
UPIS DO MISSION
MAILING ADDRESS
P.O. BOX 110, 89507 PENAMPANG
TELEPHONE
088-711009 / 088-715804
MOBILE PHONE
010 200 1924 (WhatsApp only)
010 200 1934 (Data Entry Unit-WhatsApp Only)
FAX
088-712614
PARISH PRIEST
Rev. Fr. Wilfred Atin
ASST. PARISH PRIEST
Rev. Fr. Gilbert Marcus
Rev. Fr. Wilson Francis
WOORI JIB
Rev. Fr. Lawrence Kim
Rev. Fr. Andrew Kim
THIS SUNDAY'S READING
1st Reading
Jer 20: 10-13
Psalm
Psalm 68: 8-10. 14 & 17. 33-25
2nd Reading
Rom 5: 12-15
Gospel
Mat 10: : 26-33
NEXT SUNDAY'S READING
1st Reading
2 Kings 4: 8-11. 14-16a
Psalm
Psalm 88: 2-3. 16-17. 18-19
2nd Reading
Rom 6: 3-4. 8-11
Gospel
Mat 10: 37-42
FROM THE RECTOR'S DESK

One of the challenges I encountered when I was first assigned as a Priest in Charge of Kota Kinabalu Ecclesiastical Tribunal was to explain, in layman term, the word “annulment”. Many people either had no idea about it or equated it with “divorce”. Annulment is NOT divorce. To annul a marriage means to declare that a marriage is null and void because it did not fulfil the canonical requirements of the Church for Sacrament of Matrimony. In other words, the marriage was not supposed to have been allowed in the first place because it didn’t meet the conditions required by the Church. Usually, after hearing the explanation, parishioners (the witnesses in particular) would be more relaxed and cooperative with the Tribunal office. However, once a while, there are people who, no matter how the term is being explained, still so stubborn in insisting that annulment is evil and contradicts Jesus’ teaching. This kind of people are exactly like the grumpy labourers we have heard in the gospel for this 25th Sunday of Ordinary Time.
The labourers were grumbling because they thought they have been treated unjustly by the owner of the vineyard. They came first and yet they received the same amount of wages with those who came to work much later. They either didn’t pay attention to the deal they were offered or were so envious of their fellow labourers that they started challenging the Vineyard owner. They talked without thinking. They reacted without understanding the real issue. They didn’t analyze the situation thoroughly. The owner of the vineyard was not being injustice. The issue had nothing to do with just wages or equal right. He was simply being generous. He was exercising his right as the legal owner of the vineyard.