WE need to understand that fidelity
to any
commitment—whether to marriage and family, or a company, or an
organization, and especially to a charism and vocation—has to contend
with the obvious fact of life that there is also change.
Life is in a constant flux, and our sense of fidelity and
commitment should know how to cope with this reality without getting
lost.
Fidelity should not just be a matter of blind adherence to
certain principles and promises. It has to be understood in a dynamic
way that requires constant vigilance and monitoring of new
developments, a continuing process of renewal and purification, of
adjusting and adapting, of loosening certain things while tightening
the essentials.
Of course, when we talk about fidelity we refer primarily
to something that should not change. We should be very clear about
what would comprise as essential and necessary in any commitment, and
what would simply be incidental. The former should be held permanently
no matter what, while the latter may or even should change.
Even in the matter of fidelity and commitment to a certain
charism, we have to be most discerning about what is essential in it
and what is not. That’s because no matter how spiritual and
supernatural it is, when it impacts into our life, it can’t help but
be received in human terms that always can stand further deepening and
purifying.
This is not to mention that later on, the same commitment
is understood, expressed and lived in different ways, depending on all
kinds of circumstances, factors and conditions we are all subject to.
For example, the same charism may be lived differently
according to the different cultures of the people involved, and other
factors like the social environment, historical background, not to
mention, personal circumstances, etc.
A charism in the 16th century, one that has developed into
a kind of structure through the years, would look different now than
when it was first received. It’s still the same charism, but it
certainly has assumed many layers of conditionings that are supposed
to strengthen it, not weaken it. Fidelity to it does not mean living
it the way it was lived in the 16th century.
For it to survive, any charism has to deal always with the
flowing changes of the world. It should not be afraid of the world,
taken the way it is, warts and all, for it is there where God is
talking to them.
Otherwise, that charism can deteriorate into an enclosed,
introverted, pharisaical system, detached from God who also speaks to
us through the things of the world, and sooner and later would be
saddled with all sorts of legalisms, traditionalism and bureaucracy,
and even exuding a repulsive holier-than-thou aura.
There’s a certain unity involved in being faithful to a
commitment, but a unity that is not uniformity. There’s also a certain
exclusivity involved in any commitment, but one that that is open to
the things of the world.
This distinction is crucial, and everything should be done
to make that distinction clear, because it is very easy for us to
confuse them.
And when we confuse them, we infringe on the legitimate
freedom of the people involved, and the charisms and spiritualities
would sooner or later become irrelevant and useless. They would lose
their vitality.
The Church itself, born in a very dramatic way on
Pentecost, has to undergo all kinds of changes without compromising
its essence of being the Mystical Body of Christ, the People of God.
It has to contend with all kinds of historical developments.
Its body of doctrine has grown tremendously. Its attitude
to the ethos of the different ages of its history has also changed
accordingly. While remaining the same and holy because of Christ who
is its head, its changeable aspects undeniably have gone through
continuing renewals, purifications and corrections.
Thus, any interest in pursuing and living fidelity has to
entail a continuing clarification of what is essential and what is
not. This will require nothing less than a living contact with God who
is the quintessence of fidelity in a changing world. It certainly
would not be enough to rely solely on some philosophy or ideology.
It would be wrong and dangerous either to focus simply on
the essential core of the commitment, the subject of fidelity, without
making reference to the changing circumstances, or vice-versa, to
focus exclusively on the changing circumstances without clarifying the
essential core.
Both the essential and the incidentals, the permanent and
the changeable have to be continually clarified for fidelity to any
commitment to be achieved.
commitment—whether to marriage and family, or a company, or an
organization, and especially to a charism and vocation—has to contend
with the obvious fact of life that there is also change.
Life is in a constant flux, and our sense of fidelity and
commitment should know how to cope with this reality without getting
lost.
Fidelity should not just be a matter of blind adherence to
certain principles and promises. It has to be understood in a dynamic
way that requires constant vigilance and monitoring of new
developments, a continuing process of renewal and purification, of
adjusting and adapting, of loosening certain things while tightening
the essentials.
Of course, when we talk about fidelity we refer primarily
to something that should not change. We should be very clear about
what would comprise as essential and necessary in any commitment, and
what would simply be incidental. The former should be held permanently
no matter what, while the latter may or even should change.
Even in the matter of fidelity and commitment to a certain
charism, we have to be most discerning about what is essential in it
and what is not. That’s because no matter how spiritual and
supernatural it is, when it impacts into our life, it can’t help but
be received in human terms that always can stand further deepening and
purifying.
This is not to mention that later on, the same commitment
is understood, expressed and lived in different ways, depending on all
kinds of circumstances, factors and conditions we are all subject to.
For example, the same charism may be lived differently
according to the different cultures of the people involved, and other
factors like the social environment, historical background, not to
mention, personal circumstances, etc.
A charism in the 16th century, one that has developed into
a kind of structure through the years, would look different now than
when it was first received. It’s still the same charism, but it
certainly has assumed many layers of conditionings that are supposed
to strengthen it, not weaken it. Fidelity to it does not mean living
it the way it was lived in the 16th century.
For it to survive, any charism has to deal always with the
flowing changes of the world. It should not be afraid of the world,
taken the way it is, warts and all, for it is there where God is
talking to them.
Otherwise, that charism can deteriorate into an enclosed,
introverted, pharisaical system, detached from God who also speaks to
us through the things of the world, and sooner and later would be
saddled with all sorts of legalisms, traditionalism and bureaucracy,
and even exuding a repulsive holier-than-thou aura.
There’s a certain unity involved in being faithful to a
commitment, but a unity that is not uniformity. There’s also a certain
exclusivity involved in any commitment, but one that that is open to
the things of the world.
This distinction is crucial, and everything should be done
to make that distinction clear, because it is very easy for us to
confuse them.
And when we confuse them, we infringe on the legitimate
freedom of the people involved, and the charisms and spiritualities
would sooner or later become irrelevant and useless. They would lose
their vitality.
The Church itself, born in a very dramatic way on
Pentecost, has to undergo all kinds of changes without compromising
its essence of being the Mystical Body of Christ, the People of God.
It has to contend with all kinds of historical developments.
Its body of doctrine has grown tremendously. Its attitude
to the ethos of the different ages of its history has also changed
accordingly. While remaining the same and holy because of Christ who
is its head, its changeable aspects undeniably have gone through
continuing renewals, purifications and corrections.
Thus, any interest in pursuing and living fidelity has to
entail a continuing clarification of what is essential and what is
not. This will require nothing less than a living contact with God who
is the quintessence of fidelity in a changing world. It certainly
would not be enough to rely solely on some philosophy or ideology.
It would be wrong and dangerous either to focus simply on
the essential core of the commitment, the subject of fidelity, without
making reference to the changing circumstances, or vice-versa, to
focus exclusively on the changing circumstances without clarifying the
essential core.
Both the essential and the incidentals, the permanent and
the changeable have to be continually clarified for fidelity to any
commitment to be achieved.
No comments:
Post a Comment