Twenty-Seventh Sunday in Ordinary Time       

Matthew 21:33-43

Translated from a homily by Don Fabio Rosini

A parable designed to strike fear into our hearts and spur us on to bear fruit!

Sometimes a holy sensation of fear is just what we need to make us change our ways and undergo conversion! The intention of this Gospel is exactly that – to spur us into action for fear of the consequences. The parable that Jesus places in front of us this Sunday is the story of a landowner who plants his vineyard and provides it with everything needed for it to flourish. Then he places it under the care of tenants and goes on a journey. These tenants have been given a gift - the gift of a vineyard to be managed. When harvest time arrives, the landowner sends his servants to request the fruits of the vineyard, but the servants are treated badly. One is beaten, another stoned and a third one killed. So the landowner dispatches servants in greater numbers, but these are again treated in the same way. Then the proprietor decides to send his own son, thinking that the tenants will surely respect the offspring of the owner. But instead of seeing the son with the father's eyes, they reckon that this is their perfect chance to seize his inheritance.

The trap that Jesus set for his original listeners is also a trap for US!

At the end of the parable, Jesus asks, "What will the owner of the vineyard do to these tenants?" His listeners respond that the owner will surely kill them and give the vineyard over to other tenants who will produce fruit at the proper time. In this way, Jesus traps his listeners, because they are the same ones that, in the previous passages, fiercely opposed Jesus, who in his person is none other than the Son sent by the Father.

            When we listen to this parable today, we also are led by Jesus into concurring with the conclusion that, yes, these tenants most certainly deserve to be punished severely.  It is important to be aware that we too have been led into the same trap as the original listeners of the parable! The question that we must ask ourselves is "Does God have the right to ask us to yield fruit?"

            In the case of the parable of the vineyard, we can see without any doubt that the owner has the right to ask the tenants for fruits. In our own case, are we under the impression that God does not have the right to ask the same of us? The gift of life that we have been given is a vineyard. Those of us who are baptized have been given a series of gifts in the sacraments. We are not just talking about the physical sort of gifts given to the tenants of the vineyard, but the gifts of the vineyard of the Lord. We have received the Word of God, many brothers and sisters in the Lord, the Magisterium of the church, the Holy Father. Do we think that all of this is our property, or our right? Is my attitude the same as that of the tenants of the vineyard? Do I, like them, think that my life is mine and no-one should dare to ask me to bear produce!

            Once I gave baptismal instruction to an adult, Michele, and he told me about the time he first opened his heart to the true meaning of life. He had passed his days as an atheist continually asking the question, "What meaning has life?" One day, when confronted with Christianity, he realized that life was asking him for meaning; that life had been confronting him with a series of questions that he hadn't responded to. And in order to learn to respond to them, he would have to recognize the existence of a higher authority, an owner who was looking for something from him. At that point he began the process of discovering the meaning of his life.

Life is not something to be possessed and used, but something to be given freely

It is a lazy and sterile attitude that seeks to possess life selfishly, that seeks to appropriate one's own vineyard, that sees life as being wholly mine, to be used as I alone see fit, that considers the body to my property, and time to be my time to be spent as I wish. This attitude to life is completely mistaken! If we have been born to love, then everything is the complete opposite. We possess our time truly only when we give it as a gift to others. That which is not ours cannot be given freely because it is not ours. And by the same token, it is only when we give something away freely that it attains its true meaning and becomes fully ours.

How does the owner challenge us to bear fruit? By sending servants that demand fruit of us.

Life is all about bearing fruit. There is no greater joy than to give one's life, to expend one's life for others. Life is not about the construction of a comfortable place in which I, and I alone, am in command. We must discover the higher authority, the vineyard owner that asks us to produce fruit, who helps us to grow, who pulls us out of ourselves, who makes us become fathers, mothers, sisters and brothers, who enables us to give our lives. How does he do that? This owner, this higher authority, sends many servants to us, one after the other, and the role of these servants is to demand fruit from us. These are people who are on our doorstep, in our midst, close to us, and we don't recognize them. In an in-law or spouse there is Christ who is saying "Bear me fruit". In a son there is Christ who is saying "Bear me fruit". "If you do it to the least of this you have done it to me". Mother Teresa of Calcutta repeated this continually; it was her fundamental motto - "you have done it to me" One must discover the beauty and fecundity of giving fruit. Life reaches fulfilment only in giving itself. Life springs from an act of love - an act of love on the part of God primarily - and the meaning of life is to respond to this love. God has given us a vineyard and our task is to make it bear fruit.

Let us leave behind the selfish tenant of the vineyard and become the faithful servant

God has given us existence, and it is a beautiful thing to bring that existence to fruition, but we must never get discouraged. If we have failed up to now, and if God is going to give our vineyard to a new tenant, then let that new tenant be the new me! Let us leave behind the avaricious tenant and become the faithful servant. Let us leave behind the egocentric occupant who wished to kill the Son in order to become the owner. This is a highly appropriate analogy for our generation that has renounced Christianity in order to have "full possession" of its life. And the new tenant that takes over the vineyard is a wonderful analogy for every generation that converts; for the new man that is in every one of us; that noble person who knows how one must respond to life; who accepts that life involves responsibility. All of us have the means to bear fruit, even those of us who are sick in bed, even those who are dying. In every instant of our life we can say "Yes!" to the call of God; to give that little that we are in possession of. It doesn't matter if it is little, what matters is that it is ours.

Twenty-Sixth Sunday in Ordinary Time  

Matthew 21:28-32

Translated from a homily by Don Fabio Rosini

Neither of the sons has an inclination to work, but one son overcomes his own inclinations

Jesus is in Jerusalem and has just caused havoc in the Temple, overturning the tables of the money-changers, chasing everyone out, and bringing to a complete halt the market that was in progress. The chief priests and the scribes want to know by whose authority he dares to do such outrageous things. Jesus is struck by the hypocrisy and intransigence of their attitude and he confronts them with the following parable.

            A man has two sons, and he approaches both of them with the same request – to go and work in his vineyard. The first says that he will not go, but he later repents and goes. The second son, instead, says he will go, but in fact doesn't. The issue to focus on here is that the two sons are actually of the same heart. Neither of them has any inclination to go and work in the vineyard. The first one admits openly that he is not inclined, whilst the second one shows us by his actions that he doesn't want to go. The difference between the two sons is that one of them obeys his own inclinations but the other does not.

Modern culture makes feeling an absolute, but most people have to go against what they feel in order to achieve anything

In today's world, that which we wish to do has become an absolute. The notion of the freedom to choose, of following one's desires, is placed at the heart of modern culture. But if we examine our daily lives closely, it simply isn't true that we follow our own inclinations all the time. If we were to do only what we wanted to do, then we wouldn't get very far in life. If people studied only when they felt like it, then who would ever complete his studies? If parents looked after their children only when it suited them, then how many children would be raised properly? If people cared for each other only when the mood was right, then who would tend to the sick? Our culture goes on about the absolute law of doing what we feel like, but in order to work, in order to achieve anything, we constantly go against our will.  In order to earn the acceptance of others, we have to do things that we are not inclined to do. In order to make a living, to have self-esteem, to buy a car, to build a house - time and time again we go against our will. And we manage to go against our will because we wish to achieve a specific goal that we have in mind.  

Spiritual growth requires going against my own inclinations and doing the will of God

But in the spiritual life, there is an inclination to think that we can just do whatever we feel like! If I only to do what I feel like, however, I will not be able to move one inch from where I am now. Unless I become of the same mind as the son who repents, the son who converts, who changes direction, who goes against what he feels like, who refuses to absolutize his own will; then I will remain a child for the rest of my life. I have to learn not to absolutize my desires, my instincts, that which I feel like doing. 

            There are high-priests of instinct in our culture, prophets of absolute spontaneity, of doing only what one feels like doing. The consequences of this approach are zero achievement, zero dependability, complete inconsistency. If a woman found out that the man she was about to marry was a complete slave of his own inclinations, who was incapable of going against what he felt like doing, then she would be foolish to marry him. Life with such a man would be like living with a narcissistic child.

The real point of this parable is obedience to God's will, not sincerity of  heart

So this parable is not so extraordinary after all, because the struggle to conquer one's inclinations is a common feature of daily life. What diverts attention from the principal point of the parable is the fact that we can sometimes focus on the insincerity of the second son's reply. The second son says yes, not because he really wants to work in the vineyard, but because he wants to keep his father happy. "If it keeps you happy for me to say yes, then I'll say yes". Today with the great emphasis we put on psychology, immense prominence is given to sincerity with oneself and with others. It is true that the second son needs to work on his sincerity. He is unable to confront his father with the truth about what he intends doing or not doing. He plays the obedient son. But whilst sincerity is a great value, there can be no doubt that the moral of this passage is NOT about being sincere about one's inner feelings. The real point of this parable is: "Let's see what these sons did concretely, regardless of the sincerity or insincerity of what they may have said". That this is the main point is revealed by the fact that at the end of the parable Jesus asks "Which of the two did his father's will?"

That God may not do our will, but that we may do His

In the end, people are judged by their deeds.     Anyone can profess great love for your neighbour, but let's see how they actually behave towards their neighbour. One can be a great proclaimer of the word of God but a very poor practitioner of the same. What really counts is to be obedient to God's word. What really changes our lives is not to hear a brilliant homily, to have a wonderful religious experience and to feel a great sense of inspiration. What counts is to be obedient to God. Obedience to the will of God always involves going against my own will. Jesus gave us an example in Gethsemane when he said "Not my will, but yours be done!"  The trauma of doing God's will has already been endured by the Son of God in his assumption of our flesh.

            Do we want to achieve the same thing? If we wish to have the gift of new life then we must leave our own lives behind. There is simply no other way. My will and my plans must not be absolutes. God is not a personal chaplain who comes whenever we summon him to bless our projects. Once I heard a holy monk say "You come here to church to ask God to support what you want to achieve. Try instead to ask God to help you to do what He wants!" What I want to achieve, after all, is very small, very parochial. Oh, that God may not do what I want! That God may do in my life what He wants! That God may not allow me to languish in the mediocrity of my own desires! That he may teach me to change my mind!

            The whole point of this parable is to teach us to change, to teach us not to remain immobile in the pursuit of our own inclinations. Unless one undergoes this trauma of obedience to God - which involves disobedience to one's self - unless one renounces oneself, unless one accepts concretely this act, this exercise, this obedience that God asks of him, then one will never know if God can save him or not; one will never know what it is like to be with God, to do things with him, to work in his vineyard.

Twenty-Fifth Sunday in Ordinary Time   

Matthew 20:1-16a

Translated from a homily by Don Fabio Rosini

An eccentric landowner with a strange sense of justice!

Here we have the classic passage in which labourers are hired at different times of the day, some in the morning, some during the day, and some in the evening, but all are given the same salary. This seems to be unjust, and the labourers who work longer start to complain. In order to comprehend this text, we must place it in its proper context in the Gospel of Matthew. The previous chapter in the Gospel tells of the rich young man called to follow Jesus, and of Jesus telling his disciples what they would receive for having given up everything to follow him. Chapter 19 finishes with the saying "Many who now are first will be last, and many who are now last will be first". Then Jesus recounts this  parable in which the last do indeed come first, and the first do come last, in thought-provoking circumstances!

            The story is about a landowner who goes out at dawn to hire labourers for his vineyard and agrees to pay them the regular daily wage, a single silver coin. Then he goes out at nine o'clock, hires some more labourers and promises to pay them a "fair wage". A fair wage in this case, one would think, should be less than the amount due to the ones who had begun work some hours earlier. The owner does the same thing at twelve o'clock and at three o'clock, promising each time a payment that is "fair". Late in the day, at five o'clock, he goes out again and says to the men standing around, "Why are you standing around here doing nothing?" The Greek word for "doing nothing" literally means "without work". They reply, "Because no-one hired us". This time the landowner simply says, "Go and work in my vineyard," and doesn't comment on the wage that he will pay. We will have to wait until the end of the day before we discover how much he will give to these who work for just one hour, and to those who were promised an unspecified "fair" wage.

            In the evening, when it is time to pay the wages, the owner calls the ones who were hired last to receive their wages first. He does this intentionally so that the ones who worked all day will see the wages given to the ones who worked less - a very provocative strategy hardly designed to boost labour morale! Those who had worked all day under the heat of the sun expect to receive more, so they grumble that the ones who worked for just one hour were given the same silver coin! The problem here, surely, is that the landowner had promised to pay a "just" wage to the ones who had been hired later in the day. Doesn't justice dictate that these late-comers be paid less?

A confrontation between two senses of justice

This appeal to our natural sense of justice makes us indignant at the blatant lack of fairness, in our eyes, being displayed by the landowner. But it is the intention of the parable to challenge our defective notion of justice and to confront it with a notion of justice that is completely other. This parable turns the normal human perspective on things on its head. To be called to be a disciple of Jesus Christ is to be called to live by a different logic, a paradoxical logic in which the first shall be last and the last first.

            In normal circumstances, when we think of the wage that is due to someone, we tend to think of the utility of the person's work, of their productivity, of their output. But what happens if we try to apply this logic consistently? According to this logic, the one who is efficient and productive has the right to be recompensed, and the one who is not productive has questionable value in the system. If this notion of "justice" is taken to its logical conclusion, then we find ourselves in an uncomfortable position. What do we do with the elderly, with someone who is no longer useful? What do we do with someone who is seriously ill, with someone who cannot work, or fulfil a productive role in society? Let us not pretend that the mentality of looking at the elderly, or the ill, or the unproductive with a disparaging eye is a mentality that is alien to us! We do tests on the foetus and discard those who cannot fulfil the role that we wish them to play in our lives. The logic of giving to a person that which is due to them in return for what they give to society takes us into a cynical, terrifying world. Is there anyone among us who could survive on the basis of the cold logic of being recompensed precisely according to that which we have merited? Is there anyone who could place themselves before the world, before God, and say "You must give me exactly what I have earned", without having to hope for mercy, patience, benevolence, magnanimity?

            If the value of our lives, if our inter-relationships with others, if our very existence is measured on the basis of that which is owed to us, then what would any of us receive? Do we truly want our account with God to be settled fairly and completely? It is not just the sick, the elderly, the discarded in society who need the other logic displayed by the eccentric landowner - all of us need that logic! All of us desperately need the late-comer not to be discarded; we need the last one to be gathered in and accepted - because there is a last one in all of us.

Are we really envious of those who do not work in the vineyard?

If we look at the parable from another perspective, we can see a bad attitude on the part of the first workers who complain that they have worked all day under the sun. In the face of the harsh reality of unemployment endemic in today's world, what does it really mean to work and not to work? It is a much harder situation not to have work! To have been hired at dawn by the landowner meant that this problem has been solved for the early labourers, the problem of earning bread for their family, to have found someone who gave them something to do. One of the hardest things in life to cope with is the feeling of being useless. One of the greatest existential sufferings is to have no-one that will take us into their vineyard, to have no-one that asks anything of us. Who, then, is the unfortunate one? The one who has worked much, or the one who hasn't found work for the entire day? The question posed by the owner to the late-comers was, "Why are you here without work?" And the reply was "Because no-one would hire us". Man simply cannot bear having nothing to do; he needs to have something good and important to accomplish; his deepest longing is to be hired in the vineyard of the good landowner.

            How many times are people converted to the Good News and ask themselves "What have I done up to now? Look at how I have wasted my existence up to now!" To work in the vineyard of the Lord is a gift, and not to work there is a form of suffering. In the modern world it is a common phenomenon to find people going through long phases of idleness and emptiness, of prolonged spiritual adolescences; to find adults of thirty-five years of age who are still at university, and who still haven't managed to extract something serious from life. The fortunate ones are the ones who were hired early, who have already managed to find the path of their existence, who have been employed in the good vineyard and who haven't been standing around wasting their existence.

The joy of working in the vineyard is itself the recompense of God          

And here is the other logic par excellence. "Are you are jealous of me because I am good?" challenges the owner. God is just in his way, not according to our sense of justice. According to the justice of God, it is right to be good and generous to everyone, even to the one who has worked little. For every father, for every parent who loves their child, justice is the caring for, and salvation of, and the employment of, and finding the way for that child so that he might be happy. That is the justice of God. What is more important? To receive more because I did more than others? Or to have found my reward by working in the vineyard, and to be happy to have found my reward, and to have the joy of being in the good vineyard and to be today in possession of the happiness of the recompense of God?

Not a parable about social justice but about the joy of fruitful relationship with God

This is not a parable about social issues! It is about existential issues, about questions of faith. It is a parable that prompts us to reflect on our relationship with God. Let us hope that many of our brothers and sisters, even at the last minute, discover the joy of working for the Father, and receive the recompense of God. I think that all of us are looking forward to seeing many people in paradise, a multitude of people receiving that heavenly recompense at the end of our working day. Whether we work much, or whether we work little, let us hope that we all go to paradise. Let us hope to find all of our friends there, even those who seem to us to be wasting their lives. Let us hope that at the last minute they convert and enter into the joy of the recompense of God.

Twenty-Fourth Sunday in Ordinary Time         

Matthew 18:21.35

Translated from a homily by Don Fabio Rosini

The ability to forgive is a sign of the presence of the Holy Spirit

This text is a continuation of the discourse on fraternal relations that we listened to in last Sunday's Gospel. The central focus of the passage is a challenge to enter into the mystery of one of the most profound deeds that we can perform in life, the most difficult deed of all to carry out, and an act that manifests the presence of the Holy Spirit in our hearts – the deed of forgiving, to know how to forgive. Reconciliation is a central issue in human life. Those who do not forgive carry enormous burdens on their shoulders, whilst those who reconcile themselves with their brothers and sisters free themselves from their own faults and from the faults of others, transforming destructive situations into positive opportunities for growth.

The parable of the unforgiving servant

In the text that comes just before this passage, Jesus had spoken about the extent we should go to in order to win back a brother who has offended us. Peter then asks how many times we should be willing to pardon someone who has offended us, and he himself suggests seven times. Jesus replies instead that we should be ready to forgive seventy times seven. Then he places a parable in front of us to help us understand what he wishes to say.

            A man owes one hundred thousand talents to his king. To the modern ear, the value of a talent is hard to appreciate, but it is clear that here we are speaking about an enormous sum. The king has compassion on him and absolves him from the loan, but as soon as the servant leaves he encounters a fellow servant who owes a much smaller amount. The first servant catches the second by the throat, demands his money back, and has his colleague thrown in prison until the full debt is repaid.

How can one who has just been pardoned be so unforgiving towards others?

It is hard to understand how the first servant could be so violent and aggressive in this situation. As soon as he is forgiven, he immediately disregards the forgiveness and munificence that has been shown to him, and he is cruel and inflexible with one who owes him a much smaller sum. Why is this the case? The key to understanding the passage is in the phrase uttered by the first servant to the king. He said "Be patient with me, and I will pay you back in full". Given the enormity of the debt, this plea is plainly absurd, but the man still insists that if only the king has patience, the full debt will eventually be cleared. In the end, we are to believe, the road to reconciliation is just a matter of the king having sufficient patience. This attitude on the part of the servant is frighteningly delusional, because there is quite simply no way that the ten thousand talents could have been repaid.

            What is the point of the passage? The root of the failure of the servant to transform forgiveness-received into forgiveness-given is the fact that he utterly failed to comprehend the nature of the gift that he had received. He was under the illusion that the debt that he owed was something that could have been put right (if the king had given him the chance) with sufficient effort and time. And he expected similar efforts at reparation from those who had offended him, leading him to treat them harshly.

Sin must be pardoned freely, not wiped away by human effort

This brings us to a painful aspect of life that we must confront and accept. It is simply not the case that we can undo, or make reparation for, the sins that we have committed. We can, however, be forgiven for our sins. Until we accept the fundamentally negative aspect of the sins we have committed, we will never appreciate the free pardon of God. There is a pervasive conviction abroad that, as long as I apply myself, I can put everything right, I can free myself from the negative consequences of my sin. But this is a grave error. The Lord Jesus died for sin and there is no other way for us to be reconciled to God. It is not that if we made a better effort, then we could do without Jesus. It is not that if we behaved ourselves a little better, or if we were a little better organised, then we could get on without a saviour. No, all of us are radically in need of God's unconditional pardon.

Once we realize that we have been freely pardoned, only then we learn how to forgive others

To have the correct perception of our sins as something pardoned unconditionally by God, opens us to forgive those who have sinned against us. How can I pass judgement on others if I reflect on my own faults? How can I insist on reparation from others for offences that are relatively minor in comparison to the offences I have committed against God? God, after all, knows my heart. No matter how wholesome my life might appear to others, he knows my thoughts, he knows of the ten thousand talents that I can never restitute to him.

            There is a road of mercy and there is only one way to tread it, and that is to realize that the mercy that has been shown to us is unconditional in nature. In the Gospel of Luke we read: "He who is pardoned little, loves little". Even though it might make our hearts bleed, we must accept the negative fact that we cannot repay our debts by our own efforts. We must escape from the illusion that, if we only apply ourselves, we might accomplish great things. This illusion cripples our ability to show forgiveness to others. We are slow in the act of pardoning others because, at the end of the day, we persist in the illusion of our own innocence.

Twenty-Third Sunday in Ordinary Time 

Matthew 18:15-20

Translated from a homily by Don Fabio Rosini

A passage that is normally interpreted as dealing with internal relations in the church
This passage is normally viewed as the discourse of Jesus that addresses the question of internal relations in the church. What is at issue here is not a trivial disagreement between two individuals, or a vague grievance that one person might have against another. Here we are dealing with an interpersonal relationship between two people that has been fractured in a serious way; we are talking about a transgression with substance. The correct response to this offence, we are told, is to speak to the offender in person. If he listens to you, then you have won back a brother. If he doesn't want to listen, confront him about his offence in the presence of one or two others. If the issue is still not resolved, then it's time to take more serious steps: raise the issue in front of the Christian community. At this point, if the issue is still not resolved, then treat him as if he were a pagan or publican.

The sole objective of the words of Jesus in this passage - To win back a brother

The entire logic of this passage is dependent on a single term whose importance we must not underestimate. The text speaks of "regaining" a brother, "winning back" a brother that was lost and that must be regained. This brother may have committed a serious offence, but the issue is NOT that an injustice has been done, but that a brother has been lost. If this brother has offended me in such a serious way, then he evidently no longer considers me to be his brother. In response, we are exhorted to talk it out with him - not in order that justice may be done - but that he may be won back. This is the fundamental value at issue in the text.

Following the Lord in seeking out the lost

The passage makes use of a very definite strategy, and that is to prompt a response to the following question: Is there anyone who is listening to these words who would permit himself to lose a brother? Speaking on a personal level, would I permit myself to lose a brother? Would my life be the same following such a loss? Whether he happens to be flesh of my flesh, or a brother that is bound to me in the faith, can I carry on in the same way without him? Are we already in possession of such wealth that we can afford to lose him? Can we let him go without inflicting damage on ourselves? Maybe the real issue is that we can't permit ourselves to appear before the Lord without having all our brothers with us. The Lord Jesus gave his life to gain his brothers, and the same Lord shows us how to win back those who have been lost. The whole point of this discourse is not to discuss some sort of procedure for exacting justice from a brother who has gone astray, but to show us how to win back a brother who has been lost.

Treating someone like a publican is a way of winning him back
 When someone comes to you to criticize something you have done, you understand right away if his criticism is made in love or if he is simply engaging in an act of expressing bitterness. This passage is directed towards the brother who criticizes, and we are all that brother. We shouldn't think that the target of these comments is the one who is criticized. The Gospel is telling us how we should manage our relationships with those who have hurt us; how to behave towards those who have offended us so that we might win them back. And this is what Jesus asks us to do: First, speak with your heart to the one who offends you to win him back. Second, if he doesn't listen, take other people along so that they can say to him: "Look how much he wants to regain you as a brother!" Third, if he still doesn't respond, bring him in front of the whole community and say: "I declare in front of everyone that I want to win you back as a brother. I can't carry on without making peace with you. This rupture that exists between us shouldn't go on, because you and I are brothers". Four, if you can't win him over in these ways, then how will you regain him? By treating him as if he were the pagan or publican.

Treating someone like a publican is not to exclude him, but to love him unconditionally

In order to comprehend the ecclesial practice of excommunication, used only by the Church in grave cases, then we should look to the Pauline texts where such exclusion is therapeutic in objective. Exclusion of such sort is ultimately directed towards regaining a brother, waking up a brother who doesn't realize the gravity of what he is doing. But in the comments of Jesus that we are considering today, something else entirely is at issue. In Matthew's Gospel in general, the pagan and the publican are not people to be excluded, but to be loved. In the same Gospel of Matthew, when Jesus proclaims the Kingdom of Heaven in the Sermon on the Mount, we are told to love our enemies, to do good to those who hate us. In other words, this passage is exhorting us to behave as follows: When you are grievously offended, try to talk to the offender, then try to get someone else to help you to talk to him, then tell him publicly that you have nothing against him, that you want to repair the relationship with him, that you want to win him back. If he still doesn't accept your attempts at repairing the relationship, then, at that point, you have no other option but to love him as he is. Love him, pagan or publican, as he is, offer yourself for him. This is the way it has to be. With some people you can talk to them about Christ, but with others you just have to be Christ. With some people you can enter into fruitful dialogue, with others you just have to love them freely, receiving nothing in return.

Not a three-step procedure for exacting justice from an offender, but a FOUR-step strategy aimed at winning back a brother

How could we ever think that Christ would authorize us to exclude or condemn offenders just because they didn't repent? Jesus died on the cross for those who offended him! And yet we persist in thinking that in this passage Jesus authorizes exclusion? The Church's practice of deciding when someone should or should not be allowed to receive the sacraments is one particular issue. But the forging of fraternal relations is another matter and it must always be our first concern. In summary, this passage is not a three-step legal procedure aimed at settling a quarrel with a brother, and then, when the three steps fail, in the last resort we eject him from our company. No, this is a four-step strategy, each phase of which is aimed at winning back a brother who is already lost. If, after the first three attempts at dialogue, he continues to behave as if I were no longer his brother, I am then called to respond with the ultimate strategy reserved for the pagan and the publican, the ones who are to be loved without condition. I must love them as they are.