Luke, XVIII, 15-17. Spiritual childhood.

"Let the children come to me, and do not hold them back: for it is to them that the Kingdom of God belongs. "

And yet this age is devoid of force, without firmness of character, without maturity in its will. So it is not a question of preferring one age to another, otherwise it would be detrimental to grow up: what do I need to wish for maturity to come, if it is to take away the title from the heavenly kingdom? But then would God have given the development of life for vices, not to grow in virtue? And why did He not Himself choose His Apostles in childhood, but more mature? And why does He say that children are fit for the Kingdom of Heaven (Matt., XIX, 14)? Perhaps because they are ignorant of wickedness, do not know how to deceive, do not dare to make blows, do not know the search for wealth, have neither desire for honors nor ambition. But it is not to ignore these things that makes virtue, it is to despise them; and there is no reason to praise restraint, when integrity is only impotence. It is not childhood that is designated, but a kindness that imitates the simplicity of childhood. Virtue is not to be able to sin, but not to will, and to maintain such perseverance of will that the will imitates childhood, that one imitates its nature. The Savior Himself expressed it in these terms: "Unless you become converted and become like this child, you will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven. ". Who is this child to be imitated by the Apostles of Christ? Would it be a little something? Such, then, would be the virtue of the apostles? Who is the child? Is it not He whose name Isaiah said: "A child is born for us, a son has been given to us" (Is., IX, 6)? It is indeed this child who has said to you: "Take your cross, and follow me" (Matth., XVI, 24, etc.). And, to make you recognize the child: "Outraged, He has not made outrage; struck, He did not return the blows "(I Peter, II, 23): that is the perfect virtue. Thus, even in childhood, there is a venerable old age of manners, and in old age an innocence of children; for "it is a venerable old age, not by duration, and which can not be calculated on the number of years: the white hair is the wisdom of men, and the old age a life without spot" (Sag., IV, 8 ssq.). So it is written, "Children, praise the Lord, praise the name of the Lord" (Psalm 112: 1), since no one praises the Lord if he is not perfect; because "no one says that Jesus is Lord other than by the Holy Spirit" (I Cor., XII, 3). All this seems prophesied of the people of the Church: younger, he surpassed the eldest people of the Jews by his zeal for virtue; hence this text: "Here am I, with my children whom you have given me" (Is., VIII, 18). These are the children who, accompanied by their prophetic cries the Lord borne on the baby of a donkey (Matt., XXI, 7 ff.), Announced that the redemption of the nations had arrived; these are the children, or the little ones, who have drunk in the long tears of these breasts of Christ, better than the wine (Cant., I, 3): because "from the lips of children and infants you have received praise" ( Ps. 8, 3).

 It may seem to some rough and severe that the disciples have prevented the little children from coming to the Lord, if you do not understand either the mystery or their intention. For they did not do it out of hardness of heart and bad will towards children; but they testified to the Lord the eagerness of attentive servants, so that he would not be pressed by the crowds; as it is written elsewhere: "Master, the crowds urge you" (Lk, VIII, 45). For we must give up our advantage when it is wrong with God. Let us flee from pride, let us imitate the simplicity of childhood: for truth is opposed to pride, while simplicity accords with truth, rises by its very abasement. God does not live in a low soul, but, as the Prophets have taught us, "The throne of virtue has been exalted" (Jer., XVII, 12), that is, one whose wisdom is He raises to the level of truth, so that he does not hide, like Cain, the trick of the murderer under the appearance of a brother, but is brother outside and inside. This as to their feelings. In the mystical sense, they wanted the Jewish people, whose flesh they were born, to be saved first; but they also interceded for the Chananean (Matt., XV, 23): they knew therefore the mystery which reserved to the two peoples their vocation, but perhaps they did not know the order yet.

Now notice the difference of expressions. When He makes the children come near Him, to bless them with a prayer or laying their hands on them, He calls them children; when He prescribes not to scandalize them, He calls them little (Matt. xviii. 6). Because we are not scandalized when we are touched by Christ, we do not fall when we approach Christ; but those who fall have made little not their age, but the smallness of their virtue. At the same time He still teaches that we should not tempt the weak, lest we fall back on us the faults of those whose prayers, however weak they are in merit and virtue, are brought and recommended to Lord by the angels. Let no man therefore mock the poor, for it is to anger Him who did it (Prov. XVII, 5); let no one tempt the weak, so as not to offend the angels; let no one make the cripple fall, so as not to destroy the benefit of the Redeemer.

 And if he said, "Woe to this world because of scandals" (Matt. Xviii. 7), it is because many have held the Lord's cross for a scandal, whereas the humiliation of the suffering Lord is the sacrament of our salvation, to make us undertake the works of virtue, to take a model on this humility. Woe to those who will not believe in the cross of the Lord, whose weaknesses are scandalized: "It would be better for him to have his donkey grinded on his neck and be drowned in the depths of the sea."

In the divine Scriptures we must no doubt consider not the arrangement of words, but the weight of things: for it is better to repress sins by the somewhat bestial apparatus of a kind of unheard-of and ugly torture. However, in order not to give scandal to some invalid on this very subject, it is not without reason, we think, that the donkey millstone, the neck of the man, the Since the Gentile people have received the donkey as their emblem, does it not seem to you to turn the donkey's wheel as long as it turns into the error of its ignorance? He is bound by the bonds of his nature, to grind the Word, to seek God; but, plunged into blindness by the veil of his mind, 40 he can not elevate to God the face of his soul, open the eyes of his heart. Also, without any enthusiasm in his race, constantly taking his steps to the same point, he works despite himself for the benefit of others. Yet he who turns the wheel finally sees the end and the completion of his work, and he has the hope of being rid of what blinds him; but the one on whose neck the wheel is suspended, carries the stone, having refused to wear the yoke of the Lord. The donkey goes to the stone, the blind man to the stone, the pagan to the rock, to adore him whom he neither sees nor recognizes: for God "does not live in buildings" (Act., VII, 48); it is not in the rock that one recognizes it, but in spirit. Both people, gentility and Jews, are thus presented and staged by this discourse; but the Jews are the object of a more rigorous punishment. Indeed, the memory of the Gentiles will be engulfed in the floods of this century and drowned in the mud of this world, because they wanted to be in the middle of what is not (I Cor., I, 28), and, strangers to the knowledge of God, have drowned themselves in the depths of the sea; but the Jews, chosen in the person of the Patriarchs, marked with circumcision, instructed by the Law, will not disappear as strangers, but will be punished as sacrilegious. For the unknown God of the Athenians (Acts, XVII, 23) was known in Judea (Ps 75, 2), but not welcomed. Also the ignorant will be ignored, the prevaricator will be condemned; there will be no exemption from fault for the one who has misunderstood his Creator, there will be exclusion of forgiveness for the one who did not receive the Lord. Yet it is more tolerable to have not given faith to Christ than to have laid hands on Him.

Luke, XVIII, 18-30. The rich candidate and the danger of wealth.

"Now a notable questioned him in these terms: Good Master, what to do to possess eternal life? And Jesus said to him, Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone. "

Clever question, and therefore clever answer. For this notable who probed him called him a good master, when he should have said God good. Indeed, although goodness is in divinity, and divinity in goodness - for no one is good except God alone, while "every man is a liar" (Psalm 115: 2), and all that is liar is certainly not good - however, adding: good master, he said it well partially, not totally: for God is totally good, the man partially. Wherefore the Lord, why call me good, saith he, when ye deny that I am God? Why call me good, when no one is good but God alone? He does not deny that he is good, but He indicates that he is God; for what is it to say, if not full of kindness? But since it is written, "There is no one who does good, there is not even one" (Ps 13, 3), He certainly spoke of men, not of God: for God is one, but He is not unity in a number. So also is the Son of God set apart as one, not as one of the multitude; and He is the only begotten, not one of the begotten. So "no one is good" is not a judgment against Christ, for no one judges Christ; "None" is said of us commonly, but Christ has nothing in common with us. If such is troubled by the fact that no one is good but the one God, let him be troubled by the fact that no one is good but God. If the Son is not excluded from divinity, Christ Of course, neither is it excluded from goodness. But since God the Son is personally distinct, one in power - for "there is only one God, of whom are all things, and one Lord, by whom are all things" (I Cor., VIII 6) - since God and Lord do not make two gods, but one God, for "the Lord your God is an only Lord" (Deut., VI, 4), certainly if by his majesty God is one in the one and the other person, there is only one good in both. For how would not be good He who is born of the good? "A good tree produces good fruit" (Matt. VII, 17); how would it not be good, since the substance of goodness drawn from the Father did not degenerate into the Son, having not degenerated into the Spirit? So "your good spirit will lead me to the right path" (Psalm 142: 10). That if the Spirit is good, who has received from the Son (Jn. Xvi. 14), He who has transmitted to him is certainly good too; and if the Father is good, He certainly is also good who has all that the Father has (Jn, XVII, 10). Or if you deny that the Son has goodness, you deny it from the Father. An obvious doctrine does not need attestations; however, at least follow the authority of the scriptures. It is written, indeed, "The Lord is a good judge for the house of Israel" (Is., XXXIII, 22); does it say of the Son or the Father? but "the Father judges no man," since he has entrusted all judgment to the Son "(Jn, V, 22): therefore the good Lord is the Son. Here is another thing: those who come to baptism profess the Trinity, since they are baptized in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; therefore they praise and the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; therefore, since it is said, "Praise the Lord because he is good" (Ps. 135: 1), the Father is certainly good, good the Son, good the Holy Spirit; but God is one. And again "the Lord is good for those who are waiting for him" (Lam. III, 25). Is He not good, He who does good "to the soul that seeks him"? Is He not good, the One "who satisfies your soul with good things" (Ps 102: 5)? Is it not good, the One who said, "I am the good Shepherd" (Jn, X, 11)? But you think that God is good because he does not exercise the judgment that would put him in the need to punish. Although we have already said that he is a good judge for the house of Israel, yet you find elsewhere: "May the God of Israel be good for the upright hearts" (Ps. 72, 1)! Who are you talking about, in your opinion? of the Father, or of the Son? If it's from the Father, He's not good for everyone; why then refuse it to the Son? If it is of the Son, then confess that the Son is also God good; for he is the "God blessed of Israel, who visited his people and accomplished his redemption" (Lk I, 68). He is the king and the God of Israel, to whom it is said, "Master, you are the Son of God, you are the King of Israel" (Jn, I, 49).

 So He says here: Since you can not believe me good, when you tempt me why do you call me good? Yes, I am good, but for upright hearts; to be good comes to me from nature, not from artifice. So the Son of God is good; for "He is the brightness of the eternal light, and the spotless mirror of the majesty of God, and the image of his goodness" (Sag., VII, 26). How, then, would it not be good, being the image of kindness? In the same way that the image of God is God, but there is only one God, so also the image of divine goodness is good, but there is only goodness. I certainly have the advantage of believing that God is good, having to judge him of my failings; notice to those who do not want to believe in his goodness. Thus, since the one who tries is expert in the Law, as it is shown in another book, He said very well: "No one is good except God alone," to warn him that it is written, "You do not tempt the Lord your God "(Deut., VI, 16), and that he may praise God rather than he is good. Then he bears repeated blows to him: as he glorifies himself from the Law, and to have fully observed it from his youth, in order to expose his vain sufficiency. He shows him that he still lacks something of the Law; he is thus reduced to the precept of mercy, which saddened him, and it is like a sentence borrowed from the natural order which is made against him: "It is easier for the camel to pass through the hole of a needle that the rich to enter the Kingdom of God. Words of great energy, great weight. What other words could express that the rich man should not boast of his riches, with more vigor than these, from which it appears that he is against the rich person's naturalness to be merciful? Behind the ornaments and the look of words, which usually annoy thoughts!

 It was not a question of flattering this man, but of breaking him, since he did not deign to show mercy. If, however, such things find more charm in the finery of words than in the natural beauty and forms, so to speak, of a virile sense, let them behave like the wise contenders when it comes to taking a wife. They inquired about character, not beauty, and did not rebel from an unsightly exterior if they were attracted to the virtue of the soul. In the same way, they must search in words for the mystery, which is like the spirit and soul of words, and not to examine words in mystery. The camel is therefore considered the figure of Gentility. The lion seeking to devour (I Peter 8) chases him to the desert, laden with treasure in the visions of the prophets: "In distress and anguish, the lion and the lion cub bore vipers and race vipers flying their riches, on donkeys and camels "(Is., XXX, 6). And the camel was well chosen to represent Gentility, because the people of the Gentiles, degenerated and disfigured by superstition, had, before believing, the appearance of this hideous beast, its absurd gait, its misshapen muzzle. This sinner therefore entered by the narrow way (that is, the way of Christ, who, forcing the way of death by the suffering of his body, has like a needle repaired the torn clothes of our nature), more easily than the Jewish people, rich in the Law, poor in faith, carried away by their fury, infamous by their crime. You can still hear him, in the moral sense, of every sinner and the arrogant rich man. Does it not seem to you that the publican, charged with the consciousness of his faults, not daring to lift his eyes to God, entered like a camel into the hole of a needle, thanks to his confession, more easily than in the Kingdom of God the arrogant Pharisee in his prayer, extolling his innocence, claiming himself glory, attacking mercy, praising himself and the trial of others, taking the Lord to part more than he prayed to him? If, therefore, the camel is a horror, let it be horrified by him whom his conduct makes more repulsive than a camel.

"Honor your father and mother. "

It is beautiful that today I read the beginning of the Law, since it is the anniversary of my episcopate, because the priesthood seems to have a new beginning each year, when the race of time renews it. It is also well that one reads: "Honor your father and mother", because it is you who are my parents, having deferred to me the priesthood. You are, I say, my children or my parents: each my child, all together my parents. Yes, I like to call you my children or my parents, since you hear and practice the word of God: my children, because it is written, "Come, my children, listen to me" (Ps. 33, 12 ); my parents, because the Lord Himself said, "Who is my mother, or my brothers? My mother and my brothers are those who listen to the word of God and fulfill it "(Matt., XII, 46, etc.). The Law, therefore, having said at first, "You will love the Lord your God," and "You will love your neighbor," has added very well: "Honor your father and your mother. This is the first degree of piety; for it is they whom God has chosen to be your authors. Honor them with your attentions, keeping you from all affront, for it is not necessary to offend even in appearance the piety towards the parents. But it's a little bit not to hurt; for the law has made sure that they do not suffer contempt: "Whoever has spoken badly to his father or mother shall be punished with death" (Ex., XXI, 17); honor them, you, in order to be good. Another thing is a beneficent clause of the Law, another thing a duty of piety. Honor yours, since the Son of God has honored his; for you have read, "And He was subject to them" (Lk, II, 51); if God has been with his servants, what will you do for your parents? Christ honored Joseph and Mary, not by debt of nature, but by pious duty; He also honored God his Father, as no one could honor him, to the point of being obedient unto death (Phil., II, 8). So, you too, honor your parents. Now there is an honor that not only honors, but gives: "Honor widows who are really widows" (I Tim., V, 3); to honor indeed is to treat on the merits. Feed your father, feed your mother. Even nourishing your mother, you do not give her the pains again, you do not give her the torments she suffered for you; you do not give him the attentions with which she has borne you, you do not return the food she has given you in a sentiment of pious tenderness, pouring the milk of her breasts between your lips; you do not give him the hunger that she has endured for you, to eat nothing that could be harmful to you, to take nothing that could spoil her milk. For you she fasted, for you she ate; for you she did not take the food she wanted; for you she took the food she did not like; for you she has watched, for you she cried; and you would suffer it is missing! Oh my son, what a judgment you will make if you do not feed your mother! You owe him what you have, you owe him what you are. What a judgment, if the Church feeds those you do not want to feed! "If a devotee, it is said, or if a believer has widows, let them attend, so that the Church is not overburdened and can be sufficient for those who are really widows" (I Tim., V , 16). This is said of strangers; but the parents? It is not without reason that we have just spoken: the complaint of a mother forced us to do so. But we preferred to publicly warn this man that the retake in particular; and if our word does not denounce it, let him blush at least in his heart. Do not allow, my son, that your parents be nourished by the hunger of others; do not allow, my son, the fasts of the poor to provide food for your parents. If not for grace and salvation, at least by modesty feed them, my son. Do you not be ashamed if, when you enter the church, your old mother reaches out to others, and if your abandoned daughter asks alms for alms, while you pass "with your head held high, making glances, letting drag your garment, wearing earrings, bracelets, rings ", and the rest, of which Isaiah speaks (III, 16, 20)? And if she is addressing you to claim the debt of nature, the price of her breastfeeding, the service that your hand owes to a mother? What will you answer? You will give to others? And if they answer you: Go and feed your mother first? for even poor people do not want impious alms. Have you not heard that this rich, lying on linen and purple, from whose table Lazarus collected the crumbs, is tortured in the eternal tortures (Lk, XVI, 19 ssq.), for not giving food to the poor? If it is serious not to give to foreigners, how much more serious to repulse his parents! But you will say that you prefer to give to the Church what you would have given to your parents: God does not ask you for a gift taken from the hunger of your parents; just as the Jews complained that the Lord's disciples were not washing their hands, the Lord answered: Whoever says, "All present that comes from me is at your service" does not honor his father or his mother (Matt., XV, 5). We are not dazed here because of the obscurity of meaning. For the Jews, following the tradition of men, neglect that of God; the disciples, preferring the tradition of God, neglected that of men; so they did not wash their hands when they ate the bread, because "he who is thoroughly washed does not need to wash" (Jn, XIII, 10); Jesus had washed them, they had nothing else to do: for by his baptism alone Christ put an end to all purifications; so the one washed by the Church does not need to be washed again. The disciples, therefore, were attentive to the mystery, seeking the purity not of the body, but of the soul; the Jews took them back, but the Lord adroitly objects to their futile observance and negligence. He said to them, Why do you say to your father or mother that the law prescribes honoring: "All that comes from me will serve you? That is to say: when a father or a mother in need asks his son for something for his upkeep, this Jew, who fears the Law and seeks an excuse for not giving, usually says, "Offering everything in my possession could serve you "; so that the father, if he has religion, will dread receiving money dedicated to God. But this is the tradition of men who excuse and veil their avarice; On the contrary, the tradition of God is that you feed your parents first, for if the sentence of God punishes with death anyone who insults a parent, how much more the one who starves him, something more serious than death! In this place the Lord represses an improper vanity. Many, indeed, to be praised by men, give the Church what they withdraw from theirs, while the mercy must begin with the duties of family piety. Give first to your father; give also to the poor; give to a certain priest your terrestrial surplus, to receive from him the spiritual which is lacking to you: for whoever honors will be honored. Consider, therefore, that in receiving he gives, and that he receives not as needy, but as ready to repay you to a greater extent. Give the poor to rest, so that you too, having shared your good with the poor, come to rest. But if the Scripture says that we must nourish the parents, it also says that we must leave them for God, if they stand in the way of the devotion of the soul (Lk, XIV, 26).