31 March 2025 – Monday of the 4th week of Lent
H o m i l y
As we begin the second half of Lent, the Gospel readings are taken from the Gospel of John, which, as we saw last week, is structured around a series of signs accompanied by words. And the place where the sign is performed is always significant.
The first sign was the turning of water into wine at the wedding in Cana, in Jesus' native Galilee. Then he went up to Jerusalem, where he drove the sellers from the Temple. On his way back to Galilee, he spent a few days in Samaria, where he met the Samaritan woman. Now he is in Galilee where he is well received, and he is even found in Cana. It is there that he meets a royal official, therefore a foreigner, whose place of residence was Capernaum, another city in Galilee much more important than the small village of Nazareth or even Cana.
This official of the Roman authority, which occupies Palestine, comes to see Jesus. The ensuing dialogue is extremely and beautifully sober.
This official is a practical man. He gets straight to the point. He is not obsequious like the Pharisees, including Nicodemus: ‘We know that you are...’. He knows that Jesus has the powers of a miracle worker, and so he asks Him to come to his house to heal his dying son. Jesus makes a remark that is addressed to everyone, especially the Jews: ‘Unless you see signs and wonders you will not believe’. The official, a practical man, does not enter into these theological discussions. All he wants is for his son to be healed. He has no use for these considerations and simply says to Jesus: ‘Come down, before my son dies’. He therefore has no doubt about Jesus' ability to heal his son. He has faith without knowing it. Jesus likes these upright and direct characters: “Go, your son is alive”. And the dialogue ends there. Jesus has nothing more to say. Once the healing is confirmed, the official believes - he has faith - as does his whole family.
Reading this text, one feels like saying: ‘But faith is simple. Why do we complicate it so much with all our abstract reasoning?’
Armand Veilleux