…my priest explained that the master in the parable was not God, but rather a greedy person.
Strictly from a scriptural viewpoint, I think that I can say that your priest’s interpretation of this parable is a bit off the mark (to say the least). Jesus begins this parable by saying:
“For
it will be as when a man going on a journey called his servants and entrusted to them his property;” (Mat 25:14, emphasis added)
What does the word “it” refer to? If we back up in this gospel, we see that Jesus had just taught the
Parable of the Wise and Foolish Maidens, which was about being (among other things) vigilant because the Second Coming of Christ may happen at any time. He ends the
Parable of the Wise and Foolish Maidens by saying,
“Watch therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour.” (Mat 25:13)
It is immediately after this that he says…
“For it will be as when a man going on a journey called his servants and entrusted to them his property; to one he gave five talents, to another two, to another one, to each according to his ability. Then he went away.” (Mat 25:14-15)
So “it” refers to the Second Coming of Christ. Therefore, the *Parable of the Talents *is a further elaboration on the teaching of the
Wise and Foolish Maidens. In light of this, in the
Parable of the Talents, who is the master who is going away on a long journey but one day eventually returns? Jesus. In the
Parable of the Wise and Foolish Maidens, Jesus is the bridegroom suddenly arriving to lead the marriage procession, and in the
Parable of the Talents he is the Master who returns from a long journey.
Also keep in mind that, according to the
Parable of the Talents, upon his return the master
judges his servants, and the one with one talent is judged to be “wicked” and “lazy” (i.e., the capital sin of sloth) and is “thrown into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and grinding of teeth,” which is clearly hell imagery. For your priest to simply say that the parable culminated with the servant being “fired” does not really do the imagery of the parable justice. Note that the
Parable of the Wise and Foolish Maidens likewise ends with a judgement (the foolish maidens are not allowed into the marriage banquet). God is the one (as opposed to an earthly greedy master) who will return one day to judge whether or not we are allowed into the heavenly marriage banquet or condemned to the outer darkness of hell.
So the master in the
Parable of the Talents is God,
not a greedy person. And the servant with one talent was wicked and lazy, not a person compassionate to the poor. The parable does not say that more money was gained by the other servants because they exploited the poor, and the parable says that servant with one talent could have avoided his fate had he simply put the coin in the bank to draw interest (an action that does not directly represent the exploitation of the poor). In other words, the master would have been compassionate on this servant had he demonstrated at least
some kind of effort, even if minimal. But the servant allowed his sloth to prevent him from being fruitful to any degree.
Had the parable told the story of a servant who gave away the talent in order to help the poor, without any consideration of repayment or other compensation, was willing to endure the persecution of a greedy master as a result, but was rewarded by our Heavenly Father for his compassion and virtue, then this would have served the homily in question better. But that is not what the
Parable of the Talents says, nor is it what this parable teaches. The teaching is our talents (in terms of abilities, skills and blessings) are gifts from God, but God expects them to be used to bear fruit (i.e., virtuous deeds, helping to promote the kingdom of God in this world, etc.). Those who squander their God-given talents will be held accountable by Christ at their judgement.
I can appreciate the fact that your priest is concerned about the economy, and I agree that there is a lot of reprehensible things done in our society for the sake of profits over the well-being of people. Such actions are contrary to the teachings of the Old Testament prophets, the teachings of the gospels, and the teachings of the Catholic Church. Naturally, the perpetrators of such social and economical injustice will be held accountable by Christ, and all this certainly deserves to be preached in a homily. But, in my opinion, I think that the priest in question should have waited to use his homily in accordance with a Mass reading that better represented these issues rather than use the
Parable of the Talents which is not really about the economy nor about being charitable to the poor.
As a side note, in my above statement I am not expressing support for the Occupy Wall Street Movement, but simply making a general statement about problems in our society as a whole. I’m not really able to comment, one way or another, on the agenda and proposals of OWS until its participants manage to clearly articulate what their agenda and proposals are (assuming that vandalism, violence, intimidation, obstruction of business, monopoly of the use of public property, and anti-law enforcement activities are not the actual agenda).
