Keep greed out of your heart

I'm sorry, Excellency, but I haven't the foggiest clue where you are getting the idea that in this Gospel parable, the servant who buried his talent is, somehow, the admirable one.

It is evident that the Lord is commending those who took the talents they had received and increased them. When we take our gifts, our talents, and share them, rather than bury them in the ground, we increase those gifts and we benefit those around us.

The servant who buried his talent did nothing at all. He was a lazy servant, one who buried lest he use it and, in so doing, lose it and thus provoke his master's anger, which he feared. How did his fear, his laziness, benefit him? How did it benefit anyone else?

No this parable, like the one before of the foolish and wise virgins (incidentally, in that parable, the Lord was praising the wise virgins who had more oil than they needed), is telling us of the coming of the Son of Man. He warns us that He will return when we least expect it, and He expects that we will have done something productive and beneficial with the talents and gifts that He has entrusted to us. For, if we have not, then our fate will that of the wicked, slothful servant, who will have his one talent taken away and will be thrown into the darkness, "where there will be wailing and grinding of teeth".

I agree, the good Bishop got it wrong. Third guy buried his gifts in the dirt and helped no one.

Joe Mader

Thank you Bishop for speaking out against greed. We need to share what we have with poor pople.

Bishop got it absolutely correct. If Jesus was here advising behavior toward the banks would he ask us to make more money for them to allow their profits to be larger. No he would ask that they lend more at lower rates -do not forget that usury is not allowed- Why are we so enthralled with this love of money? I am sure that when I die, my bank statement is what the will get me eternal reward.

Well, the "master" is not God, the Bishop notes.
And he is also a greedy person who is commending his subordinate greedy servants.
The whole point is that Jesus puts shame on the whole group of greedy folks, who are, to this day, to be commonly admired.

There seems that there is more than one way to interpret this parable. Certainly Bishop Gumbleton's approach makes sense and is supported by others such as Sr.Barbara Reed in her America column on the Sunday readings. Another view that appealed to me last Sunday was that proposed by Fr. Raymond Collins in Emmanuel magazine, namely, the parable encourages risk on the part of the disciple and is seen in light of preparing for the second coming of the Lord. In other words Idon't think it's a question of "right and wrong" or that "one size fits all." God's word is rich with rich texture and variety.
Fr. John Manahan S. M.

He is right. Did you hear the line that the talent burying servant says about how the Master reaps where he does not sow? How he was afraid of losing the talent? I read another homily similar to this just the other day.

Since one may credit the cowardly servant with prudence, and another may praise the two investing servants for confidence, it seems we can be both right and wrong, to use two old-fashioned words. Perspective is everything. Greed is bad, we must all agree. There's an old schoolboy joke: "Jesus saves, Moses invests." If to some people investing is good as long as you're not greedy, maybe we should take the word "talent" in this parable to mean a sum of money rather than a natural gift, like strength or intelligence. My Jerusalem Bible comments that the servants are expected by their master, Jesus, to use their gifts so that the kingdom may grow on earth. We are advised to compare this parable with that of the "pounds," as told in Luke, 19:12-27. In the website of Creighton University's "Daily Reflections" for last Sunday, Larry Gillick, S.J. compares the sums to degrees of faith. For him and me, faith overcomes cowardice. Much faith will be rewarded, lack of faith will result in angry criticism and expulsion into darkness and misery. We can hope for mercy, but this parable doesn't suggest it.

It is interesting to understand that sometimes we are consistently taught to interpret something a certain way and that this has the effect of making alternative interpretations seem out of the question or even inconceivable. Bishop Tom's interpretation is at first a bit of a jolt but, after shedding some years of interpretation, quite plausible.

Many, many, many things are like that in our religion, and we are closing ourselves off to spiritual content if we do not try to keep a fresh attitude toward the texts.

There are many examples. Here is one. Does "Son of God" or "Son or Man" mean what we have been told repeatedly in sermons? Could the meaning of the incarnation be that we are all "children of God," and that Jesus was someone who realized this spiritual fact fully? Then, to return to Bishop Tom's opening subject, does not the "second coming" of Jesus occur whenever we see God in another?

A new interpretation to my ears. Good job, Bishop Gumbleton.

Tom,
Thanks so much for your weekly homilies. They keep us close to the basics and, so, to the heart of Christ. Hope you're staying healthy. All the best to you. John Gargan (Casa S. Maria '65)

Amen Bp Gumbleton.
Because greed will consume us if not consciously and actively kept out of our life equation.

Bishop G. look into the Acuman Fund for an example of Jacqueline Novogratz, who does just what you are talking about. She/her fund invests in others, people, human beings, Gods creation. So that those Third World peoples can work to climb out of their endless soul stealing poverty. I believe she is a Catholic.

You might want to learn more about her and speak about her efforts. She might even be able to come to your area, Detroit, to speak. You and Rev. Jim Wallis should invite her, in order to give her work more exposure and publicity and an example of the use of ones talents in service to those, the least of HIS brethren.

You said: "we need enough, but not more than enough". As we know, the native American Indians lived by that simple yet so profound way.

Of course the main thrust of this sermon is giving for others. I believe that is a very liberal pov. As such it is totally opposed by the Republican party. They who are enabled by the Religious Right are now, once again, in near total control of America.

Are you asking us liberals to go against the Republicans and endure further hatred. The likes of Kevin Phillips(who now regrets his southernization of the GOP), Lee Atwater, Karl Rove, Frank Luntz, the false god Ronald Reagan/Milton Friedman/Ayn Rand, etc, and their Nazi-like propaganda machine have used Trickle-down economics, terrorism and Pro-life and Family Values to neutralize, disempower and disenfranchise(vote stealing and with the help of Scalia, M. Connell, et.al) we liberals. As near as I can tell there is nothing more we can do. With the help of their enablers, the Religious Right, we liberals are now targeted and deeply hated. How much more can we do? We are at a near standstill. I see nothing good coming out of any of this.

Apropos of that last---
Please recall, that more than dozen people have been shot, some even killed by conservatives who hate government. Two of the shooters had Hannitys and O'Reillys books in their cars. That Altar Boy, Timothy McVeigh bombed Oklahomas Murrah Federal Bldg. I am not counting the death toll in Afghanistan and Iraq, done by fearful and hateful Republicans. But the death toll in America must now be in the hundreds.

Did you know that there are 932 hate groups in America. Almost all hate government, are white supremacist/racists, espouse Republicanism, espouse Nazism and Southern values and either Christianity and fully intend to either take over our government or destroy it. The current one(today) is from Idaho which is the state that houses more of these groups than any other. Interestingly enough, Sarah Palins birth family, the Heaths, were Catholics who came from northern Idaho!!

To me, this is really all about pecuniary interests and political power. And, very little more. They are frightened and viciously angry people who have been convinced that they are losing their power over others and THEIR wealth. The pope and many of the bishops fear that they are losing their control and they are. So, they are crashing trashing and thrashing around like a berserk bull in a china shop; the china shop of peoples feelings and the china shop that is America and the China shop of our democracy. But, instead of making things better they are making them far,far worse!!!

I only wish I were in Detroit. I would love to talk to you at great length. I have served Mass for two bishops and more than a dozen priests. I and they all seemed to think as you do. But now we are at a complete standstill. One of those bishops is a dear friend that I have known since my teens. Of course I'll never mention their names as the Pro-lifers would attack them. One of them was already verbally attacked in a vicious manner for only trying to bring some light into all of the heat and hateful rhetoric, in his own diocese.

Throughout all of these past 30 some years I have oft wondered exactly how much of this mess is really Pro-life and Family Values and how much is really racism and monetary greed.

Bp. Gumbleton, thanks for an excellent piece of writing/homily, one reflecting your talents. Also, I am sorry for the grief you have endured. The goods nuns told us we might have to endure hatred even death for our faith. Little did I know how truly prescient were those claims. Also, I now have some small/tiny idea of what the totally innocent Jews must have endured in Nazi Germany.

As a liberal, I have repeatedly written that America and the world must be a much better placed for everyone. I have written about this on many websites. But to no avail, obviously. However, what the Republicans and like-minded peoples have done to Native Americans(destroyed their culture), they have done to Blacks, Hispanics, even legal Hispanics(Phyllis Schlafly) and are now doing to everyone of us 260+ million Americans who do not think exactly like them.

Blessings dear bp Gumbleton. All the best to you. May God be with you. May the Holy Spirit help you endure.

bob

I think we all agree, and understand that 'Greed' is a sin. Plain to understand. There are many passages on the Bible in which Jesus clearly speaks of it. But I also believe that our dear Bishop (he will always be Bishop to me)Gumbleton had it wrong this time. The rich man was 'entrusting' his possessions to them. He praised those who faithfully made more with what was entrusted to them.
The complaint of the third man is interesting, though: (Matt. 25:24-25)"And the one also who had received the one talent came up and said, ‘Master, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you did not sow and gathering where you scattered no seed. And I was afraid, and went away and hid your talent in the ground. See, you have what is yours"
If like Bishop Gumbleton rightly says these talents are not just money, but gifts from God, it means that this man was one who didn't know how, or didn't want to do more with what was entrusted to him. He was expected to act, to be fruitful. His complaint about his master being one who reaped where he didn't sow and gathered where he had scattered no seed, seems 'just' , but it is not. Not in the context of the story. Doesn't it rather mean that when God gives us a gift, when he entrusts us with his talents, it is us who have to make something good, better, more with them, and not expect God to do it for ourselves. Where would our merit be? where would our love for him expressed?
We all make mistakes, and there is nothing shameful about it. It is all a beautiful lesson!

Obviously, Jesus was not speaking about talents as we think of in English. I have a talent for playing the piano, but I cannot imagine how that talent could be taken from me and given to someone else who had no musical ability. Yet the king had the one talent taken form the lowly servant and had it given to the most "profitable" one. Other Gospel translations do not use the word talent and instead use a word meaning money. As said above, the king also was not God.
The best expanation of this parable I have read is from Richard Rohr's book, "Simplicity," in the chapter, Less Is More. Jesus is referring to an actual historical event about which his listeners would have known. The king was Archalaos, and the parable mirrors some of his story. Archalaos had gone to Rome for a time and appointed viceroys who collected oppressive taxes. The king's citizens did send a delegation to tell him not to come back. The king was indeed severe and reaped where he did not sow, which indicated ill gotten gains.
We are called not to play along with the System and that we may have to pay a price for our opposition. This is precisely what happened to Jesus when He challenged the prevalent status quo.
Regarding the parable of the wise and Foolish Virgins, might it be interpreted:
The wise virgins spent all they had, did not hold back, in being prepared for the wedding. The foolish virgins were holding back, keeping some money for themselves; hedging their bets, as so to speak.
Therefore, to be prepared for God's kingdom you need to be totally committed to God's way, not man's way, since a man (or woman) cannot serve two masters. Also, to be ready for the Wedding, one must be willing to "sell all" whether to obtain sufficient oil, or to obtain the "pearl of great price," as mentioned in another parable.
We need the "buy in" to God's way, whatever it may cost us to do so.

I respectfully disagree. In Luke 12 Jesus warns agains hypocricy not greed! As I read the Bishops homily, (last few paragraphs) it becomes clear he is attempting to make a political statement, not a spiritual one. I find this very unfortunate because I believe the majority of Catholic Christians across the country are not guilty of greed. However, they are worried about keeping their homes, jobs, paying for college, saving for retirement. I don't know of anyone storing up wealth and to insinuate they are is a moral breach in my view.

People generally don't glorify the wealthiest, as the Bishop implies. In fact, most of the people that I know have little respect for those who accumulate wealth without earning it. People do however admire success and achievement.

I read over the weekend the Diocese of Orange County, CA plans to pay $57Million for the Crystal Cathedral. As a Catholic, I find this to be poor stewadship and boardering 'Hypocricy'.

I found some of the comments “disagreeing” with Bishop humorous because, to me, it seemed that the face value of the story is the only interpretation which, of course, is a form fundamentalism that Hot Topics just covered. Further, it does not take into account the purpose and style of a parable and too often waters a parable down to an allegory and a moral lesson. A cursory look at Dei Verbum clearly states that time period, culture, audience, literary form are all to be taken into consideration when studying sacred Scripture. In fact, parables are parables because they cannot be interpreted without further reflection – see footnote in the Bible. It would seem to me that we very quickly brush over the parts in the parable that clearly are disturbing in order to stay with our version. This is sad because the parables, in fact, all of the gospel are “there to afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted” (St. Augustine).

Bishop Gumbleton - I look forward to your homilies and share them with my students. Thank you.

"In the peasant society in which Jesus lived, that was the way people lived when they weren't consumed with greed."

Mountaindweller and this bishop have the right of it.
Whenever we take the scriptures out of the original context we engage in eisegesis. The other issue becomes when one automatically reads the "master" as representative of GOD which then can skew the interpretation of the parable because how could God be the bad guy in the story! "It is interesting to understand that sometimes we are consistently taught to interpret something a certain way and that this has the effect of making alternative interpretations seem out of the question or even inconceivable" (Mountaindweller)

Barbara Reid O.P. Ph.D has a series of three books on the parables titled "Parables for Preachers" which follows the three year cycle of the church from Liturgical Press. Excellent series!

Here is an excerpt regarding the parable of the talents:

A Tale of Terror
"The above interpretations have recently been challenged by scholars who use insights from social science. Taking the stance of a peasant, and placing our sympathies with the third slave, not the master, yields a very different story. In contrast to capitalist mores, which view wealth as something that can be increased by hard work or investment, the world of the parable is, rather, one of limited good. In such a culture it is thought that there is only so much wealth; any increase to one person takes away from another. The aim of the peasant was to satisfy the needs of his family, not to amass wealth. From this perspective, the man who expects his money to be increased is the wicked one, who is unfettered in his greed. The purpose of his journey is to increase his investments and initiate new business schemes. He is building new patron-client relationships and is currying favor with imperial overlords. Moreover, he is nor observant of the Torah, as is evident in v. 27. Usury was forbidden by Exodus 22:25; Leviticus 25:36-37; Deuteronomy 23:29.
The third servant, then, is not wicked, except in the eyes of those who are greedy acquisitors or those who are co-opted by them, as are the first two servants. The third slave is the one who has acted honorably by blowing the whistle on the wickedness of the master. The estimation of the master as demanding is correct, as is the observation that he acquires money he does not earn (v. 24). He exploits the labor of others who do the planting; and he knows how to manipulate money exchanges to his advantage. Verse 29 may be taken as an interpretive comment, denouncing the injustice visible in such practices whereby the rich continually get richer and the poor keep losing even the little they have. The parable is a warning to the rich to stop exploiting the poor and is one that encourages poor people to take measures that expose the greed for the sin that it is. Verse 30 is a sobering, realistic note of what can happen to those who oppose the rich and powerful............................................This evidence would confirm that the more appropriate reading of the parable is one in which the slave who buried the money is the one who acted commendably" (Reid 207-209).

Cheers,

Interesting, very interesting. I have always wondered about this one and something in the more usual interpretation goes against the grain a bit. Good point about firstly taking things in the context of the time. I think these stories have "layers" and are open to interpretation, God's word being both specific at the time and universal. I don't see anything wrong in various interpretations....as long as we keep sight of the original context and be a little bit wary of interpretations that don't quite fit. On a related note, another one where I can't help feeling a bit like stuffing square pegs into round holes is the divorce and remarriage question, and the "except in the case of fornication" clause. In Jesus' time everything was in the hands of the man, and the no divorce rule would have been a protection for women and encouraging men to view marriage as a lifelong partnership of love rather than seeing women as a commodity. The no divorce rule presents the ideal marriage, but when applied rigidly, what about for example the innocent party who has been abandoned? I asked a priest about that and he gave me a very long explanation of how the Church interprets the passage, but he seemed to be jumping through hoops to try to prove a point. I would really appreciate Bishop Gumbleton's explanation on that point please. Sorry, gone off the main subject here a bit. Mental leap.

"I wonder how many of those same bloggers believe it is acceptable to revise their interpretation of Scripture regarding homosexuality"

Uh, which interpretation is that? Yours? the church's? the homophobes? those who practice eisegesis rather than exegesis? Just wondering......wasn't clear from your comment where you were headed.................

Cheers,