A reading of the holy gospel according to Saint John. Jesus went out to the Mount Of Olives. At daybreak, he reappeared. Remember, this is a continuation. And you might say, our blessed lord is now being pursued by his enemies who want to destroy him to get rid of him.
So at daybreak, he reappeared of all places in the temple area. And when the people started coming to him, he sat down and began to teach the most public place in Jerusalem. Scribes and the Pharisees came along and led a woman forward who had been taken in adultery. Notice she wasn't charged with it. She was taken in the act.
That's important. They made her stand there in front of everybody. Teacher, these good people said, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. In the law, Moses ordered such a woman to be stoned. What do you have to say about it?
They were posing this question to trap Jesus so that they could have something to accuse him of. Our lord simply bent down and started writing on the ground with his finger. When they persisted, however, in their questioning, he straightened up and said to them, let the man among you who has no sin be the first to cast a stone at the woman. Second time, Jesus bent down and wrote on the ground. And then the audience drifted away one by one.
Beginning with the elders. This left Jesus alone with the woman who continued to stand there before Jesus. Then he straightened up again and said to her, woman, where did they all disappear to? Now notice this, has no man condemned you? No one, sir, she answered.
And then Jesus said, nor do I condemn you. You may go but from now on, avoid sin and this is the gospel. The good news of the lord. In the name of the father and of the son and of the holy spirit. Amen.
Well, with the first reading from Daniel with this famous story of Susanna of which the best part was omitted, and this story of the woman taken in adultery, we have more than enough here to occupy our thoughts. First of all, I don't like putting these two stories together at all. I can see why. But the point is they're totally different. Susanna was an innocent wife accused of adultery, and Daniel saved her by being smart.
Here you're dealing with a woman who was taken in adultery. Notice in the act, the law said that. It wasn't hearsay evidence, she had to be taken right in the act. The law was perfectly clear, If she's taken in the act, stone her. Now, they bring her to Jesus, and they could care less about the law.
They could care less about the woman woman or or justice justice or or purity purity or or or righteousness or anything. What do they want? They want to trap Jesus, and they think they've got him. This is what absolutely a marvelous story. I just love it.
Aristotle must must really glow in this. Because apparently they have Jesus on what we call a dilemma. And the force of a dilemma is you're given two choices or three choices, and you're forced to make one of them, and anyone you choose proves against you. It's the most potent kind of argument or in a debate. Because if you it we we say we impaled the opponent on a horn of the dilemma, which shows you how forceful it is.
If you know what being horn being put on the horn of a dilemma or a good first class bull. So they think they've got Jesus. Now look, you see, if they if Jesus says go ahead and stone her, the law says that we must obey the law, go ahead. They've got him. Because here's a man who was supposed to be kind and generous, benevolent, forgiving, and now he's become a severe judge.
So they thought they had him if he chose that. On the other hand, if he says don't choose it. Now that's a contradictory and there you have no choice between the two. So it's a very good dilemma. Now if he says don't stone her, then he's rejecting the law of God.
How can he claim to be a prophet or anything else if he rejects the law of God? So apparently, they really had him. And I I just love this. This is really, I think, the best story of its kind in the bible. There's nothing even remotely to match it because apparently they've got Jesus in the horn of a dilemma.
He's got to pick one or the other because everybody knows the contradictories are one has to be true and one has to be false. But our lord was a little bit smarter, even if he didn't read Aristotle and his book on fallacies. Our blessed lord was just a little bit smarter, and you notice what he did? He didn't answer them. He escaped from the dilemma entirely, and that's the smartest thing you can do in a debate.
He just he just doesn't face up to the dilemma. He bends down and starts writing on the ground. Who knows what he did there? I don't know. No one knows.
And then when he straightens up, he says, okay. Okay. The law stands this woman was taken in adultery stoner, but that the man without sin cast the first stone. That is really smart. And then he bends down again and they start taking off.
And notice the text says that they started with the oldest, and when our lord straightens up again, they've all gone. Now notice notice this, the law said the woman had to be taken in adultery. Our blessed Lord didn't see her in the act. So notice what he says here. He says, where are your accusers?
Who is here to condemn you? And they've all gone. All gone. There's nobody to condemn it. Christ can't condemn her.
He wasn't there. He doesn't know what what she did or what she didn't do. So the woman's free. And our blessed Lord said, okay, stop this extramarital intercourse or worse to that effect. Effect.
That is a beautiful story. Now, do you know what some people make of that today? They say, this shows our God's benevolence, our blessed Lord's benevolence. It shows how kindly he is towards sin. He'll understand our weaknesses, especially as regards sex.
They use this, I've heard it time and again. But notice there is not the slightest hint that our blessed Lord approves of adultery or fornication, whatever it was. Not the slightest. All he's saying is, where are your where are your accusers? They've all gone.
This is a tremendous story. Now all kinds of things have been written about the woman standing alone there, how badly she was treated, and how repentant she was. Who knows whether she was repented or not? The text doesn't say she was repentant at all. Our blessed lord says go and and stop this nonsense.
Stop your sinning. Straighten up and fly right or rightly. We don't know, but there's plenty in this story to give us courage. That God does understand our weaknesses, weaknesses, but that doesn't mean that he takes an a light attitude towards our sin. Now, the last issue of this Catholic stand, I think it's the last issue, we had a lot in there about this homosexual business.
Now, I hope people will read everything there, not just a few paragraphs. Because being generous, being understanding, being sympathetic towards a perversion doesn't mean that you approve the perversion. It's a perversion. I dared to use the word about a week ago and someone said, don't use that word. It's just an eccentricity.
So a little bit of adultery, a little fornication, just a little eccentricity, you know. Let's face up to it that God is a just God. Sin is a fact of life. Sin separates us from God and you can't quote Jesus Christ as a proving sin. By no means.
If you stand on your head, you can't get that out of this text. That Christ was benevolent and kind and understanding, yes, of the woman of the woman. And I'm perfectly willing to go along with those who say, well, she must have had some feelings or emotions or convictions or persuasions of being brought into the presence of Christ. Remember, people who came into the presence of Christ were changed. They either loved him or they hated him.
And so I don't think it's far fetched at all to say that this woman was repentant. A lot of people who have to pay a penalty for a crime are repentant. There's no problem there at all. But you can't be repentant unless you admit you committed a crime. And so today, from this and the story of Suzano of course is especially touching, really.
How she was plotted against, and how she was taken advantage of, and how the judges, so called judges were just plain dumb in finding her guilty. And then Daniel comes and with a few questions brings out the truth. That's the justice of God. And there is nothing in this text of Jesus Christ with the adulterous woman against the justice of God. Even if you take it in a literal interpretation of the law.
Our blessed Lord did not reject the law which says a woman taken in adultery had to be stoned. He did not reject it. All he said was, those of you without sin be her executioners. And then they all disappeared. Then there was no one to condemn her.
And then Christ himself said, I will not condemn you. I don't think our blessed lord condemns anybody. In the name of the father and the son, Holy spirit. Amen. The lord