Reflection - Contradictions

http://www.usccb.org/bible/readings/061417.cfm
II Corinthians 3:4-11
Matthew 5:17-19

I like games and puzzles and I'm rather tolerant of mysteries; but, I'm not especially fond of contradictions. I find them exasperating. 

During my high school days, scientists didn't know if light was a particle or a wave.  It was possible through experiments to show that light manifested the characteristic of both. But I found the fact to be an affront to my somewhat rigid mentality. The contradiction between their two sets of properties---those of a particle and those of a wave---may have been merely an illusion and the issue may be resolved by today; but other apparent contradictions such as Newtonian physics and quantum mechanics are available as replacements.

Now scientists may be 'mad' enough to become absorbed in the pursuit of the resolution of such enigma's; but the magnitude of their disputes fade to nothing when set against the arguments that can so easily arise over religious matters. This morning's readings offer an example of such a dispute which continues to recur. 

Jesus is pretty clear in his statement: "Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place."

Paul's statement, on the other hand, offers a different message even if it is in a more inscrutable language: "for the letter [of the law] brings death, but the Spirit gives life." And, just so there's no misunderstanding regarding Paul's position, recall Paul's teaching to the Galatians where he says: "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law" (Galatians 3:13) "If you are led by the Spirit you are not under the law." (Galatians 5:18) Paul even opens the conversation with some rather blunt words, chastising the Galatians for their return to the law: "Foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you?" (Galatians 3:1)

If the Law were a person we would raise our eyebrows and shake our heads because the law is stubborn and refuses to accept the fact that "What was endowed with glory (I.e., the law) has come to have no glory in this respect because of the glory that surpasses it." In the concrete world we find the law hard to let go of, hard to dispense with. Even though I think I understand the proper place of the law I have trouble from time to time because legality seems like a safety net in determining right and wrong. Abandoning the law is a risky venture.

But my reflection really didn't turn on these words of Jesus and Paul. Their words merely suggest a false contradiction which can easily seduce the reader into a state of resignation to that which only seems insoluble. Rather, it seems to me that the words of Jesus and Paul capsulize the basis for religious positions assumed today on certain serious matters in the church, like divorce and communion, married priests and the ordination of women, and homosexuality. One side argues a position founded in tradition and law. The other wishes to re-examine positions from the point of view of love and mercy. The latter side---that is the one that would examine positions from the perspective of love and mercy---is not proposing the kind of muddled thinking which is based in emotions. After all says Paul, "The whole law is fulfilled in one word, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." (Galatians 5:14)

Nevertheless, distortions of either position are easy to come by. It's not hard to form an argument that maintains your opponent is abandoning the faith or that Christian morals are being watered down. Likewise, it's also easy to accuse the other of being unnecessarily rigid as if there is flexibility in the truth. It is precisely because truth is absolute that Jesus reminds us that it will not pass away. 

We all know that judging the right and the wrong are easy in the abstract and become more and more difficult as situations occur which are closer to home. But I wonder how often the either-or positions which are presumed to be the totality of available choices are comparing apples and onions. It often appears that arguments in favor of current law, the status quo or tradition are based on secondary potential outcomes. For example, the argument goes, if divorced and remarried Catholics are allowed to receive communion then people will think that divorce and remarriage are acceptable. That may be true. Some may start thinking that way. But is the improper and inappropriate judgment of others an acceptable rationale for denying to this group of people the food of life? Can I ask this question and not be accused of subverting the true faith? 

When Jesus told his disciples: "Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned." (Luke 6:37) He was not saying that we should turn to moral relativism. He made that clear in His teaching today: "not the smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law." So what was he talking about? The statement regarding judging is squarely in the middle of an extended teaching about the proper way to deal with our fellow man. Interestingly enough, the second part deals with what we can expect if we judge and what we can count on if we condemn. Although the law---the truths that govern proper human behavior---will never go away, if we insist on judging others by that law then we set the criterion for how the Father will judge us. If we are determined to deal with others as if they are slaves, not allowed to cross the least of the master's commands, then we abandon the mercy shown by fathers to sons and become slaves ourselves.

Keeping the balance is difficult without the guidance of the Spirit.

And, while the truth does not change but is forever absolute, people are never absolute. They are always changing. That's what our Father is counting on as we falteringly progress towards becoming his children.