ONE of the greatest disasters of our times is that many
people,
a great majority of them, have nothing but disgust and even hatred for
the distinctive value of suffering. For them, suffering is an
intrinsic evil, and therefore should be avoided at all costs.
The cross, the icon of suffering, should be nothing other than
an ornament at best. It should not hold any other purpose or meaning.
This is the sad thing about our current world culture. It
directly contradicts what Christ said: “If any man will come after me,
let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.” (Mt
16,24)
The cross, in whatever form it comes, is actually the key that
opens the spiritual and supernatural world meant for us. It widens our
perspectives, and leads us to transcend the limits of our human
nature. It enables us to enter into the dynamics of a love that is not
only material but also spiritual, not only natural but also
supernatural.
It represents the extreme and ultimate way of loving, as it
invites us to go beyond the confines of our wounded human nature in
order to soar to the divine love from where we come and to where we
are supposed to go.
With the cross, we would know how to pay for the offenses and
sins we have committed. It is the fair deal we are offered in exchange
of the tremendous benefit it also gives us—nothing less than the
possibility to love all the way to God.
God, and not just the sky, is the limit of our loving. That’s
why Christ gave us the new commandment that summarizes all the other
previous commandments given to us—that we love one another as he,
Christ, loved us. Christ is the standard of our love, and not just any
human and natural value.
That’s why saints and holy men and women, following the example
of Christ, have always seen the cross as something most welcome in
their lives, because Christ’s love for us goes all the way to the
cross. Pope Benedict says, “There is no love without suffering.”
Opus Dei founder, St. Josemaria Escriva, echoing the sentiments
of all the saints, laments that “the cross is still a symbol of death,
instead of being a sign of life. People still flee from the cross as
though it were a scaffold, when it is a throne of glory. Christians
still reject the cross and identify it with sorrow, instead of
identifying it with love.”
Without the cross, we debase our love and restrict it to the
purely sensual, worldly and temporal level. Without it, the wings of
our love are cut as it functions only on the basis of practicality,
convenience, popularity and other earthly values, motives and
advantages.
This is what we see in all these rationalizations behind the
move to pass the RH Bill, for example. Those for it, as well as all
those who are for abortion, euthanasia and similar things, are
espousing a kind of love that sees no value in the cross.
It’s ok to contracept, it’s ok to abort, it’s ok to euthanize,
because to a particular person, that may be the right thing to do. No
one should dare to correct him, unless some immediate physical harm
takes place.
They are developing a kind of morality that is not based on God
who is love, bur rather on their own idea of what is good and evil.
They make themselves their own God.
Since it’s a morality that denies God, it cannot help but fall
to the belief that there can be no absolute truths and no universal
moral law. The corollary is that everything is relative to the acting
person, to the situation, to the consequences, and to other
circumstances and elements, etc.
Of course, it is ironic that what is relative and
individualistic is now made the absolute and universal moral law.
Everything is reduced to the thinking that what may be good to me may
not be good to you, and vice-versa. There’s no such thing as an
intrinsically good act which should be fostered at all times, nor an
intrinsically bad act that should be avoided at all times.
This thinking is contained in such ethical systems as
relativism, situation ethics, consequentialism, proportionalism, and
some peculiar variations of the so-called fundamental option and
liberation theology.
Only considering the circumstances and ignoring the nature of
the act itself and the agent’s intentions, they detach themselves from
God who loves us through the Cross.
a great majority of them, have nothing but disgust and even hatred for
the distinctive value of suffering. For them, suffering is an
intrinsic evil, and therefore should be avoided at all costs.
The cross, the icon of suffering, should be nothing other than
an ornament at best. It should not hold any other purpose or meaning.
This is the sad thing about our current world culture. It
directly contradicts what Christ said: “If any man will come after me,
let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.” (Mt
16,24)
The cross, in whatever form it comes, is actually the key that
opens the spiritual and supernatural world meant for us. It widens our
perspectives, and leads us to transcend the limits of our human
nature. It enables us to enter into the dynamics of a love that is not
only material but also spiritual, not only natural but also
supernatural.
It represents the extreme and ultimate way of loving, as it
invites us to go beyond the confines of our wounded human nature in
order to soar to the divine love from where we come and to where we
are supposed to go.
With the cross, we would know how to pay for the offenses and
sins we have committed. It is the fair deal we are offered in exchange
of the tremendous benefit it also gives us—nothing less than the
possibility to love all the way to God.
God, and not just the sky, is the limit of our loving. That’s
why Christ gave us the new commandment that summarizes all the other
previous commandments given to us—that we love one another as he,
Christ, loved us. Christ is the standard of our love, and not just any
human and natural value.
That’s why saints and holy men and women, following the example
of Christ, have always seen the cross as something most welcome in
their lives, because Christ’s love for us goes all the way to the
cross. Pope Benedict says, “There is no love without suffering.”
Opus Dei founder, St. Josemaria Escriva, echoing the sentiments
of all the saints, laments that “the cross is still a symbol of death,
instead of being a sign of life. People still flee from the cross as
though it were a scaffold, when it is a throne of glory. Christians
still reject the cross and identify it with sorrow, instead of
identifying it with love.”
Without the cross, we debase our love and restrict it to the
purely sensual, worldly and temporal level. Without it, the wings of
our love are cut as it functions only on the basis of practicality,
convenience, popularity and other earthly values, motives and
advantages.
This is what we see in all these rationalizations behind the
move to pass the RH Bill, for example. Those for it, as well as all
those who are for abortion, euthanasia and similar things, are
espousing a kind of love that sees no value in the cross.
It’s ok to contracept, it’s ok to abort, it’s ok to euthanize,
because to a particular person, that may be the right thing to do. No
one should dare to correct him, unless some immediate physical harm
takes place.
They are developing a kind of morality that is not based on God
who is love, bur rather on their own idea of what is good and evil.
They make themselves their own God.
Since it’s a morality that denies God, it cannot help but fall
to the belief that there can be no absolute truths and no universal
moral law. The corollary is that everything is relative to the acting
person, to the situation, to the consequences, and to other
circumstances and elements, etc.
Of course, it is ironic that what is relative and
individualistic is now made the absolute and universal moral law.
Everything is reduced to the thinking that what may be good to me may
not be good to you, and vice-versa. There’s no such thing as an
intrinsically good act which should be fostered at all times, nor an
intrinsically bad act that should be avoided at all times.
This thinking is contained in such ethical systems as
relativism, situation ethics, consequentialism, proportionalism, and
some peculiar variations of the so-called fundamental option and
liberation theology.
Only considering the circumstances and ignoring the nature of
the act itself and the agent’s intentions, they detach themselves from
God who loves us through the Cross.
No comments:
Post a Comment