has a very expressive name; he is called Lazarus, which means the Lord helps.

The rich man, though condemned, does not know the reason why. He has not done anything evil: it does not say that he robbed, didn’t pay taxes, ill-treated his servants, or blasphemed. Perhaps he is insensible to the needs of others, not helping the poor, and so he committed a grave sin of omission. But this does not seem true: Lazarus was at his door and did not go somewhere else. It means that he was getting a few crumbs. The condition in which he was left was inhuman. He had to content himself with the crumbs with which the diners cleaned their fingers.

And the rich man? He lived his life revelling, dressing in the latest fashion, although always spending of his own. So according to the current thinking and judging, he had an impeccable moral behavior. We also have no proof to say that Lazarus was a good man. There is nothing in the story to prove that Lazarus was a just man suffering like Job.

From these little details we understand that the parable is not giving an opinion on the moral behavior of the rich and the poor. It does not mean that whoever behaves well goes to heaven and who does evil goes to hell, because—it is clear—the rich did not commit sins and Lazarus didn’t do good works.

For many, it seems logical and natural to distinguish between good rich people and evil rich ones. The conviction thus maintained is that inequalities will continue to exist in this world and that the super rich can live next to the miserable, provided they do not steal and they give alms.

Jesus considers this way of thinking dangerous. And this is the conviction that he wants to demolish. In the parable he speaks of a rich man who was condemned not because he was bad, but simply because he was rich, that is, he locked himself in his world and did not accept the logic of the sharing of goods. Commenting on this parable, St. Ambrose said: “When you give something to the poor, you don’t offer him what is yours, you give back what is his, because the earth and the goods of this world are of all people, not of the rich.”

The last part of the parable (vv. 27-31) shifts the focus on the five brothers of the rich who continue to live in this world. They run the risk of ruining themselves by misusing the assets they have. They represent the disciples of the Christian communities who are tempted to attach their heart to wealth. How can they be diverted from the seduction it irresistibly exerts? The rich man has his own proposal. He repeats it insistently twice because he thinks it’s the only way to achieve the goal: to cause the conversion of his five brothers, to bring them to repentance. He pleads father Abraham to convey miraculously through a vision or a dream a message from beyond the grave.

Abraham’s response to this trust in the persuasive ability of miracles is firm and clear: the only force capable of detaching the heart of the rich from his goods is God’s word. “Moses and the prophets” was the formula with which, in Jesus’ time, showed all the Sacred Scripture. Only this Word can do the miracle to let the rich in the realms of heaven. Yes, because it really calls for a miracle, a difficult miracle like letting a camel pass through the eye of a needle (Lk 18:25). Whoever does not let oneself be struck by the word of God is certainly resistant and not suggestible to any other argument.

The textual analysis borrowed from Fr. Fernando Armellini SCJ

© Claretian Missionaries
Cum Approbatione Ecclesiastica 2022

Fr. Jijo Kandamkulathy CMF
Claretian Publications Macau

福音講述的：是一不忠信管家的故事。一個管家，在大地主面前被控告有瀆職行為。主人召他，給他講他聽到的事。事實如此清晰。因此，他並沒有試著替自己辯解，或輕聲解釋。他立即被解職了。他開始反思。他只知如何管理，他既不能鋤地，也不能自謙去乞求施捨。在他離職之前，他必須整理帳目；許多債務人仍然需要交付產品。我知道我必須去做。他呼喊說。

他叫全體債務人來，減少了他們的債務。未來，那些受益的債務人必定不會忘記這份慷慨，他們定會覺得自己有義務在自己的家中招待他。

故事的結尾，主人和耶穌都讚揚了那位管家。他的行為是狡猾的。他是可以被效仿的！我們所期待的，是一個不同的結局。耶穌應當對祂的門徒說：“不要如同這個惡棍一樣行事；要誠實。”相反，祂認同他所做的。困難的地方在於：一個不忠信的人，如何才能成為一個典範？

如果用另一種方法解讀這則比喻，困難就不存在。我們想像：貨主再一次受到欺騙（2250公升的油和110公斤穀物不是一筆小數目）。他有可能會被激怒。假如他表揚此前的管理人員，就意味著，在整個過程中，他一點損失都沒有。我們不得不假定，管理人員必須交付一個特定數量的貨物給貨主；不論他們能獲得多少額外，進到他們口袋的收入，這數目定是高額的。這是出版商收取稅金時，他們使自己致富的技術手段。

這則比喻中的管理人員做了什麼？他不像那些放高利貸的人那樣對待他的債務人，他留給他們自己期望他們獲得的收益。管理人員原是精明的 ——主說 —— 因為他知道自己應該賭什麼：不是在賭貨物，或有權取得的，不能被蟲蛀，或被偷盜的的產品，而是在賭友情。他知道如何退而求其次。這才是重點。

“用骯髒的錢，為自己結交朋友，好使當你失意的時候，那些人能接納你進入永久的家園”（參看：路16:9）這是今天福音段落中最重要的一句話。這句話整合了全部比喻的教導。我們注意到，不同尋常的是，耶穌有關骯髒錢財物的講論。如此看來，錢財好似是骯髒的。在主張人人平等的經濟學中，如果一人的錢財超過一人公允的份額，這錢財就是骯髒的。請記住：在天主的經濟學中，做工一小時所賺得的酬報，同做工八小時賺得的酬報是相同的。

耶穌想要我們理解的，只是要我們敏于利用世上的商品，把它們用作幫助他人，與他們交朋友。那些人就會是接納我們進入生命的人。

在人類經濟學中，金錢所能購買的事物，其事物本身的價值，是成比例的。在天主的經濟學中，金錢所能購買的友情，遠超友情本身的價值，儘管這好似把金錢浪費在無利可圖的事上。當祂講論金錢的時候，耶穌宣導運用金錢的兩種方法：一種精明的方法和賢明的方法。精明的方法，就如同比喻中的管理人員，即祂期待我們不斷成長的基層基督信徒。但是，完美的用法就是：施捨給他人，不求他人還報。耶穌曾敘述過一個富有的愚人把金錢用在他個人的消遣上。向那不能還報我們的人施捨，就是按照天主的方法，運用世上的資源。要記住：耶穌教導我們，要為那些不能還報我們的人舉行聚會。我們要逐漸成長，成為我們世上資源的賢明投客。

耶穌以申明：“一個僕人，不能事奉兩個主人 …… 天主或錢財。”結束了祂的教導。我們想要取悅雙方：但是，只有一人可以事奉。藉支配你所擁有的財富，事奉天主。事奉天主，管理他人。

感謝 Fernando Armellini SCJ 神父 為本文進行的分析

©全屬於禰（Totus Tuus） & Claretian Missionaries（聖母聖心愛子會）
Cum Approbatione Ecclesiastica 2022

Fr. Jijo Kandamkulathy CMF
Claretian Publications Macau

福音讲述的：是一不忠信管家的故事。一个管家，在大地主面前被控告有渎职行为。主人召他，给他讲他听到的事。事实如此清晰。因此，他并没有试着替自己辩解，或轻声解释。他立即被解职了。他开始反思。他只知如何管理，他既不能锄地，也不能自谦去乞求施舍。在他离职之前，他必须整理账目；许多债务人仍然需要交付产品。我知道我必须去做。他呼喊说。

他叫全体债务人来，减少了他们的债务。未来，那些受益的债务人必定不会忘记这份慷慨，他们定会觉得自己有义务在自己的家中招待他。

故事的结尾，主人和耶稣都讚扬了那位管家。他的行为是狡猾的。他是可以被效仿的！我们所期待的，是一个不同的结局。耶稣应当对祂的门徒说：“不要如同这个恶棍一样行事；要诚实。”相反，祂认同他所做的。困难的地方在于：一个不忠信的人，如何才能成为一个典范？

如果用另一种方法解读这则比喻，困难就不存在。我们想象：货主再一次受到欺骗（2250公升的油和110公斤谷物不是一笔小数目）。他有可能会被激怒。假如他表扬此前的管理人员，就意味着，在整个过程中，他一点损失都没有。我们不得不假定，管理人员必须交付一个特定数量的货物给货主；不论他们能获得多少额外，进到他们口袋的收入，这数目定是高额的。这是出版商收取税金时，他们使自己致富的技术手段。

这则比喻中的管理人员做了什么？他不像那些放高利贷的人那样对待他的债务人，他留给他们自己期望他们获得的收益。管理人员原是精明的 ——主说 —— 因为他知道自己应该赌什么：不是在赌货物，或有权取得的，不能被虫蛀，或被偷盗的的产品，而是在赌友情。他知道如何退而求其次。这才是重点。

“用肮脏的钱，为自己结交朋友，好使当你失意的时候，那些人能接纳你进入永久的家园”（参看：路16:9）这是今天福音段落中最重要的一句话。这句话整合了全部比喻的教导。我们注意到，不同寻常的是，耶稣有关肮脏钱财物的讲论。如此看来，钱财好似是肮脏的。在主张人人平等的经济学中，如果一人的钱财超过一人公允的份额，这钱财就是肮脏的。请记住：在天主的经济学中，做工一小时所赚得的酬报，同做工八小时赚得的酬报是相同的。

耶稣想要我们理解的，只是要我们敏于利用世上的商品，把它们用作帮助他人，与他们交朋友。那些人就会是接纳我们进入生命的人。

在人类经济学中，金钱所能购买的事物，其事物本身的价值，是成比例的。在天主的经济学中，金钱所能购买的友情，远超友情本身的价值，尽管这好似把金钱浪费在无利可图的事上。当祂讲论金钱的时候，耶稣倡导运用金钱的两种方法：一种精明的方法和贤明的方法。精明的方法，就如同比喻中的管理人员，即祂期待我们不断成长的基层基督信徒。但是，完美的用法就是：施舍给他人，不求他人还报。耶稣曾叙述过一个富有的愚人把金钱用在他个人的消遣上。向那不能还报我们的人施舍，就是按照天主的方法，运用世上的资源。要记住：耶稣教导我们，要为那些不能还报我们的人举行聚会。我们要逐渐成长，成为我们世上资源的贤明投客。

耶稣以申明：“一个仆人，不能事奉两个主人 …… 天主或钱财。”结束了祂的教导。我们想要取悦双方：但是，只有一人可以事奉。藉支配你所拥有的财富，事奉天主。事奉天主，管理他人。

感谢 Fernando Armellini SCJ 神父 为本文进行的分析

©全属于祢（Totus Tuus） & Claretian Missionaries（圣母圣心爱子会）
Cum Approbatione Ecclesiastica 2022

Administrators Only, Not Owners
Gospel: Luke 16:1-13

Fr. Jijo Kandamkulathy CMF
Claretian Publications Macau

The gospel presents the story of a dishonest steward. A steward is accused of malpractices before the big landowner. The master has him called and tells him what he heard about him. The facts are so clear. So he does not try to justify himself or mutter an explanation. He was immediately fired. He starts to reflect. He knows only how to supervise; he is neither able to hoe nor to humble himself to beg for alms. Before leaving the job he must put the accounts in order; many debtors have still to deliver the products. I know what I must do, he exclaims.
He calls all the debtors and reduces their debts. In the future, these benefitted debtors will certainly not forget such generosity and they will feel obliged to offer him hospitality in their houses.
The story concludes with the master, as well as Jesus, praising the administrator. He acted with cunning. He’ll be imitated! We are expecting a different conclusion. Jesus should have said to his disciples: “Do not act like this villain; be honest!” Instead, he approves of what he did. The difficulty lies here: how could a dishonest person be offered as a model?
This difficulty does not exist if the parable is interpreted in a different way. We imagine that the owner was cheated again (2,250 liters of oil and 110 quintals of grain are not small stuff). He would have been outraged. If he praises his former administrator it means, in this process, he has not lost anything. We have to presume that the administrators must deliver a certain amount to their owner; whatever extra they could get goes into their pockets and the figures could be higher. It was the technique used by the publicans to enrich themselves when they collected taxes.

What did the administrator of the parable do? Instead of behaving like a loan shark with the debtors, he left them the profit he expected to have. The administrator was shrewd—says the Lord—because he understood on which to bet on: not on goods, products that he was entitled to, that could rot or be stolen, but on friends. He knew how to renounce the first in order to conquer for himself the second. This is the point.
“Use filthy money to make friends for yourselves so that when it fails, these people may welcome you into the eternal homes” (v. 9). This is the most important saying of today’s passage. It synthesizes the whole teaching of the parable. It is curious to note the remark of Jesus on filthy money. There seems to have something filthy with money. In an economy where everyone is supposed to be equal, if one person has more money than one’s fair share, it is filthy; it has been cheated out of someone! Remember in divine economics, the one who works one hour and eight hours earn the same reward.
What Jesus would like us to understand is that the only a shrewd way of using the goods of this world is to use them to help others, to make them friends. They will be the ones to welcome us in life.
In human economics, money buys things exactly proportionate to its value. In divine economics money buys relationship that more than its value though often it appears wasting money on unprofitable pursuits. While he speaks about money, Jesus advocates two ways of using the money, the shrewd way and the wise way. Shrewd way is that of the administrator in this parable which is the minimum Christian growth expected of us. But, the perfect use of it is to give to others without expecting anything in return. Jesus narrates the story of the rich fool who used all his money for his personal pleasures. Giving to people who cannot return us anything is the divine way of using worldly resources. Remember, Jesus teaches us to throw parties to poor people who cannot give us anything in return. We need to grow into wise invesors of our worldly resources.
Jesus concludes his teaching by affirming that no servant can serve two masters… God or money. We would like to please both: But it’s just one you can serve. Serve God by mastering how to use your riches. Serve God and master the other!

Indebted to Fr. Fernando Armellini SCJ for textual analysis

© Claretian Missionaries
Cum Approbatione Ecclesiastica 2022

Fr. Jijo Kandamkulathy CMF
Claretian Missionaries

耶穌討論三個比喻：1）失去金錢的比喻 2） 亡羊的比喻 以及 3）喪亡之子與天主的慈悲之心建立關係的比喻。講這三個比喻的原因，始於法利塞人（Pharisees）和撒杜塞人（Sadducees）在罪人和稅吏坐席時的嘲笑，以及他們反對同他們一起吃飯的師傅。他們把罪人和稅吏判定為不相稱於天主的人。耶穌將要講論的這三個比喻，有不同的階層。錢是死的，羊是活的，兒子比金銀，比女人更接近父親，或者說：羊更親近牧者。我們如果理解了這個進程，就能更好窺看這三個比喻，但要把這三個比喻放在一起窺看。

一枚硬幣，如果是辛苦掙來的，就比購買的物品，更有價值。十美元的利息，比體力勞動掙來的收入更為便宜。金錢的價值，並非按照所能購買的價值來計算，而是按照花費之後餘下的存款而計算的。在這裡，有一個婦人正在找一枚硬幣，因為她掙錢比男人困難得多。她比男人對自己所掙的一切，更有感情。

在第二種情形，一位牧者正尋找自己的羊，他與這羊建立了感情。他的理由是：擱置和其它九十九隻羊丟失的風險。在這裡，數字根本算不上什麼。統計官員每年統計死者的數目，決不會感受到失去自己兒女的家庭的痛苦。無形資產，無法基於財經或數值來衡量。

第三個，關於蕩子回頭的比喻，表明：失去尊嚴，重新得到時的喜樂程度。一個丟失一百隻中其中一隻羊的牧人，與一個丟失兩個兒子中的一個的父親的競爭！這競爭的強度是雙倍的。耶穌解釋了：天主是與祂兒女，或聖人，或罪人的情感連接。

這是法利塞人所認為的：以超然的情感，如同事務的數量一樣，觀看父親和他子女之間的關係。只有一個超然的精神分裂者，才能區分兒女的好與壞，並把壞孩子拋下。當然，判斷別人的兒子很容易，當要來評斷自己的孩子時，客觀性就不合適了。法利塞人腦中想像的是：天主是屬於義人的，罪人並不屬於天主。當把天主被描繪成慈父時，就徹底崩壞法利塞人宗教觀中最基本的前提。

人們時常基於自己本身的喜好來評斷別人。關於這個原則的一個最近例子，是我從一部電影中聽到的，我忘記了片名。一個丈夫，他的妻子正決定同他離婚，他指控自己的妻子與別的男人發生關係。這個婦人很長一段時間，受這個偏執狂一樣丈夫的苦。於是，有些人安慰這個丈夫：“你掛慮她對你的忠誠，是因為你對她不忠。”這話正對。這男人不善長忠誠，卻全神貫注她的忠信。

法利塞人和撒杜塞人與稅吏有“不友好的”的關係，認為他們是壞人，不配得到尊重。那麼，他們的考慮是什麼？他們掛慮兩件事：1）受歡迎。2）無罪。他們所擔心的是：追隨耶穌之人的數量，他們試圖去評斷耶穌 —— 他正從罪人和叛徒廉價收穫美名。耶穌給法利塞人和撒扗塞人的判官取名偽善的人。法利塞人並不認為自己有罪，不是因為他們是聖的，而是因為他們足夠精明，犯了決不會被發現的錯誤。

我們判斷他人的標準是什麼？首先，我們總不可判斷。我們可以延伸的是：用一種神性的視角來觀看在我們四周的人。天主審判，是按照愛德的法律來進行，因為天主是愛。因此，罪人和犯錯誤的人，更需要留意 ，比義人更需要照顧。耶穌在找無罪的人，並非取消無罪的人與罪人之間建立關係的資格。祂知道：祂的聖父把聖人和罪人，都看作自己的兒子。

我們一直在評判別人。我們評判的衡量標準，就是我們因人而異的價值觀體系。一個經歷過貧窮的人，可能會評估一切事和在他/她周圍人在某樣事物上的負擔能力。一位司鐸，可能會基於教堂的來堂率，不斷評估自己的團體，以致那些不去教堂的人都成了壞人。有潔癖的人可能會衛生怪癖的人交朋友，餘下的都是壞人。

我記得教宗方濟各對在義大利境內的一所監獄的訪問，當他與一名囚犯交談時，那名囚犯說，他聽說過他，但不知道他為什麼是教宗，而不是在監獄。我們自己，沒有一點優點。我們所在的地方，是天主預先設計好的。我們只能對自己的現狀，心存感激，而非對他人所處的困境，作出評判。

©全屬於禰（Totus Tuus） & Claretian Missionaries（聖母聖心愛子會）
Cum Approbatione Ecclesiastica 2022

Fr. Jijo Kandamkulathy CMF
Claretian Missionaries

耶稣讨论三个比喻：1）失去金钱的比喻 2） 亡羊的比喻 以及 3）丧亡之子与天主的慈悲之心建立关系的比喻。讲这三个比喻的原因，始于法利塞人（Pharisees）和撒杜塞人（Sadducees）在罪人和税吏坐席时的嘲笑，以及他们反对同他们一起吃饭的师傅。他们把罪人和税吏判定为不相称于天主的人。耶稣将要讲论的这三个比喻，有不同的阶层。钱是死的，羊是活的，儿子比金银，比女人更接近父亲，或者说：羊更亲近牧者。我们如果理解了这个进程，就能更好窥看这三个比喻，但要把这三个比喻放在一起窥看。

一枚硬币，如果是辛苦挣来的，就比购买的物品，更有价值。十美元的利息，比体力劳动挣来的收入更为便宜。金钱的价值，并非按照所能购买的价值来计算，而是按照花费之后余下的存款而计算的。在这里，有一个妇人正在找一枚硬币，因为她挣钱比男人困难得多。她比男人对自己所挣的一切，更有感情。

在第二种情形，一位牧者正寻找自己的羊，他与这羊建立了感情。他的理由是：搁置和其它九十九只羊丢失的风险。在这里，数字根本算不上什么。统计官员每年统计死者的数目，决不会感受到失去自己儿女的家庭的痛苦。无形资产，无法基于财经或数值来衡量。

第三个，关于荡子回头的比喻，表明：失去尊严，重新得到时的喜乐程度。一个丢失一百只中其中一只羊的牧人，与一个丢失两个儿子中的一个的父亲的竞争！这竞争的强度是双倍的。耶稣解释了：天主是与祂儿女，或圣人，或罪人的情感连接。

这是法利塞人所认为的：以超然的情感，如同事务的数量一样，观看父亲和他子女之间的关系。只有一个超然的精神分裂者，才能区分儿女的好与坏，并把坏孩子抛下。当然，判断别人的儿子很容易，当要来评断自己的孩子时，客观性就不合适了。法利塞人脑中想象的是：天主是属于义人的，罪人并不属于天主。当把天主被描绘成慈父时，就彻底崩坏法利塞人宗教观中最基本的前提。

人们时常基于自己本身的喜好来评断别人。关于这个原则的一个最近例子，是我从一部电影中听到的，我忘记了片名。一个丈夫，他的妻子正决定同他离婚，他指控自己的妻子与别的男人发生关系。这个妇人很长一段时间，受这个偏执狂一样丈夫的苦。于是，有些人安慰这个丈夫：“你挂虑她对你的忠诚，是因为你对她不忠。”这话正对。这男人不善长忠诚，却全神贯注她的忠信。

法利塞人和撒杜塞人与税吏有“不友好的”的关系，认为他们是坏人，不配得到尊重。那么，他们的考量是什么？他们挂虑两件事：1）受欢迎。2）无罪。他们所担心的是：追随耶稣之人的数量，他们试图去评断耶稣 —— 他正从罪人和叛徒廉价收获美名。耶稣给法利塞人和撒扗塞人的判官取名伪善的人。法利塞人并不认为自己有罪，不是因为他们是圣的，而是因为他们足够精明，犯了决不会被发现的错误。

我们判断他人的标准是什么？首先，我们总不可判断。我们可以延伸的是：用一种神性的视角来观看在我们四周的人。天主审判，是按照爱德的法律来进行，因为天主是爱。因此，罪人和犯错误的人，更需要留意 ，比义人更需要照顾。耶稣在找无罪的人，并非取消无罪的人与罪人之间建立关系的资格。祂知道：祂的圣父把圣人和罪人，都看作自己的儿子。

我们一直在评判别人。我们评判的衡量标准，就是我们因人而异的价值观体系。一个经历过贫穷的人，可能会评估一切事和在他/她周围人在某样事物上的负担能力。一位司铎，可能会基于教堂的来堂率，不断评估自己的团体，以致那些不去教堂的人都成了坏人。有洁癖的人可能会卫生怪癖的人交朋友，余下的都是坏人。

我记得教宗方济各对在意大利境内的一所监狱的访问，当他与一名囚犯交谈时，那名囚犯说，他听说过他，但不知道他为什么是教宗，而不是在监狱。我们自己，没有一点优点。我们所在的地方，是天主预先设计好的。我们只能对自己的现状，心存感激，而非对他人所处的困境，作出评判。

©全属于祢（Totus Tuus） & Claretian Missionaries（圣母圣心爱子会）
Cum Approbatione Ecclesiastica 2022

When Value Outweighs the Price Tag
(Lk 15:1-32)

Fr. Jijo Kandamkulathy CMF
Claretian Missionaries

Jesus discusses three parables: 1) the parable of the lost coin, 2) the lost sheep, and 3) the lost son to establish the compassionate heart of God. The reason for saying these parables begins with the derisive look of the Pharisees and Sadducees at the sinners and tax collectors, and their disapproval of a teacher eating with them. They had judged the sinners and tax collectors as unworthy of God. The three parables that Jesus discusses come in different degrees. A coin is inanimate, a sheep living, and a son is closer to the father than a coin to the woman, or the sheep to the shepherd. If the progression is understood, we can better peek into the deeper import of the three parables put together.

A coin has more value than what it can buy if it is a hard-earned. Ten dollars earned as interest is cheaper than a ten-dollar bill earned by physical labor. Often the value of the money is not calculated by what it can buy but by how much is left in the savings after you spend. Here, it is a woman who is in search of the coin because she earns her money with much more difficulty than a man. She has stronger emotional bond to what she earns than a man.

In the second instance, a shepherd who has an emotional connection is in search of his lost sheep. His reason is suspended and risks the loss of the other ninety-nine because of the emotional connection to what is lost. The numbers do not count here at all. The statistics officer who takes the number of annual deaths will never feel the pains of the families who lost one of their loved ones. There are intangibles that cannot be judged based on financial or numerical valuation.

The third parable of the prodigal son shows the progressing intensity of the loss and the joy in regaining what was lost. What match is a shepherd who lost one sheep from a hundred to a father who lost one out of two sons! The intensity is multifold. Jesus explains how God is emotionally connected to his children, saint or sinner.

It is a Pharisaic mind, that looks at the relationship between the father and his children with detached emotions as a matter of numbers. Only a schizoid detachment can separate the children as good or the bad, and abandon the bad ones. It is, of course, easy to judge the children of others, but when it comes to one’s own children, objectivity becomes out of place. The Pharisaic mind imagines that God belongs to the righteous, and the sinful ones do not belong to God. When God is pictured as the father, it undermines the strength of that basic premise of the Pharisaic religion.

People often judge one another based on one’s own preoccupations. The most recent example of this principle I heard is from a film, of which I forgot the title. A husband whose wife had just chosen to divorce him accused her of a relationship with another man. The woman had been suffering from this paranoid husband for a long time. Someone then confronts the husband, “You are worried about her fidelity because you have not been faithful.” This was the truth. This man was not good at being faithful, but he was preoccupied with her fidelity.

The Pharisees and Sadducees had “unfriended” the tax collectors as bad ones and unworthy of their respect. What was then their preoccupation? They were worried about two things: 1) popularity, and 2) sinfulness. They were worried about the number of followers that Jesus was gathering, and they tried to judge Jesus— that he was gathering cheap popularity from sinners and traitors. Jesus names the judgment of the Pharisees and the Sadducees as hypocritical. The Pharisees are not caught in their sinfulness not because they are holy but because they are shrewd enough to make mistakes that will not be discovered.

What should be our parameters in judging another person? First of all, we should not judge at all. What we can develop is to have a divine perspective to look at the people around us. God judges based on the law of love for God is love. Accordingly, the sinners and mistaken ones need more attention and care than the righteous ones. Jesus finds sinfulness not as a disqualification to establish a relationship with sinners. He knows that his Father considers saints and sinners alike as his children.

We keep judging others. The metrics of our judgment is our own value systems which vary from person to person. A person who has gone through poverty might develop the tendency to evaluate everything and everyone around him/her based on how affordable something is. A priest might keep judging his community based on church attendance, so those who do not go to church become bad people. Someone who has a preoccupation with cleanliness makes friends with hygienic freaks, and the rest become bad people!

I am reminded of the visit of Pope Francis to a prison in Italy, and talking to a prisoner he was heard saying that he did not know why he was the Pope and not in the prison. We really do not have any merit of our own for where we are. We are where we are because God has designed it so. We can only be thankful for what we are, and not judges over the plight of others.

© Claretian Missionaries
Cum Approbatione Ecclesiastica 2022

Fr. Jijo Kandamkulathy CMF
Claretian Missionaries

在今天的福音中，耶穌給追隨祂的人施加了三個勸阻條件：（1）惱恨你的父親和母親（2）捨棄你擁有的一切 （3）背著自己的十字架來追隨我。為任何領導人而言，這些條件，為那些追隨的人而言，都是致命的。只有在耶穌走向耶路撒冷的最後旅途的聖經文本中，才能理解耶穌所要求的這些勸阻人的要求。

正如我時常提到的那樣，耶穌往耶路撒冷的朝聖之旅，始於耶穌面朝耶路撒冷的那一刻（路9:51）旅途從加里肋亞開始，穿過各城各村，聚集起來的人數，越來越多，令耶穌感到憂慮，那些追隨祂的人，可能錯誤地理解祂的意圖。祂藉著說明這個旅途的目的和艱辛，以勸阻他們。祂感到憂慮，擔心他們在不知道自己選擇與祂相隨造成的後果的情況下，倉促地做出決定。將去作戰或建築一座塔的比喻，表明追隨耶穌，尋求天主的國的嚴肅性。

追隨耶穌的人，好像是在想像與黑落德和比拉多對抗，接管耶路撒冷，重建達味後裔王國。當然，耶穌知道這是一場不同的競賽。祂從顯聖容的那一刻就確信：在耶路撒冷，祂要被殺。正是在這個背景下，耶穌作出三個勸阻性的聲明。

“惱恨父親和母親”這次旅行相當危險。 耶穌知道，祂決不會倖存，但是，誰會失了性命呢？關於這事，祂知道嗎？祂不確定。但是，祂確實很擔心。他們可能有去無回。祂被捕的時候，在革責瑪尼山園，耶穌確信，沒有一人會被捕，祂給他們說：“如果他們是來找祂，就讓祂的同伴離開。”祂所擔心的，是他們的安全。

耶穌用了一個詞彙“十字架”這個詞彙對聽到這話的人而言，可能造成了非常不祥的印象。這個詞只有一個含義。十字架，原是那些被判去釘在十字架上的人所肩負的。正如之前提到的那樣，耶穌所擔心的，是可能會有許多人與祂同去被釘在十字架上。祂給他們講述的，不是帶有比喻性的十字架。祂所講論的，是真實的十字架，祂必須首先背起十字架。他們要追隨祂。把十字架比作我我們身上移走的，生活的重擔，給那些追隨耶穌的人造成了一種觀念：耶穌已經預表，祂已移走了阻礙他們的危險。在若望所記述的福音中，許多追隨耶穌的人，他們在與耶穌同行的道路上，離開了耶穌。祂提及這事，是因為這個教訓，非常困難。實在，這些教導包括了這些追隨祂往耶路撒冷去的人，提供了被釘在十字架上的可能性。

耶穌也要求他們在啟程前聲明放棄一切產業。這裡，沒有比喻的意涵。祂是在說，要求他們真的放棄他們的產業，而非要求他們放棄那些被人看作非常珍貴的產業，而是真實的土地，真實的產業，因為他們正在踏上一段他們不確定是否能回來的旅途。後來，如果百姓在路上，對貧乏和資源的匱乏感到後悔，那麼，開始這段旅程，就沒有意義了。我們很容易記起以色列穿過西奈曠野的旅途。他們後悔離開埃及，耶穌提醒他們，要聲明放棄產業，近似合法的把他們的產業留給那些留下來的人。

在其他文本，特別是在路加福音中，很少提及到棄絕，卻常提到分享。在這裡，棄絕而非分享，把產業的產業拋諸腦後，因為他們可能無法再把它們取回來。這不是因為，他們愛護或憐憫窮人。只有那些被認為，堪當莊重追求天國的人，才有可能申明放棄自己的財富。

要明白，這段旅途是一段真正意義上的旅途，而比喻意義上的旅途。這段旅途，可以比作我們個人或我們團體已經開啟的信仰之旅。今時，我們團體的生活方式，已經改變。越來越少的孩子與長輩同住，特別是在半球之間發生的大規模遷移的背景下。老年人，當他們的生命行將結束時，時常有其他人照顧他們，而非他們的兒女。孝愛父母，有如在此世上最珍貴的關係，在許多情況下，已不復存在。現在，我必須說要惱恨父母。這件事，真實地發生在我們身上。愛自己的兒女，超過愛惜一切的數量，正日益減少。父母如果真愛自己的兒女，他們的家庭生活，就會發生調整。我不是在說：要維繫家暴的婚姻關係。我是在說：提出離婚的那些愚蠢理由。

十字架也有一些比喻性的含義。我們發現，越來越多的百姓受到壓力，對我們的時代感到擔憂。社會上患抑鬱症和精神疾病的比例，正日益攀升，這是因為，人們無力背負起他們必須背負的十字架。忍受痛苦的恢復能力 —— 疼痛閾值 —— 正日漸低下。我們有必要學會，為有目的的生活，作出必要的犧牲。

耶穌所邀請的，是為了更崇高的目的而生活。只有我們明確了自己的目標，我們就會願意去作犧牲，犧牲我們珍貴的關係，我們珍貴的產業，擁抱我們的十字架，不堅定于崇高目的，生活沒有目標，決不能為了長遠的將來，舍掉當下任何便利。這給我提出了一個核心的問題：“我願意捨棄我所擁有的一切的目的是什麼？”

©全屬於禰（Totus Tuus） & Claretian Missionaries（聖母聖心愛子會）
Cum Approbatione Ecclesiastica 2022

Fr. Jijo Kandamkulathy CMF
Claretian Missionaries

在今天的福音中，耶稣给追随祂的人施加了三个劝阻条件：（1）恼恨你的父亲和母亲（2）舍弃你拥有的一切 （3）背着自己的十字架来追随我。为任何领导人而言，这些条件，为那些追随的人而言，都是致命的。只有在耶稣走向耶路撒冷的最后旅途的圣经文本中，才能理解耶稣所要求的这些劝阻人的要求。

正如我时常提到的那样，耶稣往耶路撒冷的朝圣之旅，始于耶稣面朝耶路撒冷的那一刻（路9:51）旅途从加里肋亚开始，穿过各城各村，聚集起来的人数，越来越多，令耶稣感到忧虑，那些追随祂的人，可能错误地理解祂的意图。祂藉着说明这个旅途的目的和艰辛，以劝阻他们。祂感到忧虑，担心他们在不知道自己选择与祂相随造成的后果的情况下，仓促地做出决定。将去作战或建筑一座塔的比喻，表明追随耶稣，寻求天主的国的严肃性。

追随耶稣的人，好像是在想象与黑落德和比拉多对抗，接管耶路撒冷，重建达味后裔王国。当然，耶稣知道这是一场不同的竞赛。祂从显圣容的那一刻就确信：在耶路撒冷，祂要被杀。正是在这个背景下，耶稣作出三个劝阻性的声明。

“恼恨父亲和母亲”这次旅行相当危险。 耶稣知道，祂决不会幸存，但是，谁会失了性命呢？关于这事，祂知道吗？祂不确定。但是，祂确实很担心。他们可能有去无回。祂被捕的时候，在革责玛尼山园，耶稣确信，没有一人会被捕，祂给他们说：“如果他们是来找祂，就让祂的同伴离开。”祂所担心的，是他们的安全。

耶稣用了一个词汇“十字架”这个词汇对听到这话的人而言，可能造成了非常不祥的印象。这个词只有一个含义。十字架，原是那些被判去钉在十字架上的人所肩负的。正如之前提到的那样，耶稣所担心的，是可能会有许多人与祂同去被钉在十字架上。祂给他们讲述的，不是带有比喻性的十字架。祂所讲论的，是真实的十字架，祂必须首先背起十字架。他们要追随祂。把十字架比作我我们身上移走的，生活的重担，给那些追随耶稣的人造成了一种观念：耶稣已经预表，祂已移走了阻碍他们的危险。在若望所记述的福音中，许多追随耶稣的人，他们在与耶稣同行的道路上，离开了耶稣。祂提及这事，是因为这个教训，非常困难。实在，这些教导包括了这些追随祂往耶路撒冷去的人，提供了被钉在十字架上的可能性。

耶稣也要求他们在启程前声明放弃一切产业。这里，没有比喻的意涵。祂是在说，要求他们真的放弃他们的产业，而非要求他们放弃那些被人看作非常珍贵的产业，而是真实的土地，真实的产业，因为他们正在踏上一段他们不确定是否能回来的旅途。后来，如果百姓在路上，对贫乏和资源的匮乏感到后悔，那么，开始这段旅程，就没有意义了。我们很容易记起以色列穿过西奈旷野的旅途。他们后悔离开埃及，耶稣提醒他们，要声明放弃产业，近似合法的把他们的产业留给那些留下来的人。

在其他文本，特别是在路加福音中，很少提及到弃绝，却常提到分享。在这里，弃绝而非分享，把产业的产业抛诸脑后，因为他们可能无法再把它们取回来。这不是因为，他们爱护或怜悯穷人。只有那些被认为，堪当庄重追求天国的人，才有可能申明放弃自己的财富。

要明白，这段旅途是一段真正意义上的旅途，而比喻意义上的旅途。这段旅途，可以比作我们个人或我们团体已经开启的信仰之旅。今时，我们团体的生活方式，已经改变。越来越少的孩子与长辈同住，特别是在半球之间发生的大规模迁移的背景下。老年人，当他们的生命行将结束时，时常有其他人照顾他们，而非他们的儿女。孝爱父母，有如在此世上最珍贵的关系，在许多情况下，已不复存在。现在，我必须说要恼恨父母。这件事，真实地发生在我们身上。爱自己的儿女，超过爱惜一切的数量，正日益减少。父母如果真爱自己的儿女，他们的家庭生活，就会发生调整。我不是在说：要维系家暴的婚姻关系。我是在说：提出离婚的那些愚蠢理由。

十字架也有一些比喻性的含义。我们发现，越来越多的百姓受到压力，对我们的时代感到担忧。社会上患抑郁症和精神疾病的比例，正日益攀升，这是因为，人们无力背负起他们必须背负的十字架。忍受痛苦的恢复能力 —— 疼痛阈值 —— 正日渐低下。我们有必要学会，为有目的的生活，作出必要的牺牲。

耶稣所邀请的，是为了更崇高的目的而生活。只有我们明确了自己的目标，我们就会愿意去作牺牲，牺牲我们珍贵的关系，我们珍贵的产业，拥抱我们的十字架，不坚定于崇高目的，生活没有目标，决不能为了长远的将来，舍掉当下任何便利。这给我提出了一个核心的问题：“我愿意舍弃我所拥有的一切的目的是什么？”

©全属于祢（Totus Tuus） & Claretian Missionaries（圣母圣心爱子会）
Cum Approbatione Ecclesiastica 2022

The Discouraging Leader
Lk 14:25-33

Fr. Jijo Kandamkulathy CMF
Claretian Missionaries

Jesus uses three discouraging conditions to follow him in the gospel today: (1) Hate your father and mother, (2) Renounce all your possessions, (3) Take up one’s cross and follow. These are suicidal conditions for any leader to place to one’s followers. These discouraging demands can be understood only in the context of the final journey of Jesus to Jerusalem.

As I have mentioned often, the pilgrimage of Jesus to Jerusalem begins from the time Jesus sets his face to Jerusalem (Luke 9: 51). As the journey progressed from Galilee through the villages and towns, it was gathering more and more people and Jesus was worried, that those following hm might have misunderstood the purpose of his journey. He is dissuading them, by clarifying the purpose and hardships of this journey. He was worried they have taken hasty decisions without knowing the consequences of their choice to accompany him. The metaphors of going for a war or building a tower are to indicate the gravity of the pursuit of the Kingdom of God following Jesus.

The followers seems to have imagined the defeat of Herod and Pilot, the takeover of Jerusalem and the reestablishment of the Davidic Kingdom. Jesus, of course knew that this is a different ball game. He was sure from the transfiguration moment that he would be killed in Jerusalem. It is in this context Jesus makes the three dissuading statements.

Hating father and mother. This journey is quite dangerous. Jesus knew, he would not survive but who else will lose their lives? Did he know about it? Not sure. But he was definitely worried about it. It is possible that they might not return. When he was getting arrested, at the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus was making sure, that no one else should be arrested and he told them, if they were looking for him, let his companions go. He was worried about their safety.

The usage of the term, cross might have been very ominous to the listeners. It had only one meaning. The cross was carried by those who sentenced for crucifixion. As mentioned earlier, Jesus was worried, together with many others might get crucified. He was not telling them about any metaphoric cross. He was talking about a real cross and he would be the one to take it first. They would have to follow them. Metaphorizing the cross as burdens of life has taken away from us, the sense of the impeding peril that Jesus was predicting to all of them. John would write in his gospel that many followers left his company on the way. He mentions it because of the difficult teachings. Well, that teaching included offering the possibility of a crucifixion for those who followed him to Jerusalem.

Jesus also asks about renouncing all possessions before undertaking the journey. There are no metaphors here. He was talking about renouncing their possessions for real, not about things that a person considers precious, real land and property because they were embarking on a journey that he was not sure if they would ever return. If people regretted later about poverty and lack of resources on the way, then, there was no point of beginning this journey. We can easily remember the journey of Israel through the desert of Sinai. They regretted leaving Egypt, because they missed the food and comfort of Egypt. Jesus was reminding them to renounce the possessions, nearly legally, meaning write off their possessions to those staying behind.

In other places, particularly in Luke, there is little reference to renunciation. It is always about sharing. Here, the renunciation is not for sharing, but leaving the properties behind because they might not be able to return to claim them. This is not because of the love or compassion for the poor. It is just renunciation of the riches possible only for those who have found worth in the pursuing the Kingdom of God.

Understanding that journey in a real sense does not take its present metaphoric meanings. The journey could be well taken metaphorically for our personal faith journeys or that of our societies. Societies our times have changed their life styles. Children who live with elderly parents are becoming fewer, especially in the context of large migrations happening inter-hemispherally. The oldies often have someone else other than their children caring for them by the end of their lives. Loving parents, as the most precious relationship on earth is not found true in many cases, now. I hate to say this. But this reality is just on us. The number of parents who love their children more than anything else is also on the decline. A lot more adjustments in family life would have taken place, if the parents really cared for their children. I am not talking about maintaining abusive marriage relationships. I am talking about the silly reasons on which some divorces are initiated.

Crosses have their metaphoric meanings as well. We find more and more people stressed and worried in our times. The ratio of depression and mental illnesses in societies are climbing due to the inability of the people to come to terms with the crosses people have to carry. Resilience in bearing pains – the pain threshold – is pretty low. There is a need to learn to embrace the sacrifices we have to make for living a purposeful life.

The invitation of Jesus is to live for a sublime purpose. If we have clarity on the purpose only, we will be willing to sacrifice, our precious relationships, our precious possessions and embrace our crosses. The one who is not convinced of a sublime purpose, or living without purpose will not be able to forgo any present convenience for a future advantage. This question challenges me to the core: “What is the purpose for which I am willing to sacrifice everything I have?”

© Claretian Missionaries
Cum Approbatione Ecclesiastica 2022