20220117 MORAL RELATIVISM OR ABSOLUTE OBEDIENCE
17 January, 2022, Monday, Week 2 in Ordinary Time
First reading |
1 Samuel 15:16-23 © |
Saul disobeys the Lord and the Lord rejects him
Samuel said to Saul, ‘Stop! Let me tell you what the Lord said to me last night.’ Saul said, ‘Tell me.’ Samuel continued, ‘Small as you may be in your own eyes, are you not head of the tribes of Israel? The Lord has anointed you king over Israel. The Lord sent you on a mission and said to you, “Go, put these sinners, the Amalekites, under the ban and make war on them until they are exterminated.” Why then did you not obey the voice of the Lord? Why did you fall on the booty and do what is displeasing to the Lord?’ Saul replied to Samuel, ‘But I did obey the voice of the Lord. I went on the mission which the Lord gave me; I brought back Agag king of the Amalekites; I put the Amalekites under the ban. From the booty the people took the best sheep and oxen of what was under the ban to sacrifice them to the Lord your God in Gilgal.’ But Samuel replied:
‘Is the pleasure of the Lord in holocausts and sacrifices
or in obedience to the voice of the Lord?
Yes, obedience is better than sacrifice,
submissiveness better than the fat of rams.
Rebellion is a sin of sorcery,
presumption a crime of teraphim.
‘Since you have rejected the word of the Lord, he has rejected you as king.’
Responsorial Psalm |
Psalm 49(50):8-9,16-17,21,23 © |
I will show God’s salvation to the upright.
‘I find no fault with your sacrifices,
your offerings are always before me.
I do not ask more bullocks from your farms,
nor goats from among your herds.
I will show God’s salvation to the upright.
‘But how can you recite my commandments
and take my covenant on your lips,
you who despise my law
and throw my words to the winds,
I will show God’s salvation to the upright.
‘You do this, and should I keep silence?
Do you think that I am like you?
A sacrifice of thanksgiving honours me
and I will show God’s salvation to the upright.’
I will show God’s salvation to the upright.
Gospel Acclamation | cf.1Th2:13 |
Alleluia, alleluia!
Accept God’s message for what it really is:
God’s message, and not some human thinking.
Alleluia!
Or: | Heb4:12 |
Alleluia, alleluia!
The word of God is something alive and active:
it can judge secret emotions and thoughts.
Alleluia!
Gospel | Mark 2:18-22 © |
'Why do your disciples not fast?'
One day when John’s disciples and the Pharisees were fasting, some people came to Jesus and said to him, ‘Why is it that John’s disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees fast, but your disciples do not?’ Jesus replied, ‘Surely the bridegroom’s attendants would never think of fasting while the bridegroom is still with them? As long as they have the bridegroom with them, they could not think of fasting. But the time will come for the bridegroom to be taken away from them, and then, on that day, they will fast. No one sews a piece of unshrunken cloth on an old cloak; if he does, the patch pulls away from it, the new from the old, and the tear gets worse. And nobody puts new wine into old wineskins; if he does, the wine will burst the skins, and the wine is lost and the skins too. No! New wine, fresh skins!’
MORAL RELATIVISM OR ABSOLUTE OBEDIENCE
SCRIPTURE READINGS: [1 Sam 15:16-23; Ps 49:8-9,16-17,21,23; Mark 2:18-22]
In the first reading, Samuel reprimanded Saul for not obeying the command of the Lord to kill all the Amalekites who were considered sinners in the eyes of God. However, the obedience of Saul was a half-hearted obedience. He did not carry out all the orders of the Lord. Instead, he brought back Agag, the king of the Amalekites, and put the Amalekites under the ban. Instead of killing the animals as well, Saul took from the booty, the best sheep and oxen, all of which were under the ban, to sacrifice to the Lord. But Samuel replied, “Is the pleasure of the Lord in holocausts and sacrifices or in obedience to the voice of the Lord? Yes, obedience is better than sacrifice, submissiveness better than the fat of rams. Rebellion is a sin of sorcery, presumption a crime of teraphim.”
How do we react to such a situation in today’s reckoning? Firstly, we are horrified that God who is a loving and merciful God could command the annihilation of the Amalekites, even though they might be sinners. This is certainly not acceptable in today’s time because we abhor killing of every sort, even our enemies and those who commit crimes. Every life is precious to us and that is why even the Church deems that the death penalty should be removed from society in our current situation because there are more effective ways to delimit the possible injuries that criminals can continue to inflict on others.
Secondly, it is not just the lives of human beings that are sacred but even that of animals as well. Strict animal rights activists seek to remove all slaughtering of animals, even for food. But to kill them simply because they belong to our enemies or sinners, and not for food consumption would be considered cruel and wasteful. Consequently, if Saul were living in our times, he would be doing the right thing by offering the best animals to God for sacrifice and keeping the rest for the people to use. But Samuel’s reply does not seem to tolerate any form of compromise. Full submission is required without question.
How, then, do we reconcile the teaching of the Word of God commanding us to obey the Lord without question or compromise? To make compromises, according to Samuel, is tantamount to rebellion. It is to go against God even if we do His will half way. It shows that we prefer to choose our way rather than God’s way because we perceive we know better than Him. Rebellion is the fruit of pride. Presumption of knowing what is better or even the mind of God is also a sin of pride, especially when it clearly goes against His explicit commands. But surely, we do not think that this would be the right thing to do today.
Hence, we must consider the commands of God in the context of that time. The truth is that morality develops over time. Conscience and sensitivity to what is right or wrong is formed over time. What is seen to be something so seriously evil today was considered something good or acceptable in another epoch. Values do change. There are many examples in the history of morality. Slavery, until the early part of the Christian era, was accepted and even tolerated by many societies until the 20th century. Polygamy is still a practice in some countries and cultures. Today, most cultures would only accept monogamy and outlaw polygamy. Same sex union was of course condemned and even listed as a crime. So, too, was divorce in some countries. During the time of the monarchy, the king had absolute power and could order anyone to be put to death. Justice in those days was collective and not just a matter of individual retribution. When a member of the family committed a serious offence, especially if he was the head of the family, the entire family or even tribe would be wiped out. But even today, countries that condemn the death penalty would advocate a just war under any pretext, or assassinate their enemies and kill innocent lives in the pursuit their enemies.
Consequently, we must be careful that we do not impose our moral standards today on matters and events that happened in another epoch of time. There are some people who want certain historical leaders hailed for having made an impact on society in their days removed from the hall of fame simply because some of the things they did or tolerated in their time are not acceptable in today’s viewpoint. Do we remove all the statues of great people or world leaders who were merciless in killing their enemies? Can we pass judgment on the Inquisition of the Catholic Church where witches and heretics were burned at the stake? Can we pass judgment on the torture and execution of political and religious leaders? In those days, such cruelty was accepted as the best form of punishment. Can we pass judgment on those who did not treat women as men’s equal, making use of them to serve them like slaves? Of course, in today’s reckoning, it is totally unacceptable.
The gospel seems to advocate situation ethics as well. With respect to the question of fasting, Jesus said that fasting is relevant only when it is useful and expressive of the situation. Some people asked Him, “Why is it that John’s disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees fast, but your disciples do not?” Jesus replied, “Surely the bridegroom’s attendants would never think of fasting while the bridegroom is still with them? As long as they have the bridegroom with them, they could not think of fasting. But the time will come for the bridegroom to be taken away from them, and then, on that day, they will fast.” Clearly, for our Lord, fasting could not just be a pious exercise, a ritual we go through or something external. It must be done for a deliberate intention. Hence, the Lord dismissed those religious practices that were performed in a perfunctory and superficial manner.
But even more radical were the words of our Lord when He seemed to even advocate a complete break from outdated traditions when He gave the analogy of the unshrunken cloth and the wineskins. “No one sews a piece of unshrunken cloth on an old cloak; if he does, the patch pulls away from it, the new from the old, and the tear gets worse. And nobody puts new wine into old wineskins; if he does, the wine will burst the skins, and the wine is lost and the skins too. No! New wine, fresh skins!” Some traditions therefore might have to go completely for new ones to be adopted. In this case, the Jewish way of worship and the laws must give way to Jesus, the bridegroom of the New Covenant. Some things in the Old Covenant are redundant in the New Covenant.
But will this principle make us fall into the error of situation ethics which appear to be relativistic? In other words, morality changes with time. If morality can develop, it means that no moral values are absolute. What is wrong yesterday can be right today. What is right or wrong appears to be dependent on the culture of the day. Values change with time and with people. So today, society is rewriting some of the norms. Abortion is acceptable, sale of drugs and consumption is permissible in some countries, same sex union is legalized, transgender is recognized, death penalty is wrong but war is right and assassination of enemies is acceptable in the name of justice and common good. Celibacy and virginity in those days were highly prized but today, it is free sex, free expression of love. In fact, very few would think of dying to protect their virginity, unlike those in the ancient days.
Moral relativism is certainly a great concern in our time, so much so many of us are confused over what is truly right and wrong. There is so much ambiguity in determining values today. To ensure that we do not fall into moral relativism, we must make sure that the fundamental principles do not change. These are things enshrined and embedded in natural laws. Morality can develop from the basic principles given by the creator. One must show progress and continuity in order to justify change. A radical break from the principles that have been held time immemorial would warrant serious study and reflection. It cannot be based on one’s personal whims and fancies but we must act according to what nature has instituted. Getting back to the roots of what we do and who we are will help us to form our moral values and cultural norms. Those that are strictly contextual can be changed in time.
Written by The Most Rev William Goh, Roman Catholic Archbishop of Singapore © All Rights Reserved.
No comments:
Post a Comment