Seventh Station: Jesus takes up his cross

Now it was the day of Preparation of the Passover; it was about the sixth hour. He said to the Jews, “Behold your King!” They cried out, “Away with him, away with him, crucify him!” Pilate said to them, “Shall I crucify your King?” The chief priests answered, “We have no king but Caesar.” Then he handed him over to them to be crucified. So they took Jesus, and he went out, bearing his own cross, to the place called the place of a skull, which is called in Hebrew Gol'gotha.
(Jn 19:14-17, Jerusalem Bible)

It is only in the Gospel of St. John that Jesus is said to carry his own cross. The other Gospels do not say that. They recount that Simon of Cyrene was asked to carry the cross of Jesus. In the traditional stations of the cross, Simon comes in only after Jesus suffers his first fall. The Gospels do not recount any fall but it would not be surprising if Jesus did fall. St. John’s Gospel reveals to us a very sad irony: Pilate, the non-Jew admits that Jesus is king but the Jews reject that idea, admitting Pilate’s king as their king.

Both St. Matthew and St. Mark indicate that the soldiers were the ones who led Jesus to the site of his execution. St. John and St. Luke do not indicate the actual people who led Jesus. Rather the impression one gets is that the Jews were the ones who led Jesus to Golgotha. The significance of St. John’s narrative should be clear: the Jews, who had rejected their own king, forces Him to carry the instrument of His death and leads Him to the place of execution. St. John writes a the beginning of his gospel: He came to his own home, and his own people received him not. (Jn 1:11, Revised Standard Version)

God is love. Whatever God wills of us has its beginning and end in love. When I admit God as my God, I admit that I shall do what He wills because His will is good for me. When I sin, I reject this notion. I do not go according to God’s will because I think I know better. In fact, when I act in sin, I am actually rejecting God as my God; I am rejecting love.

When Jesus took up His cross in his walk to Calvary, he did so for love of all humanity. (NB: Calvary is derived from the Greek word for skull) He denied Himself and did what was necessary for us. In his predictions of his passion, he says: “The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised.” And he said to all, “If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it; and whoever loses his life for my sake, he will save it.” (Lk 9:22-24, Revised Standard Version) We can see that when we imitate him, we take up our cross for the purpose of losing our lives for His sake. Only then will we gain the life Jesus wishes to give us: eternal life.

When I call Jesus Master and Lord, I am admitting that He is God. I am proclaiming that I will follow Him. That would include the carrying of my cross. When someone says that a particular suffering is a cross they must bear, it impresses me that the person sees the cross as something negative. Did Jesus consider his cross as the suffering he went through? True, the cross was the source of suffering for Jesus, but was it the suffering itself? The cross was the means by which He obeyed the Father in love. Physically, the cross caused him great suffering. I believe that the cross was an instrument of blessing for Jesus. The suffering he bore was a consequence of accepting the cross as the means of loving obedience. If I were to follow Jesus and carry my cross, I cannot view the cross as a necessarily evil that I must bear. Rather, I must view the cross as the means of obeying the Father. The consequence of bearing the cross might include suffering, but the cross itself is not the suffering. It is a tool for me to express my relationship with God the Father. Self-denial brings about suffering to a sinful self, but is itself an instrument for greater holiness. This sentiment is captured in the following verse of the hymn O Mighty Cross, Love Lifted High by David Baroni and John Chisum:

O Mighty Cross, O Christ, so pure,
Love held Him there, such shame endured;
His sacrifice on Calvary
Has made the mighty cross
a tree of life to me

Sixth Station: Jesus is scourged and crowned with thorns

Then therefore, Pilate took Jesus, and scourged him. And the soldiers platting a crown of thorns, put it upon his head; and they put on him a purple garment. And they came to him, and said: Hail, king of the Jews; and they gave him blows.
(Jn 19:1-3, Douay-Rheims Version)

The Gospels do not say much about scourging. The Gospels only say that Jesus was scourged. There are no details. Was it as cruel as that depicted in Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ? Objectively, we cannot say. There are records of the way Romans scourged their prisoners. Yet they are so varied that we cannot simply state that Jesus had the most severe of the scourging. However, scourging is not the same as receiving the rotan when I was a child. Scourging was definitely excruciatingly painful and it was definitely injurious. It was a punishment dealt to criminals. Jesus was not a criminal. Pilate did not find any fault in Jesus and yet he ordered Jesus to be scourged. Furthermore, the soldiers seemed to have enjoyed torturing their prisoners. They crowned Jesus with thorns to mock him. Even if a prisoner deserved his punishment, was the mocking a part of the punishment?

In this station, my meditation will neither be on how terrible the scourging was, nor how painful the crown of thorns was. Instead, my meditation brought me to a single point: justice.

Pilate had Jesus scourged to placate the Jewish authorities who had also riled up the crowd. Instead of using the normal Roman way of quelling an unruly but unarmed crowd, Pilate had a man whom he had declared innocent scourged. I am just as guilty the soldiers when I did not speak up for a person whom I knew did not deserve a reprimand.

The Romans had a reputation for liking violence. It can be deduced from the way the gladiatorial games were conducted in the Colosseum. In the case of Jesus, the soldiers did not think anything of mocking Jesus. I suspect that many just joined “for fun.” They were the typical bullies. Bullies do not serve justice, they serve themselves. Those with authority can often end up as bullies. I can sense this keenly because I am given authority as a parish priest. It would be easy for me to use my authority to thumb people down and keep them down. When this happens for a selfish reason, I am unjust. There are times when I might need to assert my authority to stop a person from harming others. I know that I must consider the common good. If I were to assert my authority just to keep things easy for me, it would be unjust.

In the world today, there are many who resent authority and are anti-institutional. They consider authority to be an illusion and constantly mock legitimate authority. In one extreme, they claim that they would rather have exercise of personal responsibility than enforced order through an external authority. This ideal would only work if there were neither sin nor selfishness in the world. Let us consider the present situation in Singapore. We are asked to exercise social responsibility and I have personally experienced those who do not think much about social distancing. They flout the guidelines when the authorities are not around. When reminded by their peers, they throw daggers with their eyes.

The scourging of Jesus and the crowning of thorns remind us that there is a lack of love of neighbour in Pilate and the soldiers. It shows us how much Jesus was willing to go through for love of all humanity. We must learn from Jesus and not to be like Pilate and the soldiers. I am reminded of what St. John wrote: We love, because he first loved us. If any one says, "I love God," and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen. (1 Jn 4:19-20, Revised Standard Version)

Fifth Station: Jesus is judged by Pilate

And straightway in the morning, the chief priests holding a consultation with the ancients and the scribes and the whole council, binding Jesus, led him away, and delivered him to Pilate. And Pilate asked him: Art thou the king of the Jews? But he answering, saith to him: Thou sayest it. And the chief priests accused him in many things. And Pilate again asked him, saying: Answerest thou nothing? behold in how many things they accuse thee. But Jesus still answered nothing; so that Pilate wondered.

Now on the festival day he was wont to release unto them one of the prisoners, whomsoever they demanded. And there was one called Barabbas, who was put in prison with some seditious men, who in the sedition had committed murder. And when the multitude was come up, they began to desire that he would do, as he had ever done unto them. And Pilate answered them, and said: Will you that I release to you the king of the Jews? For he knew that the chief priests had delivered him up out of envy.

But the chief priests moved the people, that he should rather release Barabbas to them. And Pilate again answering, saith to them: What will you then that I do to the king of the Jews? But they again cried out: Crucify him. And Pilate saith to them: Why, what evil hath he done? But they cried out the more: Crucify him. And so Pilate being willing to satisfy the people, released to them Barabbas, and delivered up Jesus, when he had scourged him, to be crucified.
(Mk 15:1-15, Douay-Rheims Version)

Pontius Pilate was not really historically significant. His significance comes from his sentencing of Jesus when he was governor of Judea. We recite in the Nicene Creed that Jesus “was crucified under Pontius Pilate.” In the Apostle’s Creed, we say Jesus “suffered under Pontius Pilate.” In the gospels, Pilate is described as a weak governor, who acted unjustly because he feared the Jews. He sentenced Jesus because he did not want to offend the people. In the Gospel of St. Matthew, he declared Jesus to be innocent and yet handed him over to be crucified. He even washed his hands to symbolise that he did not agree with the judgement of the people. The accounts show him anxious: on one hand, he did not want to kill an innocent man, on the other he had a possible riot happening. He had a dilemma and he made a decision. Although the gospels took pains to show that he did not find Jesus guilty, he was nevertheless the one who sentenced Jesus to death.

By sentencing Jesus, he still made a judgement. He was probably thinking about how he was to control the unruly crowd. Perhaps, as St. John implied, his standing with the Roman Emperor might be affected. Whatever it was, he made a judgement that Jesus’ life was not as valuable as his authority or reputation. Did he have the authority to do so?

In my life, I would probably not be put into a similar situation like Pilate. Yet, as a parish priest, I have to make decisions. I have bowed to public pressure just to make things easier on myself. I have also made judgements that put my interests above others. While not all these decisions were immoral, I have allowed my selfish motivations to cloud my judgements. This becomes even more urgent in these times when the sacraments are not celebrated as usual. I could argue that there is less of a need to listen to confessions as there is no public masses celebrated. Thus I might be tempted not to make myself available during the times scheduled for celebrating the Sacrament of Reconciliation. However, that would be selfish. When I consider my own convenience as more important than that of the spiritual health of the parishioners, I act just like Pontius Pilate.

Nothing much else is known about Pilate for certain. There have been suggestions that he was anti Semitic. There are many varying apocryphal accounts of him. He was a Christian in one account, and a villian who uses the coat of Jesus to save his own life in another. Let us not judge Pilate the man. God is the only one able to do that. We can assess his behaviour and learn from it. Jesus died for all, including Pontius Pilate. Our understanding of this station where Pilate judges Jesus will help us realise the depth of God’s love for us. As St. Paul says: God shows his love for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us. (Rom 5:8, Revised Standard Version)

Fourth Station: Jesus is denied by Peter

Now when Peter was in the court below, there cometh one of the maidservants of the high priest. And when she had seen Peter warming himself, looking on him she saith: Thou also wast with Jesus of Nazareth. But he denied, saying: I neither know nor understand what thou sayest. And he went forth before the court; and the cock crew. And again a maidservant seeing him, began to say to the standers by: This is one of them. But he denied again. And after a while they that stood by said again to Peter: Surely thou art one of them; for thou art also a Galilean. But he began to curse and to swear, saying; I know not this man of whom you speak. And immediately the cock crew again. And Peter remembered the word that Jesus had said unto him: Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt thrice deny me. And he began to weep.
(Mk 14:66-72, Douay-Rheims Version)

In the previous station, my meditation showed me how being rash could cause me to condemn another. In this meditation, I encounter another person who was rash, albeit in a different way. In his early encounters with Jesus, St. Peter was aware of his weakness and sinfulness. That was why he asked Jesus to depart from him (see Lk 5:8).

Being with Jesus gave St. Peter more confidence. His fidelity to Jesus also allowed him to receive many graces. He was able to walk on the water (see Mt 14:23-33). He was able to receive the Father’s revelation that Jesus was the Christ (see Mt 16:13-17). However, he became overconfident and ended up being called Satan (see Mt 16:23), resorting to violence (see Jn 18:10) and boasting that he would stay faithful to Jesus. Yet we know that in the end, Peter would deny Jesus three times, betraying the master he said he would stay with. Most importantly, he did not reject the grace of repentance. It is only in St. Matthew’s Gospel that St. Peter is seen to weep bitterly (see Mt 26:75), indicating that he regretted what he had done. Judas also regretted his actions but did not see any hope in repentance and eventually took his own life (see Mt 27:5). St. Peter, on the other hand, continued to live in hope, relying on the mercy of God, and eventually becoming a leader Jesus called him to be.

Every year, I renew my baptismal promises at Easter. I promise I will reject evil and sin, and believe in God who loves us. Yet, I am also aware that I would, like St. Peter, end up denying Jesus through my sin. Yet, I must also learn from St. Peter to swallow my pride and admit my wrongs, and then trust in the mercy and grace of God.

Jesus predicted St. Peter’s denial. He looked at St. Peter when the cock crowed. I tried to imagine what Jesus looked like at the time. Was it an accusatory look? Was it an I told you so look? Was it a look of disappointment? Was it a look of compassion? In the many times I had meditated on St. Peter’s denial, Jesus’ face took on different expressions. When I was struggling with sin, the expression was one of compassion. There was even an I told you so look when I had been self-righteous. In this last meditation that I made, Jesus simply looked tired and anxious. He seemed to be anxious for St. Peter. It was a look of pleading. He was appealing to St. Peter to turn back to God the Father and seek solace there. With an emotion that was welling up in himself, St. Peter understood that his master knew what He was doing, and that he (St. Peter) should repent and turn back to God. That was why he left to weep.

In these times where we cannot worship together, let us pray to the Lord Jesus to be compassionate on us as he was with St. Peter. In our anxiety and desperation, we might even deny that Jesus is allowing this crisis to help us strengthen our faith.When he turns to look at us, may we be able to accept God’s grace in the same way that Peter did and turn back to the God who loves us.

Third Station: Jesus is condemned by the Sanhedrin

And as soon as it was day, the ancients of the people, and the chief priests and scribes, came together; and they brought him into their council, saying: If thou be the Christ, tell us. And he saith to them: If I shall tell you, you will not believe me. And if I shall also ask you, you will not answer me, nor let me go. But hereafter the Son of man shall be sitting on the right hand of the power of God. Then said they all: Art thou then the Son of God? Who said: You say that I am. And they said: What need we any further testimony? for we ourselves have heard it from his own mouth.
(Lk 22:66-71, Douay-Rheims Version)

Who were these men who condemned Jesus? Were they just and upright men? The Sanhedrin was made up of leading men of the Pharisees as well as the chief priests of the Temple. The Gospels recounted how Jesus had called the Pharisees fit for hell or brood of vipers (Mt 23:15,33, Jerusalem Bible), but never useless or worthless. Jesus wonders how they could escape being condemned to hell (Mt 23:33, Jerusalem Bible), but never actually says that they would be going to hell. Jesus’ words were not meant to say that these men are irredeemable but were words of warning that they were heading that way. Jesus wanted to give them the chance to realise their folly. Yet for these men, Jesus needed to be killed: But one of them, Ca’iaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing at all; you do not understand that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation should not perish.” (John 11:49-50, Revised Standard Version)

Like the Pharisees, I have also judged others and condemned them. My conscience would prick me after my emotions calm and I realise how rash I have been. My conscience would be like Nicodemus, who had earlier asked if it was right to judge a person without properly examining the facts:

Some of them wanted to arrest him, but no one laid hands on him. The officers then went back to the chief priests and Pharisees, who said to them, “Why did you not bring him?” The officers answered, “No man ever spoke like this man!” The Pharisees answered them, “Are you led astray, you also? Have any of the authorities or of the Pharisees believed in him? But this crowd, who do not know the law, are accursed.”

Nicode'mus, who had gone to him before, and who was one of them, said to them, “Does our law judge a man without first giving him a hearing and learning what he does?” They replied, “Are you from Galilee too? Search and you will see that no prophet is to rise from Galilee.”
(John 7:44-52, Revised Standard Version)

The response of the Pharisees was one of presumption and discrimination. When I examine the rash judgements I had made before, I can see that there was presumption and discrimination as well. Jesus knew their motives and yet chose to keep silent. Instead of arguing with them, he stated the facts simply: the members of the Sanhedrin had already made up their minds and His replies no longer mattered to them. In fact, in all the Gospels, the Sanhedrin were not really interested in the truth but to find something to justify the sentence they had already passed. When I judge rashly, I actually close myself to the truth. Whether I was in the right or not, whether I had justification or not, it mattered not. I had already made up my mind and was not going to move away from my decision regarding a person. In that sense, I have condemned someone like the Sanhedrin had condemned Jesus.

How often I needed to admit that I was impulsive and had made a rash decision? How often had I to face and apologise and find some way to make reparation? How often had I found my ego being a stumbling block to doing that? How often had I found myself condemned instead and endure the consequent tirade? I had to ask the Lord for the courage to face to my sin and make reparation. I had to remind myself that I had deserved the scolding but the person that I had condemned earlier did not. It is not easy to eat humble pie, and I had often had to pray to the Lord for the grace to endure it.

The golden rule, as you wish that men would do to you, do so to them (Lk 6:31, Revised Standard Version), is an ethical rule found in many religions. If I do not want to be condemned, I should not condemn others. That is a simple rule but it is not easy to follow because I am a sinner. I can only rely on the grace of God to keep to the path. The version in St. Matthew’s Gospel reads: So whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them; for this is the law and the prophets. (Mt 7:12, Revised Standard Version) What is ironic is that this is what Hillel, a leader of the Sanhedrin that lived at a time before Jesus was born, had taught: What is hateful to you, do not to your neighbour: while the rest is the commentary thereof; go and learn it. (Babylonian Talmud, Shabbath 31a)

I believe that Jesus Himself set a higher standard in His parable regarding the last judgement: Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me. … Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me. (Mt 25:40,45, Revised Standard Version)

Second Station: Jesus is betrayed by Judas and arrested

As he was yet speaking, behold a multitude; and he that was called Judas, one of the twelve, went before them, and drew near to Jesus, for to kiss him. And Jesus said to him: Judas, dost thou betray the Son of man with a kiss?And they that were about him, seeing what would follow, said to him: Lord, shall we strike with the sword? And one of them struck the servant of the high priest, and cut off his right ear. But Jesus answering, said: Suffer ye thus far. And when he had touched his ear, he healed him. And Jesus said to the chief priests, and magistrates of the temple, and the ancients, that were come unto him: Are ye come out, as it were against a thief, with swords and clubs? When I was daily with you in the temple, you did not stretch forth your hands against me: but this is your hour, and the power of darkness.
(Lk 22:47-53, Douay-Rheims Version)

I have asked myself why Judas would betray Jesus who loved him. Was Judas so corrupted that he could only repay evil for good? Why would Jesus, who seemed to know many things, choose someone who would betray him? In response to the first question, I realise that I am like Judas in many ways. I know God’s love because I have experienced His love. I have believed in the Son of God who died for me because God loved me. Yet, I would betray God time and time again in my sins. Why do I repay evil for good? Am I as corrupted as Judas?

Judas betrayed Jesus with a kiss. A sign of friendship becomes the sign of betrayal. Years ago, I came across a meditative song entitled Why? Michael Card, whom I believe wrote the music and lyrics, made this observation:

Only a friend can betray a friend, a stranger has nothing to gain
And only a friend comes close enough to ever cause so much pain

Jesus chose Judas as a disciple and allowed him into His life, His thoughts and His affections. Jesus considered Judas a friend and allowed him (Judas) to be close to Him. He must have been devastated to experience betrayal through the gesture used by friends: a kiss. Judas would be accused of bringing harm to Jesus if he (Judas) was merely a stranger. It is precisely because Judas was part of the closest circle of Jesus’ friends that his actions was seen as a betrayal.

Perhaps Judas was not able to accept the entire message of Jesus. Perhaps that was why he gave up on Jesus and focussed on his own wants. Perhaps he joined Jesus because he accepted the part of the message of Jesus that appealed to him but got disillusioned when the message did not satisfy what he expected of Jesus. Perhaps that is what caused Judas to betray his friend and master, Jesus.

When I consider my betrayals of Jesus, I also see those times when I did not accept the entire message of Jesus. I was not able to trust that Jesus entirely. I used to hear the phrase, “You cannot have your cake and eat it …” When I betray Jesus in my sins, I am saying, “I want my cake and eat it.”

Jesus called St. Peter to be the visible head of the Church. He was told, “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” (Mt 16:18-19, Revised Standard Version) Jesus gave St. Peter the assurance that any decision that he makes as the visible head of the Church is endorsed by heaven. When the Pope, the successor of St. Peter, as visible head of the Church, declared that there should be no public celebrations of the Easter Triduum in those countries affected by the pandemic during this time, it was very hard to understand. Could the Pope have made a serious error in giving this instruction? Does he not have any faith that God will protect his people? In my meditation of this station, I could not avoid asking if I had, like Judas, accepted only what I liked or preferred.

When I do not accept the entire message of Jesus, I am also not able to accept the person of Jesus. Could I actually say I have faith in Jesus and yet not be trusting enough to accept everything that Jesus says? One probable source of my betrayal of Jesus is my inability to accept the entire message of Jesus. Can I not ask for a greater faith and trust in Jesus? The question from Job comes to mind here: If we take happiness from God’s hand, must we not take sorrow too? (Job 2:10, Jerusalem Bible)

First Station: Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane

Then Jesus came with them into a country place which is called Gethsemani; and he said to his disciples: Sit you here, till I go yonder and pray. And taking with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, he began to grow sorrowful and to be sad. Then he saith to them: My soul is sorrowful even unto death: stay you here, and watch with me. And going a little further, he fell upon his face, praying, and saying: My Father, if it be possible, let this chalice pass from me. Nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.
(Mt 26:36-39, Douay-Rheims Version)

I have often meditated on what was in the mind of Jesus when he was in the Garden of Gethesmane. After all, it is the First Sorrowful Mystery in the rosary prayer. Although it is in my mind when during the rosary prayer, I must confess that I rarely go beyond the time needed to recite the 10 Hail Marys for the decade. I had a good opportunity to go beyond that time when I sat down the other day to think about what to write to formulate the content for this First Scriptural Station of the Cross.
Foremost in our minds these days are the difficulty we have in understanding the decision made by the Church authorities for not having public masses. I have heard all the arguments on both sides and I also understand the frustrations felt by both sides because of the decision that was made. Please do not think that the Pope and bishops made this decision frivolously. I am sure they prayed over and over on what had to be done.

When I place myself in the shoes of Jesus that night in the Garden, I also sense frustration. It was a frustration that emerged for the necessity for Jesus to allow himself to be handed over to the Jewish authorities. The four gospels reveal to us the fact that Jesus was aware that His teaching was causing the Jewish authorities to reject him. We can see that in the predictions He made regarding His passion and death. Yet, can we not see how human it is to consider alternatives and other possibilities when confronted with a possibility that would cause great hurt and harm? What went through Jesus’ mind as he prayed in the garden? The Synoptic Gospels relate how Jesus struggled in his prayer (see Mt 26:39,42; Mk 14:36; Lk 22:42). He wanted to do His Father’s will although He did not like what was going to happen to Him. Like us, he was probably thinking whether there was an alternative way: Was there another way to fulfil the Father’s will? Surely the Father did not want His Son to suffer, did He? I think it would be too simplistic to say that God wanted His Son to be tortured and crucified. God loves His Son. He definitely would not want evil for His Son. God’s will was that Jesus stick to the mission. Jesus was sent to bring the Good News that God was Father. To run away from the cross would invalidate that message. Jesus endured His Passion to tell us that this Good News is worth losing His life for. To show that He had the power of God by breaking free miraculously would also be unhelpful. God loves us and would like us to freely respond in love. To be awed by spectacle, might and power, would not have helped the recipients of His message to respond in freedom. Rather, it would have caused fear; the kind of fear that deprives people of freedom.

I have heard how some have responded to the cessation of public Masses. How could God who gave us the Eucharist agree to deny us the Eucharist? Are we not thinking like Jesus in the garden? Are we not thinking of alternatives? Unlike Jesus, we get worked up and upset. Perhaps, what gets us upset is that we realise that the decision made was made maliciously. We struggle to understand how the decision could be a right one. There are some of us would go so far as to say that the ecclesiastical authorities had given in to something diabolical.

Meditating during this station, I started thinking about Jesus own response to the frustration he felt as he prayed. He did not give in to His human frustration. Instead he took solace in His Father. He decided to trust the Father. Things did not make sense but He decided to do what the Father willed. His love for His Father led him to obey His Father.

The Eucharist is the Blessed Sacrament. We Catholics believe that Jesus is really present in the Eucharist. We want our sustenance. We want our Lord. We want to go to Mass to receive the greatest gift God has given us: His Son in the Blessed Eucharist. Yet, have we asked if that was what God wants at this moment in time? Perhaps the ecclesiastical authorities are as wrong as the Jewish authorities were. Yet, it was to obey His Father’s will that Jesus kept silent as He was led to His death. It was to obey His Father’s will that Jesus allowed himself to suffer the torments that we would come to call His Passion.

Being deprived of the Eucharist is not a good thing. Neither is being deprived of life. If Jesus could trust in the Father and allow His Father to lead him towards that which was not a good thing, could we not also allow the Father to lead us in the midst of this difficult situation? Could we not make the words of Jesus ours as well? My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt. (Mt 26:39 Revised Standard Version)