My Dear People,

I want to give a special thanks to Dick Bipes for setting up the bells and for installing a new program that extends the time the bells play. 

The parable of the rich man and Lazarus brings up a debate about Purgatory. Some Protestants insist that it disproves the notion of Purgatory; some Catholics suggest that it actually supports it.

With regards to the Jews and their views of the afterlife at the time of the Lord, they believed that when those who died went to the Netherworld, called Sheol (in Greek it was called Hades), there they awaited the Final Judgment. Within the Netherworld, there were places of comfort as well as places of pain. The “Bosom of Abraham” was the best part of the Netherworld. 

Does the parable of the rich man and Lazarus have bearing on the doctrine of Purgatory? It does, indirectly. Jewish faith held that it was possible to intercede for those in the Netherworld awaiting judgment. This is mentioned in 2 Maccabees 12:44-45 and the Apocalypse of Zephaniah 11:1-2. So, we say that the Christian doctrine of Purgatory—a place or state of purification of those in the intermediate state—is rooted in ancient Jewish faith. The rich man of the Parable is in a state similar to Purgatory. He is experiencing suffering, but he has not been condemned to Hell and is still able to communicate with the righteous, which would not be possible in Hell. 

Now with regard to the meaning of this parable: the rich man is receiving punishment in the afterlife because of his sins. The parable implies that his primary sin was his utter disregard for the welfare of a fellow Israelite, Lazarus, who begged at the door of his house in utter squalor, lacking even basic necessities. In this attitude he parallels the wealthy elite of Jerusalem from the First Reading, who were not the least distressed by the discrimination of their cousins to the north. Jesus is condemning the callousness of those who live lives of self-indulgence while ignoring the needs of the poor, especially the poor of their own community of faith. 

The conclusion of the dialogue between Abraham and the rich man is interesting. The rich man pleads with Abraham to send someone to warn his brothers, but Abraham responds, “They have Moses and the prophets. … if they will not listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded if someone should come from the dead.” 

“Moses and the Prophets” is a reference to the sum total of the Old Testament, often referred to as the “Law and the Prophets.” This points out the importance of practicing economic justice toward the widow, the orphan, the stranger, and poor people. Just look at Deuteronomy 15 and Leviticus 25, for example. Those who did not heed God’s prophets had hard hearts. Even a resurrection would not persuade them. As it turns out, the wealthy of Jerusalem are not persuaded by the resurrection of a man named Lazarus just as they were not moved to repentance by the Scriptures. In fact, when Jesus was resurrected, many still did not believe. This shows that faith is a personal response and choice; it is not necessarily persuaded by external effects. 

Yours in Christ, 

Fr. Vincent Clemente