Make way for us Pharisees, perfect champions of purity, to pass – Stand aside, for we pharisees, champions of purity, are coming through – get away, what happened, the pharisees, perfect champions of purity!

/0 Comments/in /by

Homiletics of the Fathers of The Island of Patmos

Italian, english, español

 

MAKE WAY FOR US TO PASS PHARISEES PERFECT CHAMPIONS OF PURITY

"Hate, I thank you because I am not like other men, thieves, unrighteous, adultery, nor even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week and pay tithes of everything I own.".

.

PDF print format article – PDF article print format – PDF article in printed format

 

.

Like last Sunday's Gospel, this one from the XXX Sunday of Ordinary Time also contains a teaching on prayer. It is entrusted to the parable of the Pharisee and the publican in the temple, a text present only in the third gospel.

If Luca had specified the purpose for which Jesus had told the parable of the insistent widow and the unjust judge, or the need for persevering prayer (LC 18,1); this instead is narrated with specific recipients in mind: «He also spoke this parable for some who had the inner presumption of being righteous and despised others» (LC 18,9). In light of LC 16,15 where Jesus qualifies the Pharisees as those who "consider themselves righteous before men", one might think that the target of the story is precisely them alone, but the attitude targeted in the parable is a religious distortion that occurs everywhere and also affects Christian communities, and it is certainly these recipients that Luke is thinking of when writing his gospel. It is important to clarify this to avoid caricatural readings of the Pharisees, which unfortunately have not been lacking in Christianity precisely starting from the reading of this parable. And here is the evangelical text:

«Two men went up to the temple to pray: one was a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee, while standing, he prayed like this to himself: "Hate, I thank you because I am not like other men, thieves, unrighteous, adultery, nor even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week and pay tithes of everything I own.". The publican instead, stopped at a distance, he didn't even dare roll his eyes, but he beat his chest saying: "Hate, be merciful to me a sinner! '. I tell you: these, unlike the other, He went down to his house justified, For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, those who humble themselves will be exalted " (LC 18,9-14).

The piece can easily be divided into three parts: An introduction, of a verse; a parable of four verses (vv. 10-13); and the conclusion, of Jesus: «I tell you». The protagonists of the parable are two men, who ascend to the holiest place in Israel, the temple. The verb ascend not only says that the temple was located high up, its a mountain, but also that to go to Jerusalem one ascends, almost as if to indicate the way, also physical, how to get closer to God. In this regard we can recall the "Psalms of the Ascensions", starting from Ps 120, but also, in the Gospel, the good Samaritan who worried about the man who fell into the hands of bandits while "going down from Jerusalem to Jericho" (LC 10,30). St. Luke here describes two opposing polarities in first-century Judaism, thus showing that the characters are not chosen at random. The Pharisees were the most pious and devout people, while tax collectors were often considered thieves, a category of professionals in the pay of Rome, as Zacchaeus of Jericho could have been (LC 19,1). It also emerges that prayer at the temple could be private, while the public one was held in the morning and in the evening, and was regulated by the Templar liturgy.

So we have two men who go to the temple to pray. Their movement is identical, their purpose is the same and the place to which they go is the same, yet a great distance separates them. They are close and at the same time far away, so much so that their co-presence in the place of prayer still raises the question today, to Christians, of what it means to pray together, side by side, next to each other in the same place. It is in fact possible to pray alongside and be separated from the comparison, from comparison and even contempt: "I'm not like this tax collector" (v. 11). The differences between the two characters are also relevant for the gestures and postures of their bodies and in their positioning in the sacred space. The publican remains at the back, «stops at a distance» (v. 13), he does not dare advance, it is inhabited by the fear of those who are not used to the liturgical place, he bows his head to the ground and beats his chest saying very few words. The Pharisee, instead, expresses his confidence, his being a accustomed of the sacred place and pray while standing with your forehead high, pronouncing many refined words in his articulated thanks. This self-awareness has nothing to do with the right self-esteem, ma, marrying with contempt for others, turns out to be ostentatious arrogance, from someone who is perhaps not so sure of himself, so much so that it does not harbor any doubt in itself. And the presence of others serves to corroborate his consciousness of superiority. The verb used by Luke, exoutheneine, translated as «despise», literally means "to retain nothing", and it will be Herod's attitude towards Jesus in the story of the passion (LC 23,11). The Pharisee's confidence in condemning others is necessary to sustain the confidence of his own being better and right.

In the words of the Pharisee it also emerges what image of God he has. He prays "within himself", that is, "turned to himself" (cf.. automatic process Of LC 18,11) and his prayer seems dominated by the ego. Formally he gives thanks, but in truth he thanks God not for what he has done for him, but rather for what he does for God. The sense of thanksgiving is thus distorted since his ego replaces God and his prayer ends up being a list of pious services and a satisfaction with his not being "like other men" (v. 11). The lofty image of himself clouds that of God so much that it prevents him from seeing as a brother the one who prays in the same place and feels so at ease that God only has to confirm what he is and does.: It does not require conversion or change. Thus Jesus reveals that God's gaze does not welcome his prayer: «the publican returned to his house justified, unlike the other" (v. 14). Revealing to the reader the quiet prayer of the two characters in the parable, Luke makes an incursion into their interiority and into the soul of those who pray, showing that background of prayer that can be one with it, or conflict with it. It opens like this, in this song, a glimpse of light on the heart and depths of those who pray, on the thoughts that inhabit him while he is collected in prayer. This is a bold but important operation, because behind the words that are pronounced in liturgical or personal prayer there are often images, thoughts, feelings that can also be in sensational contradiction with the words that are spoken and with the meaning of the gestures that are made.

It is the relationship between prayer and authenticity. The Pharisee's prayer is sincere, but not truthful. It is that of the publican, while that of the Pharisee remains only sincere, as it expresses what this man believes and feels, however, bringing to light the pathology hidden in his words. They, that is, truly believing what he says, mostra al contempo che quel che lo muove alla preghiera è l’intima convinzione che ciò che compie basti a giustificarlo. Perciò la sua convinzione è granitica e incrollabile. La sua personale sincerità è coerente con l’immagine di Dio che lo muove.

Sottolineiamo ancora il versetto 13, e cioè la postura e la preghiera del pubblicano che fa da contraltare a quella del fariseo. Rimane indietro, forse nello spazio più remoto rispetto all’edificio del tempio, non alza gli occhi al cielo, ma si riconosce peccatore battendosi il petto, al modo in cui Davide diceva: «Ho peccato contro il Signore» (2Sam 12,13); come il «figliol prodigo» che dice: «Ho peccato contro il cielo e contro di te» (LC 15,21). La preghiera del pubblicano non è centrata su di sé, but he asks for only one thing - mercy - with the expression: «Have mercy», inexorably, what does it mean: propitiate, make benevolent, atone for sins. The publican makes no comparison, he considers himself the only sinner, a real sinner. In the end, al v.14, we encounter Jesus' comment, which highlights who is justified and who is not. The answer begins with the expression: «I tell you» (lego smile), as if to signal a significant conclusion, a request for solemn attention. Then Jesus says that of the two who had gone up to the temple, only the publican came away justified. The verb used by Jesus means to descend home (the CEI: "went home"). The sinner's prayer is accepted by God, that of the Pharisee, however, was not because he had nothing to ask. God, on the other hand, always welcomes requests for forgiveness when they are authentic and this parable therefore turns out to be a further teaching on prayer, like the one just above, of the judge and the widow.

The Christian reader through this parable understands that the authenticity of prayer passes through the good quality of relationships with others who pray with me and who with me form the body of Christ. And in the Christian space, in which Jesus Christ is "the image of the invisible God" (With the 1,15), prayer is a process of continuous purification of the images of God starting from the image revealed in Christ and him crucified (cf.. 1Color 2,2), image that contests all the counterfeit images of God. We can say that the Pharisee's attitude is emblematic of a religious type that replaces the relationship with the Lord with quantifiable performances, he fasts twice a week and pays tithes of everything he buys, also performing supererogatory works. To the relationship with the Lord under the sign of the Spirit and the gratuitousness of love, it replaces a form of seeking sanctification through control, which requires detachment from others. The prayer, instead, suggests Luca, requires humility. And humility is adherence to reality, to the poverty and smallness of the human condition, all’humus of which we are made. It is courageous self-knowledge in the face of the God who manifested himself in the humility and abasement of the Son. Where there is humility, there is openness to grace and there is charity and mercy is found.

From the Hermitage, 26 October 2025

.

______________________________

STAND ASIDE, FOR WE PHARISEES, CHAMPIONS OF PURITY, ARE COMING THROUGH

“Oh God, I thank Thee that I am not like other men — thieves, unjust, adulterers — nor even like this publican. I fast twice a week, and I pay tithes on all I possess».

.

As in last Sunday’s Gospel, so too in that of this Thirtieth Sunday in Ordinary Time we find a teaching on prayer. It is conveyed through the parable of the Pharisee and the publican in the temple — a text found only in the third Gospel. If Saint Luke had specified the purpose for which Jesus told the parable of the persistent widow and the unjust judge, namely the necessity of persevering prayer (Page 18:1), this one, on the other hand, is told with certain hearers clearly in mind: “He also told this parable to some who were convinced of their own righteousness and despised others” (Page 18:9). In the light of Luke 16:15, where Jesus describes the Pharisees as those “who justify themselves in the sight of men”, one might suppose that they alone are the intended target of the narrative. Yet the attitude denounced in the parable is a religious distortion that can arise anywhere — it inhabits even Christian communities — and it is surely to such as these that Luke directs his Gospel. It is important to make this clarification so as to avoid caricatured readings of the Pharisees, which unfortunately have not been lacking within Christianity, often beginning precisely from this parable. And here is the Gospel text itself:

“Two people went up to the temple area to pray; one was a Pharisee and the other was a tax collector. The Pharisee took up his position and spoke this prayer to himself, 'Oh God, I thank you that I am not like the rest of humanity — greedy, dishonest, adulterous — or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week, and I pay tithes on all I possess.’ But the tax collector stood off at a distance and would not even raise his eyes to heaven but beat his breast and prayed, 'Oh God, be merciful to me a sinner ’. I tell you, the latter went home justified, not the former; for whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and the one who humbles himself will be exalted”. (Page 18:9–14).

The passage can easily be divided into three parts: an introduction of one verse; a parable of four verses (vv. 10–13); and the conclusion spoken by Jesus: “I tell you.”The protagonists of the parable are two men who go up to the holiest place in Israel, the Temple. The verb to go up indicates not only that the Temple stood on high, upon a mountain, but also that one ascends when going to Jerusalem — almost as though to suggest, even in bodily movement, the manner in which one draws near to God. In this regard we may recall the Psalms of Ascent, beginning with Psalm 120, and likewise, in the Gospel, the Good Samaritan who took care of the man fallen among robbers while “going down from Jerusalem to Jericho” (Page 10:30). Saint Luke here depicts two opposing poles within first-century Judaism, showing that the characters were not chosen at random. The Pharisees were regarded as the most pious and devout, while the tax collectors were often seen as thieves — a class of professionals in the service of Rome, as Zacchaeus of Jericho may have been (Page 19:1). It also becomes clear that prayer in the Temple could be private, while public prayer was held in the morning and in the evening and was governed by the Temple liturgy.

We thus have two men who go to the Temple to pray. Their movement is identical, their purpose the same, and the place to which they go is one and the same; yet a great distance separates them. They are close to each other and yet far apart, so that their being together in the place of prayer raises, even for us Christians today, the question of what it truly means to pray together — side by side, one beside another, in the same sacred space. It is indeed possible to pray next to someone and yet be separated by comparison, by rivalry, or even by contempt: “I am not like this tax collector” (v. 11). The differences between the two characters are also evident in their gestures, in the posture of their bodies, and in the way they situate themselves within the sacred space. The tax collector remains at the back, “standing at a distance” (v. 13); he does not dare to come forward, he is filled with the awe of one unaccustomed to the liturgical place; he bows his head to the ground and beats his breast, uttering but a few words. The Pharisee, on the other hand, displays his assurance, his familiarity with the holy place; he prays standing upright, head held high, pronouncing many carefully chosen words in his elaborate thanksgiving. This self-awareness has nothing to do with proper self-respect; joined with contempt for others, it becomes a form of ostentatious arrogance — perhaps the posture of one who, in truth, is not so sure of himself, and who harbours no doubt within. The presence of others serves only to confirm his sense of superiority. The verb used by Luke, exoutheneine, translated as “to despise”, literally means “to regard as nothing”, and it will describe the attitude of Herod toward Jesus in the Passion narrative (Page 23:11). The Pharisee’s certainty in condemning others is the very means by which he sustains the illusion of his own righteousness and superiority.

In the words of the Pharisee there also emerges the image of God that he bears within himself. He prays “to himself” — that is, “turned toward himself” (pros heauton, Page 18:11) — and his prayer appears to be ruled entirely by the ego. Formally, he performs an act of thanksgiving, yet in truth he thanks God not for what God has done for him, but for what he does for God. The very meaning of thanksgiving is thus distorted, for his self takes the place of God, and his prayer becomes a catalogue of pious achievements and a self-satisfaction at not being “like other men” (v. 11). His exalted image of himself obscures that of God, to the point of preventing him from seeing as a brother the man who prays in the same holy place. He feels himself so perfectly righteous that God has nothing left to do but to confirm what he already is and does: he has no need of conversion, no need of change. Thus Jesus reveals that God’s gaze does not look with favour upon his prayer: “the tax collector went home justified, rather than the other” (v. 14). By unveiling for the reader the subdued prayer of the two figures in the parable, Luke ventures into their inner world — into the soul of the one who prays — showing that hidden background of prayer which may either be one with it or at odds with it. This passage thus opens a window of light upon the heart and the depths of the one who prays, upon the thoughts that dwell within him even as he stands in prayer. It is a bold but essential insight, for behind the words uttered in prayer — whether liturgical or personal — there often lie images, thoughts, and feelings that may stand in striking contradiction to the very words we speak and to the gestures we perform.

It is the relationship between prayer and authenticity. The prayer of the Pharisee is sincere, but not truthful. That of the tax collector is truthful, whereas the Pharisee’s remains merely sincere — in that it expresses what this man believes and feels, yet at the same time reveals the hidden pathology within his words. Believing truly what he says, he also shows that what moves him to pray is the inner conviction that what he does is sufficient to justify him. Hence his conviction is granite-like and unshakable. His personal sincerity is wholly consistent with the image of God that animates him.

Let us pause once more upon verse 13 — upon the posture and the prayer of the tax collector, which stands in direct contrast to that of the Pharisee. He remains at the back, perhaps in the most distant space of the Temple precincts; he does not lift his eyes to heaven but acknowledges himself as a sinner, beating his breast as David once said, “I have sinned against the Lord” (2 Sam 12:13); and as the prodigal son confessed, “I have sinned against heaven and against you” (Page 15:21). The prayer of the tax collector is not centred upon himself; he asks only one thing — mercy — with the expression “Be merciful” (hilaskomai), which means to propitiate, to make favourable, to atone for sins. The tax collector makes no comparison; he considers himself the only sinner, a true sinner. Finally, in verse 14, we find the comment of Jesus, who indicates who is justified and who is not. His response begins with the expression “I tell you” (lego smile), signalling a solemn conclusion, a call for attentive listening. Then Jesus declares that of the two who went up to the Temple, only the tax collector went down to his house justified. The verb used by Jesus means to go down to one’s house. The sinner’s prayer is received by God; the Pharisee’s is not, for he had nothing to ask. God, however, always welcomes the plea for forgiveness when it is sincere. This parable thus becomes yet another teaching on prayer — like the one just above, of the judge and the widow.

Through this parable, the Christian reader understands that the authenticity of prayer passes through the goodness and integrity of one’s relationships with others who pray alongside us and who, together with us, form the Body of Christ. In the Christian sphere, where Jesus Christ is “the image of the invisible God” (With the 1:15), prayer becomes a process of continual purification of our images of God, beginning from the image revealed in Christ — and in Him crucified (cf. 1 Color 2:2) — the image that contests and unmasks all false and distorted representations of God. The attitude of the Pharisee may be seen as emblematic of a religious type that replaces relationship with the Lord by measurable performance. He fasts twice a week and pays tithes on all he acquires, even undertaking works of supererogation. In place of a relationship with the Lord marked by the Spirit and by the gratuity of love, there arises a pursuit of sanctification through control — a striving that demands separation from others. Prayer, on the contrary, as Luke suggests, requires humility. And humility is an adhesion to reality — to the poverty and smallness of the human condition, to the humus from which we are made. It is the courageous knowledge of oneself before the God who has revealed Himself in the humility and self-emptying of the Son. Where there is humility, there is openness to grace, and there is charity, and mercy is found.

From the Hermitage October 26, 2025

.

______________________________

STAY AWAY, WHAT WE HAPPENED, THE PHARISEES, PERFECT CHAMPIONS OF PURITY!

«Oh God, I thank you because I am not like other men, thieves, unfair, adulterers, nor like this publican. "I fast twice a week and pay tithes of everything I own.".

.

Just like in last Sunday's Gospel, Also in that of this thirtieth Sunday of Ordinary Time we find a teaching on prayer. It is expressed through the parable of the Pharisee and the publican in the temple, a text present only in the third Gospel. If Saint Luke had specified the purpose for which Jesus told the parable of the persevering widow and the wicked judge—viz., the need to always pray without fainting (LC 18,1) —, in this other, instead, is narrated with specific recipients in mind: "He also told this parable for some who trusted in themselves because they considered themselves righteous and despised others." (LC 18,9). In the light of Lk 16,15, where Jesus describes the Pharisees as those "who consider themselves righteous before men", It could be thought that they are the only recipients of the story. However, The attitude denounced in the parable is a religious distortion that can manifest itself anywhere; also lives in Christian communities, and it is surely to these recipients that Luke addresses his Gospel.. It is important to specify this to avoid caricatured readings of the Pharisees, what, unfortunately, have not been lacking in Christianity, born precisely from the interpretation of this parable. And here is the evangelical text:

«Two men went up to the temple to pray; one was a Pharisee and the other a publican. The Pharisee, erected, He prayed inside saying: “Oh God, I thank you because I am not like other men, thieves, unfair, adulterers, nor like this publican. “I fast twice a week and pay tithes of everything I own.”. But the publican, staying at a distance, He didn't even dare to raise his eyes to the sky., but he beat his chest saying: “Oh God, have mercy on me, that I am a sinner. I tell you that this one went home justified and that one did not.; because everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted." (LC 18,9-14).

The passage can easily be divided into three parts: a verse introduction; a four verse parable (vv. 10-13); and the conclusion pronounced by Jesus: “I tell them”. The protagonists of the parable are two men who climb to the holiest place in Israel, the temple. The verb rise indicates not only that the temple was on top, on a mountain, but also that to go to Jerusalem one ascends, almost as if to suggest—even in physical movement—the way in which one approaches God. For this purpose we can remember the Psalms of the climbs, starting with the Psalm 120, and also, in the Gospel, the figure of the good Samaritan who took pity on the man who fell into the hands of bandits while "going down from Jerusalem to Jericho" (LC 10,30). Saint Luke presents here two opposite poles within 1st century Judaism, thus showing that the characters were not chosen at random. The Pharisees were considered the most pious and devout people, while tax collectors were often seen as thieves: a class of professionals at the service of Rome, What Zacchaeus of Jericho could have been like (LC 19,1). In this passage it is also made present that prayer in the temple could be private., while public prayer was held in the morning and afternoon, and was regulated by the temple liturgy.

Have, well, to two men who go up to the temple to pray. Their movement is identical, their purpose is the same and the place they are going is the same.; however, a great distance separates them. They are close and at the same time distant, so that their joint presence in the place of prayer also raises today, to Christians, the question of what it truly means to pray together, side by side, in the same sacred space. Indeed, it is possible to pray together with another and, however, be separated by comparison, rivalry or even contempt: "I am not like this publican" (v. 11).

The differences between the two characters They are also notable in the gestures, in the posture of their bodies and in the way they are situated within the sacred space. The publican remains in the background, "keeping at a distance" (v. 13); does not dare to move forward, is inhabited by the fear of those who are not accustomed to the liturgical place; He bows his head to the ground and beats his chest, saying just a few words.. The Pharisee, instead, expresses his security, his condition of habituation to the holy place; now raised, with your head held high, uttering many carefully chosen words in his elaborate thanks. This self-awareness has nothing to do with fair self-esteem.; linked to contempt for others, is revealed in a form of ostentatious arrogance perhaps on the part of someone who actually, he's not so sure of himself, to the point that he has no doubt inside. The presence of others only serves to reinforce his consciousness of superiority.. The verb used by Luke, exoutheneín, translated as "despise", literally means “to consider as nothing”, and describes Herod's attitude toward Jesus in the Passion story (LC 23,11). La seguridad del fariseo al condenar a los demás es el medio por el cual sostiene la ilusión de su propia rectitud y superioridad.

En las palabras del fariseo se revela también la imagen de Dios que lleva dentro de sí. Ora «consigo mismo», that is to say, «dirigido hacia sí mismo» (pròs heautón, LC 18,11), y su oración parece dominada por el ego. Formalmente realiza una acción de gracias, pero en realidad da gracias a Dios no por lo que Dios ha hecho por él, sino por lo que él hace por Dios. El sentido del agradecimiento queda así desnaturalizado, pues su propio yo ocupa el lugar de Dios, y su oración se convierte en un catálogo de prácticas piadosas y en una autocomplacencia por no ser «como los demás hombres» (v. 11). The magnified image of himself obscures that of God to the point of preventing him from seeing the one who prays in the same holy place as a brother.. He feels so righteous that God has nothing to do but confirm what he already is and does.: does not need any conversion or change. So, Jesus reveals that God's gaze does not take pleasure in his prayer: «The publican went home justified, and the other doesn't" (v. 14). By revealing to the reader the silent prayer of the two characters in the parable, Luke penetrates into his inner world — into the soul of the one who prays — showing that undercurrent of the prayer that may coincide with it or conflict with it.. This passage opens, therefore, una rendija de luz sobre el corazón y las profundidades de quien ora, sobre los pensamientos que lo habitan incluso mientras está recogido en oración.
Se trata de una observación audaz, pero necesaria, porque detrás de las palabras pronunciadas en la oración — sea litúrgica o personal — suelen esconderse imágenes, pensamientos y sentimientos que pueden estar en flagrante contradicción con las propias palabras que se dicen y con el significado de los gestos que se realizan.

Se trata de la relación entre la oración y la autenticidad. La oración del fariseo es sincera, pero no veraz. La del publicano en cambio, es veraz, mientras que la del fariseo permanece meramente sincera, en la medida en que expresa lo que este hombre cree y siente, but at the same time it reveals the hidden pathology in his words. Truly believing in what he says, It also shows that what drives him to pray is the intimate conviction that what he does is enough to justify it.. That is why his conviction is granite and unbreakable.. His personal sincerity is fully consistent with the image of God that moves him..

Let's stop once again at the verse 13, in the posture and prayer of the publican, that serve as a counterweight to those of the Pharisee. Stay behind, perhaps in the space furthest from the temple precinct; does not raise his eyes to the sky, but he recognizes himself as a sinner by beating his chest, the way David said: "I have sinned against the Lord" (2 Sam 12,13); and as the prodigal son confessed: "I have sinned against heaven and against you" (LC 15,21). The Publican's Prayer Is Not Self-Centered; He asks for one thing—mercy—with the expression “Have compassion.” (hilaskomai), What does it mean to encourage?, become favorable, atone for sins. The publican makes no comparisons; he considers himself the only sinner, a true sinner. Finally, in the verse 14, we find Jesus' comment, that highlights who is justified and who is not. His response begins with the expression "I tell you." (lego smile), as to point out a significant conclusion, an invitation to listen attentively. After, Jesus declares that of the two who went up to the temple, only the publican went home justified. The verb used by Jesus means to descend home. The sinner's prayer is accepted by God; that of the Pharisee, instead, no, because he had nothing to ask for. God, however, always welcome pleas for forgiveness when they are authentic. This parable thus becomes a new teaching on prayer, just like the previous one, that of the judge and the widow.

Through this parable, The Christian reader understands that the authenticity of prayer depends on the quality and goodness of the relationships with others who pray with me and who, together with me, they form the Body of Christ. In the Christian sphere, where Jesus Christ is "the image of the invisible God" (With the 1,15), Prayer becomes a process of continuous purification of our images of God, from the image revealed in Christ — and in Him crucified (cf. 1 Color 2,2) —, image that questions and unmasks all false and distorted representations of God. The attitude of the Pharisee can be considered emblematic of a religious type that replaces the relationship with the Lord with quantifiable returns.. He fasts twice a week and pays tithes on everything he acquires., even performing supererogatory works. Instead of a relationship with the Lord under the sign of the Spirit and the gratuitousness of love, a form of search for sanctification appears through control, that requires distancing from others. The prayer, Instead—as Luke suggests—, requires humility. And humility is adherence to reality, to the poverty and smallness of the human condition, al humus what we are made of. It is the courageous knowledge of oneself before God that has manifested itself in the humility and self-emptying of the Son.. Where there is humility, there is openness to grace, there is charity and mercy is found.

From the Hermitage, 26 October 2025

.

.

Sant'Angelo Cave in Ripe (Civitella del Tronto)

 

.

Visit the pages of our book shop WHO and support our editions by purchasing and distributing our books.

.

______________________

Dear Readers,
this magazine requires management costs that we have always faced only with your free offers. Those who wish to support our apostolic work can send us their contribution through the convenient and safe way PayPal by clicking below:

Or if you prefer you can use our
Bank account in the name of:
Editions The island of Patmos

n Agency. 59 From Rome – Vatican
Iban code:
IT74R0503403259000000301118
For international bank transfers:
Codice SWIFT:
BAPPIT21D21

If you make a bank transfer, send an email to the editorial staff, the bank does not provide your email and we will not be able to send you a thank you message:
isoladipatmos@gmail.com

We thank you for the support you wish to offer to our apostolic service.

The Fathers of the Island of Patmos

.

.

.

.

.

Faith as resistance in the night of God. «When the son of man comes, find faith on earth?» – Faith as resistance in the night of God. “When the Son of man comes, will he find faith on earth?” – Faith as resistance in the night of God. "When the son of man comes, Will you find faith on earth?»

/in /by
Homiletics of the Fathers of the Island of Patmos

Homiletics of the Fathers of The Island of Patmos

(Italian, English, Español)

 

FAITH AS RESISTANCE IN THE NIGHT OF GOD. «WHEN THE SON OF MAN COMES, HE WILL FIND FAITH ON EARTH?»

When the Son of Man comes, perhaps he won't find many works, nor many institutions remained strong; but if he will find a small remnant who still believes, hope and love, then your question will have already been answered. For even one faith to live, even a single heart that continues to pray in the night, it is enough to keep the lamp of the Church lit.

.

.

PDF print format article – PDF article print format – PDF article in printed format

 

.

The final sentence of this Lucanian passage it arouses fear and trembling in my Christian and priestly soul. The parable of the judge and the widow does not end with consolation, but with a question.

Jesus does not promise better times, nor does it guarantee that God's justice will manifest itself according to our expectations; instead it leaves a question hanging, that spans the centuries and rests on every generation: «When the Son of man comes, find faith on earth?».

From the Gospel according to Luke (18, 1-8) — «At that time, Jesus told his disciples a parable about the need to pray, without ever getting tired: “In a city there lived a judge, who neither feared God nor had regard for anyone. There was also a widow in that city, who went to him and told him: 'Give me justice against my adversary'. For a while he didn't want to; but then he said to himself: “Even though I do not fear God and have no regard for anyone, since this widow bothers me so much, I will do justice to her so that she doesn't continually come to bother me.". And the Lord added: “Listen to what the dishonest judge says. And God will not perhaps do justice to his elect, who cry out to him day and night? It will probably make them wait a long time? I tell you he will do them justice promptly. But the Son of Man, when will, find faith on earth?”».

This question is the dramatic seal of the Gospel of the blessed evangelist Luke, because it reveals the paradox of the Christian faith: God is faithful, but often man is not. The risk is not that God forgets man, but rather that man becomes tired of God. This is why Jesus speaks of the need to always pray, without ever getting tired: not because God is deaf, but because prayer keeps faith alive in a time that consumes it to the point of emptying it, especially in this Europe of ours without memory, who denies their Christian roots in a sometimes violent and destructive way.

The widow in this parable represents the suffering soul of the Church mystical body of Christ: fragile, but stubborn. In the silence he continues to knock on the judge's door, even when everything seems useless. It is the faith that does not give in to the temptation of indifference; it is the faith that resists in the night of the apparent absence of God. And God is not like the dishonest judge, but sometimes it tests faith precisely at the moment in which it seems to behave as such: is silent, unresponsive, delays justice. This is where persevering prayer becomes an act of pure trust, a silent rebellion against despair.

When Jesus asks if, upon his return, find faith on earth, it does not speak of a vague belief or religious feeling; It's about faith that endures, the one that remains firm even when every appearance of religion seems to dissolve, that faith which is the foundation of things hoped for and proof of things not seen" (cf.. EB 11,1); that faith that will make us blessed because despite not having seen we believed (cf.. GV 20,29). It is the faith of Abraham, who believes against all hope (cf.. RM 4,18); the faith of the widow who continues to ask for justice (cf.. LC 18,3); the faith of the Church that does not stop praying even when the world mocks her.

The real threat is not atheism widespread throughout the world, but one that is increasingly widespread within the visible Church: the cleric atheism, extreme consequence of the spiritual apathy that erodes the heart and transforms faith into habit and hope into cynicism. but yet, It is precisely in this desert that God's faithfulness is revealed: when everything seems dead the seed of faith survives hidden in the earth, like a silent germ awaiting God's spring.

In the penitential rite we confess that we have sinned in thoughts, words, works and omissions. Among these sins, omission is perhaps the most serious, because it contains the root of all the others, a bit like pride, which is the queen and synthesis of all the deadly sins. And of the dramatic phrase that closes this evangelical passage - both hermetic and enigmatic - the sin of omission is, in his own way, paradigm. Just think about how many, in the face of the disorder and decadence that have afflicted the Church for decades, they wash their hands like Pilate in the praetorium, saying: "The Church is Christ, and is governed by the Holy Spirit". As if this formula were enough to justify inertia and failure to assume any responsibility. The house burns, but we reassure ourselves by saying: «It's his, He will take care of it. Did he not promise that the gates of hell will not prevail?».

We are faced with the sanctification of impotence, at the “theology” of "I mind my own business" disguised as trust in Providence. Then when the problems cannot be denied and evaded in any way, one is even capable of affirming: «Those who come after us will take care of it», a true triumph of the most nefarious irresponsible spirit.

If the question of Christ — «When the Son of man comes, find faith on earth?» — we put it in this realistic context, a disturbing echo would emerge. Yup, the Lord promised «not praevalebunt» and certainly, upon his return, he will still find the Church. But which Church? Because it could also find a visible Church emptied of Christ - of which we sometimes seem almost ashamed - and filled with something else: of humanitarianism without grace, of justice without truth and law, of spirituality without the Spirit … A Church that still exists in its external form, but who risks no longer having faith.

It's this one, perhaps, it is the most terrible of the prophecies implicit in that question: that faith can disappear not from the world, but precisely from the Church. Even in the face of this disturbing possibility - that the Son of Man may find his faith weakened, almost extinguished - the Gospel does not abandon us to fear, but it calls us to the hope that does not disappoint. Authentic faith is not a stable possession, it is a grace to be cherished and renewed every day. Like breathing, it lives only in continuity: I know if it interrupts, dies. For this reason prayer becomes the highest act of spiritual resistance: praying does not mean reminding God of our existence, but to remind ourselves that God exists and that his faithfulness precedes any of our infidelity.

When faith seems to be failing in the Church, God never ceases to inspire it in the little ones, in the humble, in the poor who cry out to Him day and night. This is the logic of the Kingdom: while structures become rigid and men become distracted, the Spirit continues to breathe in the silent hearts that believe even without seeing. Where the institution appears tired and decadent, God remains alive in his people. Where the word is silent, faith continues to whisper.

Christ's question — «I will find faith on earth?» — is not a condemnation, but an invitation and at the same time a challenge: “You will keep the faith when everything around you seems lost?” It is a call to stay awake in the night, not to delegate the responsibility of believing to others. The Son of Man does not ask for a triumphant Church in the worldly or political sense of the term, but a Church that watches, that doesn't stop knocking, who perseveres in prayer like the widow in the parable. And that widow, symbol of the poor and faithful Church, teaches us that the miracle of faith does not consist in changing God, but in letting ourselves be changed by Him, until we ourselves become a living prayer.

When the Son of Man comes, perhaps he will not find many works or many institutions that have remained strong; but if he will find a small remnant who still believes, hope and love, then your question will have already been answered. For even one faith to live, even a single heart that continues to pray in the night, it is enough to keep the lamp of the Church lit.

Praised be Jesus Christ!

From the island of Patmos, 20 October 2025

.

_________________________________________

FAITH AS RESISTANCE IN THE NIGHT OF GOD. “WHEN THE SON OF MAN COMES, WILL HE FIND FAITH ON EARTH?”

When the Son of Man comes, He may perhaps find few works and few institutions still standing firm; yet if He finds a small remnant that still believes, hopes, and loves, then His question will already have found its answer. For even a single living faith, even a single heart that continues to pray in the night, is enough to keep the lamp of the Church burning.

.

.

The concluding sentence of this Lucan passage awakens within my Christian and priestly soul a sense of awe and trembling. The parable of the judge and the widow does not end with consolation, but with a question. Our Lord does not promise brighter days, nor does He assure us that the justice of God will manifest itself according to our expectations; rather, He leaves a question suspended in the air — one that travels through the centuries and settles upon every generation: “When the Son of Man comes, will He find faith upon the earth?”

From the Gospel according to Luke (18:1-8) — At that time Jesus told His disciples a parable about the necessity of praying always without becoming weary. “In a certain city there was a judge who neither feared God nor respected any human being. And there was a widow in that city who kept coming to him and saying, ‘Render a just decision for me against my adversary.’ For a long time he was unwilling, but eventually he thought, ‘Even though I neither fear God nor respect any human being, because this widow keeps bothering me I shall deliver a just decision for her lest she finally come and strike me.’” And the Lord said, “Pay attention to what the dishonest judge says. Will not God then secure the rights of His chosen ones who call out to Him day and night? Will He be slow to answer them? I tell you, He will see to it that justice is done for them speedily. But when the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on earth?”

This question stands as the dramatic seal of the Gospel according to the blessed Evangelist Luke, for it discloses the paradox at the heart of Christian faith: God remains faithful, yet man so often does not. The danger is not that God should forget man, but that man should grow weary of God. Hence our Lord speaks of the need to pray always and never lose heart — not because God is deaf, but because prayer keeps faith alive in an age that exhausts and empties it, especially in this Europe of ours, grown amnesiac and intent on denying its Christian roots.

The widow in this parable represents the suffering soul of the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ: fragile, yet unyielding. In silence she keeps knocking at the judge’s door, even when all seems futile. Hers is the faith that does not yield to indifference; the faith that endures through the night of God’s apparent absence. And God, though unlike the unjust judge, at times tests faith precisely in the moment when He seems to act as one: He keeps silence, He withholds His answer, He delays justice. It is there that persevering prayer becomes an act of pure trust — a silent rebellion against despair.

When Jesus asks whether, at His return, He will find faith upon the earth, He is not speaking of a vague belief or a mere religious sentiment; He is speaking of the faith that endures — the faith that remains steadfast even when every outward form of religion seems to dissolve. It is that faith which is “the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen” (cf. Heb 11:1); the faith that will make us blessed, “for having not seen, we have yet believed” (cf. Jn 20:29). It is the faith of Abraham, who “hoped against hope” (cf. Rom 4:18); the faith of the widow who continues to plead for justice (cf. Page 18:3); the faith of the Church that does not cease to pray even when the world mocks her.

The true menace is not the atheism that pervades the world, but the one that spreads ever more within the visible Church — an ecclesiastical atheism, the ultimate consequence of spiritual apathy that corrodes the heart, turning faith into habit and hope into cynicism. Yet it is precisely in this desert that the faithfulness of God is revealed: when all seems dead, the seed of faith survives hidden within the soil, like a silent germ awaiting the springtime of God.

In the penitential rite we confess that we have sinned in thought, word, deed, and omission. Among these sins, omission is perhaps the most grievous, for it encloses within itself the root of all the others — much as pride, queen and synthesis of the capital sins, contains them all. The dramatic phrase that closes this Gospel passage — at once hermetic and enigmatic — finds in the sin of omission its fitting paradigm.

Consider, for example, how many, faced with the disorder and decay that for decades have afflicted the Church, wash their hands like Pilate in the praetorium, saying: “The Church belongs to Christ, and it is governed by the Holy Spirit.” As though that formula were sufficient to justify their inertia. The house is ablaze, yet we console ourselves by saying: “It is His; He will see to it. Did He not promise that the gates of hell shall not prevail?”

We are witnessing the sanctification of impotence — a theology of minding one’s own business disguised as trust in Providence. It is an evasion of responsibility that masquerades as faith. When problems cannot be denied or avoided in any way, we are even capable of saying: “Those who come after us will take care of it”, a true triumph of the most nefarious irresponsible spirit.

If we were to set Christ’s question — “When the Son of Man comes, will He find faith upon the earth?” — within this realistic context, an unsettling echo would emerge. Yes, the Lord has promised not praevalebunt, and assuredly, at His return, He will find the Church still standing. But which Church? For He may find, rather, a visible Church emptied of Christ — of whom at times we seem almost ashamed — and filled instead with something else: humanism without grace, diplomacy without truth, spirituality without the Spirit. A Church that yet exists in its outward form, but one that risks no longer possessing faith.

And this, perhaps, is the most terrible of all the prophecies implicit in that question: that faith might vanish not from the world, but from the very house of God. Even in the face of this disquieting possibility — that the Son of Man might find a faith grown dim, almost extinguished — the Gospel does not abandon us to fear; it recalls us instead to the hope that does not disappoint.

True faith is not a stable possession; it is a grace to be guarded and renewed each day. Like breath, it lives only in its continuity: if it ceases, it dies. This is why prayer becomes the highest act of spiritual resistance: to pray does not mean to remind God of our existence, but to remind ourselves that God exists, and that His faithfulness precedes every one of our infidelities.

When faith seems to falter within the Church, God does not cease to awaken it in the little ones, in the humble, in the poor who cry to Him day and night. This is the logic of the Kingdom: while structures grow rigid and men grow distracted, the Spirit continues to breathe within silent hearts that believe without seeing. Where the institution appears weary, God remains alive in His people. Where the word falls silent, faith continues to whisper.

The question of Christ — “Will I find faith upon the earth?” — is not a condemnation but an invitation: “Will you keep the faith when all around you seems lost?”. It is a summons to remain awake in the night, not to delegate to others the responsibility of believing. The Son of Man does not ask for a triumphant Church in the worldly or political sense of the term, but for a Church that keeps vigil, that does not cease to knock, that perseveres in prayer like the widow of the parable. And that widow, symbol of the poor and faithful Church, teaches us that the miracle of faith does not consist in changing God, but in allowing ourselves to be changed by Him — until we ourselves become living prayer.

When the Son of Man comes, He may perhaps find few works and few institutions still standing firm; yet if He finds a small remnant that still believes, hopes, and loves, then His question will already have found its answer. For even a single living faith, even a single heart that continues to pray in the night, is enough to keep the lamp of the Church burning.

Praised be Jesus Christ!

From The Island of Patmos, 20 October 2025

.

_________________________________________

FAITH AS RESISTANCE IN THE NIGHT OF GOD. «WHEN THE SON OF MAN COMES, WILL YOU FIND FAITH ON EARTH?»

When the Son of Man comes, you may not find many works or many institutions that remain firm; but if you find a small remnant that still believes, wait and love, your question will have already found the answer. Because even a single faith lives, Even a single heart that continues to pray at night, It is enough to keep the lamp of the Church lit..

.

.

The final sentence of this Lucan passage arouses in my Christian and priestly spirit fear and trembling. The parable of the judge and the widow does not end with a consolation, but with a question. Jesus does not promise better times or guarantee that God's justice will manifest according to our expectations.; deja, rather, a suspended question that crosses the centuries and rests on each generation: "When the Son of Man comes, Will you find faith on earth?».

From the Holy Gospel according to Saint Luke (18, 1-8) — At that time, Jesus told his disciples a parable about the need to always pray without giving up.: "There was a judge in a city who neither feared God nor respected men.. In that same city there was a widow who came to him saying: “Do me justice against my adversary”. For some time he refused, but then he said to himself: “Although I do not fear God nor respect men, how this widow is bothering me, I will give him justice so that he does not continually come to bother me." And the Lord added: «Look at what the unjust judge says; well God, Will he not do justice to his chosen ones who cry out to him day and night? Will you make them wait? I tell you that he will give them justice soon. But when the Son of man comes, Will you find this faith on earth?».

This question is the dramatic seal of the Gospel of the blessed evangelist Lucas, because it reveals the paradigm of the Christian faith: God remains faithful, but often the man is not. The risk is not that God forgets man, but in man getting tired of God.

That is why Jesus talks about the need to always pray, without fainting: not because God is deaf, but because prayer keeps faith alive in a time that wears it down until it is empty., especially in this Europe of ours, no memory, that denies its Christian roots and seeks to build a world where God no longer has a place.

The widow of this parable represents the suffering soul of the Church, Mystical Body of Christ: fragile, but stubborn. Silently continue knocking on the judge's door, even when everything seems useless. It is the faith that does not give in to the temptation of indifference; the faith that endures in the night of God's apparent absence. And God is not like the unjust judge, but sometimes it tests faith precisely at the moment when it seems to behave as such: calla, does not respond, delays justice. This is when persevering prayer becomes an act of pure trust., a silent rebellion against despair.

When Jesus asks if, upon his return, you will find faith on earth, It does not speak of a vague belief or a religious feeling; speaks of the faith that resists, one that remains steadfast even when all semblance of religion seems to dissolve; that faith that is “the foundation of what is hoped for and the guarantee of what is not seen” (cf. Heb 11,1); that faith that will make us blessed because, "without having seen, “we have believed” (cf. Jn 20,29). It is the faith of Abraham, who “believed hoping against all hope” (cf. Rom 4,18); the faith of the widow who continues to ask for justice (cf. LC 18,3); the faith of the Church that does not stop praying even when the world mocks it.

The real threat is not atheism spread in the world, but that which spreads more and more within the visible Church: ecclesiastical atheism, extreme consequence of spiritual apathy that erodes the heart and transforms faith into habit and hope into cynicism. Y, however, It is precisely in this desert where God's faithfulness is revealed: when everything seems dead, the seed of faith survives hidden in the earth, like a silent germ waiting for God's spring.

In the penitential rite we confess to having sinned in thought, word, work and omission. Among these sins, the omission is perhaps the most serious, because it contains within itself the root of all the others, in the same way that pride, queen and synthesis of all the capital sins, contains them all. And the dramatic phrase that closes this evangelical passage — at the same time hermetic and enigmatic — involves the sin of omission., in your way, with the paradigm.

Just think about how many, in the face of the disorder and decadence that has afflicted the Church for decades, They wash their hands like Pilate in the praetorium saying: "The Church belongs to Christ and is governed by the Holy Spirit". As if that formula were enough to justify inertia. The house is on fire, but we calm ourselves by saying: «It's yours, He will take care. Hasn't he promised that the gates of hell will not prevail?».

We are facing the sanctification of impotence, facing a theology of “I take care of my own business” disguised as trust in Providence. It is an escape from responsibility that seeks to present itself as faith. When problems cannot be denied or avoided in any way, we are even able to say: “Those who come after us will take care of it.”, true triumph of the most nefarious irresponsible spirit.

If we inserted Christ's question — «When the Son of man comes, Will you find faith on earth?» — in this realistic context, a disturbing echo would resonate in it. Yeah, the Lord has promised not praevalebunt and, certainly, upon his return he will still find the Church. But what Church? Because I could also find a visible Church emptied of Christ — of whom we sometimes seem almost ashamed — and filled with something else.: of graceless humanitarianism, of diplomacy without truth, of spirituality without Spirit. A Church that continues to exist in its external form, but who runs the risk of no longer having faith.

And this is perhaps the most terrible of prophecies implicit in that question: that faith can disappear not from the world, but precisely from the house of God. Even in the face of this disturbing possibility—that the Son of Man may find faith weakened, almost extinct, the Gospel does not abandon us to fear, but calls us to hope that does not disappoint.

Authentic faith is not a stable possession; It is a grace that must be guarded and renewed every day. like breath, only live in continuity: if interrupted, die. That is why prayer becomes the highest act of spiritual resistance.: Praying does not mean reminding God of our existence, but to remind ourselves that God exists, and that his faithfulness precedes all our infidelities.

When faith seems to fail in the Church, God does not stop raising it in the little ones, in the humble, in the poor who cry out to Him day and night. This is the logic of the Kingdom: while structures harden and men become distracted, el Espíritu continúa soplando en los corazones silenciosos que creen sin haber visto. Donde la institución parece cansada, Dios sigue vivo en su pueblo. Donde la palabra calla, la fe sigue susurrando.

La pregunta de Cristo — «¿Encontraré fe sobre la tierra?» — no es una condena, sino una invitación: «¿Conservarás la fe cuando todo a tu alrededor parezca perdido?» Es un llamado a permanecer despiertos en la noche, a no delegar en otros la responsabilidad de creer. El Hijo del hombre no pide una Iglesia triunfante en el sentido mundano o político del término, sino una Iglesia que vela, que no deja de llamar a la puerta, que persevera en la oración como la viuda de la parábola. Y esa viuda, symbol of the poor and faithful Church, teaches us that the miracle of faith does not consist of changing God, but in letting ourselves be changed by Him, until we become living prayer ourselves.

When the Son of Man comes, perhaps you will not find many works or many institutions that remain firm; but if you find a small remnant that still believes, wait and love, your question will have already found the answer. Because even a single faith lives, Even a single heart that continues to pray at night, It is enough to keep the lamp of the Church lit..

Praise be Jesus Christ!

From the Island of Patmos, 20 October 2025

.

______________________

Dear Readers, this magazine requires management costs that we have always faced only with your free offers. Those who wish to support our apostolic work can send us their contribution through the convenient and safe way PayPal by clicking below:

Or if you prefer you can use our Bank account in the name of:

Editions The island of Patmos

n Agency. 59 From Rome – Vatican

Iban code: IT74R0503403259000000301118

For international bank transfers:

Codice SWIFT: BAPPIT21D21

If you make a bank transfer, send an email to the editorial staff,

the bank does not provide your email and we will not be able to send you a thank you message: isoladipatmos@gmail.com

We thank you for the support you wish to offer to our apostolic service.

The Fathers of the Island of Patmos

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

 

The sin of Sodom and that unexpressed desire to gay-ize the Sacred Scripture and legitimize homosexuality within the church and the clergy — El pecado de Sodoma y ese deseo inexpresado de hacer gay la Sagrada Writing and legalizing homosexuality within the church and the clergy

/in /by

(Italian, English, Español)

 

THE SIN OF SODOM AND THAT UNEXPRESSED DESIRE TO GAIZE THE HOLY SCRIPTURE AND CLEAR HOMOSEXUALITY WITHIN THE CHURCH AND THE CLERGY

If we still have enough hair left on our stomach, we come to discover that even the Holy Scripture is obsessed with homosexuality and homosexuals. Let's find out, eg, that David and Jonathan were perhaps a little more than just friends; that Sodom and Gomorrah are the capitals of LGBT+ love, and that even Jesus with his apostles and with Lazarus of Bethany had something to hide, in short, no one can be saved anymore.

- Church news -

.

Author
Ivano Liguori, Ofm. Cap.

.

Ivano Liguori – PDF print format article – PDF article print forma – PDF article in printed format

 

.

An Italian priest, John Berti, famous cartoonist, published a few days ago on his website a cartoon in which the good Lord threatens to incinerate the priests who still teach that the sin of Sodom consists in homosexuality.

In schizophrenic times like ours we have to witness these little theaters in which there are more priests who talk and worry about homosexuality, with the desperate aim of clearing it within the Church and its clergy, more than the activists of the most famous homosexual culture club in Rome talk about it, which are much more coherent and therefore respectable, in their free and unquestionable choices. Homosexuals have always been better, on a human and social level, they are those who, by their unquestionable choice of life, live their homosexuality in the light of the sun, in freedom and coherence, without worrying about the Catholic Church and its morality, because it doesn't concern them. Instead, the absolute worst are the clerical parakeets, also called "sacristy homosexuals", who would like to bend the principles of Catholic morality to their whims, in a desperate attempt to introduce LGBT+ claims into the Church and the clergy as a real Trojan horse.

These subjects should be sent to lessons by Tomaso Cerno, who was national president of Arcigay (gay association of the Italian left), later elected to the Senate of the Italian Republic, splendid figure of a free and intellectually honest homosexual intellectual, author of clever and hilarious phrases like:

«Being a serious homosexual, certi fags repressed and certain queers I've never tolerated them when they went crazy".

One would have to reply to him: tell that to our hysterical gay sacristy acids! E, with an irony and unparalleled freedom, to those various television and radio programs where more colorful language is permitted — which, however apparently trivial, in certain contexts it can also be effective and even useful on a socio-communicative level - he begins by continually referring to "faggots" and referring to himself by saying "I've happily been a faggot since I was a child" (see WHO, QUI, WHO, WHO, WHO, etc. ..).

Like this, if we still have enough hair left on our stomach, we come to discover that even the Holy Scripture is obsessed with homosexuality and homosexuals. Let's find out, eg, that David and Jonathan were perhaps a little more than just friends; that Sodom and Gomorrah are the capitals of LGBT+ love, and that even Jesus with his apostles and with Lazarus of Bethany had something to hide, in short, no one can be saved anymore.

But let's go back to the cartoon of this Italian priest. What is really the sin of Sodom that scandalizes certain priests on page? The text of Genesis says so:

«They hadn't gone to bed yet, when behold the men of the city, that is, the inhabitants of Sodom, they crowded around the house, young and old, all the people as a whole. They called Lot and told him: “Where are those men who came to you this night? Get them out of us, because we can abuse it!”» (cf.. Gen 19,4-5).

The Italian translation uses the verb «abusare», which already says something a little more precise for a correct exegesis (to use: go beyond the permitted use). The original Hebrew text instead uses the expression "that they might know them". The Hebrew term is failʿ (knowledge) and it means “to have complete knowledge” — not always of a sexual nature — but in many cases it indicates carnal knowledge, specificity of the unitive act between man and woman. If so, and that's how it is, more than a homosexual act, the biblical story would testify to the attempt at gang violence, used as a sign of subordination and submission for those foreigners considered hostile and dangerous.

The rest, in many populations — and history bears witness to this — the supreme act of greatest contempt towards an individual or an ethnic group has often coincided not with murder but with the violation of the body through an act of sexual abuse. And when it was women who were abused, the consequent pregnancy resulting from the act of violence reaffirmed a desire for submission and domination also in the child who would be born from it.

To proceed with more information, I report what the Pontifical Biblical Commission says in reference to this passage from Gen 19,4 in the document «What is man?» (Shall 8,5). An itinerary of biblical anthropology: «It should be noted immediately that the Bible does not speak of erotic inclination towards a person of the same sex, but only homosexual acts. And he deals with these in a few texts, different from each other in literary genre and importance. Regarding the Old Testament we have two stories (Gen 19 e Gdc 19) which inappropriately evoke this aspect, and then the rules in a legislative code (Lv 18,22 e 20,13) who condemn homosexual relationships" (PCB 2019, n. 185).

The passage is very clear and the Bible's concern refers only to the homosexual act and not to homo-affective relationships and implications, as we know and theorize them today. Which means introducing a substantially different reflection, as much as the analysis of a case of moral theology in the light of anthropology alone. The Bible sees and reads the homosexual act within a well-defined sexuality and a relationship established by God between man and woman, between male and female, which establishes an order and a plan of salvation (although these categories too, by some biblical scholars of Protestant origin, have been demolished). In this sense also human sexuality, for God, it was conceived as an instrument of salvation and must also be exercised in this sense.

The biblical man, who is essentially a man of antiquity, considers homosexual acts as they were considered and known in ancient times. Just as Paul of Tarsus considered homosexual acts in those people who, having joined Christ, they also rediscovered sexuality as a saving novelty (cf.. RM 1,26-27; 1Color 6,9-11; 1TM 1,10).

But what were homosexual acts for the ancients? Substantially the reversal of the natural order of union and procreation, which assigned an active-giving role to man and a passive-receptive role to woman. A perhaps archaic vision, but borrowed from observation of the natural world, whereby: «It was believed that sexual intercourse required one active partner and the other passive, that nature had assigned these roles to male and female respectively, and that homoerotic acts inevitably created confusion in these roles, thus confusing what is natural. In the case of relationships between two males, one was believed to be degraded by taking on the passive role, considered naturally reserved for women. In the case of two women, one of the two was believed to usurp the dominant role, active, considered naturally reserved for man" (B. (J). Bread, Paul’s Views on the Nature of Women and Male Homoeroticism, in AA. VV., Bible and homosexuality, claudian, Torino 2011, p. 25).

So, for these natural reasons, Sexual relations of this type were not contemplated between two men or two women. However, this did not imply a judgment of merit extended to people: the discussion was about the act, not on emotional relationships as we understand them today, it is worth hypothesizing generalized historical homophobia.

Historians and scholars of the ancient world they also agree in indicating the existence of prohibitions and penalties to regulate homoerotic practices in some civilizations and circumstances, but there is no certainty of their actual application, except for certain cases which we do not deal with here and which may be the subject of a subsequent article.

Returning to the document of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, can be specified even better:

«But what was Sodom's sin in reality?, deserving of such an exemplary punishment? …» (PCB 2019, n. 186).

The sin of Sodom it is a sin deriving from the substantial contempt of God which generates proud rejection and oppositional conduct towards men outside Sodom - not only Lot's guests, but also Lot himself and his family. Sodom is the evil city where the stranger is not protected and the sacred duty of welcome is not respected, because we stopped welcoming God a long time ago. Something similar can be deduced from some evangelical passages (cf.. Mt 10,14-15; LC 10,10-12), where it speaks of the punishment for the rejection of those sent by the Lord: a refusal that will have more serious consequences than those that befell Sodom. In classical culture this attitude is the hybris (insult): violation of divine and natural law resulting in unfortunate consequences, desecrating and inhumane acts.

Yup, but where has homosexuality gone?? Starting from the second century of the Christian era, a habitual reading of Gen's story has established itself 19,4 in light of 2Pt 2,6-10 and Gd 7. The story is not intended to present the image of an entire city dominated by homosexual lust: rather, it denounces the conduct of a social and political entity that does not want to welcome the foreigner and seeks to humiliate him, forcing him by force to suffer shameful treatment of submission (cf.. PCB 2019, n. 187). If we wanted to be more precise, we could limit the attempted violence as rape, which in Roman law defined illegitimate sexual intercourse, even without rape: rape with a virgin or a widow O rape with males (cf.. Eva Cantarella, According to nature, Feltrinelli, Milan, edition consulted, pp. 138-141).

But then the inhabitants of Sodom were homosexuals yes or no? The Bible doesn't say that, and this invites us to reflect on how the sacred text highlights more important issues than a single conduct. Analyzing the history of the ancient world and the moral customs of the time, we can assume that in Sodom as in Persia, in Egypt, in Jerusalem, in Athens and Rome there were people who practiced acts of a homosexual nature and acts of a heterosexual nature in equal measure. People aware of their biological sex - they knew they were male and female - and who lived these practices with greater freedom and lightness than we imagine. Perhaps the century of sexual liberalization should be sought in antiquity, do not (solo) after 1968.

These themes allow us to talk about acts rather than homosexual relationships. In Greece they had a defined political-civil function; in Rome other meanings and purposes. Many of those engaged in homosexual acts, at a certain age and for similar purposes, they returned to heterosexual acts and got married to a woman.

For the ancient world and for the philosophy of the Greeks, marriage was the only institution that guaranteed the continuation of the family and civil society, something that a community of only men or all women could not have supported, as the classical poems attest, in which female communities, so as not to become extinct, they are looking for men.

The ancient world knew a still primitive anthropology of sexuality, based on natural instincts, and was unable to fully define the greatness of human sexuality as Christianity has proposed it over the centuries - sometimes with questionable tones - nevertheless arriving at a theology of corporeity in view of a salvation that includes, does not mortify, sexuality.

Maybe it's us modern people to have categorized and defined sexuality so precisely — thanks to the human sciences and neuroscience. The concept of homosexual orientation is modern. According to scholars, sexual activity in ancient times could resemble conscious bisexuality exercised in different contexts and for different purposes. Also because the concept of nature/against nature was understood differently from how Christian morality would understand it.

Now that we know the identity of Sodom's sin, we understand that in the narrative traditions of the Bible there are no precise indications - at least as we would like - on homosexual practices, nor as behavior to blame, nor as an attitude to be tolerated or encouraged (cf.. PCB 2019, n. 188). Simply, the Bible speaks of the salvation that God brings about in the history of man: a pedagogical salvation that holds together opposites and apparent contradictions. In Christ salvation is revealed and refined, introducing a change not only internally into the heart of man, but also structural, that affects human relationships, and therefore also sexuality. More fundamental than an act considered sinful is the human person, greater than his act or his orientation. A faith lived and welcomed with joy involves a liberating educational journey that re-establishes and redefines relationships in a new way, so as to perceive the beauty of what has been given to us - including sexuality and its exercise - so that it may be an instrument of salvation for me and for others.

Sanluri, 18 October 2025

.

______________________________

THE SIN OF SODOM AND THAT UNEXPRESSED DESIRE TO “GAY-IZE” SACRED SCRIPTURE AND LEGITIMIZE HOMOSEXUALITY WITHIN THE CHURCH AND THE CLERGY

So then, if we still have enough stomach hair left, we come to discover that even Sacred Scripture seems to be obsessed with homosexuality and homosexuals. We learn, for instance, that David and Jonathan may have been somewhat more than simple friends; that Sodom and Gomorrah were the capitals of LGBT+ love; and that even Jesus, with his apostles and with Lazarus of Bethany, had something to hide — in short, it would seem that no one is left innocent anymore.

— Ecclesial actuality —

.

Author
Ivano Liguori, Ofm. Cap.

.

An Italian priest, John Berti, well-known as a cartoonist, recently published on his website a cartoon in which the good Lord threatens to incinerate those priests who still teach that the sin of Sodom consists in homosexuality.
In these schizophrenic times of ours, we are forced to witness such little shows, where there are more priests speaking about and worrying over homosexuality — desperately trying to normalize it within the Church and her clergy — than there are activists at Rome’s most famous Homosexual Cultural Circle, who are far more consistent and therefore more respectable in their free and unquestionable choices.

The best homosexuals, humanly and socially speaking, have always been those who, by their own unquestionable life choice, live their homosexuality openly, in freedom and coherence, without worrying about the Catholic Church and her moral teaching — because it simply does not concern them.

The worst, instead, are the clerical parakeets, also known as “the camp priests of the sacristy” who would like to bend the principles of Catholic morality to their whims, in the desperate attempt to introduce LGBT+ claims into the Church and the clergy as a true Trojan horse.

These individuals should be sent to take lessons from Tommaso Cerno, former national president of Arcigay (Italy’s major left-wing gay association) and later elected to the Italian Senate — a brilliant figure of a free and intellectually honest homosexual, author of witty and sharp remarks such as: “Since I am a serious homosexual, I have never been able to stand certain hysterical queens”. One would be tempted to reply: go tell that to our acidic sacristy queens! And, with his unmatched irony and freedom of spirit, in various television and radio programs where a more colorful language is allowed — which, although apparently coarse, can in some contexts be effective and even socially useful — he often opens his remarks by repeatedly referring to “faggots” and by saying of himself: “I have been a happily queer man ever since I was a child” (see WHO, QUI, WHO, WHO, WHO, etc..)

So then, if we still have enough stomach hair left, we come to discover that even Sacred Scripture seems to be obsessed with homosexuality and homosexuals. We learn, for instance, that David and Jonathan may have been somewhat more than simple friends; that Sodom and Gomorrah were the capitals of LGBT+ love; and that even Jesus, with his apostles and with Lazarus of Bethany, had something to hide — in short, it would seem that no one is left innocent anymore.

But let us return to the cartoon by this Italian priest. What, in truth, is the sin of Sodom that so scandalizes certain on page priests? The text of Genesis says:

“They had not yet gone to bed when the townsmen, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house. They called to Lot and said, ‘Where are the men who came to your house tonight? Bring them out to us that we may abuse them’” (cf. Gen 19:4-5).

The Italian translation uses the verb “to abuse”, which already says something a bit more precise for a proper exegesis (to use: to go beyond the permitted use). The original Hebrew text, however, uses the expression “so that they might know them”. The Hebrew term is yādāʿ (knowledge) and means “to have complete knowledge” — not always of a sexual kind — but in many cases it indicates a carnal knowledge, specific to the unitive act between a man and a woman. If this is so, and it is so, more than describing a homosexual act, the biblical account would bear witness to an attempted act of group violence, used as a sign of subordination and humiliation toward those foreigners considered hostile and dangerous.

Indeed, in many peoples — and history bears witness to this — the supreme act of contempt toward an individual or an ethnic group has often consisted not in murder but in the violation of the body through an act of sexual abuse. And when the victims of such abuse were women, the consequent pregnancy resulting from the act of violence reaffirmed a will of subjugation and domination even in the child who would be born of it.

To proceed with greater precision, I shall report what the Pontifical Biblical Commission says in reference to this passage of Gen 19:4 in the document “What is man?” (Ps 8:5), A Journey of Biblical Anthropology: “It must immediately be noted that the Bible does not speak of an erotic inclination toward a person of the same sex, but only of homosexual acts. And these are mentioned in only a few texts, which differ from one another in literary genre and importance. With regard to the Old Testament, we have two accounts (Gen 19 and Judg 19) that improperly evoke this aspect, and then certain norms in a legislative code (Lev 18:22 and 20:13) that condemn homosexual relations” (PBC 2019, n. 185).

The passage is very clear, and the concern of Scripture refers solely to the homosexual act, not to the relationships and affective implications between persons of the same sex as we know and conceptualize them today. This means introducing a substantially different reflection, namely the analysis of a case in moral theology in the light of anthropology alone. The Bible perceives and interprets the homosexual act within a sexuality clearly defined and within a relationality established by God between man and woman, male and female, which determines an order and a salvific plan (although even these categories, according to some Protestant biblical scholars, have been dismantled). In this sense, human sexuality itself, in God’s design, was conceived as an instrument of salvation and must be lived accordingly.

The biblical man, who is essentially a man of antiquity, viewed homosexual acts as they were understood and regarded in ancient times. In the same way, Paul of Tarsus considered homosexual acts in those persons who, having embraced Christ, rediscovered even their sexuality as a new dimension of salvation (cf. Rom 1:26–27; 1 Color 6:9–11; 1 Tim 1:10).

But what were homosexual acts for the ancients? Essentially, they were seen as the overturning of the natural order of union and procreation, which assigned to the man an active-donative role and to the woman a passive-receptive one. A vision perhaps archaic, yet derived from the observation of the natural world, according to which: “It was believed that the sexual act required one active and one passive partner, that nature had assigned these roles respectively to male and female, and that homoerotic acts inevitably produced confusion in these roles, thereby confusing what is natural. In the case of relations between two males, it was thought that one of them was degraded by assuming the passive role, considered naturally reserved to the woman. In the case of two women, it was thought that one of them usurped the dominant, active role, considered naturally reserved to the man” (B. (J). Bread, Paul’s Views on the Nature of Women and Male Homoeroticism, in Bible and homosexuality, claudian, Turin 2011, p. 25).

Therefore, for such reasons of nature, sexual relations of this kind were not contemplated between two men or between two women. However, this did not imply a moral judgment extended to the persons themselves: the discourse concerned the act, not the affective relationships as we understand them today, otherwise we would have to hypothesize a generalized historical homophobia.

Historians and scholars of the ancient world agree in noting the existence of prohibitions and penalties intended to regulate homoerotic practices in certain civilizations and circumstances, but there is no certainty as to their actual application, except for specific cases that will not be treated here and may be the subject of a future article.

Returning to the document of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, the matter can be clarified even further: “But what was in fact the sin of Sodom, deserving of so exemplary a punishment? …” (PBC 2019, n. 186).

The sin of Sodom is a sin arising from a fundamental contempt for God that generates a proud rejection and an oppositional attitude toward those who are strangers to Sodom — not only Lot’s guests, but also Lot himself and his family. Sodom is the wicked city in which the stranger is not protected and the sacred duty of hospitality is no longer respected, because long ago its people ceased to welcome God. Something similar can be deduced from certain Gospel passages (cf. Mt 10:14–15; Page 10:10–12), where reference is made to the punishment for rejecting those sent by the Lord — a rejection that will have consequences more severe than those that befell Sodom. In classical culture, this attitude corresponds to hubris (insult): the violation of divine and natural law, leading to disastrous consequences, sacrilegious and inhuman acts.

Yes, but where did homosexuality go? Starting from the second century of the Christian era, a customary reading of the account in Gen 19:4 took shape in the light of 2 PT 2:6–10 and Jude 7. The narrative does not intend to present the image of an entire city dominated by homosexual desires; rather, it denounces the behavior of a social and political entity that refuses to welcome the stranger and seeks to humiliate him, forcing him by violence to undergo a degrading treatment of subjugation (cf. PBC 2019, n. 187). If we wished to be more precise, we could describe the attempted violence as rape, which in Roman law defined an illicit sexual act, even without physical violence: rape with a virgin or a widow or sbad with males (cf. Eva Cantarella, According to nature, Feltrinelli, Milan, consulted edition, pp. 138–141).

But then, were the inhabitants of Sodom homosexual or not? Scripture does not say so, and this invites us to reflect on how the sacred text places the emphasis on themes far more important than a single behavior. By analyzing the history of the ancient world and the moral customs of the time, we may presume that in Sodom, as in Persia, Egypt, Jerusalem, Athens, and Rome, there were people who practiced both homosexual and heterosexual acts in equal measure. They were persons conscious of their biological sex — they knew themselves to be male or female — and who lived these practices with a freedom and lightness greater than we might imagine. Perhaps the true century of sexual liberalization should be sought in antiquity, not (only) after 1968.

Such themes allow us to speak of homosexual acts rather than homosexual relationships. In Greece, these acts had a specific political and civic function; in Rome, they bore other meanings and purposes. Many of those who engaged in homosexual acts, at a certain age and for similar reasons, returned to heterosexual acts and contracted marriage with a woman.

For the ancient world and for Greek philosophy, marriage was the only institution that guaranteed the continuation of the family and of civil society, something that a community made up solely of men or solely of women could not sustain, as attested by the classical poems in which female communities, in order not to die out, seek men.

The ancient world possessed an anthropology of sexuality that was still primitive, based on natural instincts, and it was unable fully to define the greatness of human sexuality as Christianity has proposed it throughout the centuries — at times with debatable tones — yet ultimately arriving at a theology of corporeality aimed at a salvation that includes rather than mortifies sexuality.

Perhaps it is we moderns who have categorized and defined sexuality so precisely — thanks to the human sciences and to neuroscience. The concept of homosexual orientation is modern. According to scholars, sexual activity in antiquity could resemble a conscious bisexuality practiced in different contexts and for different purposes. This was also because the concept of nature and against nature was understood differently from the way it would later be interpreted by Christian morality.

Now that we know the true identity of the sin of Sodom, we understand that in the narrative traditions of the Bible there are no precise indications — at least not as we would wish — concerning homosexual practices, neither as behaviors to be condemned nor as attitudes to be tolerated or favored (cf. PBC 2019, n. 188). Quite simply, Scripture speaks of the salvation that God works in the history of humanity: a pedagogical salvation that holds together opposites and apparent contradictions. In Christ, salvation is revealed and refined, implanting in the human heart a change not only interior but also structural, which touches human relationships and therefore also sexuality. More fundamental than an act considered sinful is the human person, who is greater than his or her act or orientation. A faith lived and received with joy entails a liberating educational journey that restores and redefines relationships in a new way, so as to perceive the beauty of what has been given to us — including sexuality and its exercise — that it may be, for me and for others, an instrument of salvation.

Sanluri, 18th October 2025

.

______________________________

THE SIN OF SODOM AND THAT UNEXPRESSED DESIRE TO MAKE THE HOLY SCRIPTURE GAY AND LEGALIZE HOMOSEXUALITY WITHIN THE CHURCH AND THE CLERGY

And if we still have some hair left on our stomachs, we would come to discover that even Holy Scripture seems to be obsessed with homosexuality and homosexuals. We found out, For example, that David and Jonathan may have been more than just friends; that Sodom and Gomorrah are the capitals of LGBT+ love, and that even Jesus, with his apostles and with Lazarus of Bethany, I had something to hide; in summary, absolutely no one is saved anymore.

- Ecclesial news -

.

Author
Ivano Liguori, Ofm. Cap.

.

An Italian priest, John Berti, famous cartoonist, published a few days ago on its website a cartoon in which the good Lord threatens to incinerate priests who still teach that the sin of Sodom consists of homosexuality.

In schizophrenic times like ours We must attend these little theaters in which there are more priests who speak and care about homosexuality — with the desperate goal of normalizing it within the Church and its clergy — than the activists of the most famous Circle of Homosexual Culture in Rome, who are much more coherent and, for it, more respectable in their free and unquestionable decisions. The best homosexuals, from the human and social point of view, have always been those who, for his free and unquestionable choice of life, they live their homosexuality in the sunlight, with freedom and consistency, without worrying about the Catholic Church or its morals, because the matter does not concern them. Instead, The worst ones at all are the hysterical crazy women in the sacristy., who wanted to bend the principles of Catholic morality to their whims, in the desperate attempt to introduce LGBT+ demands within the Church and the clergy through a true Trojan horse.

These guys should be sent to take lessons from Tommaso Cerno, who was national president of Arcigay (homosexual association of the Italian left) and later elected senator of the Republic, a splendid figure of a free and honest homosexual intellectual, author of intelligent and hilarious phrases like: “Being a serious homosexual, “I have never tolerated certain hysterical crazy women.”. It would make one want to respond: tell that to our hysterical gay sacristy acids!

Y, with irony and unparalleled freedom, on various television and radio programs where more colorful language is allowed — which, although apparently vulgar, In certain contexts it can be more effective and even useful on a socio-communicative level — it usually begins by constantly referring to “faggots” and saying about oneself: “I have been happily a faggot since I was a child.” (see HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, etc..).

And if we still have some hair left on our stomachs, we would come to discover that even Holy Scripture seems to be obsessed with homosexuality and homosexuals. We found out, For example, that David and Jonathan may have been more than just friends; that Sodom and Gomorrah are the capitals of LGBT+ love, and that even Jesus, with his apostles and with Lazarus of Bethany, I had something to hide; in summary, absolutely no one is saved anymore.

But let's go back to the vignette of this Italian priest. What really is the sin of Sodom that scandalizes certain priests? on page? The Genesis text says this::

“They had not yet gone to bed when the men of the city, the inhabitants of Sodom, They crowded around the house, young and old, the entire town. They called Lot and told him: 'Where are the men who entered your house tonight? Get them out so we can abuse them.’” (cf. Gen 19,4-5).

The Italian translation uses the verb “abuse”, that expresses something a little more precise for a correct exegesis (to use: go beyond permitted use). The original Hebrew text, instead, uses the expression “so that they could know them”. The Hebrew term is yādāʿ (knowledge) and means “to have complete knowledge”, not always sexual, although in many cases it indicates carnal knowledge, typical of the unitive act between man and woman. If it were so—and so it is—, more than a homosexual act, The biblical story would bear witness to an attempt at collective violence, used as a sign of subordination and humiliation towards those foreigners considered hostile and dangerous.

In fact, in many towns —and history proves it—, the supreme act of contempt towards an individual or an ethnic group has not coincided with homicide, but with the violation of the body through an act of sexual abuse. And when the victims of such abuse have been women, The pregnancy resulting from the act of violence reaffirmed a will to submit and dominate even over the child that was to be born..

To proceed with greater precision, I quote what the Pontifical Biblical Commission in reference to this passage from Gen 19,4 in the document what is man? (Shall 8,5). An itinerary of biblical anthropology: “It should be noted immediately that the Bible does not speak of the erotic inclination towards a person of the same sex, but only of homosexual acts. And it deals with these in a few texts., different from each other by literary genre and importance. Regarding the Old Testament, we have two stories (Gene 19 and Jue 19) that inappropriately evoke this aspect, and then some rules in a legislative code (Lv 18,22 and 20,13) "that condemn homosexual relations" (CBP 2019, n. 185).

The passage is very clear, and the concern of the Bible refers only to the homosexual act and not to the relationships or emotional implications between people of the same sex, as we know and theorize them today. This means introducing a substantially different reflection, as the analysis of a case of moral theology in the exclusive light of anthropology. The Bible perceives and reads the homosexual act within a well-defined sexuality and a relationality established by God between man and woman., between the male and the female, that establishes an order and a plan of salvation (although these categories, according to some biblical scholars of Protestant origin, have been dismantled). In this sense, also human sexuality, for God, It was intended as an instrument of salvation and should be exercised in that way..

The biblical man, who is essentially a man of antiquity, considers homosexual acts as they were known and understood in ancient times. Likewise, Paul of Tarsus considered homosexual acts in those people who, having adhered to Christ, they rediscovered even sexuality as a salvific novelty (cf. Rom 1,26-27; 1 Color 6,9-11; 1 Tim 1,10).

But what were homosexual acts for the ancients?? In essence, the reversal of the natural order of union and procreation, that assigned an active-donative part to men and a passive-receptive part to women.. A perhaps archaic vision, but derived from observation of the natural world, according to which: “It was believed that the sexual act required an active partner and a passive partner.”, that nature had assigned those roles respectively to men and women, and that homoerotic acts inevitably generated confusion in those roles, thus confusing what is natural. In the case of relationships between two men, one of them was thought to be degrading by assuming the passive role, considered naturally reserved for women. In the case of two women, one of them was thought to usurp the dominant role, asset, considered naturally reserved for men." (B. (J). Bread, Paul’s Views on the Nature of Women and Male Homoeroticism, in Bible and homosexualityat, claudian, Turin 2011, p. 25).

For such reasons of nature, between two men or between two women, sexual relations of this type were not contemplated. However, This did not imply a moral judgment extended to people: the speech focused on the act, not in emotional relationships as we understand them today, under penalty of imagining a generalized historical homophobia.

Historians and scholars of the ancient world They also agree in pointing out the existence of prohibitions and sanctions intended to regulate homoerotic practices in certain civilizations and circumstances., although there is no certainty of its effective application, except in some specific cases that we do not discuss here and that may be the subject of a later article.

Returning to the document of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, can be specified even better: “But what really was the sin of Sodom?”, deserving of such exemplary punishment?…” (CBP 2019, n. 186).

The sin of Sodom It is a sin derived from fundamental contempt for God, which generates proud rejection and oppositional behavior towards those who are foreigners in Sodom: not only Lot's guests, but also Lot himself and his family. Sodom is the evil city in which the stranger is not protected and the sacred duty of hospitality is not respected., because for a long time they had stopped welcoming God. Something similar can be deduced from some evangelical passages. (cf. Mt 10,14-15; LC 10,10-12), where the punishment for rejecting the Lord's messengers is spoken of, a rejection that will have more serious consequences than those that fell on Sodom. In classical culture, This attitude corresponds to the hybris (insult): violation of divine and natural right that leads to dire consequences, sacrilegious and inhuman acts.

Yeah, but where has homosexuality gone?? From the second century of the Christian era, a habitual reading of the story of Gen was consolidated. 19,4 by the light of 2 Pe 2,6-10 y Jud 7. The story is not intended to present the image of an entire city dominated by homosexual desires.; rather, it denounces the conduct of a social and political entity that does not want to welcome foreigners and seeks to humiliate them., forcing him by force to suffer defamatory treatment of submission (cf. CBP 2019, n. 187). If we wanted to be more precise, we could circumscribe the attempted violence as rape, which in Roman law defined an illicit sexual relationship, even without carnal violence: rape with a virgin or a widow O rape with males (cf. Eva Cantarella, According to nature, Feltrinelli, Milan, consulted edition, pp. 138-141).

So, Were the inhabitants of Sodom homosexuals?, yes or no? The Bible doesn't say it, and this invites us to reflect on how the sacred text emphasizes much more important issues than a single behavior.. Analyzing the history of the ancient world and the moral customs of the time, we can assume that in Sodom, like in persia, in Egypt, in Jerusalem, in Athens and Rome, There were people who practiced acts of a homosexual nature and acts of a heterosexual nature in equal measure.. People aware of their own biological sex — they knew they were men and women — and who lived these practices with greater freedom and lightness than we imagine.. Perhaps the true century of sexual liberalization should be sought in antiquity, no (solo) after 1968.

These topics allow us to talk about acts more than homosexual relationships. In Greece they had a defined political-civic function; in Rome, other meanings and purposes. Many of those who practiced homosexual acts, at a certain age and for similar reasons, returned to heterosexual acts and married a woman.

For the ancient world and for the philosophy of the Greeks, Marriage was the only institution that guaranteed the continuity of the family and civil society, something that a community made up of only men or only women would not have been able to sustain, as attested by classic poems in which female communities, so as not to become extinct, looking for men.

The ancient world had a still primitive anthropology of sexuality, based on natural instincts, and it failed to fully define the greatness of human sexuality as Christianity has proposed it throughout the centuries—sometimes with debatable tones—, arriving, however, at a theology of corporeality oriented towards a salvation that includes, not that mortifying, sexuality.

Maybe it's us, the modern ones, those of us who have categorized and defined sexuality in such a precise way, thanks to human sciences and neurosciences. The concept of homosexual orientation is modern. According to scholars, Sexual activity in ancient times could be similar to conscious bisexuality exercised in different contexts and for different purposes.. Also because the concept of nature/against nature was understood differently from how Christian morality will interpret it..

Now that we know the identity of the sin of Sodom, We understand that in the narrative traditions of the Bible there are no precise indications - at least not as we would like - about homosexual practices., nor as behavior that should be censored, nor as an attitude that should be tolerated or favored (cf. CBP 2019, n. 188). Simply, The Bible talks about the salvation that God accomplishes in the history of man: a pedagogical salvation that holds together opposites and apparent contradictions. in Christ, salvation is revealed and perfected, instilling in the human heart a change not only internal, but also structural, that touches human relationships and, therefore, also sexuality. More fundamental than an act considered sinful is the human person, bigger than your act or your orientation. A faith lived and welcomed with joy involves a liberating educational path that restores and redefines relationships in a new way., allowing us to perceive the beauty of what has been given to us—including sexuality and its exercise—so that it can be, for me and for others, instrument of salvation.

Sanluri, 18 October 2025

.

.

The books of Ivano Liguori, to access the book shop click on the cover

.

.

.

______________________

Dear Readers,
this magazine requires management costs that we have always faced only with your free offers. Those who wish to support our apostolic work can send us their contribution through the convenient and safe way PayPal by clicking below:

 

Or if you prefer you can use our
Bank account in the name of:
Editions The island of Patmos

n Agency. 59 From Rome – Vatican
Iban code:
IT74R0503403259000000301118
For international bank transfers:
Codice SWIFT:
BAPPIT21D21

If you make a bank transfer, send an email to the editorial staff, the bank does not provide your email and we will not be able to send you a thank you message:
isoladipatmos@gmail.com

We thank you for the support you wish to offer to our apostolic service.

The Fathers of the Island of Patmos

.

.

 

.





The Arabian stallion of the Supreme Pontiff: those who want to mount and those who want to be mounted instead

/1 Comment/in /by

THE ARABIAN STALLION OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF: THOSE WHO WISH TO MOUNT AND THOSE WHO WANT TO BE MOUNTED

The fact that animals are donated to the Roman Pontiff is not at all new. Leo X received a white elephant as a gift from King Manuel I of Portugal, the famous Hanno, who paraded in procession through the streets of Rome, Paul II was offered a pair of peacocks, they even brought a kangaroo from Australia to Pius IX. Benedict XVI occupies a privileged place in the hearts of us felines, having been a Catholic pontiff. Francesco instead received two donkeys: Thea e Noah, in case he hadn't already had plenty of them in the Vatican.

– Briefs from Hypatia's cogitatory –

Author Hypatia Gatta Romana

Author
Hypatia Gatta Roman

.

.

.

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

Franca Giansoldati, Vaticanist note from the newspaper The messenger, today gave news of the splendid Arabian stallion donated by a Polish faithful to His Holiness Leo XIV. A magnificent animal that the Holy Father - with that frank elegance of his that hopefully will surprise the courtiers - has expressed the desire to mount personally (cf.. WHO).

May animals be donated to the Roman Pontiff It's not new at all. Leo X received a white elephant as a gift from King Manuel I of Portugal, the famous Hanno, who paraded in procession through the streets of Rome, Paul II was offered a pair of peacocks, they even brought a kangaroo from Australia to Pius IX. Benedict XVI occupies a privileged place in the hearts of us felines, having been a Catholic pontiff. Francesco instead received two donkeys: Thea e Noah, in case he hadn't already had plenty of them in the Vatican. In short, the pontifical bestiary is almost as long as he Ecclesiastical Annals by Cesare Baronio.

May the Holy Father wish to mount that noble steed it sincerely fills us with joy. Not only because it reveals an authentic love for the creatures of creation, but also because it shows a Pontiff who is still vigorous and full of energy at the dawn of his just turned seventy years old. And God knows how much, in these times, the Church needs Pastors who still know how to ride a horse and lead the flock.

To worry, if anything, it's something else entirely: the very high number of subjects who populate the Roman Curia, who - apparently - instead dream of being ridden by that splendid stallion. And as long as this clerical herd, nourished by ambition and courtliness, she will not be sent back to the stables, no reform, however holy, can succeed. Everything will end, like always, in the usual gallop towards nowhere.

the Island of Patmos, 17 October 2025

.

 

 

 

 

.

.

______________________

Dear Readers,
this magazine requires management costs that we have always faced only with your free offers. Those who wish to support our apostolic work can send us their contribution through the convenient and safe way PayPal by clicking below:

Or if you prefer you can use our
Bank account in the name of:
Editions The island of Patmos

n Agency. 59 From Rome – Vatican
Iban code:
IT74R0503403259000000301118
For international bank transfers:
Codice SWIFT:
BAPPIT21D21

If you make a bank transfer, send an email to the editorial staff, the bank does not provide your email and we will not be able to send you a thank you message:
isoladipatmos@gmail.com

We thank you for the support you wish to offer to our apostolic service.

The Fathers of the Island of Patmos

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

With Leo XIV Bishop of Rome, the title of Primate of Italy resurfaces

/in , /by

WITH LEO XIV, BISHOP OF ROME, THE TITLE OF ITALIAN PRIMATE RE-emerges

This definition, remained silent for a long time in official texts, now comes back alive in the voice of the Pontiff as a sign of orientation for the Church and for Italy. After years of mostly universal interpretations of the papacy, Leo XIV wanted to renew the original dimension of his ministry: the Supreme Pontiff is Bishop of Rome and, for this, guide and father of the Churches of Italy.

- ecclesial topicality -

Author Teodoro Beccia

Author
Teodoro Beccia

.

PDF print format article

 

.

Among the words pronounced by the Supreme Pontiff Leo XIV in his recent speech at the Quirinale, the 14 last October, one in particular resonated with theological force and historical intensity: «As Bishop of Rome and Primate of Italy».

This definition, remained silent for a long time in official texts, now comes back alive in the voice of the Pontiff as a sign of orientation for the Church and for Italy. After years of mostly universal interpretations of the papacy, Leo XIV wanted to renew the original dimension of his ministry: the Supreme Pontiff is Bishop of Rome and, for this, guide and father of the Churches of Italy.

The title of Primate of Italy expresses the ecclesiological truth that unites the universal Church to its concrete roots, tracing the primacy of Peter back to the sacramental source and the communion of the local Churches (cf.. The light, 22; The Eternal Shepherd, cap. (II)). In the vision of the Second Vatican Council, the Petrine function is never separated from the episcopal and collegial dimension: the Bishop of Rome, as successor of Peter, exercises a presidency of charity and unity (The light, 23), which is rooted in its own episcopal see. In this sense,, the title of Primate of Italy does not represent a legal privilege, but a theological and ecclesial sign that manifests the intimate connection between the universal primacy of the Roman Pontiff and his paternity over the Churches of Italy. As Saint John Paul II reminds us, the ministry of the Bishop of Rome "is at the service of the unity of faith and communion of the Church" (To be one, 94), and it is precisely from this communion that the national and local dimension of his pastoral concern arises.

In the Catholic hierarchy of the Latin Church, at the beginning of the second millennium, primate bishops are also envisaged, prelates who with that title - only honorific - are in charge of the oldest and most important dioceses of states or territories, without any prerogative (cf.. Pontifical Yearbook, ed. 2024). The Bishop of Rome is the Primate of Italy: ancient title, implemented over the centuries and still in force today, although with different prerogatives that have occurred over time.

Over the centuries other bishops in the Peninsula have had the honorific title of Primate: the Metropolitan Archbishop of Pisa maintains the title of Primate of the islands of Corsica and Sardinia, the Metropolitan Archbishop of Cagliari bears the title of Primate of Sardinia, the Metropolitan Archbishop of Palermo maintains the title of Primate of Sicily, and the Metropolitan Archbishop of Salerno as Primate of the Kingdom of Naples (cf.. Pontifical Yearbook, sez. “Metropolitan and Primate Headquarters”).

The territorial scope referred to by the term Italy was varied: from suburban Italy of the first Christian centuries, to Gothic and Lombard Italy, until the Kingdom of Italy incorporated into the Roman-German Empire, substantially made up of northern Italy and the Papal State. This primacy did not concern the territories of the former patriarchate of Aquileia, nor the territories forming part of Germanic kingdom — the current Trentino-Alto Adige, Trieste and Istria —, later belonged to the Austrian Empire. Today the primacy of Italy is implemented on a territory corresponding to that of the Italian Republic, of the Republic of San Marino and the Vatican City State (cf.. Pontifical Yearbook, ed. 2024, sez. “Primal Headquarters and Territories”).

The notion of "Italy" applied to ecclesiastical jurisdiction it has never had a political value, but an eminently pastoral and symbolic meaning, connected to the unifying function of the Bishop of Rome as a center of communion between the particular Churches of the Peninsula. Since the late ancient era, indeed, the suburbicaria regio designated the territory that, by ancient custom, recognized the direct dependence on the Roman See (cf.. Pontifical Book, vol. I, ed. Duchesne). Over the centuries, while changing civil constituencies and state structures, the spiritual dimension of primacy has remained constant, as an expression of ecclesial unity and the apostolic tradition of the Peninsula.

In the two thousand years of Christianity, the people of the Peninsula and the episcopate itself have constantly looked to the Roman See, both in the ecclesiastical and civil spheres. In 452 the Bishop of Rome, Leone I, at the request of Emperor Valentinian III, he was part of the embassy that went to northern Italy to meet the king of the Huns Attila, in an attempt to dissuade him from proceeding with his advance towards Rome (cf.. Prosper d'Aquitania, Chronicon, to a year 452).

They are the Popes of Rome who, in centuries, support the Municipalities against the imperial powers: the Guelph party - and in particular Charles of Anjou - becomes the instrument of papal power throughout the Peninsula. The Roman Pontiff will appear as the friend of the Municipalities, the protector of Italian liberties, contributing to dissolving the very idea of ​​Empire understood as the holder of full sovereignty, in favor of widespread and multiple sovereignty.

The concept of jurisdiction will be expressed clearly by Bartolo da Sassoferrato (1313-1357): it is not understood only as the power of speaking the law, but above all as the complex of powers necessary for the governance of a system that is not centralized in the hands of a single person or body (cf.. Bartolo of Saxoferrato, Treatise on Jurisdiction, in All works, New York, 1588, vol. IX). In this pluralistic vision of law, the Apostolic See represents the principle of balance and justice among the multiple forms of sovereignty that develop in the Peninsula, placing itself as a guarantor of the order and freedom of Christian communities.

Even in the 19th century, Vincenzo Gioberti proposed the neo-Guelph ideal and a confederation of Italian states under the presidency of the Roman Pontiff, outlining a vision in which the spiritual authority of the Pope should have acted as a principle of moral and political unity of the Peninsula (cf.. V. Gioberti, Of the moral and civil primacy of the Italiansi, Bruxelles 1843, lib. (II), cap. 5). In tune, Antonio Rosmini also recognized the Apostolic See as the foundation of the Christian political order, while distinguishing between spiritual power and temporal power, in a perspective that intended to heal the fracture between Church and nation (cf.. A. Rosmini, The Five Wounds of the Holy Church, Lugano 1848, Part II, cap. 1).

The title of Primate of Italy, in the modern age, he was therefore referring to the Bishop of Rome, ruler of a vast territory and head of a sprawling state, like others, in the Peninsula. The territory of primacy, Consequently, it was not identified with that of a single state, but it overlapped with the plurality of political jurisdictions of the time. If he Concordat of Worms (1122) had attributed to the Popes of Rome the power to confirm the appointment of bishops, in Italy — or rather in Kingdom of Italy, including central-northern Italy —, over the centuries the choice of bishops was agreed with the territorial sovereigns, according to the customs of European states: or through backhoe presentations, the first of which was generally the chosen one, or with a single designation by the prince holding the right of patronage, as also happened for the Kingdom of Sicily (cf.. Bullarium Romanum, t. V, Rome 1739).

The involvement of the state authority often determined a substantial balance between State and Church, in which the recognition of the respective spheres of action allowed the Apostolic See to maintain its influence on episcopal appointments, albeit within the boundaries of the concordats and sovereign privileges.

In the midst of the jurisdictionalist era of the 18th century, Episcopalian claims found no space in the episcopate of the Peninsula, nor the Gallican or Germanic ones, despite some Italian princes trying to comply, if not patronize, such theories (cf.. P. Study Program, Jurisdictionalism in the history of Italian political thought, Bologna 1968). In Tuscany, state interference in religious matters reached its full implementation under Grand Duke Peter Leopold (1765-1790). Animated by sincere religious fervor, the Grand Duke believed he was carrying out a work of true devotion and piety when he worked to combat the abuses of ecclesiastical discipline, superstitions, the corruption and ignorance of the clergy.

At first no protest was raised by the Tuscan episcopate, or because he saw the futility of opposing, or because he approved those measures; maybe even why, in the Tuscan episcopate as in the clergy, there was an antipathy towards religious orders and a form of autonomy from the Holy See was willingly accepted. However, in the general synod of Florence of 1787, all the bishops of the State - except Scipione de' Ricci and two others - rejected these reforms, reaffirming fidelity to communion with the Roman Pontiff and defending the integrity of ecclesiastical tradition (cf.. Proceedings of the Synod of Florence, 1787, arch. the court of Florence).

The Catholic Church has always fought the formation of national churches, since such attempts are in open contrast with the very structure of ecclesial communion and with the ancient canonical discipline. Already the dog. XXXIV day Canons of the Apostles — a collection dating back to the 4th century, around the year 380 — prescribed a fundamental principle of episcopal unity:

It is agreed that the bishop should know the individual nations, because he is considered the first among them, whom they regard as their head and bear nothing more than his consent, than those alone, which parishes [in greco τῇ paroiᾳ] proper and the towns that are under it are competent. But neither should he do anything apart from the conscience of all; for thus there will be unanimity and God is glorified through Christ in the Holy Spirit (“The bishops of each nation must know who among them is the first and consider him as their leader, and do not do anything important without his consent; each will only deal with what concerns their own diocese and the territories that depend on it; but he who is first must also do nothing without the consent of all: thus harmony will reign and God will be glorified through Christ in the Holy Spirit.”)

This rule, of an apostolic flavor and synodal matrix, affirms the principle of unity in collegiality, where primacy is not domination, but communion service. This conception, assumed and deepened in the Catholic tradition, found its full expression in the doctrine of Roman primacy. As Pope Leo XIII teaches:

«the Church of Christ is one by nature, and as one is Christ, so one must be one's body, his faith is one, his doctrine is one, and one his head visible, established by the Redeemer in the person of Peter" (Well known, 9).

As a result, any attempt to found particular churches or national independent from the Apostolic See has always been rejected as contrary to a, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. The subordination of the episcopal college to the Petrine primacy constitutes in fact the bond of unity that guarantees the catholicity of the Church and preserves the individual particular Churches from the risk of isolation or doctrinal deviation (cf.. The light of the nationm, 22; Christ the Lord, 4).

The title of Primate, attributed to some locations, it was actually a mere honorific, like that of Patriarch conferred on some episcopal sees of the Latin rite (cf.. Code of Canon Law, can. 438). Such dignity, of an exclusively ceremonial nature, it did not carry effective jurisdictional power, nor a direct authority over the other dioceses of a specific ecclesiastical region. The title was intended to honor the age or particular historical relevance of an episcopal seat, according to a practice consolidated in the second millennium.

However, the position is different and above all the prerogatives of the two primate seats of Italy and Hungary, which preserve a singular juridical-ecclesial physiognomy within the Latin Church. According to a centuries-old tradition, the Prince-Primate of Hungary is covered with both ecclesiastical and civil duties. Between these, the privilege of crowning the sovereign — a privilege last exercised on 30 December 1916 for the coronation of King Charles IV of Habsburg by St. E. Mons. János Cernoch, then Archbishop of Esztergom - and to replace him in case of temporary impediment (cf.. Journal of the Holy See, vol. XLIX, 1917).

Hungarian primacy it is attributed to the archiepiscopal seat of Esztergom (today Esztergom-Budapest), whose ancient primacy dignity dates back to the 11th century, when King Stephen I obtained from the Pope the foundation of the Hungarian national Church under the direct protection of the Apostolic See. L'Archivescovo di Esztergom, as Primate of Hungary, enjoys a special position over all Catholics present in the State and a power quasi-governmental on bishops and metropolitans, including the metropolis of Hajdúdorog for the Hungarian faithful of the Byzantine rite. There is a primary court near him, always presided over by him, which judges cases in third instance: a privilege founded on an immemorial custom, rather than on an express legal norm (cf.. Code of Canon Law, can. 435; Pontifical YearbookO, sez. “Primary Headquarters”, ed. 2024). He is a Hungarian citizen, resident in the State, and often also holds the position of President of the Hungarian Episcopal Conference, exercising a mediation function between the Apostolic See and the local Church.

Italian primacy, attributed to the Roman See, It has a very particular configuration: its owner, the Bishop of Rome, he can be - and in fact in recent pontificates he has been - a non-Italian citizen. He is sovereign of a foreign state, the Vatican City State, not part of the European Union, and does not belong to the Italian Episcopal Conference, while maintaining direct authority over it. By virtue of his title of Primate of Italy, the Roman Pontiff in fact appoints the President and General Secretary of the Italian Episcopal Conference, as required by the art. 4 §2 of the CEI Statute, which expressly recalls «the particular bond that unites the Church in Italy to the Pope, Bishop of Rome and Primate of Italy" (cf.. Statute of the Italian Episcopal Conference, approved by Paul VI 2 July 1965, updated in 2014).

This singular legal configuration shows how Italian primacy, despite having no autonomous administrative structure, retains a real ecclesiological function, as a visible expression of the organic bond between the universal Church and the Churches of Italy. In this the continuity of the Petrine primacy is manifested in its dual dimension: universal, as a service to the communion of the whole Church, and local, as pastoral paternity exercised on Italian territory (The light, 22–23).

An opening is thus outlined the end of the Church to international and global problems, something which is also found in some paragraphs of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, dedicated to human rights, to international solidarity, to the right to religious freedom of various peoples, to the protection of emigrants and refugees, to the condemnation of totalitarian regimes and the promotion of peace. What is most relevant is the invitation, incitement, of the Church a to complete the good it is not only anchored to the eternal salvation, to the achievement of the otherworldly goal, but also to the contingent, to the immanent needs of man in need of material help.

Based on the claimed primacy and pursuant to art. 26 the Lateran Treaty, the pastoral action of the Pontiff himself takes place in several regions of Italy, through visits to many cities and sanctuaries, carried out without these presenting themselves as trips to foreign countries. The widespread practice of considering the Pope of Rome as the first Bishop of Italy means that Italian events are often present in his speeches or speeches.. He often visits areas of the Peninsula where painful events have occurred, and the presence of the Pope is seen by the populations as dutiful, requested as a sign of comfort and help. It also comes back, in the broad sense of primacy, receiving delegations from Italian state bodies. In this perspective, the figure of the Roman Pontiff as Primate of Italy takes on the value of a sign of communion between the Church and the Nation, in the line of the universal mission that he exercises as successor of Peter. The national dimension of his pastoral concern is not opposed, but rather it integrates, with the Catholic mission of the Apostolic See, because the Pope is also Bishop of Rome, Father of the Churches of Italy and Pastor of the universal Church (Preach the Gospel, art. 2).

The triple dimension of his ministry — diocesan, national and universal — makes that visible the unity of the Church that faith professes and history bears witness to. Thus the title of Primate of Italy, resurfaced in the voice of Leo XIV, it does not appear as a remnant of past honors, but as a living reminder of the spiritual responsibility of the Papacy towards the Italian people, in continuity with his apostolic mission towards all people.

Velletri of Rome, 16 October 2025

.

.

Visit the pages of our book shop WHO and support our editions by purchasing and distributing our books.

.

______________________

Dear Readers,
this magazine requires management costs that we have always faced only with your free offers. Those who wish to support our apostolic work can send us their contribution through the convenient and safe way PayPal by clicking below:

Or if you prefer you can use our
Bank account in the name of:
Editions The island of Patmos

n Agency. 59 of Rome --vatico
Iban code:
IT74R0503403259000000301118
For international bank transfers:
Codice SWIFT:
BAPPIT21D21

If you make a bank transfer, send an email to the editorial staff, the bank does not provide your email and we will not be able to send you a thank you message:
isoladipatmos@gmail.com

We thank you for the support you wish to offer to our apostolic service.

The Fathers of the Island of Patmos

.

.

.

From Professor Alessandro Barbero a Saint Francis "under the crust". when holiness is combined with history

/in /by

FROM PROFESSOR ALESSANDRO BARBERO A SAINT FRANCIS "UNDER THE CRUST". WHEN HOLINESS IS COMBINED WITH HISTORY

The historian Alessandro Barbero is not a Catholic, he is a layman, but it tells more truths about Saint Francis than have been heard by devout Catholics about the life of the Poverello. This in the same way as, in cinematography, the director Liliana Cavani represented the Francesco closest to reality, atheist is communist, through a young and virile Mickey Rourke. With all due respect to the talent and memory of director Franco Zeffirelli, who instead represented a saccharine and completely de-virilized Saint Francis.

- ecclesial news -

.

Author
Ivano Liguori, Ofm. Cap.

.

PDF print format article

 

.

For a few days I started reading the new book on Saint Francis of Assisi by Professor Alessandro Barbero, a face now known and appreciated not only in the academic field.

Mickey Rourke plays Francis of Assisi in director Liliana Cavani's film (Italy, 1989)

As a historian has successfully undertaken a good activity of dissemination of that subject - history - which has always been a subject of boredom for many during their school days, perhaps more for the methodology with which it was explained and posed to the students than for the object of its study itself.

The merit of this popularizer is undoubtedly that it has brought a large audience closer to history and historical topics, just as the journalist Indro Montanelli did with his books and interviews on the history of Italy which we could define as an investigative story, as only a skilled and expert journalist can do.

The story is teachers of life and learn about the history, the one without ideological coloring, which has many contradictions and black holes, the one not written by the winners alone, that of facts and sources is extremely useful for getting to know ourselves and for knowing how to orient the future and perhaps also to avoid making huge mistakes. But unfortunately this is not always the case.

Until this speech it applies to world wars, we may all agree on the facts of recent history and antiquity, but when the story touches on more particular topics and themes such as hagiography or theology, what happens? well, you have to know how to maintain the right balance between the parts and the disciplines but personally I believe that knowing how to make a good story, and start from a good historical basis regarding the themes covered by hagiography and theology, is extremely important to understand how God is capable of operating in the lives of men, precisely in that human way that is not without contradictions, of slowness, of surprises that apparently contradict a certain devout idea of ​​divine action and sanctity.

Regarding the life of Saint Francis, this reality was evident immediately after his death and in view of his rapid canonization. We, his friars and continuers of his ideals, we perhaps had too much of a conservative concern that led us to see (and to show) Brother Francis as an unattainable model, to the point of considering him - as iconography will then have the opportunity to explain better - a new Christ on earth and this not only because of the gift of the sacred stigmata which were the last seal that the Word of God gave him (cf. Dante Alighieri, Paradiso, XI canto) but also thanks to some biographical colors that the official versions have presented.

Mind you, as moderns we don't want to do any trial Larger caption of Saint Bonaventure who contributed to fixing in the collective memory the image of Saint Francis as essentially mystical and protagonist only of fabulous events which reaffirmed his resemblance to Christ. In that historical moment in the broadest possible sense - for medieval society, for the Catholic Church, for the very survival of the Order of Minors - a hagiographic rather than biographical procedure such as that carried out by Saint Bonaventure was almost obligatory.

Security and stability were sought and with his cunning and intelligence he succeeded in the task. Above all, a model was sought and often this desire led to the deeds of a "holy man" being perfectly described., omitting those parts of normal fragility and humanity which are instead the first to testify to the sanctity of a person if we take into good account the teaching of Saint Gregory the Great: «miracles which do not make holiness but show it» (miracles do not create holiness, however, they are a manifestation or demonstration of it)

Trace a figure of Saint Francis so noble and unattainable it perhaps constituted an unattainable goal for many, plus one legend what a real life; a story that had to be read to warm the heart with good and holy inspirations and moral and religious teachings that are not always truly practicable, distant from the ordinariness of his friars and his devotees.

I think this also contributed to proliferate in the following centuries, of those visions of life of Saint Francis, more accommodating and practicable that have become so dear to an ideological and aligned modernity like ours: the pacifist Francis, ecologist, animal rights activist, vegan, precursor of accommodating interreligious dialogue, pauperist, communist before letter. Visions that are perhaps more viable today but totally false and distant from the real intentions of the Poor Man of Assisi.

As I already had the opportunity to underline in another article of mine (you see WHO) Saint Francis is a person, before a saint, extremely complicated, within an equally complicated historical and ecclesial period, therefore only objective and healthy historical research can reconstitute it within a discourse that tends as much as possible to the truth, to that Francesco di Pietro di Bernardone zero, what can be glimpsed under the crust of many amenities to which it has been owed, obtorto neck, seraphically submit and perhaps even endure.

The merit of the historian Barbero - as well as others who were interested in Saint Francis, I think of Franco Cardini and Chiara Frugoni - it is to describe him as a man inside a very specific story, a tormented man, Lasted, capable of very sweet gestures and unexpected harshness, a man open to transcendence and the contradictions of his time.

The historical reading of Saint Francis it also allows us to grow in the knowledge of a medieval Church which for the Poverello does not constitute a source of scandal unlike the many contemporary movements that fell into heresy and schismatic violence. Pulling Saint Francis by the jacket as a scourge of the customs of the Church - and of the Church as an institutional body - is extremely inappropriate. Others did this and if anything with reason but Saint Francis did not do it, nor did he desire it, for him the Church was that, the best possible existing one because it was so wanted by Christ, therefore not a utopian re-foundation from the bases but a renewal in the inner man who will then have his heart on his side form of life which is expressed with all the passion in the extension of the Regola non bullata.

Saint Francis loves the Catholic Church, his, the one that gives 1182 onwards it will accompany him from his baptism to his burial in the small church of San Giorgio, not another ideal Church. He loves and respects the hierarchy of the Church, from the poorest and morally fragile priests to his bishop of Assisi (Guido) who will witness his undressing, to reach the bishop of Rome (Innocent III and Honorius III) who will confirm him in his intention to live without gloss the Holy Gospel of Our Lord Jesus Christ approving the form of life. Francis is not blind to the facts but has understood that the most effective renewal is personal, it starts from within and that is why he does not judge but lets him and his friars be and become that sign of real change - that good leaven of the Gospel - which is capable of improving the entire Catholic Church. A methodology of ecclesial renewal like that of Saint Francis is still difficult to find in pastoral plans and programs today.

Saint Francis is a lover and lover of adventurous life of the Middle Ages, he dreams of being a knight and sees his friars as knights of Christ without blemish and pure of heart. He knows the amazing and fascinating adventures of Gesture Song and is at the same time a witness to the political-ecclesiastical events that led to the crusades. We note how Francis is not critical of the Church even for calling the crusades. However, he remains a man of the Middle Ages and knows that despite their tragedy, even the Crusades have meaning and merit.. There were several saints who followed him who considered the crusades and their reasons legitimate, they preached to her, among them another famous Franciscan, Bernardino degli Albizzeschi of Massa Marittima, known as San Bernardino da Siena. However, having personally known the cruelties of war, of the battle, of imprisonment, of the wounds and mutilations of his companions, Saint Francis chooses to go to the Sultan by opting for a different choice, not that of weapons but of the Word.

In Egypt before Al-Malik al-Kāmil announces Christ and the Gospel, a very different and more powerful weapon than the sword, a dialogue that does not fall into political correctness but into a decisive invitation to the conversion of the Sultan of Egypt and Syria to let reign that God who brings peace and who gives the peacemaker par excellence. It is not surprising that the Sultan does not feel offended by the words of Saint Francis, we remember that Coptic Christians were already present in Egypt and the Sultan and his court were used to seeing Christians and ministers ordained in the land of Egypt and arguing with them. The act of Saint Francis is not vulgar political propaganda for the Catholic Church but a real invitation to conversion and salvation as several members of the Order of Minors did in Morocco and in other territories of Islamic faith, very often finding martyrdom in the following centuries.

Professor Barbero's book deals with these and other topics, bringing to light an image of Saint Francis that overcomes ideology and makeup from a hagiographic image. The merit is undoubtedly that of being able to get to know an uncomfortable Saint Francis who cannot be categorized within a single vision, its story within the story allows us to appreciate it even more and to return a concrete and vivid image of it.

To conclude, the same theme of poverty that Saint Francis dreams of, marries and recommends is the one that was first achieved with one kenosis of himself as a man who discovers his limit and knows his shaky heart. Material poverty is not the end but the consequence developed over the years of a truer and deeper poverty. In this way we can assimilate Saint Francis to Christ in the humiliation-stripping of a life that apparently seems like a failure in the eyes of the world. After the death of Saint Francis, it is precisely on the theme of spiritual poverty that his sons discuss and begin with the first controversies that will arise in the subsequent reforms.

The poverty of Saint Francis it is taking shape within various real facts of its history: in his physical and mental exhaustion after his imprisonment at the Battle of Collestrada in 1202 which resizes him in his ideals of knighthood. In the encounter with the leper who is the concrete example of the deprivation that every disease imposes on the sick person but is also the clear sign that conversion requires determination and violence to be implemented (cf. Mt 11,12). Until he was rejected and no longer recognized as head of his Order which, extending in prestige to a large part of Europe at the time, could do without him. The modern man who appreciates holy poverty in Saint Francis should be reminded that this is achieved by taking several steps backwards, nullifying itself, looking at one's limits and accepting them with the perfect joy of someone who has been able to put everything in the hands of God.

The historian Alessandro Barbero is not a Catholic, he is a layman, but it tells more truths about Saint Francis than have been heard by devout Catholics about the life of the Poverello. This in the same way as, in cinematography, the director Liliana Cavani represented the Francesco closest to reality, atheist is communist, through a young and virile Mickey Rourke. With all due respect to the talent and memory of director Franco Zeffirelli, who instead represented a saccharine and completely de-virilized Saint Francis.

We wish Alessandro Barbero, secular and non-Catholic, in the wisdom of the passing age, Saint Francis was also an accomplice, can get closer to God and find himself in him, source of all wisdom, all good.

Sanluri, 9 October 2025

.

.

The books of Ivano Liguori, to access the book shop click on the cover

.

.

.

______________________

Dear Readers,
this magazine requires management costs that we have always faced only with your free offers. Those who wish to support our apostolic work can send us their contribution through the convenient and safe way PayPal by clicking below:

 

Or if you prefer you can use our
Bank account in the name of:
Editions The island of Patmos

n Agency. 59 From Rome – Vatican
Iban code:
IT74R0503403259000000301118
For international bank transfers:
Codice SWIFT:
BAPPIT21D21

If you make a bank transfer, send an email to the editorial staff, the bank does not provide your email and we will not be able to send you a thank you message:
isoladipatmos@gmail.com

We thank you for the support you wish to offer to our apostolic service.

The Fathers of the Island of Patmos

.

.

 

.





Pink quotas are required at the altar? From feminist teo-ideology to the pastoral wisdom of Sri Lanka – Are «pink quotas» at the altar necessary? From feminist theo-ideology to Sri Lanka’s pastoral wisdom – Are "pink quotas" necessary on the altar? From feminist theo -ideology to the pastoral prudence of Sri Lanka

/in /by

Italian, english, español

 

PINK DUES AT THE ALTAR ARE REQUIRED? FROM FEMINIST THEO-IDEOLOGY TO THE PASTORAL WISDOM OF SRI LANKA

The bishop can allow altar girls, but he cannot force parish priests to use them. The non-ordained faithful "do not have a right" to serve at the altar and the obligation remains to promote male groups of altar boys, also for their proven vocational value.

- Church news -

.

.

PDF print format article – PDF article print format – PDF article in printed format

.

Seeing children around the altar it cheers the heart and spirit. It is a sign of life in a Europe - starting from our Italy - in which the birth rate has been at a standstill for decades and the average age of the population, and the clergy, continues to rise. In such a fragile context, the presence of children in church is already good news, a foretaste of the future.

In the video: S. AND. Rev.ma Mons. Raymond Kingsley Wickramasinghe, Bishop of Galle (Sri Lanka)

When two parents apologized to me at the end of the Holy Mass for the two somewhat noisy children, answered: «As long as children make noise in our churches, it means we are always alive". I didn't add it then, but I'll do it now as an aside in the discussion: when during the sacred liturgies we will no longer hear the voices of children, we will surely hear those of the muezzins who will sing from the bell towers of our churches transformed into mosques, as has already happened in various Northern European countries. The examples are known, I'll just take a few: in Hamburg the former Lutheran Kapernaumkirche was purchased and reopened as the Al-Nour Mosque; in Amsterdam the Fatih Moskee is located in the former Catholic church of Saint Ignatius; in Bristol the Jamia Mosque is located in the former St. Katherine’s Church. As for the call of the muezzin with loudspeakers, the city of Cologne started in 2021 a city project that allows Friday recall, then stabilized in 2024.

In the last decades, in quite a few dioceses the habit of admitting girls to serve at the altar has become established. Practice that many bishops and parish priests, even though I don't love her, they tolerated or maintained so as not to spark controversy. Over the years some of them, having now become adolescents and young people, they continued to serve at the altar, not without embarrassment for some priests, including yours truly, who with extreme politeness has never allowed girls and especially teenage girls to serve. Of course, it's not about preventing women from certain services, but to think with pedagogical pastoral wisdom: how many priestly vocations were born next to the altar, in the group of altar boys? And how do you explain to a little girl who is passionate about liturgy that the ministry of the Order is not, nor can it be a perspective open to her female condition? Because on this point the doctrine is very clear: «Only a baptized man validly receives sacred ordination» (Code of Canon Law 1983, can. 1024); «The Church recognizes itself as bound by the choice made by the Lord himself. For this reason the ordination of women is not possible." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 1577); and the Holy Pontiff John Paul II definitively confirmed that the Church "has no authority" to confer priestly ordination on women (priestly ordination, 22 May 1994, n. 4).

Then there is a socio-pedagogical aspect well known to those who frequent the sacristies: the little girls, often more ready, diligent and mature peers, tend to prevail in small groups; experience shows that, where the number of girls in the presbytery becomes significantly higher, quite a few boys back away perceiving that service as "a thing for girls". The paradoxical result is that precisely the most potentially vocational subjects distance themselves from the heart of the celebration. It would therefore be appropriate to ask: in a West with a high average age of priests, empty seminaries or reduced in number of seminarians to a minimum, with more and more parishes without a parish priest, it makes sense to give up what can favor even a few seeds of vocation to pursue the - worldly and politically correct - logic of "clerical pink quotas"?

To understand "what is possible" and above all "what is best", the starting point is not opinions but liturgical norms. The liturgy is not a field of sociological experimentation: «Absolutely none, not even the priest, add, removes or changes anything on his own initiative" (Holy Council, 22 §3). The functions of the ministers are outlined with precise calls for sobriety, roles and limits (General Missal Traditional, NN. 100; 107; 187-193). On the ministerial side, the Holy Pontiff Paul VI replaced the ancient "minor orders" with the established ministries of reader and acolyte, then reserved for lay men (cf.. Ministries, NN. I-IV). The Supreme Pontiff Francis has modified can. 230 § 1, opening the established ministries of lector and acolyte to women as well, but these are not identified with the service of altar boys, which falls within the temporary deputation foreseen by can. 230 §2 and concerns the help at the altar entrusted from time to time to lay people (crf. The owner of the owner, 2021; CIC 1983, can. 230 §1-2).

Two texts from the Holy See they then set the perimeter with rare clarity. The Circular Letter of the Congregation for Divine Worship, addressed to the Presidents of the Episcopal Conferences for the correct interpretation of can. 230 §2 (15 March 1994, Prot. 2482/93), recognized the possibility - at the discretion of the bishop - of also admitting women to serve at the altar, specifying, however, that "it will always be very appropriate to follow the noble tradition of having altar boys" and that no subjective right to serve arises from admission (cf.. Information 30 [1994] 333-335). A few years later, the Letter of the same Congregation (27 July 2001) they further clarified that the bishop can allow altar girls but cannot force parish priests to use them; that the non-ordained faithful "do not have a right" to serve at the altar; that the obligation to promote male groups of altar boys remains, also for their proven vocational value. It is "always very appropriate" - states the document - to follow the noble tradition of boys at the altar (Latin text in Information 37 [2001] 397-399; Trad.. en. in Information 38 [2002] 46-48).

Inside this picture, the pedagogy of the altar shines again: proximity to the Mystery educates with the power of signs, introduces a filial confidence with the Eucharist e, for many kids, it was a real one “lecture” of discernment. The Church which does not have the power to confer the Order on women (Catechism of the Catholic Church n. 1577; priestly ordination, 4) is called to prudently safeguard those spaces that have historically proven fertile for the emergence of priestly vocations. This does not devalue female presence and charisma; on the contrary, frees the community from the temptation to clericalize the laity and to laicize the clergy - and in particular women - by symbolically pushing them into the presbyterate, as if that were the only place "that matters" (cf.. reminder about clericalism in the gospel of joy, 102-104). There are very rich paths for girls and young people, established and in fact: established readership or, according to the cases, practiced as a reading in the celebration, singing and sacred music, sacristy service, ministries of the Word and charity, catechesis e, today, also the established ministry of catechist (The old ministry, 2021). These are areas in which the "female genius" offers the Church a decisive contribution without generating impossible expectations regarding access to the priesthood (cf.. The old ministry, 2021; Spirit ofi, 2021; can. 230 §1-2).

The experience of other particular Churches sheds further light on the issue. In Sri Lanka, where the average age of the clergy is much lower than Italy and the seminaries are populated with vocations, the Metropolitan Archbishop of Colombo, Cardinal Albert Malcolm Ranjith, indicated the use of altar girls as inappropriate for pastoral and pedagogical reasons: none of them, indeed, as adults they will be able to enter the seminary; it therefore makes sense to preserve typically male educational spaces around the altar, without taking anything away from the rich female participation in other areas? In other contexts, like in the United States, some dioceses and parishes have legitimately maintained all-male groups of altar servers precisely on the basis of the texts of 1994 he was born in 2001. It's not about "excluding", but to enhance a practice that in certain places proves to be more fruitful for vocational pastoral care (cf.. diocesan lines: Diocese of Lincoln – Nebraska; Phoenix – Cathedral Parish; other local realities of the United States of America).

At this point, however, someone calls for pink quotas in the presbytery, as if symmetrical representation were the litmus test of the valorization of women. A logic, that of pink quotas, which however belongs to the sociopolitical; the liturgy is not a parliament to be represented proportionally, it is the action of Christ and the Church. Discernment applies here, not the claim. And discernment asks: in a territory with few priests and few vocations, which concrete choice best promotes the growth of future priests without debasing the presence of women? The Holy See's responses leave no misunderstandings: admitting girls is permitted when appropriate, but it is appropriate and even necessary to promote male groups of altar boys, also in view of vocational pastoral care (cf.. Information 30 [1994] 333-335; Information 37 [2001] 397-399; Information 38 [2002] 46-48).

The thesis has also been circulating in recent months — taken up by the theologian Marinella Perroni, according to which Columbus' choice would constitute a perfect "syllogism" but "to be rejected", because it would make the group of altar boys impervious to differences and therefore harmful.

Subject, that of this theologian, which confuses social engineering and liturgy in a truly superficial and crude way. The liturgy does not aim to represent all differences but to serve the Mystery according to common norms (cf.. Holy Council 22 §3). The official sources, as seen, they remember three elementary things: the ability to admit girls is possible but does not create rights; the bishop can authorize, but do not impose; and "the obligation remains" to promote men's groups for vocational reasons as well (cf.. Information 37 [2001] 397-399; Trad.. en. Information 38 [2002] 46-48; the more Circular letter the 15.03.1994, Prot. 2482/93).

In other words: Cardinal Albert Malcom Ranjith does not exclude women: exercises pastoral prudence precisely foreseen by law and practice. Mistaking this prudence for misogyny is pure ideology, not discernment. And if ecclesial vitality really depended on a "pink" censer, then two millennia of female saints, of women doctors and martyrs - without ever claiming the ministerial altar - would be worth less than a share: an unfair conclusion towards women e, Furthermore, irrational for faith (cf.. Marinella Perroni: "Sri Lanka, but because the ban on altar girls would favor priestly vocations?», The Osservatore Romano in Women Church World, 1 February 2025).

Definitely, no quotas are needed at the altar, we need hearts educated in the Mystery. It is legitimate - and sometimes appropriate - for some particular Churches to admit girls to service; and it is equally legitimate - and often wiser - to maintain male groups of altar servers when this benefits the clarity of the signs and the promotion of vocations. It is not a surrender to the “male order”, but an act of pastoral prudence at the service of the entire community.

If we love girls, we offer them great ministries and services according to the Gospel: Word, charity, catechesis, custody and decoration of the church and the altar, musica, singing... without reducing their dignity to a position next to the thurible. Instead, if we love the kids, let us intelligently guard those educational spaces that, for centuries, they helped the Church to recognize and accompany the gift of a priestly life.

A final note as a personal testimony: I was nine years old when at the end of Holy Mass I went home telling my parents that I wanted to become a priest. Which was taken as one of the many typical fantasies of children, capable of saying today that they want to be astronauts, tomorrow the strawberry growers, the doctors the day before tomorrow. but yet, what seemed like a fantasy, it turned out not to be so: thirty-five years later I received the Holy Order of Priests. Yup, mine was an adult vocation, but born as a child, while I was serving as an altar boy at the altar, at the age of nine.

the Island of Patmos, 8 October 2025

.

_____________________________________________

ARE «PINK QUOTAS» AT THE ALTAR NECESSARY? FROM FEMINIST THEO‑IDEOLOGY TO SRI LANKA’S PASTORAL WISDOM

A bishop may permit altar girls, but he cannot require pastors to use them. The non-ordained faithful «have no right» to serve at the altar, and there remains an obligation to promote boys’ altar-server groups, also for their proven vocational value.

— Ecclesial actuality —

.

.

Seeing children around the altar gladdens the heart and spirit. It is a sign of life in a Europe — beginning with our Italy — where the birth rate has been flat for decades and the average age of the population, and of the clergy, keeps rising. In such a fragile context, the presence of children in church is already good news, a foretaste of the future.

In the video: His Excellency Msgr. Raymond Kingsley Wickramasinghe, Bishop of Galle (Sri Lanka)

When two parents apologized to me at the end of Holy Mass for their two rather noisy children, I replied: «As long as children make noise in our churches, it means we are still alive». I did not add then — but I do so now in passing — that when we no longer hear the voices of children in our churches, we will surely hear the voices of the muezzins singing from the bell towers of our churches turned into mosques, as has already happened in various countries of Northern Europe.

The examples are well known, I will mention only a few: in Hamburg the former Lutheran Kapernaumkirche was purchased and reopened as the Al‑Nour Mosque; in Amsterdam the Fatih Moskee occupies the former Catholic Church of St Ignatius («The Sower»); in Bristol the Jamia Mosque stands in the former St. Katherine’s Church. As for the amplified call of the muezzin, the city of Cologne launched in 2021 a municipal pilot allowing the Friday call, which was then stabilized in 2024.

In recent decades, in not a few dioceses it has become customary to admit girls as well to service at the altar. Many bishops and pastors, though not fond of the practice, have tolerated or maintained it to avoid controversy. Over the years, some of those girls became adolescents and young women and continued serving, not without embarrassment for certain priests — including the undersigned — who, with the greatest courtesy, have never allowed girls, and especially adolescent young women, to serve.

To be clear, this is not about forbidding women certain services, least of all young girls. It is about thinking with pedagogical and pastoral wisdom: how many priestly vocations have been born at the altar, within a group of altar boys? And how does one explain to a girl who loves the liturgy that the sacrament of Orders is not, and cannot be, a path open to her as a woman? The doctrine is crystal‑clear: «A baptized male alone receives sacred ordination validly» (cf. Code of Canon Law, can. 1024); «The Church recognizes herself to be bound by the choice made by the Lord himself. For this reason the ordination of women is not possible» cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1577); and Saint John Paul II definitively confirmed that the Church «has no authority whatsoever» to confer priestly ordination on women (cf. priestly ordination (1994), n. 4; CDF, The answer to the problem (1995).

There is also a socio‑pedagogical aspect known to those who frequent sacristies: girls — often readier, more diligent and mature than their peers — tend to take the lead in small groups; experience shows that where the number of girls in the sanctuary clearly exceeds that of boys, not a few boys withdraw, perceiving the service as a «girls’ thing». The paradoxical result is that those most potentially receptive to a vocation drift away from the heart of the celebration. In a West where the average age of priests is high, seminaries are empty or reduced and parishes are without pastors, does it make sense to give up what may foster even a few vocations in order to pursue the worldly logic of “clerical pink quotas”?

To understand not only «what is allowed» but above all «what is fitting», we must start from the liturgical norms. The liturgy is not a field for sociological experiments: «Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority» (cf. Holy Council, 22 §3). The functions of ministers are laid out with sober precision (cf. General Instruction of the Roman Missal). As for ministries, Saint Paul VI replaced the former “minor orders” with the instituted ministries of lector and acolyte, then reserved to lay men cf. Ministries, 1972). Pope Francis modified can. 230 § 1, opening the instituted ministries of lector and acolyte also to women, but these are not to be identified with altar‑server service, which belongs to the temporary deputation of can. 230 §2 and concerns assistance at the altar entrusted case by case to lay faithful (cf. Spirit of, 2021).

Two texts of the Holy See clarified the matter with unusual precision. The Circular Letter of the Congregation for Divine Worship to the Presidents of Bishops’ Conferences on the correct interpretation of can. 230 §2 (15 March 1994, Prot. 2482/93) recognized the possibility — at the bishop’s discretion — of admitting girls to service at the altar, while stressing that it is “always very appropriate” to maintain the noble tradition of boys as altar servers, and that such admission does not create any subjective “right” to serve (Information 30 (1994) 333–335). A few years later, the Letter of the same Congregation (27 July 2001) clarified further: the bishop may permit altar girls but cannot oblige pastors to use them; the non‑ordained faithful «have no right» to serve; and there remains the obligation to promote male groups also for their vocational value (cf. Information 37 (2001) 397–399; .Information 38 (2002) 46–48).

The experience of other local Churches also sheds light. In Sri Lanka — where the average age of diocesan clergy is much lower than in Italy and the seminaries are well populated — the Metropolitan Archbishop of Colombo, Cardinal Albert Malcolm Ranjith, indicated the inopportuneness of altar girls for pastoral and pedagogical reasons: none of them, as adults, can enter the seminary; it therefore makes sense to preserve characteristically male formative spaces around the altar, without in any way diminishing the rich female participation elsewhere (see his pastoral indication cited here: The Rudder).

In other contexts, such as the United States, some dioceses and parishes have legitimately maintained boys‑only altar‑server groups precisely on the basis of the 1994 and 2001 texts. This is not “exclusion”, but the promotion of a practice that in certain places proves more fruitful for vocational ministry (cf. Diocese of Lincoln (policy explanation; and the 2011 decision at the Cathedral of Sts. Simon & Jude, Phoenix — news report).

In recent months, this thesis has been taken up by the italian theologian Mrss Marinella Perroni, who argues that the choice made in Colombo follows a «syllogism» that may be logically neat but should nonetheless be rejected.

In doing so, however, her argument slides from liturgy into social engineering. The liturgy is not a proportional mirror of social constituencies; it is the Church’s worship of God according to norms that safeguard the clarity of signs and the freedom of grace (cf. Holy Council 22 §3). The Holy See’s documents, as shown above, recall three elementary points: the faculty to admit girls is possible but does not create subjective rights; the diocesan bishop may authorize but not impose it on pastors; and there remains the obligation to promote boys’ altar‑server groups also for vocational reasons (cf. Information 30 (1994) 333–335; Information 37 (2001) 397–399; Information 38 (2002) 46–48). To mistake this prudence for misogyny is ideology, not discernment (See Perroni’s article: "Sri Lanka, but why would the ban on altar girls encourage priestly vocations?» — L’Osservatore Romano, the official organ of the Holy See Italian original — English version).

In short, the altar does not need quotas; it needs hearts formed by the Mystery. It is legitimate — and at times opportune — for some particular Churches to admit girls to service; and it is equally legitimate — and often wiser — to maintain male altar‑server groups where this serves the clarity of signs and the promotion of vocations. This is not a capitulation to a “male order”, but an act of pastoral prudence in service of the whole community.

A concluding personal note: I was nine years old when, after Holy Mass, I went home and told my parents I wanted to become a priest. They took it as one of the many fantasies typical of children, who today want to be astronauts, tomorrow strawberry growers, and the day after doctors. And yet, what seemed a fantasy proved otherwise: thirty‑five years later I received sacred priestly ordination. Yes, mine was an adult vocation — but born as a child, while serving as an altar boy at the altar.

from the Island of Patmos, October 8, 2025

.

_______________________________________________

ARE THE “PINK FEES” NECESSARY AT THE ALTAR? FROM FEMINIST THEO‑IDEOLOGY TO THE PASTORAL WISDOM OF SRI LANKA

The bishop may allow the altar girls, but cannot force parish priests to use them. Non-ordained faithful "have no right" to serve at the altar and the obligation to promote male groups of altar servers remains., also for its proven vocational value.

- Ecclesial news -

.

.

See children around the altar cheers the heart and spirit. It is a sign of life in a Europe — starting with our Italy — in which the birth rate has been stagnant for decades and the average age of the population, and of the clergy, it doesn't stop increasing. In such a fragile context, The presence of children in the church is already good news, a preview of the future.

In the video: His Excellency Monsignor Raymond Kingsley Wickramasinghe, Obispo de bilal (Sri Lanka)

When, at the end of the Holy Mass, Two parents apologized to me for their two noisy children., I reassured them by saying: «As long as children make noise in our churches, It means we're still alive.". I didn't add it then — but I do it now as an aside —: when we no longer hear the voices of children in our churches, surely we will hear the muezzins singing from the bell towers of our churches converted into mosques, as has already happened in several Northern European countries. The examples are known; I quote only a few: in Hamburg, the former Lutheran Kapernaumkirche was acquired and reopened as Al-Nour Mosque; in Amsterdam, The Fatih Moskee has its headquarters in the former Catholic church of Saint Ignatius; A Bristol, The Jamia Mosque stands on the old St. Katherine’s Church. Regarding the muezzin's call on loudspeaker, the city of Cologne began in 2021 a municipal project that allows the call on Fridays, subsequently stabilized in 2024.

In recent decades, Many dioceses have also admitted girls to the service of the altar.. Many bishops and parish priests, still not appreciating it, have tolerated or maintained the practice to avoid controversy. As the years go by, some have continued as adolescents and young people, not without a certain embarrassment for some priests, including who writes, who with utmost courtesy has never allowed girls — and especially adolescents — to serve at the altar. It is worth clarifying this: It is not about denying women certain services, but to think with pastoral and pedagogical wisdom. How many priestly vocations were born next to the altar, in the group of altar boys? And how do you explain to a girl who is enthusiastic about the liturgy that the sacrament of Holy Orders is not — and cannot be — a perspective open to her feminine condition?? The doctrine is very clear: «Only the baptized male validly receives sacred ordination» (cf. CIC 1983, can. 1024); «The Church recognizes itself as bound by the election made by the Lord himself. For this reason, "The ordination of women is not possible." (cf. CEC n.1577); and Saint John Paul II definitively confirmed that the Church "does not in any way have the power" to confer priestly ordination on women (cf. priestly ordination, 22 May 1994, n. 4).

There is also a socio-pedagogical aspect well known by those who frequent the sacristies: the girls, often sooner, diligent and mature than their contemporaries, tend to prevail in small groups; experience shows that, where the number of girls in the presbytery becomes clearly higher, not a few boys withdraw, perceiving that service as “a girl thing”. The paradoxical result is that precisely the subjects with the greatest vocational potential move away from the heart of the celebration.. Does it make sense, so, in a West with a high average priestly age, empty or reduced seminaries and parishes without a priest, renouncing what can favor even a few germs of vocation to pursue the logic — but politically correct — of the “pink clerical quotas”?

To understand not only what “can be”, but above all what is “convenient”, the starting point is the liturgical norms, not the opinions. The liturgy is not a field for sociological experiments: "In no way does it allow anyone, not even the priest, add, remove or change anything on one's own initiative" (cf. Holy Council 22 §3). The functions of the ministers are outlined soberly, with roles and limits (cf. General Missal Traditional [IGMR], NN. 100; 107; 187–193).

In the field of ministries, Saint Paul VI replaced the old “minor orders” with the instituted ministries of reader and acolyte, then reserved for lay men (cf. Ministries, NN. I -IV). Pope Francis later modified the can. 230 § 1, opening these instituted ministries also to women, but they do not identify with the altar boy service, which belongs to the temporary deputation provided for by can. 230 §2 (cf. Spirit of, 2021; CIC 1983, can. 230 §1–2).

Two texts from the Holy See They then established the perimeter with rare clarity. The Circular Letter of the Congregation for Divine Worship to the Presidents of the Episcopal Conferences on the correct interpretation of the canon. 230 §2 (15 March 1994, Prot. 2482/93) recognized the possibility — at the discretion of the bishop — of also admitting girls to the altar service, specifying at the same time that "it is always very appropriate" to maintain the noble tradition of altar boy children and that such admission does not create any subjective "right" to serve (cf. Information 30 (1994) 333–335). After a few years, las Letter from the same Congregation (27 July of 2001) they clarified even more: the bishop may allow the altar girls, but you cannot force parish priests to use them; non-ordained faithful "have no right" to serve; and the obligation to promote male groups also remains due to their proven vocational value. (cf. Information 37 (2001) 397–399; see also the Italian translation: Information 38 (2002) 46–48).

The experience of other particular Churches further illuminates the issue. In Sri Lanka — where the average age of the diocesan clergy is much lower than in Italy and the seminaries are well populated —, the metropolitan archbishop of Colombo, Cardinal Albert Malcolm Ranjith, pointed out the inappropriateness of altar girls for pastoral and pedagogical reasons: none of them, already adult, you will be able to enter the seminar; therefore, it makes sense to preserve typically masculine educational spaces around the altar, without taking anything away from the rich female participation in other areas (see this pastoral indication cited here: The Rudder).

In other contexts, like in the United States, Some dioceses and parishes have legitimately maintained all-male altar boy groups precisely on the basis of the texts of 1994 and 2001. This is not "exclusion", but the promotion of a praxis that in certain places appears more fruitful for vocational ministry (see the Diocese of Lincoln (policy explanation); and the decision of 2011 in the Cathedral of Saints Simon and Jude, Phoenix — journalistic chronicle).

In these months, This thesis has been taken up by the theologian Marinella Perroni, who maintains that Colombo's option responds to an impeccable but, in your opinion, rejectable. However, His argument confuses liturgy with social engineering. The liturgy is not a proportional mirror of social belongings; It is the Church's worship of God according to norms that safeguard the clarity of the signs and the freedom of grace. (cf. Holy Council 22 §3). The documents of the Holy See, as we have seen, remember three basic points: girls can be admitted, but this does not create subjective rights; the diocesan bishop can authorize it, do not impose it on the parish priests; and the obligation to promote male groups of altar boys also for vocational reasons remains. (cf. Information 30 (1994) 333–335; Information 37 (2001) 397–399; Information 38 (2002) 46–48). Taking this caution for misogyny is ideology, non-discernment. See Perroni's article: "Sri Lanka, but because the ban on altar girls would favor priestly vocations?» — Italian original — english version.

Ultimately, at the altar there is no need for fees, but hearts educated by the Mystery. It is legitimate — and sometimes appropriate — for some particular Churches to admit girls to service; and it is equally legitimate — and often more prudent — to maintain male groups of altar servers when this serves the clarity of the signs and the promotion of vocations.. It is not a surrender to the “masculine order”, but an act of pastoral prudence at the service of the entire community.

A personal note as a testimony: I was nine years old when, at the end of the Holy Mass, I came home telling my parents that I wanted to be a priest.. They took it as one of many children's fantasies., able to say today that they want to be astronauts, Strawberry growers tomorrow and doctors tomorrow. Y, however, what seemed like a fantasy was not: thirty-five years later I received sacred priestly ordination. Yeah, mine was an adult vocation, but born as a boy, while serving as an altar boy.

From the island of Patmos, 8 October 2025

.

______________________

Dear Readers, this magazine requires management costs that we have always faced only with your free offers. Those who wish to support our apostolic work can send us their contribution through the convenient and safe way PayPal by clicking below:

Or if you prefer you can use our Bank account in the name of:

Editions The island of Patmos

n Agency. 59 From Rome – Vatican

Iban code: IT74R0503403259000000301118

For international bank transfers:

Codice SWIFT: BAPPIT21D21

If you make a bank transfer, send an email to the editorial staff,

the bank does not provide your email and we will not be able to send you a thank you message: isoladipatmos@gmail.com

We thank you for the support you wish to offer to our apostolic service.

The Fathers of the Island of Patmos

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

 

The saving joy of being only useless servants – The saving joy of being only unworthy servants – The salvific joy of being only useless servants

/in /by

Homiletics of the Fathers of The Island of Patmos

Italian, english, español

 

LA GIOIA SALVIFICA DI ESSERE SOLO DEI SERVI INUTILI

L’autentico discepolo del Signore, after having done his service well, he must however recognize himself as useless because his work does not necessarily guarantee him salvation, in quanto la grazia sarà sempre un dono e non un vanto per aver fatto qualcosa.

.

PDF print format article – PDF article print format – PDF article in printed format

 

.

Il Vangelo di Luca riporta oggi due detti di Gesù. Il primo riguarda la fede, in risposta ad una domanda degli apostoli.

Il secondo che si presenta in forma estesa, quasi una piccola parabola, fa riferimento al servizio che i «servi inutili» danno. Il contesto è ancora quello del gran viaggio di Gesù verso Gerusalemme che ha preso avvio in LC 9,51 e terminerà in LC 19,45. Con il Vangelo di oggi si chiude proprio la seconda sezione di questo pellegrinaggio di Gesù che si contraddistingue per l’invito ad entrare nel Regno seguendo alcune condizioni. Questo che segue è il testo evangelico:

"During that time, gli apostoli dissero al Signore: «Accresci in noi la fede!». The Lord replied: «Se aveste fede quanto un granello di senape, potreste dire a questo gelso: «Sràdicati e vai a piantarti nel mare, ed esso vi obbedirebbe. Who among you, se ha un servo ad arare o a pascolare il gregge, gli dirà, quando rientra dal campo: «Vieni subito e mettiti a tavola?» Non gli dirà piuttosto: «Prepara da mangiare, stringiti le vesti ai fianchi e sérvimi, finché avrò mangiato e bevuto, e dopo mangerai e berrai tu?» Avrà forse gratitudine verso quel servo, perché ha eseguito gli ordini ricevuti? So do you, quando avrete fatto tutto quello che vi è stato ordinato, said: «We are useless servants. Abbiamo fatto quanto dovevamo fare» (LC 17,5-10).

Dopo aver trattato dell’uso dei beni materiali, delle relazioni con il prossimo e della Chiesa con le istruzioni comunitarie, per la prima volta il Signore nel Vangelo di Luca parla del tema della fede in risposta ad un intervento degli apostoli: «Accresci in noi la fede» (LC 17,5). La domanda di questi ultimi rimanda ad una situazione simile ricordata dal Vangelo di Marco. There, dopo il racconto della trasfigurazione, il padre di un ragazzo posseduto si rivolge a Gesù per chiedere la liberazione del figlio, e gli dice: «Credo; aiuta la mia incredulità» (MC 9,24). Il Signore gli risponde non a parole, ma con un gesto di potenza, esorcizzando lo spirito impuro. Il vangelo di Matteo racconta lo stesso episodio ma lo amplifica, aggiungendo la reazione dei discepoli non tramandata da San Marco e registrando però le stesse parole di Gesù che ascoltiamo oggi: «Allora i discepoli si avvicinarono a Gesù, on the sidelines, e gli chiesero: «Perché noi non siamo riusciti a scacciarlo?». And he answered them: «Per la vostra poca fede. Verily I say unto you: se avrete fede pari a un granello di senape, you will say to this mountain: «Spòstati da qui a là, and it will move, and nothing will be impossible for you" (Mt 17,19-20).

In verità anche Marco conserva lo stesso detto di Gesù in Luca, ma in un diverso contesto, quello del fico infruttuoso: «Rispose loro Gesù: «Abbiate fede in Dio! Verily I say unto you: se uno dicesse a questo monte: Lèvati e gèttati nel mare, senza dubitare in cuor suo, ma credendo che quanto dice avviene, ciò gli avverrà» (MC 11,22-23).

Are, come diceva Archimede, per sollevare il mondo occorre un punto di appoggio, questo per Gesù è indubbiamente la fede. Gesù ha appena parlato dell’inevitabilità che si verifichino scandali nella comunità cristiana e ha invitato a correggere chi pecca e a perdonare all’infinito chi si pente e riconosce apertamente il proprio peccato (LC 17,1-4). In questo contesto si comprende la preghiera dei discepoli di veder accresciuta la loro fede. Come reggere, indeed, il peso degli scandali, degli ostacoli alla vita di comunione, dell’inciampo posto ai più piccoli o semplici nello spazio ecclesiale? Come esercitare una correzione fraterna che non schiacci il fratello ma lo liberi? Come perdonare ancora e sempre chi ogni volta si pente? Solo per mezzo della fede. Che si tratti, a titolo esemplificativo, di spostare un gelso come nell’odierna pagina di Luca o un monte, come nei vangeli di Marco e Matteo, la «leva» di cui sopra per farlo è la fede, grande anche solo come un granello di senapa, infatti ciò che vale è la qualità e non la quantità. Nei miracoli evangelici essa è presupposta nei bisognosi che Gesù incontra, permette di rifuggire dalla spettacolarizzazione o dall’idolatria, Gesù di norma chiede la fede prima del suo intervento, poiché dopo essa non è più garantita, come nel caso dei dieci lebbrosi guariti del Vangelo di domenica prossima: solo uno tornò per ringraziare (cf.. LC 17,11-19).

Nella seconda parte del brano viene riportata una similitudine, quasi una parabola, che presenta una situazione che, Fortunately, oggi è molto difficile rintracciare, poiché la schiavitù è stata abolita e chi svolge un servizio lo fa perché competente e gratificato e non semplicemente perché qualificato come servo. Tuttavia nella Bibbia questi termini, al netto delle situazioni sociali differenti dalle nostre, vengono adoperati per definire una condizione religiosa, spesso positiva. For instance, nel Vangelo di Luca, Maria stessa si proclama «serva» del Signore (cf.. LC 1,38). Com’è tipico di Gesù, la parabola ci pone davanti ad una situazione paradossale, in quanto invito a guardare la realtà da un altro punto di vista, che è quello di Dio. In questo caso il paradosso corrisponde al fatto che il servo, avendo compiuto il suo dovere, è stato necessario al suo padrone. Ma l’autentico discepolo del Signore, after having done his service well, he must however recognize himself as useless because his work does not necessarily guarantee him salvation, in quanto la grazia sarà sempre un dono e non un vanto per aver fatto qualcosa. Il termine greco, usato da Luca, acreios (achreioi), che ha il significato primigenio di «senza valore», applicato alle persone citate da Gesù sta ad indicare dei servi qualunque, a cui nulla è dovuto. È un senso forte, che potrebbe urtare la sensibilità moderna, eppure nasconde un significato religioso e salvifico che, eg, l’apostolo Paolo coglie parlando della fede nella Lettera ai Romani: «Dove dunque sta il vanto? È stato escluso! Da quale legge? Da quella delle opere? No, ma dalla legge della fede. Noi riteniamo infatti che l’uomo è giustificato per la fede, indipendentemente dalle opere della Legge» (Rom 3,27-28). E ancora nella Lettera agli Efesini: «Per grazia infatti siete salvati mediante la fede; e ciò non viene da voi, ma è dono di Dio; né viene dalle opere, perché nessuno possa vantarsene» (Ef 2,8-9).

Per il discepolo dunque e nella comunità cristiana, la fede è richiesta per il servizio e camminano insieme; questo è il legame che possiamo rintracciare fra la similitudine che Gesù fa e l’esortazione alla fede, pur delle dimensioni di un granello di senapa. Gesù sta istruendo coloro che lo seguono e al discepolo è richiesta una fede grande, che non può altro che essere domandata di continuo a Dio. La fatica e l’impegno che devono avere i cristiani per fare ciò che fanno, spesso a rischio della propria vita in alcune situazioni e parti del mondo, deve anche saper riconoscere che si è salvati non perché si è stati bravi o si sono ottenuti dei risultati, ma perché è Dio che salva. Tutti i meriti, anche quelli legittimamente ottenuti, devono essere ricondotti a Dio misericordioso e salvatore.

From the Hermitage, 5 October 2025

.

______________________________

THE SAVING JOY OF BEING ONLY UNWORTHY SERVANTS

The disciple of the Lord, after having carried out his service well, must still recognise himself as unprofitable, because his work does not of itself guarantee salvation; grace will always be a gift and never a boast for having done something.

.

The Gospel of Luke today reports two sayings of Jesus. The first concerns faith, in response to a request from the apostles.

The second, presented at greater length as a short parable, refers to the service rendered by the «unprofitable servants». The setting is still that of the great journey of Jesus to Jerusalem which began at Page 9:51 and will end at Page 19:45. With today’s Gospel we come to the close of the second section of this pilgrimage of Jesus, which is marked by the invitation to enter the Kingdom by following certain conditions. What follows is the Gospel text:

«And the apostles said to the Lord, “Increase our faith.” The Lord replied, “If you have faith the size of a mustard seed, you would say to [this] mulberry tree, ‘Be uprooted and planted in the sea,’ and it would obey you. “Who among you would say to your servant who has just come in from plowing or tending sheep in the field, ‘Come here immediately and take your place at table’? Would he not rather say to him, ‘Prepare something for me to eat. Put on your apron and wait on me while I eat and drink. You may eat and drink when I am finished’? Is he grateful to that servant because he did what was commanded? So should it be with you. When you have done all you have been commanded, say, ‘We are unprofitable servants; we have done what we were obliged to do.’” (Luke 17:5–10)».

After speaking about the use of material goods, relations with one’s neighbour and the life of the Church with her communal instructions, for the first time in Luke’s Gospel the Lord speaks about the theme of faith in response to a request from the apostles: «Increase our faith» (Page 17:5). Their plea recalls a similar situation noted by Mark. There, after the account of the Transfiguration, the father of a possessed boy turns to Jesus to ask for his son’s liberation and says to him: «I do believe, help my unbelief!» (Mk 9:24). The Lord answers him not with words but with a deed of power, by casting out the unclean spirit. Matthew recounts the same episode but expands it, adding the disciples’ reaction (which Mark does not record) and preserving the same words of Jesus that we hear today: «Then the disciples approached Jesus in private and said, “Why could we not drive it out?” He said to them, “Because of your little faith. Amen, I say to you, if you have faith the size of a mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move; nothing will be impossible for you”» (Mt 17:19–20).

Mark also preserves the same saying of Jesus as Luke, but in a different context, that of the barren fig tree: «Jesus said to them in reply, “Have faith in God. Amen, I say to you, whoever says to this mountain, ‘Be lifted up and thrown into the sea,’ and does not doubt in his heart but believes that what he says will happen, it shall be done for him”» (Mk 11:22–23).

If, as Archimedes said, to lift the world one needs a fixed point, for Jesus that point is undoubtedly faith. He has just spoken about the inevitability that scandals occur within the Christian community and has urged that the sinner be corrected and that the one who repents be forgiven without limit (Page 17:1-4). In this context one understands the disciples’ prayer to have their faith increased. How, indeed, can one bear the weight of scandals, of obstacles to communion, of stumbling blocks placed before the little ones in the Church’s life? How can one exercise fraternal correction that does not crush a brother but frees him? How can one forgive again and again those who repent each time? Only by means of faith. Whether, by way of example, it is a matter of moving a mulberry tree as in Luke, or a mountain as in Mark and Matthew, the “lever” to do so is faith — great even if only like a mustard seed — for what counts is its quality rather than its quantity. In the Gospel miracles faith is presupposed in those in need whom Jesus meets; it allows one to avoid spectacle or idolatry. Jesus normally asks for faith before he intervenes, because afterwards it is no longer guaranteed, as in the case of the ten lepers of next Sunday’s Gospel: only one returned to give thanks (cf. Page 17:11–19).

In the second part of the passage a comparison is reported, almost a parable, presenting a situation which, thankfully, is very hard to find today, since slavery has been abolished and those who perform a service do so because they are competent and fulfilled, not simply because they are labelled as servants. Nevertheless, in the Bible such terms, quite apart from social situations different from our own, are used to define a religious condition, often a positive one. For example, in Luke’s Gospel Mary herself proclaims herself the «handmaid» of the Lord (cf. Page 1:38). As is typical of Jesus, the parable sets before us a paradoxical situation that invites us to look at reality from another point of view, that of God. The paradox here is that the servant, having done his duty, has in fact been necessary to his master. But the true disciple of the Lord, after having carried out his service well, must still recognise himself as unprofitable, because his work does not of itself guarantee salvation; grace will always be a gift and never a boast for having done something. The Greek word used by Luke, acreios (achreioi), whose primary sense is “without claim,” applied to the persons in Jesus’ example indicates ordinary servants to whom nothing is owed. It is a strong expression that can jar modern sensibilities, yet it conceals a religious and saving meaning which, for example, the Apostle Paul brings out when he speaks about faith in the Letter to the Romans: «What occasion is there then for boasting? It is ruled out. On what principle, that of works? No, rather on the principle of faith. For we consider that a person is justified by faith apart from works of the law» (Rom 3:27–28). And again in the Letter to the Ephesians: «For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not from you; it is the gift of God; it is not from works, so no one may boast» (Eph 2:8–9).

For the disciple, then, and within the Christian community, faith is required for service and the two walk together. This is the link we can trace between the comparison that Jesus makes and the exhortation to a faith even the size of a mustard seed. Jesus is instructing those who follow him, and the disciple is asked for a great faith which can only be continually begged from God. The hard work and commitment Christians must put into what they do — often at the risk of their very lives in certain situations and parts of the world — must also be joined to the recognition that we are saved not because we have been good or have achieved results, but because it is God who saves. All merits, even those legitimately obtained, must be referred back to the merciful and saving God.

From the Hermitage October 5, 2025

.

______________________________

LA ALEGRÍA SALVÍFICA DE SER SOLO SIERVOS INÚTILES

El auténtico discípulo del Señor, después de haber realizado bien su servicio, debe igualmente reconocerse inútil, porque su obra no le garantiza por sí misma la salvación; la gracia será siempre un don y no un motivo de jactancia por haber hecho algo.

.

El Evangelio de Lucas hoy recoge dos dichos de Jesús. El primero se refiere a la fe, en respuesta a una petición de los apóstoles.

El segundo, presentado de forma más extensa como una pequeña parábola, alude al servicio que prestan los «siervos inútiles». El contexto sigue siendo el del gran viaje de Jesús hacia Jerusalén que comenzó en LC 9,51 y concluirá en LC 19,45. Con el Evangelio de hoy se cierra precisamente la segunda sección de esta peregrinación de Jesús, que se caracteriza por la invitación a entrar en el Reino siguiendo ciertas condiciones. A continuación, el texto evangélico:

«At that time, los apóstoles dijeron al Señor: “¡Auméntanos la fe!”. El Señor respondió: “Si tuvierais fe como un grano de mostaza, diríais a esta morera: ‘Arráncate y plántate en el mar’, y os obedecería. ¿Quién de vosotros, si tiene un siervo arando o pastoreando el rebaño, le dirá, cuando vuelve del campo: ‘Ven enseguida y ponte a la mesa’? ¿No le dirá más bien: ‘Prepárame de comer; cíñete y sírveme mientras yo como y bebo, y después comerás y beberás tú’? ¿Acaso da las gracias al siervo porque hizo lo que se le mandó? Así también vosotros, cuando hayáis hecho todo lo que se os ha ordenado, DECIDED: ‘Somos siervos inútiles. Hemos hecho lo que debíamos hacer’.» (LC 17,5–10).

Tras haber tratado del uso de los bienes materiales, de las relaciones con el prójimo y de la vida de la Iglesia con sus instrucciones comunitarias, por primera vez en el Evangelio de Lucas el Señor habla del tema de la fe en respuesta a una petición de los apóstoles: «¡Auméntanos la fe!» (LC 17,5). La súplica remite a una situación semejante recordada por el Evangelio de Marcos. Allí, después del relato de la Transfiguración, el padre de un muchacho poseído se dirige a Jesús para pedir la liberación de su hijo y le dice: «¡Creo; ayuda mi incredulidad!» (MC 9,24). El Señor le responde no con palabras, sino con un gesto de poder, expulsando al espíritu impuro. Mateo narra el mismo episodio pero lo amplía, añadiendo la reacción de los discípulos (que Marcos no registra) y conservando las mismas palabras de Jesús que escuchamos hoy: «Entonces se acercaron a Jesús los discípulos aparte y le dijeron: “¿Por qué nosotros no pudimos expulsarlo?”. Él les dijo: “Por vuestra poca fe. Truly I tell you: si tenéis fe como un grano de mostaza, diréis a este monte: ‘Muévete de aquí allá’, y se moverá; y nada os será imposible”» (Mt 17,19–20).

En realidad, Marcos también conserva el mismo dicho de Jesús que Lucas, pero en un contexto distinto, el de la higuera estéril: «Jesús les respondió: “Tened fe en Dios. Truly I tell you: el que diga a este monte: ‘Quítate y arrójate al mar’, sin dudar en el corazón, sino creyendo que sucederá lo que dice, le sucederá.”» (Mc 11,22–23).

And, como decía Arquímedes, para mover el mundo se necesita un punto de apoyo, para Jesús ese punto es sin duda la fe. Acaba de hablar de la inevitabilidad de los escándalos en la comunidad cristiana y ha invitado a corregir al que peca y a perdonar sin límite al que se arrepiente (Lc 17,1–4). En este contexto se entiende la oración de los discípulos para que se aumente su fe. ¿Cómo soportar, en efecto, el peso de los escándalos, de los obstáculos a la comunión, de la piedra de tropiezo colocada a los pequeños en la vida eclesial? ¿Cómo ejercer una corrección fraterna que no aplaste al hermano sino que lo libere? ¿Cómo perdonar una y otra vez a quien cada vez se arrepiente? Solo mediante la fe. Ya se trate, a modo de ejemplo, de mover una morera, como en la página de hoy de Lucas, o una montaña, como en Marcos y Mateo, la «palanca» mencionada anteriormente para hacerlo es la fe, grande incluso si es del tamaño de un grano de mostaza: importa la calidad, no la cantidad. En los milagros evangélicos se presupone la fe en los necesitados que Jesús encuentra; permite huir del espectáculo o de la idolatría. Jesús normalmente pide la fe antes de intervenir, porque después ya no está garantizada, como en el caso de los diez leprosos del Evangelio del próximo domingo: solo uno volvió para dar gracias (cf. Lc 17,11–19).

En la segunda parte del pasaje se recoge una comparación, casi una parábola, que presenta una situación que, por fortuna, hoy es muy difícil de encontrar, pues la esclavitud ha sido abolida y quien presta un servicio lo hace porque es competente y se realiza, no simplemente por estar calificado como siervo. However, en la Biblia estos términos —al margen de situaciones sociales distintas de las nuestras— se emplean para definir una condición religiosa, a menudo positiva. For example, en el Evangelio de Lucas, María misma se proclama «sierva» del Señor (cf. LC 1,38). Como es típico en Jesús, la parábola nos coloca ante una situación paradójica que invita a mirar la realidad desde otro punto de vista: el de Dios. El paradoja aquí consiste en que el siervo, habiendo cumplido su deber, ha sido necesario a su señor. Pero el auténtico discípulo del Señor, después de haber realizado bien su servicio, debe igualmente reconocerse inútil, porque su obra no le garantiza por sí misma la salvación; la gracia será siempre un don y no un motivo de jactancia por haber hecho algo. El término griego usado por Lucas, acreios (achreioi), cuyo sentido primario es «sin derecho», aplicado a las personas del ejemplo de Jesús indica siervos ordinarios a quienes nada se les debe. Es una expresión fuerte, que puede chocar la sensibilidad moderna, pero encierra un significado religioso y salvífico que, For example, el apóstol Pablo capta al hablar de la fe en la Carta a los Romanos: "Where is, well, el motivo de gloriarse? Queda excluido. ¿Por qué ley? ¿Por la de las obras? No, por la ley de la fe. Pues sostenemos que el hombre es justificado por la fe, sin las obras de la ley» (Rom 3,27–28). Y también en la Carta a los Efesios: «Pues por gracia habéis sido salvados mediante la fe; y esto no viene de vosotros, sino que es don de Dios; no viene de las obras, para que nadie se gloríe» (Ef 2,8–9).

Para el discípulo, well, y dentro de la comunidad cristiana, la fe se requiere para el servicio y ambas caminan juntas; este es el vínculo que podemos rastrear entre la comparación que hace Jesús y la exhortación a una fe, aunque sea del tamaño de un grano de mostaza. Jesús está instruyendo a quienes le siguen, y al discípulo se le pide una fe grande, que solo puede ser pedida a Dios continuamente. El esfuerzo y el compromiso que los cristianos deben poner en lo que hacen —muchas veces a riesgo de la propia vida en determinadas situaciones y lugares del mundo— debe ir unido al reconocimiento de que somos salvados no porque hayamos sido buenos o conseguido resultados, sino porque es Dios quien salva. Todos los méritos, incluso los legítimamente obtenidos, deben referirse a Dios misericordioso y salvador.

Desde la Ermita, 5 October 2025

.

.

Sant'Angelo Cave in Ripe (Civitella del Tronto)

 

.

Visit the pages of our book shop WHO and support our editions by purchasing and distributing our books.

.

______________________

Dear Readers,
this magazine requires management costs that we have always faced only with your free offers. Those who wish to support our apostolic work can send us their contribution through the convenient and safe way PayPal by clicking below:

Or if you prefer you can use our
Bank account in the name of:
Editions The island of Patmos

n Agency. 59 From Rome – Vatican
Iban code:
IT74R0503403259000000301118
For international bank transfers:
Codice SWIFT:
BAPPIT21D21

If you make a bank transfer, send an email to the editorial staff, the bank does not provide your email and we will not be able to send you a thank you message:
isoladipatmos@gmail.com

We thank you for the support you wish to offer to our apostolic service.

The Fathers of the Island of Patmos

.

.

.

.

.