A reading of the holy gospel according to Saint Matthew. Our lord said to the chief priests and the elders of the people, that is the the leader, the the people who had the men who were in control, had great dignity, learning, and were reputed for their piety and above all for their obedience to the law in all its details, meaning the law plus all the additions of centuries. So our lord asked him this problem. What do you think of this case? There was a man that had two sons.
He went to the older boy and said, son, go out and work in my vineyard today. The boy replied, I'm on my way, sir. But he never went. Of course, we have never had any experience of that. But then the father went to the second son and said the very same thing.
And this boy replied, no. I won't go. But after that, he was sorry for what he had said, and he went into the vineyard and worked. Now our lord says, which of the two sons did what the father wanted them to do? And they said the second.
Jesus said to them, let me make it clear. Now this is he's talking to these people face to face. You can see why they loved him. And then he said to them, tax collectors and prostitutes are entering the kingdom of god before you. When John came that is John the Baptist.
When John came preaching a way of holiness, you put no faith in him. But the tax collectors and the prostitutes believed in John. Yet even when you saw that, you did not repent and believe in him. The gospel of the lord. In the name of the father and of the son and of the holy spirit.
Amen. Well, you can we have all realized why Jesus was not popular with the leaders of the people, with the scribes and the pharisees. And remember, that's with all the best people. These were the good solid citizens. These were the men that everybody looked up to and in many ways they deserved that.
The word pharisees we were mixed up on the meaning of it. They weren't a bunch of bad men. And notice our lord says that the prostitutes and the tax collectors and they were pretty low down as sinners go that they will get to heaven and you won't. Well, anyway, last Sunday, I was off as of Friday of last week, I was all prepared prepared myself to, speak a few words on the parable of last Sunday. That is the parable of the vintage, the man who owned a vineyard and went out and hired men at the different hours of the day.
He even hired some of them who worked only an hour, then he paid them all the same and, you know, they complained. So I was all fired up to deliver a few outro's remarks on that when on Friday of last week I learned, of course it's Friday of two weeks ago specifically, I learned that we were having catechetical Sunday. So I switched and tried to say a few words on this on this very serious, extremely serious, and privileged job of handing on god's truth. I emphasize god's truth because when when everything is said and done, we you good people sitting in those pews this morning, I up here in this pulpit, we are if if we if there isn't such a a body of truth that came from God that in some way we can get a hold of, then I ask you, what are we doing here? Are we playing games?
It it it it would be a charade. On the other hand, if god did send his son into this world, if his son did give us a body of truth, going therefore teach ye all nations, teach them what I have taught you. Not what you think, not what you feel, but what I have taught you. If that is true, then the main proposition is that we should be doing our best to get a hold of it and to hand it down, tradizio, to hand it down to others. That's as plain as anything on God's earth could be.
As plain as it is, it has been rejected for the last twenty some years. And so I devoted a good bit of my so called homily to an a very simple analysis of the cardinal's letter that he sent in January '93 to parents and educators. And the gist of that letter was that upon them educators and parents, is the solemn obligation of handing on God's truth. And that the sole not the sole but the ultimate reason for having the parochial Catholic schools is to hand on Christ, God's truth. I was going to say doctrine but that's a verboten.
You mustn't use the word doctrine. You must use the word education. I say doctrine. Of course, we have it. It includes all kinds of things.
But one of the basic things is the teaching of Jesus. And the cardinal said this came out in January that and he said explicitly that we that nothing should be taught in a parochial school that has not been approved by the magisterium of the church. Nothing. So I just repeat that because it I want it to be repeated. Now we come to my we we were on retreat last week.
So having prepared myself, I don't have a manuscript as you know, prepared myself for that the parable called the greatest and the most glorious parable in the in the New Testament. The parable of the vintage and the workman and the pay they got. It's been called the greatest and the most glorious parable in the New Testament. We go back to that today. And the text I want to use is that text of Isaiah.
He said, oh, Israel, you say I am not fair? God is speaking. I am not fair? Is it not you who are not fair? That's the the the first sentence out of today's first reading.
Now the first thing I want to say about that parable is that it is great and glorious. Glorious. It's not about justice. The word justice comes up in their but it's not about justice. We don't want justice.
I don't. I'd be scared to death if I had to face god on the principle of justice. I want generosity. I don't even want fairness. I want his mercy.
And this parable assures us. Whatever else I may say, remember this this is what gives joy to a Christian heart. This is what makes us realize that whether we die old or young, no matter how in well educated we may be when we die, whatever our lives have been of the gravest deepest sin or have been extremely well lived, almost as innocent when we die as when we were born. That's there are people like that remember. It it it makes a difference.
Makes a difference. But the difference isn't between my salvation and being lost for eternity. And that by that I mean being separated from God's love. Because what this parable and it's a parable. It teaches a lesson.
And whatever a library has been written on it. Whatever we may think about, what our lord is trying to tell his hearers is this, whatever your life, however old you are, however young you are, whenever you meet god, if you are turned if you have turned your face to him, we call that conversion, is there to wealth wealth even if you are that unfortunate who jumped from the bridge and made the act of contrition before you hit the water. And I mean that literally. And so this is the lesson we must take for this and take it to into the heart, take it into your daily lives that God really loves you. That this almighty unspeakable, inexpressible God about whom we can make not a single proposition which is unifically true Even when we say God is, that little word is is not univocal when I say God is and the altar there is.
The word is there is there is not univocal God is God is himself. He he depends on nothing. As we used to say in our very succinct Latin, an ence, a being of and by and for itself. Everything else in creation is contingent. It hangs upon god, hangs by tiny thread.
He alone does not hang from anything. And that's the god who welcomes me. He sent me. He created me. We are all individual creations.
And he created me to go come back to him. And he knew what it was to be a man. He knew what it was to be a human being. Think of his temptations after his long day of spell of fasting. Look at him in the garden before his passion.
Look at him on the cross. My god. My god. Why have you abandoned me? How many times in my misspent career I have heard people say, I wanna pray.
I need god. I can't pray and I feel god is nowhere. I know what that is. I've experienced that. That's when we've got to hang on to our faith that god loves me.
Nothing better that I know of has been written about this that is so to the point as Thompson's Hound of Heaven. And that book came out of Thompson's bitter, bitter life. When he was picked out of the gutter, I mean literally picked out of the gutter, a dope and alcoholic addict, hopeless really. And out of that period of his life, he wrote the hound of heaven. Heaven.
It isn't that God waits for me to welcome me. Is it? Tom Thompson said he's the hound. He's that hound dog that's on my tail trail. He is really on my heels getting at me, nipping me, budging me, pushing me.
As you know it, the metaphor is never used in the poem. It never comes up in the poem itself. It's just in the title. But it's used like he pursued me down the ways. It isn't that God welcomes.
He's after me. He wants to grab me. If only we can get a hold of that idea that God really loves me And we turn to him and say, Well then, God show me what you want, tell me what you want and I'll give you to my best even though my best is none too good. I'll give you what I got. Life has changed, immensely changed.
Anyway, that is the main thrust of this parable that God really loves me. He's on my trail. He's not just up there waiting for me to come in. Think of the prodigal son. The old man rushed out to greet his son.
He didn't stay up on the porch waiting for the son to come up the steps and kiss his foot or something. He didn't give the kid a chance to say, dad, I'm sorry. He ran out and threw his arm around the boy. And that's and you see you say, that's a figure. It is nothing of the sort.
Read Thompson's Hound of Heaven, how God is after me. And we don't like it because it's like the little puppy on a leech. The puppy wants to go to the get it under the car. He wants to bite the tires of the car. He wants him to get into garbage pails.
He wants to get into manure. He wants to do all these. And that dumb owner with a leash around his throat is pulling him away from it and that chokes him. And the dog doesn't like to be choked and we don't like to be choked. We are on the leash of God.
Now there's another point to this. That's the main thrust of this parable, that God loves us, that in the last hour of our existence if we turn to him, he grabs us and says welcome. The point that a lot of people make of this, it's unfair. This parable. Talk to any union man and say, you're darn right.
That's unfair. No union man would hold a job if he got up and preached this doctrine. Well, now the first thing to notice is this. There's a lot of things to notice. Let's go back to a few facts.
Now I I know there's a problem about you notice Christ never talked about a penny. He talked about a day's wages. Now the best I can make out is that that was equivalent to a Roman denarius. And a day's wages, a day's pay, a denarius, now whether that's true or false, let's accept it. There was a fixed amount of some sort that was the accepted pay for a laboring man, that is a man or or even a woman who went into vineyard or a wheat field or whatever, a cornfield, what have you, and, did a day's work.
And it was from suns up to sun down, twelve hours. And they got a day's wages and let's call it a denarius. Now that's what the guy needed to put food on his table. When he went home in the evening, if he didn't have that in his hand, his family probably did not eat. Just remember, some place in the old testament, it's where you if you if a if a man gives you his cloak as a loan against the money, you're supposed to give him back that cloak at the end of the day so he has something to sleep on.
That's how close they they lived. They didn't have money in the bank. They didn't have any kind of coupons at a safe way or something. He had to have some money in his hand at the end of the day to buy the food necessary to feed his family, including himself and his wife and his kids. And without that, they probably didn't eat.
Now this is no exaggeration at all because in those days, there was no way that you had anything to help the unemployed. And if you didn't work, you didn't eat or you you went around and you begged, you became a beggar and that was unthinkable. Now keep that in your mind here. So the picture is this, here's a a vintage. The grapes are ripe.
You've gotta get them in real fast. They don't wait. And so he goes out what we call a hiring pool in the very in the first hour of the day and he hires some men. Now there it says, and they agreed upon wages. They agreed.
So that was a bilateral contract. Notice that stuff those words aren't used. But the but the story the parable says that there was an agreement. The vinegar said, I'll give you so much money for your day's work. The man or the men said, fine.
That's agreeable to us. Bilateral contract. That's the old laissez faire business, you know. And, so they went into his vineyard at the first hour of the day. And then the man went out, you know, at the third, the ninth, the twelfth, the three, and the five.
And when he went out at five, there were still some people there who had had not they were there. And he said, why are you here all the day idle? And the man and the guy said, well, because no one hired us. Now note these men weren't there be because they were unwilling to work. They were unemployed.
And right now, I know some men who are unemployed. And it's a horrible thing to be in in that position. Horrible. And it was horrible in those days, even worse. So the venture said, well, why are you here?
And he said, well, because nobody's hired us. Now we don't know why but they were there. They were willing to work. They wanted to eat. So he said, You go into my vineyard too.
Now notice, he made no conditions. There was no bilateral contract. There were no agreements. He said, go in there and they work one hour. And then as you know, what happens?
When it's when they start getting paid, those who had worked Now imagine, work maybe eleven hours under hot boiling sun. All those hours of sweat and labor, they were tired, they were eager to get off, to get off, to get home. And here are these guys that were hired for only one hour got the same amount. What would your reaction be? It ain't fair.
Well, no. 'd I'd probably would have been with those who said it ain't fair. Listen. That's that's not fair at all. You you're not treating us decently, man.
Why wouldn't you if you'd if you'd worked twelve hours or eleven hours and the other doctors had only worked one hour and they got the very same pay that you got. Why a union leader would shoot them. But notice, our lord says, I'm giving you what we agreed upon. And there's your pay. You agreed to take a denarius a day.
There's your money. Now if I here's the lady say fair comes in. If I wanna be generous to these men, why do you quarrel? Now here's the my the point of this. If he hadn't get what he was doing and giving them a day's pay for working even an hour, he was simply giving them what they needed to live for a day.
That's all he was doing. He was simply giving them what they had to have to live for a day. Whether and it wasn't their fault that they didn't get a job because they said nobody has hired us. We've been here waiting, we've been willing, but nobody hired us. So what that man was simply doing was what he should do as we today by social justice.
Remember that that word isn't isn't a 100 years old in the English language, social justice. It was it was when I started as far as theology, it wasn't in our theology books at all, this thing called social justice. There was none of that in those days. If those men didn't get a denarius, then they did not eat when they went home or the equivalent thereof. And so he's saying and then he you see, that was the afterthought.
Do you quarrel with me and because I'm generous? And haven't I a right to do anything I want with what I own? Now that's a very iffy thing there, you know. Let's not go into that, but let's just stop there. But what we shouldn't stop with is that there's only one person in those men's lives for that day who could put food on their table and they needed the denarius, whatever it was, and he gave it to them.
Not because they had earned it but because they had a right to eat. Now there's nothing of that in the text. It's just action. But I'm I'm going now into what we call social justice. A human being has a right to food.
And if he's married, he has a right to the what he needs for his family. Now that was not clearly expressed until the end of the nineteenth century by Leo the thirteenth in his very famous Rerum Novarum encyclical, eighteen ninety one. That's the first encyclical I remember of ever knowing about. Rerum Novarum, the right of the working man to unionize, the right to private property. Of course it was launched against socialism and it tried to demonstrate the evils, the fatality, the fatal aspects of socialism.
But what it what it was basically about was the working man's natural right to a living wage based upon God's eternal law. Because a man has to eat, a married man has to support his family, and all he has is the labor of his hands and the labor of his back pulling up tobacco plants, planting wheat, cutting down the bunches of grapes. If that's all he can do, then he's got to get his living wage out of that. He has no place else to go. And if he's if he has a right to that, he has the right to the means of getting it.
And if that meant striking, fine. Now notice this in 1891 when there were bloody wars being waged on this matter of strikes. And that so that that encyclical in 1891, if that had been taken seriously in what we say the industrialized court of course are called talking here in terms of the industrial revolution. If that had been taken seriously, we would have had a different world. But it wasn't taken seriously.
When I came to Catholic U in 1928, there was a a priest there named John A. Bryan. And there was the rumor. Now I'm saying just a rumor. I don't know whether it's true or not, but that a very wealthy Catholic industrialist had offered the university Catholic you $1,000,000 if they if they kick him out.
This was in 1928. Because he stood up for just what that encyclical said and nobody doubted what it said. But there were plenty of so called Catholic industrial leaders who said the pope has no business interfering with my business. Just as they say today, the pope has no business getting into my bedroom and tell me what I'm supposed to do. It's the same old story.
People don't listen. They don't hear because they do not see Jesus Christ on the rock of Peter. Is that simple? And yet these some of them, this the man's name associated with John A. Rottin was a very outstanding Catholic, supposedly.
Now so after that rare novarum, I grew up on it. Really, I'm not kidding. We debated it. We did all kinds of things with it. Then of course, you know, Pius XI in and he produced it Quadro J.
Z. Moana forty years afterwards, 1931. What that did was to insist upon what Baron Navarro said in 1891, that a working man has a right to a living wage. And that living wage was to have money to live on, money enough to put away for his comfortable old age, money to have his own little home, money enough if you please to leave to his to some to his children. That was the definition of of of Leo the thirteenth of a living wage.
And I'm I'm almost quoting it verbatim. Think of that. And then, of course, we had then the latest edition in this matter from our whole present holy father in his encyclical when Anas Centenetismus, the hundredth anniversary of the Rare Novarum in 1991 where he completely reviewed the whole thing going back to rare novarum, restated the Catholic position on this very clearly. And, of course, as as the cardinal said about his letter of January, most of these things get put on shelves to gather dust. But don't let that be with us.
Let us realize that this is god's world. God created it. God put us into it for a purpose, and that is the eternal law. That's what we call the eternal law. We are not here without a purpose.
Now it's sometimes it's very difficult to see it. It gets terrible. So the fog is thick. It's so thick that it almost kills you. But it's there.
We've got to understand that. And god is pursuing us through Jesus Christ his son. It's not that he merely welcomes us, he is pursuing us. He's nipping at our heels to push us back to his heavenly father. And that we call the natural law, and we have the natural virtues.
But they become supernatural virtues through Jesus Christ and his institution called the church, which is of our salvation in this life. Where we look and the light of the world. Do we go to Jesus in these tremendous problems? Take the problem we're facing now of health insurance for the for the people. This is a do we pray about that?
Do do we pray god that our that the people involved will will have will have a view of the human being, not of just their own interests, not of just their own business, but of the overall picture of the people of The United States, all of them. What are we going to give them? What have they a right to? If they have a right, where do they get it? No more than forty eight hours ago I had a debate on this.
Do we look to the rock Of Peter? And if we do, what do we do about it? We just can't sit in an uneasy chair and turn on the TV and have the holy father said, look, I'm Peter. I'm on the rock. This is what you're supposed to do.
It doesn't work that way. How many people read these encyclicals? How many people even see them? They say it's, oh, it's so boring to read those doctrines. I agree.
I agree. I because I've read them. I know they're boring. Most of them are translations of translations. But does that disqualify these doctrines if they have in them the echo of Jesus Christ speaking to Peter, speaking to the apostles, going therefore teach you all nations.
Where do we look for truth? In a pragmatic world dedicated to self interest? Or do we look to a Jesus Christ where we have it as the ultimate, the salvation of human beings, whatever or whenever god calls them? Take it to heart. What is it to be a Catholic in 1993?
What is it? Is it to be lost in all this liturgical mumble jumble, or is it to have real bonds with Jesus Christ speaking to us with the living voice of Peter on the rock. In the name of the father and of the son and the holy spirit. Amen.