Probing the Parables, by John Carberry

When defending the faith by refuting heresies or supporting Catholic teachings, a
discussion of Christ’s parables seems conspicuous by its absence. And yet many of these
parables provide a wealth of support for Catholic apologetics. Not only do the parables
support truth, but they often appear to be directly on topic for the concept that is being
argued. Consider several examples.


The Wedding Feast (Faith and Works)


Since Martin Luther broke away from the Catholic Church in the early 1500’s, an issue
that often divides Catholics and protestants is whether faith alone is sufficient to bring
eternal life. No one disputes that God alone is the final judge, but can the wrong actions
of believers end in eternal destruction? The Wedding Feast seems to provide an obvious
answer, yes.

Most Catholics are familiar with Mathew’s rendition of the parable of The Wedding
Feast (Mt 22.1-14). This gospel is read at Mass every three years during the latter half of
ordinary time in the A-Cycle Sunday series. The king sends out servants with invitations
to a wedding feast. Many reject the invitation, so additional invitations are sent out to a
broader selection of potential guests. Many of these reject the invitation also, but several
do show up. Of the guests that do come, a man is rejected because he is not wearing the
proper wedding garment.

What is this wedding garment? While Christ minimized the importance of clothing (Mt
6.25-33, Lk 12.22-28), he clearly emphasized the importance of the symbolism of the
wedding garment. Scripture points out repeatedly that the garment is justice (works).
The saint’s good deeds are likened to the white linen garment of the bride (Rv 19.7-8).
Isaiah compares the garments of salvation and justice to the apparel of the wedding party
(Is 61.10). Other Scripture passages combine the aspects of faith and justice as if they are
inseparable (Is 11.5, Jer 5.1, Bar 5.2, Sir 27.8).

Zechariah’s two shepherd staffs, Favor and Bonds, present these two elements. Favor
represents breaking off the covenant because of the people’s unfaithfulness (Zec 11.10).
The other staff, Bonds, represents the breaking off of the brotherhood of Israel and Judah
(Zec 11.14). Once again, the relationship of faith and brotherhood are represented
symbolically. The price of the shepherd’s life, 30 pieces of silver, was the same as the
ransom for a gored slave (Zec 11.12, Ex 21.32, Mt 26.15-16).
The acceptance of the invitation is a call to faith while the proper garment is the sign of
one’s good works. Both are necessary to partake in the feast because many are called,
few are chosen (Mt 22:14).


The Sower (Is the law absolute or relative?)


Ask a 12 year-old to explain the parable of The Sower and he may look as though he had
been asked to explain quantum mechanics. But ask the same kid what 3 characters
Dorothy met when she walked down the yellow brick road in The Wizard of Oz and he
will yell out the answer faster than he can say his name. There certainly seems to be a
linkage between the symbolism of these two stories. Christ compares the seed that fell on
the footpath, the thorn bush and the rocky ground to the one who does not understand,
care about or endure the challenges that life dishes out (Mt 13.1-23, Mk 4.1-20, Lk 8.4-
15). Dorothy encounters the scarecrow, the tin man and the lion and notices their
shortcomings: no mind, no heart and no courage.

Now ask the father of this 12 year-old to reconcile the seed that fell on the footpath to the
new age concepts of relativism, consequentialism and proportionalism and he may look
as perplexed as if his pre-teen had asked for help on a math word problem. New age is a
term often applied to various theological and philosophical theories that have developed
over the last 50 years. Relativism is a new age concept implying that the law of God is
dependent on the belief of the individual rather than being absolute for all people. In the
encyclical Veritatis Splendor (The Splendor of Truth-1993), Pope John Paul II describes
the terms consequentialism and proportionalism. Consequentialism looks only at the end
result (consequence) of a given action to determine it moral correctness. Proportionalism
is an adoption of the lesser of two evils philosophy. Relativism, consequentialism and
proportionalism all deny the absoluteness of truth and are therefore unacceptable as
Catholic doctrine.

Like the scarecrow without a mind, the seed that fell on the footpath represents the one
who fails to understand the word of God. Just as the pharaoh was able to get his
magicians to replicate several of the miracles performed by God through Moses, the
illusion offered by the secular world is often used to contradict Church teachings. Christ
warned of false prophets and false teachers. The remedy that Christ offered was the
power of the Holy Spirit acting through the Church. When the apostles speak in tongues
on Pentecost Sunday, they overcome the confusion brought on by the sinners at the
Tower of Babel (Gn 11:6-9).

Wisdom begins with desire. Solomon’s request for an understanding heart illustrates
how wisdom can only come from God. The search for wisdom is the first step. This
pursuit is unfortunately made in many mediums in the secular world rather than from its
true origins, Sacred Scripture and the Church. These sources can only be approached
with a humble heart.

The failure to understand involves that most dreaded sin, presumption. The people who
built the Tower of Babel did whatever they presumed (Gn 11.6). King Saul loses his
kingdom after he is presumptuous before the Lord (1 Sm 15.23). King David is quick to
impose a death sentence on the person who committed the actions presented before him
by Nathan the prophet, until Nathan says that the King is the guilty party (2 Sm 12.1-12).
Luke shows how the bad thief is blinded at Christ’s crucifixion when he scoffs at Christ’s
seemingly helpless predicament, while the good thief recognizes God’s holiness (Lk
23.39-43).

One is expected to be certain in his faith, but to question his moral judgments. Instead,
many people express doubt about their faith, yet they feel certain that their actions are
proper. Life issues such as abortion, euthanasia, and contraceptives are considered by the
Church to always be wrong. Yet many consider that there is flexibility regarding these
issues. Materialistic issues such as gluttony, avarice and sloth seem more subjective, and
yet many people decide these issues with a degree of certitude. Only one with fear of the
Lord can recognize the certainty of some issues, while seeing that God alone will decide
other issues. And no one knows how God will curve this test.

The Baltimore Catechism begins by explaining that the purpose of man’s existence is to
know God, love Him and serve Him. It is only when one makes that initial move toward
knowledge that he can love God with his whole mind. Christ’s discussion of the last
judgment indicates that there will be some surprises (Mt 25.37, 44).

President Lincoln noted the inconsistency of relevancy. In the middle of the cινιℓ ωαr,
he reflected upon the concept. “In great contests each party claims to act in accordance
with the will of God. Both may be, and one must be wrong. God can not be for, and
against the same thing at the same time.”


The Barren Fig Tree (Sex and Money)


It wasn’t too many years ago that many would criticize the Church for never speaking
about anything but sex and money. That criticism is not too prevalent today. Both topics
are no longer normal fodder for Sunday homily topics. But that doesn’t mean that the
topics are not front and center on the agenda of many fellow Catholics. As many
Catholics try to rationalize birth control, pre-marital sex, sodomy or ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, the
Church has remained consistent in its viewpoint. And while a hedonistic attitude of live
for today because tomorrow you die often dominates the culture, the stewardship
responsibility regarding material wealth pokes up its head throughout Scripture.

The issues were certainly not overlooked in Christ’s time. The misuse of money and sex
was the downfall of the prodigal son, who squandered his inheritance on prostitutes and
wasteful spending (Lk 15.13, 30). Christ often referred to the harlots and the publicans,
or the tax collectors. The Jews perceived these people as the lowest on the moral
spectrum. The harlots were judged by the people to be sɛҳuąƖly promiscuous, and the tax
collectors represented the greedy misers who loved money. The harlot wasted her sɛҳuąƖ
powers in pursuit of money while her customers wasted their money in pursuit of
unproductive and illicit sɛҳuąƖ pleasure.

The Barren Fig Tree (Lk 13.6-9) illustrates the mandate to produce. This order can apply
to many concepts, but the fruit of sɛҳuąƖity is children, and the fruit of money is social
justice. While many will argue that the list of do not commandments never addresses
these non-adulterous, sɛҳuąƖ sins, one can look to God’s first command to Adam (and
later Noah and Jacob) to be fruitful and multiply (Gn 1.28, 9.1, 35.11). In fact, this
command even preceded the forbidden fruit command, the disobedience of which
produced the original sin. The Old Testament also was not silent regarding one’s
physical possessions. God commands Moses to remember the alien, the widow and the
orphan (Dt 10.18-19, 14.28-29, 26.12-13).

In the Old Testament, the Israelites annually celebrated three major feasts, Passover,
Pentecost and The Feast of the Fruit Harvest (Ex 34.18-24). Passover was the
predecessor of the Pascal Celebration, which concludes with Easter and the beginning of
eternal life. Pentecost, in the New Testament, represents the birth of the Church. It does
not seem coincidental that like Christmas, the Feast of the Fruit Harvest was held at the
end of the year. Or in the words of Elizabeth to Mary, blessed is the fruit of your womb
(Lk 1.42).

The creation of life originates with sɛҳuąƖ intercourse and bears fruit when one brings a
son or daughter of God into the world, a brother or sister of Jesus Christ, and a temple of
the Holy Spirit. Thus, anyone who hears the word of God and follows it is likened to not
only Christ’s brother and sister, but also to his mother (Lk 8.21, Mt 12.46-50, Mk 3.31-
35).

The stewardship responsibility of money is also developed throughout Scripture. Jacob’s
son, Joseph, demonstrated the concept of stewardship. He showed his loyalty as a
steward to his Egyptian master, Potiphar (Gn 39.1-6), his chief jailer in prison (Gn 39.21-
23), and finally to Pharaoh himself (Gn 41.39-57). Christ was not silent on this issue
either. The Rich Man and Lazarus (Lk 16.19-31), The Rich Fool (Lk 12.16-21), and the
Talents (Mk 25.14-30, Lk 19.11-27) parables address issues of money, wealth and
abilities. They are easily compared to three of the seven deadly sins, gluttony, avarice
and sloth. What is the cure for these ills? Give alms and everything becomes clean (Lk
11.41). Like the poor woman who gave her last bread to Elijah (1 Kgs 17.7-16) or the
poor widow who gave her last coins to the temple treasury as Christ watched (Mk 12.41-
44, Lk 21.1-4), one must trust in God, not mammon.

God provides two types of gifts, some are reserved for exclusive purposes and others are
to be shared. One is expected to worship only one God, but to share one’s faith with
others. However, often one would rather worship, desire and trust in many things other
than God, while keeping his faith to himself. One is expected to remain chaste (reserving
his sɛҳuąƖity for his spouse) while sharing his physical possessions. Instead, many keep
their possessions to themselves while sharing their sɛҳuąƖity.

When does the responsibility end? Never according to Christ. We are unprofitable
servants, doing only what is expected of us (Lk 17.7-10).

One of Senator Robert Kennedy’s reflections seems to summarize the divine wisdom of
this parable. “There are those that look at things the way they are, and ask why? I dream
of things that never were and ask why not.


The Prodigal Son (Is there really a mortal sin? Is Confession necessary?)


Ever want to start up a stormy discussion among Catholics? Bring up the distinction
between mortal and venial sins as a topic. Then suggest some examples. It is rare that a
common consensus will be found. The Sacrament of Reconciliation is also a topic that
often divides a group. Some background information regarding these topics is first in
order.

The Old Testament uses the physical death sentence to emphasize the seriousness of
certain sins. Adam and Eve brought on death by their pride and disobedience. The
people at the time of Noah and during Abraham’s time in Sodom and Gomorrah (Gn
19.1-22) were destroyed because of their evil actions. God takes the life of Onan for
wasting his seed (Gn 38.8-10). God killed the sons of Aaron (Lv 10.1-2) and the sons of
Eli (1 Sm 2.12-17, 22-36, 4.11) because they disrespected the rules of the priesthood.
Similarly, Mosaic Law imposed the death penalty for sins such as blasphemy, murder as
well as many various sɛҳuąƖ sins.

The New Testament de-emphasized these physical judgments, but it stressed the spiritual
death that one would face for certain evil actions or non-actions. The serious crimes of
the Old Testament therefore were not trivialized, but rather the consequences became
even more terrifying. Christ alludes to this fatal outcome in many of His parables such as
The Wheat and the Weeds, the Sower, The Wedding Feast, The Rich Man and Lazarus,
The Rich Fool, The Talents and others. In Christ’s discussion about the final judgment
(Mt 25.31-46), He emphasizes how the inaction of many will lead to their ultimate
destruction.

As the final judge of one’s actions, will Christ show mercy or justice? The deadly sins of
pride, avarice, envy, wrath, lust, gluttony, and sloth all seem to be questions of
moderation. No one knows exactly where the line will be drawn between pride and
courage, avarice and self-preservation, envy and rightful desire, anger and justice, lust
and love, gluttony and nourishment, or sloth and rest. While the line may be obscure, the
cause and effect can often be more obvious. Pride blinds, anger devours, avarice
overwhelms, gluttony consumes, sloth reduces and lust and envy betray.

The Sacrament of Confession can be likened to its Old Testament predecessor, the Day of
Atonement or Yom Kippur (Lv 16.1-34, 23.26-32). This annual, one-day ritual was the
most solemn of the Israelite holy days (Lv 16.31). The Israelite people were required to
fast and do no work (Lv 16.29), and to provide an offering of two goats. The high priest
offered one goat up in sacrifice and then laid both hands on the second goat’s head (the
scapegoat) and confessed the sins of the people of Israel. The goat was then led out into
the desert carrying back to Satan (Lv 16.8-10) the sins of the Israelites (Lv 16.20-22).
Only a successor to Aaron, a high priest, could make the atonement (Lv 16.32-33). It
was the only day of the year that the high priest could enter the holy of holies, inside the
veil of the sanctuary (Lv 16.2-5).
The life of Jesus Christ reflects the Israelite Day of Atonement. At the beginning of His
ministry, Christ is physically driven out into the desert (like the scapegoat) where He
confronts Satan. At the end of His ministry, Christ is offered up in the divine sacrifice on
the cross.

Through Christ’s death and by His resurrection, the victory of salvation springs forth
from the Spirit of His own baptism. Christ commissioned His disciples to baptize all
nations (Mt 28.19) and to forgive sins through the sacrament of Penance. “Receive ye
the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins
you shall retain, they are retained” (Jn 20.23). Although similar to the Old Testament in
requiring confession (Lv 16.21) and a priest’s intervention (Lv 16.32), this new
sacrament was unique in that the priests were delegated the power to forgive or retain
sins.

Often linked, the physical and spiritual works were similar, and they were brought about
through the intervention of a holy person. The physical feeding and healing were
symbolic of God’s authority over both the physical and the spiritual. Since authority was
delegated through the prophets of the Old Testament and the priests of the New
Testament, signs appear in both. The poor widow is fed when she encounters Elijah and
Naaman is cured after he obeys Elisha’s command (1 Kg 17.7-16, 2 Kg 5.1-15, Lk 4.25-
27). However, both of these gentiles first had to show that they placed their trust in not
only God, but also in the person acting in God’s behalf. In the beginning of Mark’s
Gospel, Christ continues this human and divine interplay. After curing the leper, Christ
orders the man to show himself to a priest with the prescribed offering for cleansing (Mk
1.40-44). Next, the paralytic is healed both spiritually and physically by Christ to
demonstrate this authority over both the spiritual and the physical (Mk 2.1-12, Mt 9.1-8,
Lk 5.17-26). Then Christ discusses how only the sick require a physician, implying that
the spiritually sick are in most need of ministry (Mk 2.17). Likewise, the sacraments that
nourish and heal (Holy Eucharist and Reconciliation) must be administered through a
consecrated priest.

Like the Sower parable, the Prodigal Son (Lk 15.11-32) covers those three essential
requirements: knowledge, love and courage. He recognizes the seriousness of his
mistake, he has a change in heart, and he returns to his father and confesses his
wrongdoing. Like the Prodigal Son and the Israelites in the desert, sin affects both God
and man (Lk 15.21, Nm 21.7). The priest acts in place of God, and like the father in the
Prodigal Son parable, he looks only to whether the penitent understands the nature of the
sin, desires to mend his ways and acknowledges the wrong actions.

John Carberry is the author of Parables: Catholic Apologetics Through Sacred Scripture
(2003) and Sacraments: Signs, Symbols and Significance (2023).