06- Catechesis on the Letter to the Galatians: 6. The dangers of the Law
Channel: My Helper The Holy Spirit
Date: 29/08/2021

https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/audiences/2021/documents/papa-francesco_20210825_udienza-generale.html
Brothers and sisters, good morning!

The Letter to the Galatians reports a rather surprising fact. As we have heard, Paul says that he reproached Cephas, or Peter, in front of the community at Antioch, because his behaviour was not that good. What had happened that was so serious that Paul felt obliged to address Peter in such harsh terms? Was Paul perhaps exaggerating, allowing his character to get in the way without knowing how to control himself? We will see that this is not the case, but that, yet again, what was at stake was the relationship between the Law and freedom. And we must return to this often.

Writing to the Galatians, Paul deliberately mentions this episode that had taken place years before in Antioch. He wanted to remind the Christians of those communities that they were absolutely not to listen to those who were preaching that it was necessary to be circumcised, and therefore be “under the Law” with all of its prescriptions. Let us recall that it was these fundamentalist preachers who had gone there and were creating confusion, and had even robbed that community of their peace. The object of the criticism regarding Peter was his behaviour when sitting down to table. For a Jew, the Law prohibited eating with non-Jews. But Peter himself, in another circumstance, had gone to the house of Cornelius the centurion in Caesarea, knowing that he was transgressing the Law. At that time he had said: “God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean” (Acts 10:28). Once he returned to Jerusalem, the circumcised Christians, who were faithful to the Mosaic Law, reproached Peter for his behaviour. He, however, justified himself saying: “And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, ‘John baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit’. If then God gave the same gift to them as he gave to us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could withstand God?” (Acts 11:16-17). Let us remember that the Holy Spirit had come at that time into Cornelius’ house when Peter went there.

Something similar had also taken place in Antioch in Paul’s presence. First, Peter had been eating with the Christians of pagan origin without any difficulty; however, when some circumcised Christians from Jerusalem arrived in the city — those who were originally Jews — he then no longer did so, because he did not want to incur their criticism. This was the error — he paid more attention to criticism, to making a good impression. And this was serious in Paul’s eyes, also because other disciples imitated Peter, first among them Barnabas who, with Paul, had evangelized precisely the Galatians (cf. Gal 2:13). In so doing, without wanting to, Peter, who was a bit here and a bit there, not clear, not transparent, was, in fact, creating an unjust division within the community: “I am pure.... I am following this line.... I have to do this ... this cannot be done...”.

In his reproach — and this is the heart of the problem — Paul uses a term that allows us to enter into the merit of his reaction: hypocrisy (cf. Gal 2:13). This is a word that is repeated many times: hypocrisy. I think we all understand what it means.... The observance of the Law on the part of Christians led to this hypocritical behaviour that the apostle wanted to counter forcefully and convincingly. Paul was upright, he had his defects — many of them ... his character was terrible — but he was upright. What is hypocrisy? When we say, “Be careful, that person is a hypocrite”, what are we trying to say? What is hypocrisy? It can be called the fear of the truth. Hypocrites are afraid of the truth. They prefer to pretend rather than be themselves. It is like applying makeup on your soul, like putting makeup on your behaviour, putting makeup on how to proceed: it is not the truth. “I am afraid of proceeding as I am and I put make up on my behaviour”. To pretend hinders the courage to openly speak the truth; and thus, the obligation to speak the truth at all times, everywhere and in spite of anything, can easily be escaped. Pretending leads to this: to half-truths. And half-truths are a sham because the truth is the truth or it is not the truth. But half-truths are a way of acting that is not true. We prefer, as I said, to pretend rather than to be ourselves, and this pretence hinders the courage to openly speak the truth. And thus, we escape the duty — and this is a commandment — to always speak the truth, to say it everywhere and in spite of anything. And in an environment where interpersonal relations are lived under the banner of formalism, the virus of hypocrisy easily spreads. That smile that does not come from the heart. Trying to be on good terms with everyone, but with no one.