Prodigals

This post is a response to Ohevin’s post on a closed page in which he cites the parable of the prodigal son in relation to the return of C.T.A. members to Communion.

Hollywood loves to paint a villain as a real bad apple so, when the good guy blows him away, we all cheer and say he got exactly what he deserved. Even Hollywood has never done as masterful a job of this as does the parable of the Prodigal Son. The lad goes from the son of a well off Jewish family to a friendless foreigner slopping pigs. A.A. should make him the poster child for defining the underside of the bottom of the barrel.
There he sat, looking at the swill the pigs were eating and wishing to stick in his hand and pull out a corn cob to chew on. How low can one sink? He has betrayed everything and everyone. He could not possibly have been guilty of greater sin. Now, read carefully what happens next. He suddenly comes to his senses and realized the hired hands in his father’s house are better off than he is. The story, while it certainly indicates he is sorry for himself, does not say he is sorry for his sins. Oh, yes, he is sorry about where his sins got him, but nowhere does it say he is sorry for sinning. He comes up with a plan and, personally, I find his motives very suspect. I know what I will do, he thinks, I will go home and say to my father, “I have sinned against God and against you (true) and I am not worthy to be called your son (also true). Treat me as one of your hired hands (even this would be very generous). So, with his plan all thought out, he heads for home rehearsing his little speech on the way. While he is yet far off, and long before he gets a chance to rattle off his spiel, his father sees him and runs to greet him. Still before the boy has a chance to say anything, the father throws his arms around the boy’s neck and kisses him. It is only now that the lad gets a chance to speak, but the father, if he hears him at all, pays no attention. He says nothing of how terribly wrong his son was nor does he demand a public (or even private) apology. Rather, he sends for the finest robe, a ring and shoes for his feet. He orders the fatted calf killed and a feast prepared.

You see, the story is really not about the son, it is about the father. Just as Hollywood sets up the bad guy for a fall, so too is this story of the son setting up, not for the justified wrath of the father which one might expect, but to bring out starkly the loving forgiveness of the father. The father had forgiven the son long before the son ever reflected on what he had done. The father’s love and forgiveness were not contingent upon the son’s return and the sincerity of the boy’s reasons for returning was never questioned. It was only when he was welcomed back by a father who ran out to meet him that the boy realized how loved he was.

C.T.A. members are in no way like the prodigal son and, unfortunately, the Magisterium is in no way like the father. They did not ask to leave, they were told to leave and please don’t give me that Papal Bull about them excommunicating themselves. Their “sin” was (is) to question some of the Magisterium’s teachings which, quite frankly, are questionable. The Magisterium can stand on infallibility all it wants, but its errors are giving it away.

This Gospel, in the parable of the prodigal son, has given the Magisterium a model to follow and, if it fails to follow, who is not in harmony with the teaching of Christ and the will of God? If the Magisterium cannot follow the teaching of Christ, why is anyone required to follow the teachings of the Magisterium?

I would like to say to members of C.T.A., I do not agree with you in all things, but I do respect your right to question. Rome may tell you that you are not welcome at the Table of the Lord, but Rome is not the Church, we are the Church, and I believe I speak for many when I say you are very welcome at the Table of the Lord.