IT’S nice to know that many dioceses
in the country are
adopting the so-called Standard Living Allowance (SLA) plan for their
priests and, of course, their bishops. It’s an effort to take care of
the basic needs and sustenance of the clergy whatever their pastoral
assignments and personal conditions may be. We indeed have to take
care of them who are selfless in bringing Christ to the faithful.
The appropriate structures and systems of the plan are
being put up. Some period of experimentation is now underway. The
learning process has started with obvious cases of some kinks and
snags being ironed out.
All these are good. But let’s remember that the structures
and systems, no matter how effective and efficient they are in theory,
would come to nothing if they are not animated by the proper spirit of
poverty that we, clerics, are supposed to live. As St. Paul puts it:
“The written code kills, but the Spirit gives life.” (2 Cor 3,6)
We should then understand that this whole business of
establishing the SLA is not just about money and sustenance and of how
Church finances can be allocated with greater equity. It is, first and
last, a matter of reinforcing the priestly spirit of poverty that is
very crucial in the priest’s identity, dignity and ministry.
We have to understand that without this proper priestly
spirit of poverty, the priesthood is compromised or at least
distorted, no matter how showy a priest struts his stuff. He will end
simply being a performer, a user, a bureaucrat, instead of the
sacramental representation of Christ as head of the Church, a
dispenser of the divine mysteries
In the Directory on the Ministry and Life of Priests,
issued in 1994, some description of this priestly spirit of poverty is
made (n. 67). Priestly poverty is pictured as an image of the poverty
of Christ that has a salvific scope. It is the way to make one totally
available to the things of God, of Christ, and the needs of the
people.
“A priest could hardly be a true servant and minister of
his brothers if he were excessively worried with his comfort and
well-being,” it says. With respect to the created and earthly goods,
the priest can use them but “with a sense of responsibility,
moderation, upright intention and detachment, precisely because he has
his treasure in heaven and knows that all should be used for building
the Kingdom of God.”
The directory encourages the priest to lead “a simple life
and avoid anything which could have an air of vanity, voluntarily
embracing poverty to follow Christ more closely. In all aspects
(living quarters, means of transportation, vacations, etc.), the
priest must eliminate any kind of affectation and luxury.”
It’s sad to note that many people have been turned off by
the way some priests comport themselves in public. Rightly or wrongly,
they have claimed that some priests have luxury cars, ostentatious
manners and are always thinking of money to the extent that people
brand them as “mukhang pera,” converting their priesthood into some
kind of business.
This does not mean that priests should look and smell like
beggars. Far from it. They, in fact, should be elegant, decently
attired and easily distinguishable as priests who can readily be
approached by anyone. As much as possible, they should not be mistaken
as ‘habal-habal’ or jeepney drivers or some misplaced celebrities,
etc.
I suppose it would be good if regular lifestyle checks can
be made by the proper church authority so that the appropriate
suggestions, corrections, solutions and remedies can be made promptly,
avoiding scandals that can really be harmful to the life of the
Church, not to mention the priests concerned themselves.
What can be helpful is when priests themselves have
regular spiritual directions to which they should have recourse with
all freedom. We should not forget that the greater the responsibility
one has, the greater also is his need for guidance and discipline. The
moment this principle is forgotten or taken for granted, the incidence
of all kinds of anomalies would just be a matter of time.
The directory also says that a priest should be a friend
of those most in need, reserving “his most refined pastoral charity
for these, with a preferential option for all poverty, old and new,
tragically present in our world, always remembering that the first
misery from which man must be liberated is that of sin, the root of
all evil.”
All of these indications about priestly spirit of poverty
have to be lived with naturalness and discretion, knowing how to pass
unnoticed, without ever screaming to the world, “I am poor.”
adopting the so-called Standard Living Allowance (SLA) plan for their
priests and, of course, their bishops. It’s an effort to take care of
the basic needs and sustenance of the clergy whatever their pastoral
assignments and personal conditions may be. We indeed have to take
care of them who are selfless in bringing Christ to the faithful.
The appropriate structures and systems of the plan are
being put up. Some period of experimentation is now underway. The
learning process has started with obvious cases of some kinks and
snags being ironed out.
All these are good. But let’s remember that the structures
and systems, no matter how effective and efficient they are in theory,
would come to nothing if they are not animated by the proper spirit of
poverty that we, clerics, are supposed to live. As St. Paul puts it:
“The written code kills, but the Spirit gives life.” (2 Cor 3,6)
We should then understand that this whole business of
establishing the SLA is not just about money and sustenance and of how
Church finances can be allocated with greater equity. It is, first and
last, a matter of reinforcing the priestly spirit of poverty that is
very crucial in the priest’s identity, dignity and ministry.
We have to understand that without this proper priestly
spirit of poverty, the priesthood is compromised or at least
distorted, no matter how showy a priest struts his stuff. He will end
simply being a performer, a user, a bureaucrat, instead of the
sacramental representation of Christ as head of the Church, a
dispenser of the divine mysteries
In the Directory on the Ministry and Life of Priests,
issued in 1994, some description of this priestly spirit of poverty is
made (n. 67). Priestly poverty is pictured as an image of the poverty
of Christ that has a salvific scope. It is the way to make one totally
available to the things of God, of Christ, and the needs of the
people.
“A priest could hardly be a true servant and minister of
his brothers if he were excessively worried with his comfort and
well-being,” it says. With respect to the created and earthly goods,
the priest can use them but “with a sense of responsibility,
moderation, upright intention and detachment, precisely because he has
his treasure in heaven and knows that all should be used for building
the Kingdom of God.”
The directory encourages the priest to lead “a simple life
and avoid anything which could have an air of vanity, voluntarily
embracing poverty to follow Christ more closely. In all aspects
(living quarters, means of transportation, vacations, etc.), the
priest must eliminate any kind of affectation and luxury.”
It’s sad to note that many people have been turned off by
the way some priests comport themselves in public. Rightly or wrongly,
they have claimed that some priests have luxury cars, ostentatious
manners and are always thinking of money to the extent that people
brand them as “mukhang pera,” converting their priesthood into some
kind of business.
This does not mean that priests should look and smell like
beggars. Far from it. They, in fact, should be elegant, decently
attired and easily distinguishable as priests who can readily be
approached by anyone. As much as possible, they should not be mistaken
as ‘habal-habal’ or jeepney drivers or some misplaced celebrities,
etc.
I suppose it would be good if regular lifestyle checks can
be made by the proper church authority so that the appropriate
suggestions, corrections, solutions and remedies can be made promptly,
avoiding scandals that can really be harmful to the life of the
Church, not to mention the priests concerned themselves.
What can be helpful is when priests themselves have
regular spiritual directions to which they should have recourse with
all freedom. We should not forget that the greater the responsibility
one has, the greater also is his need for guidance and discipline. The
moment this principle is forgotten or taken for granted, the incidence
of all kinds of anomalies would just be a matter of time.
The directory also says that a priest should be a friend
of those most in need, reserving “his most refined pastoral charity
for these, with a preferential option for all poverty, old and new,
tragically present in our world, always remembering that the first
misery from which man must be liberated is that of sin, the root of
all evil.”
All of these indications about priestly spirit of poverty
have to be lived with naturalness and discretion, knowing how to pass
unnoticed, without ever screaming to the world, “I am poor.”
No comments:
Post a Comment