Neo-Catechumenal Gathering

+ Cardinal George Pell, Archbishop of Sydney
21 Sep 2008

At first glance this parable of Our Lord is one of the most disconcerting of the parables, because it goes against our normal way of thinking.  Those who work for a longer period of time receive more than those who perform the same tasks for a shorter period of time.

The parables of Jesus often have an unexpected twist to them and so they make us think.  We have to ponder the teaching which works at another and different level from the surface account.  These difficulties explain why the parables are still powerful after nearly 2000 years and also why young children cannot grasp the meaning of many of them.

If the parables are interesting because some elements of the teaching are unexpected, contrary to common sense, does this mean that the Lord himself not only provides surprises in his teaching, but is capricious and not reasonable?  The Popes speak of faith and reason, but is the teaching of Jesus reasonable in this story?  We know, with the prophet Isaiah, that our thoughts are not God’s thoughts, because we are not God, and that God’s thoughts are more excellent than ours, but are God’s thoughts reasonable, even when we cannot understand them, because we do not know the whole picture?

First of all we must acknowledge that the owner of the vineyard is not unjust, because the workers who started early in the morning agreed to work for the day for one denarius. If the daily wage was insufficient, they would have complained or refused to work.

The surprise comes from the fact that the owner is generous, paying those who start at midday and even those who begin in the late afternoon the same amount as those who began in the morning.

This story, according to Our Lord, tells us about the Kingdom of Heaven so it seems that God too is generous with late-starters, with those who appear to deserve less, a consistent theme in a number of Jesus’ teachings.

The good shepherd leaves the ninety-nine safe sheep to search for the one that is lost.  We hear of more joy over the repentance of one sinner than over the many good people.  So too the father of the prodigal son, who dissipated his inheritance before repenting and returning to his father’s house, gives a special welcome and celebrates the return with a great feast.

The entry of the good thief into heaven on the day of Jesus' death is an example of this teaching in action.

Our reaction to this parable is like that of the prodigal son’s older brother.  We think in terms of strict justice, rather than in mercy.  When we believe we are better than someone else, we seek justice.  We seek mercy, when we feel that our position is weaker.

The Christian doctrine of the forgiveness of sin by God is more than strict justice, because we believe that the greatest sinners and criminals can be forgiven if they repent.  As I explain regularly to young people, even Hitler and Stalin could be forgiven, if they repented.  Young Australians know of Hitler, but few know of Stalin!  But, by any standards, Hitler and Stalin would be late entrants into the Kingdom of Heaven.

The parable is also another example of Jesus’ attitude to riches.  He was not much interested in money, which he regarded as dangerous.

We might be tempted to think the parable is about the Jews and pagans, who came much later to the truth.  But the first workers were happy to work in the vineyard, while many of the Jews refused Jesus’ call to conversion.

And finally I must confess that this is not a good text for a cardinal because the first will be the last.  I suppose our best hope is that the Lord does not see a cardinal’s hat as placing a person in first position!

In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.  Amen.