Everything was good and the human was very good

 

There is a phrase that runs through the entire first chapter of the book of Genesis, which narrates the creative work. A sentence that is repeated six times and has no more than one word, introduced by a colon. This phrase is: good! This is the epilogue of each day of creation, the affirmation of the good existence of the creature. God calls his own work good. He has done it. It's good. God, the only creative subject, by affirming the goodness of things, makes them independent, frees them. Created by God, they are good by themselves. When humans make something, a painting, a house, we leave our mark, the imprint of our personality on what we do. But when God creates, what is done has its own consistency. For this reason, he remains expelled from the realm of the divine. This is one of the possible theological meanings of the plural of what is created: the waters, the luminaries, the herbs, the animals. For ancient mythology, the Sun and the Moon, in the singular, seem unique in their kind and are individualized as divine persons. In the Genesis account they become luminaries and this plural gender introduces them into the world of creation.

But suddenly a change occurs in God's speaking. For his last creative act, Yahweh says: Let's make a human being. Let's do. When it came to creating the rest of the things, Genesis expressed itself in an impersonal way: Said God. But now, for the first time, the Creator is no longer spoken of, but the Creator speaks. Instead of it, an I. And more than an I, a you in which the I says to itself: let's do. Before, what the Creator did was told. Now the phrase takes on a personal meaning. It is a self that speaks in the plural: let's do. That means no me outside of him. It is the plural of absolute majesty: a self that talks to itself and can only talk to itself. And when God takes the word personally, a person appears who does not need to be mediated by gender, someone who is no longer created "after his kind." That's why it's not plural because being many, each one is unique and unrepeatable. Each one is unique, with its own name, in the image of God.

God takes one last look at what he has created. And now he turns out… very good. God compares. He surpasses himself. There is a scope that is stated differently: “very” (good), that is, of a higher level than everything else.

 

What bread do we ask for in the Lord's Prayer?

 

The most common answer to the question that begins this article is: daily bread, that is, what is necessary for living. We do not ask for opulence or wealth, but for what we truly need. This interpretation is legitimate and should certainly be included in the request of the prayer that Jesus taught.

Now, this “daily bread” could have another meaning. Exegetes recognize that it is the translation of a difficult term, which has a present sense, but also a future sense (and therefore it would have to be translated as the bread of tomorrow, the bread of the future). In fact, this expression, as interpreted by the first Christian writers, could refer to the bread of the Eucharist (the true eschatological bread), so that a possible translation would be: the bread of eternal life, let us anticipate it today. This bread of eternal life is anticipated in the Eucharist, where we receive the pledge of future glory.

St. Jerome translates the mysterious word (“epioúsios”) as “supersubstantialis.” This super-substantial bread, this new, superior substance, Jerome interprets that it is given to us in the Blessed Sacrament, the true bread of life: “This is the bread which comes down from heaven, so that whoever eats it will not die” (Jn 6:50); “Your fathers ate manna in the desert” (Jn 6:31) and they were still hungry, and they died (like us). Material bread does not satisfy, nor does it fill the heart, nor does it ensure joy. “He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day” (Jn 6:54).

In this petition of the Lord's Prayer, our own needs are linked to the needs of our brothers (that is why we ask for "our" bread and not my bread), but at the same time this bread (especially when it is shared) makes us long for this heavenly banquet, where there will be no more need, because we will be overflowing with all good. This heavenly table is anticipated in the banquet of the Eucharist, and is announced and promised to us in the bread of the word of God.

Believing parents, indifferent children

There are believing parents who have given a good witness of their faith to their children, with words and deeds. Sometimes the children do not seem to pay much attention to their parents in this religious matter. They may respect their parents, but they do not show interest in religion, they do not practice it, they are distant from the Church. Believing parents produce children who are atheists, indifferent or non-religious. When this happens, there are parents, with very good will, who love their children and pray for them, who wonder how it is possible that their children do not embrace the faith: what have we done wrong? Where have we failed?

To begin with, this question is wrongly posed. Surely they have not done wrong, they have done what they could, and what they have done has been good. So where is the problem? An easy answer is to say that the opposite case also occurs: religious children are born from atheist or anti-religious parents. Even if this observation is true, it is worth going to the heart of the problem. First to reassure the parents that they have done what they could and then to understand that good words and good examples are not enough to bring about faith.

For faith to be born, two things are required: one, the proclamation of the Gospel. Faith is not born spontaneously, it is the result of a proclamation, it is the consequence of a good presentation of Jesus Christ. For the proclamation to be correct, eloquent preaching and good signs of faith are required. In the case of parents, preaching consists of educating their children in the faith and signs consist of giving them an example of Christian life and practice. But this alone is not enough for faith to be born.

In order for faith to be born, in addition to preaching and an eloquent, convincing and convincing testimony, this announcement must be accepted by the recipient, in our case by the children. The announcement is the responsibility of the Church, of the parents. Acceptance is free and is the responsibility of the recipient of the preaching, it is the responsibility of the children. In acceptance, the freedom of the listener comes into play. Freedom can be conditioned by many things, but ultimately the person who has to take the step of acceptance is the recipient himself, the one to whom the preaching is addressed. And in this case, believing parents no longer have any responsibility. Acceptance, although it requires a good announcement and a good testimony, is a matter between God and each one.

One more thing: we never know when our words and examples will bear fruit. They may not bear fruit as quickly as we would like. They may bear fruit at the most unexpected moment. The job of good parents is to educate their children in the faith. That is where their job ends. Perhaps, at first, they may be a little sad or disappointed because their children do not respond as they would like. We must continue to pray, because perhaps, one day they will be surprised to see their children integrate into the Church. And if they do not have this pleasant surprise, they should not blame themselves, but rather love their children as they are, because God loves them that way.

 

 

Ultimate hope

Christian hope has the same structure as human hope. Although, of course, the object of Christian hope is God himself. What we Christians ultimately hope for is not only to live longer and better, but to live with God and in God. That is why the Creed of the Christian faith ends with hope: we hope for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. This Christian hope is well founded. It is not a vain illusion. It is based on the power and mercy of God. If in Jesus Christ, God has shown us the power he has to raise the dead and the great love he has for each and every one of us, then it is logical to expect everything from him.

To love someone is to say to him/her: “I want to be with you always.” From this we understand that the love of God is the source of eternal life: God wants to be always with those he/she loves. On the other hand, those of us who believe that God is at the origin of all life have a good argument here to trust in the power of God, because if God can draw life from where there is, by the same power he can give us life back. To be born is to “appear.” Before being born I was not. At birth there was a leap from not being to being. Why can this leap not be repeated at the moment of my death? Why what can has already happened once not happen again?

This Christian hope in the resurrection of the dead, this hope in living with and in God forever, is not a reason to sit back, but rather a spur to want God's will to be fulfilled here and now, in our reality and in our world. And God's will is life and love for all. God wants not only a future for each of his sons and daughters, but also a present full of life. For this reason, hope in God is a reason to fight for a better world in which human beings find reasons to live and to hope. Without a good present, without this effort to build a world in which the dignity of all is respected, without this present, I say, Christian hope becomes a false consolation.

 

The Rosary, prayer for difficult times

October 7 is the feast of Our Lady of the Rosary. Many things have been said about the Rosary. It has its great defenders. Some consider it a repetitive prayer and one proper for simple people. Leaving aside the fact that simple people deserve respect and that all prayer is pleasing to God, not based on its literary, poetic or theological quality, but based on the dispositions of the person praying and its capacity to help the one who recites it to raise his heart to God, I would like to make a consideration about the Rosary that may perhaps help some who are suspicious to value this prayer a little more.

It is easy to memorize and remember; it alludes to the different mysteries of Jesus' life. To pray it, no preparation is needed, nor any special place, book, material or instrument. Many of us learned it as children and, from this point of view, it connects with moments in our lives when the relationship with God was more natural and less complicated. All this leads me to the following: there are difficult, painful, complicated moments in life. These moments make believers wonder about the presence of God in their lives. I clarify that I do not believe that God is an easy resource in the face of difficulties and that, in my opinion, we must always seek Him, in good and bad times. I also clarify that difficulties are not resolved by folding our arms and waiting for magical divine interventions.

But I do say that the Rosary can be a simple prayer for difficult times. Times when it is almost impossible to have calm thoughts about God. And when it is better not to do so. At these times the Rosary can help, it can serve to feel accompanied by the mysterious presence of the risen Jesus. These are times when one does not know what to say, perhaps one does not know what to think either. The Rosary helps to keep the soul calm, the heart trusting, the mind occupied with God. It helps the lips and life to bless, to speak well. Without a doubt the difficulty is still there. But there are two ways of facing difficulties that seem insurmountable: with desperation or with confidence. A confidence that may not be very conscious, but no less real. The Rosary helps to live through difficulties with this confidence.

 

Water and blood flowed from the pierced body of the crucified man

 

        

  "They will look at him whom they pierced" (Jn 19, 37). With these words the evangelist John closes his exposition of the passion of the Lord. Becoming a Christian means becoming a man, existing for others and existing from God. Looking at the open side of the crucified Christ, since this look is the intimate meaning of Good Friday.  John thinks that the Church, deep down, takes its origin from the pierced side of Christ, even in a different way than how it has been expressed until now. He indicates that blood and water flowed from the wound in his side.

          Blood and water represent for him the two fundamental sacraments, Eucharist and baptism, which, in turn, mean the authentic content of the essence of the Church. Baptism and Eucharist are the two ways in which people enter the vital sphere of Christ. Because baptism means that a person becomes a Christian, that he places himself under the name of Jesus Christ.

          The Eucharist means sitting at the table with Christ, uniting us with all people, since by eating the same bread, the body of the Lord, we not only receive it, but it takes us out of ourselves and introduces us into it, thereby really forms his Church.

                    The open side once again becomes a symbol of the opening that the Lord has given us with his death: the borders of the body no longer bind him, the water and blood of his side flood history; for having risen, it is the open space that calls us all. His return is not a distant event from the end of time, but rather it began at the hour of his death, when he left he reintroduced himself among us.

          The sacraments of the Church are, like the Church itself, fruits of the dead grain of wheat. Receiving them requires us to enter into that movement from which they come. He demands of us that self-losing, without which it is impossible to find oneself: "Whoever wants to keep his life will lose it; but whoever wants to lose it for my sake and for the gospel, he will find it."

          These words of the Lord are the fundamental formula of the Christian life. Ultimately, believing is nothing more than saying yes to this holy adventure of losing oneself, which at its most intimate core boils down to true love. In this way, the Christian life acquires all its splendor from the cross of Jesus Christ; and the Christian openness to the world, which we hear so much about today, can only find its true image in the open side of the Lord, an expression of that radical love that is the only one that can save us.

 

.

 

Foundations of the Future

 

This society is getting old. It is a sociological observation. Now, the fact that there are increasingly older people could be something very positive. It means that life expectancy, and a quality life, is getting longer thanks to advances in medicine. The serious thing about aging would be that it lead to hopelessness, isolation, loneliness; it would be equally serious if care did not reach everyone, or if it were conditioned by the economic situation, because this would be a sign of a wealthy society, in which many human beings are often forgotten, isolated, and despised.

Among the elderly, as occurs in all social groups, there are some who are more integrated, or have a higher economic or cultural level. But, in one way or another, everyone has a richer experience and memories than those of the young. Sometimes they have lost some vitality. It would seem that the elderly, from the outset, should have more dissatisfactions than the young. It's not really like that. Satisfaction does not depend on age, but on how life is lived, on the loves that are preserved, on the look with which we address others, on the inner wealth that one has and, for the believer, on his degree of encounter with God. Of course, each stage of life has its own needs. And it is possible that, in relation to the so-called Third Age, It is true that the ability to be heard is not precisely proportional to the needs that one has. Hence the importance of discovering under many silences the cries that cannot be heard.

A stranger on the Road

 

The parable of the merciful Samaritan. I offer a synthesis of the Pope's commentary on this parable in his encyclical Fratelli tutti, putting in parentheses the numbers of the encyclical to which I refer.

Francis poses a question that challenges us directly: with which of the characters in the parable do you identify, with the robbers, with the religious people, who ignored the wounded man and passed by, or with the one who, without knowing him, considered him worth spending your time? (64).

I underline some teachings of the parable directly related to fraternity and social friendship. First, in a world of wounded and people excluded or left by the wayside for economic, political, social and religious reasons, there are only two possible options, two types of people, regardless of position or disguise. With which they dress, namely: take care of the wounded or pass by (67 and 70). Those who pass by are accomplices of the robbers. So that in moments of crisis "everyone who is not a robber or everyone who does not pass by, is either wounded or is placing someone wounded on his men" (70).

Second, we can all do something. “We do not have to expect everything from those who govern us” (77), nor let ourselves be discouraged by their ineffectiveness or corruption, or by institutions “directed at the service of the interests of a few”. If "others think about politics or the economy for their power games", people of good will are called to feed what is good and put ourselves at the service of good (77).

We are called to forget about localisms and particularisms, to transcend historical and cultural prejudices (83), called to expand our circles of belonging (81 and 83), so that our vocation as "citizens of the whole world" (66) and, like the Samaritan, to become close to the stranger (80). “But let's not do it alone, individually. The Samaritan searched for a host who could take care of that man, as we are invited to summon and find ourselves in a 'we', which is stronger than the sum of small individualities” (78).

Finally, I highlight a “warning” raised by those religious people who pass by the wounded: “the fact of believing in God and worshiping him does not guarantee living as God pleases. A person of faith may not be faithful to everything that same faith demands of him, and yet he may feel close to God and believe he has more dignity than others” (74). The notice continues, from another perspective, after lamenting that it took the Church so long to condemn slavery and various forms of violence: "there are still those who seem to feel encouraged or at least authorized by their faith to support various forms of closed nationalism and violent, xenophobic attitudes, contempt and even mistreatment towards those who are different” (86).

Sin Leads to Death

I would like to return to the essence of the Cain myth, namely fratricide. To understand it in all its drama, it is worth remembering that, according to the biblical story, Abel's is the first death in history. However, the logic of the story leads one to think that Adam should have died first, since God had threatened him with death if he ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Adam ate, Eve ate, and they lived on. It would seem that the serpent was right when he told them: "you will not die at all" (if you eat from the tree).

Here we play with a double meaning of the term "death": death as the end of existence; and death as separation from God. The death that sin produces is of a religious type: the break with God. Sin does not lead man to the grave. Rather, it destroys the relationship with God and with others and destroys him, because the person is built on the relationship. Its most tragic consequence is manifested in all cruelty in the murder of Abel at the hands of Cain. The first death of humanity is not a natural death, it is a homicide and a fratricide, since we are all brothers. The first to die is not Adam for having violated God's command, but Abel, an innocent.

The first experience of death was not produced by disobedience to the God we do not see, but by hatred of the brother we see. Since this does not enter into God's original project, it can be said with all truth that sin leads to death. To the physical death of the brother and to the spiritual death of the murderer. The death threats come from the brother. And I can receive the murder from the murderous brother or from the willful ignorance of the one who washes his hands, and also hypocritically wonders if he is the guardian of his brother.

Unfortunately, the story of Cain is still current, in the form of ruptures of all kinds: ambitions, violence, economies that harm the weak, wars whose objective is to obtain other people's wealth, or "death bonds”. The latest invention of the bank, in which the death wish of the insurance holder is explicit.

 

There Is Hunger and There Is Plenty of Food

 

It should be noted the dramatic increase in the number of people suffering from hunger, has made two things clear: one, there is no cause-effect relationship between the increase in population and hunger, which is confirmed by the deplorable destruction of food surpluses based on economic profit. In other words, there is plenty of food, but there is no political will to reach everyone, because the will that prevails is economic; it does not seek to feed the hungry, it seeks to obtain the maximum benefit, even at the expense of the hungry. This bad policy, has repercussions for the achievement of other rights, beginning with the primary right to life. If I understand correctly, this means that in order to ensure the right to life with dignity, it is necessary previously, or at least simultaneously,

Secondly, the responsibility of one for the other, based on the common belonging to the universal human family. This must be understood well: it is not just that since we are all brothers and sisters, we have to help each other. It is that the goods of the earth belong to all to be distributed among all. That is why we should speak not only of a solidarity animated by love, but of a justice that encourages others to give "what is theirs", what belongs to them as a member of a family in which goods are shared. The consequence is clear: if a people in need appropriates the superfluous goods of other peoples, they do not steal because they take what is theirs. How to translate that politically? For now there is no translation, what there are reprisals and international courts to punish those who dare to take what is “theirs”.

Love Is The Essential Dynamic Of The Human Being

 

We start from the importance of the family as a vital cell of society. And the family is a community of love, since this is its vital engine. Love, not in a poetic sense, but in a unitive and dynamic function between human beings.

If there is something that can explain a man's actions, his union with other people, and consequently, the entire family cycle that begins with marriage, that something is love.

Love is the principle and creative source, because man was created by love and for love. All manifestations of the human being make this tendency evident: love is what identifies the person, the capacity to love is exclusive to the human being.

The bond between people must be love, the inner principle, the permanent strength and the ultimate goal to live, grow and perfect oneself.

This might seem like an ideal or very utopian position in the turbulent times in which we live; However, it is also very important to remember that although love is the engine that drives the union of man and woman in marriage, and therefore, the birth of a family, it is the will, the mutual consent of the man and woman, above all. What marriage is founded, establishing a bond?

To really love you have to know what love is. As we discover its depth, we will grow more in the capacity to love. It is dynamic, as it covers different stages, it is expressed in all areas of the human personality and throughout our entire life.

It is essential, since it constitutes the principle, the idea by which man was created and the end for which he exists. This will be the activity of man for all eternity (“Now faith and hope are present, but in the end only love will exist”).

Love is the only reason that justifies the existence of each and every one. The entire universe was created by love. Love is the supreme act of freedom, the truly human activity by which a person chooses and realizes the good of another.