WE have just started the season of Advent. And with it, we begin another liturgical year, a specific aspect of time that reminds us we are in union with Christ in his person and his redemptive work in spite of our weaknesses and sins, through the sacraments, especially the Holy Eucharist.
No, we have not been left orphans because of the death of Christ. He resurrected and ascended into heaven. He now sits at the right hand of his Father, and yet he is also with us here. It’s a mystery, a truth we cannot fully understand or explain. It’s God’s love that makes all this a wonderful reality.
Our life here on earth is a continuing cycle of beginning and ending. And if we follow by our Christian faith, these cycles are meant to catapult us to eternal life, in heaven, where...
“God shall wipe away all tears from their (our) eyes, and death shall be no more, nor mourning, nor crying, nor sorrow shall be any more, for the former things are passed away,” (Rev 21,4) and where “the gates shall not be shut by day, for there shall be no night there.” (Rev 21,23)
On the more human level, Advent is the preparation for Christmas that, thank God, still holds a palpable mystique over us. God knows that whatever crisis we may be in, we manage to feel different and special when it comes.
It’s just that we have to make Advent not merely a time for worrying about the material aspects of the preparation. We need to enter into its true spirit, a deeply meaningful one that gives us the sensation we are being brought home again, regaining our true bearings as God’s children.
Advent should be a time of longing for Christ. Truth is as we go through the years, we often lose our Christian footing for endless reasons and factors. We get distracted, we get tempted and many times fall into sin. We can succumb to spiritual lukewarmness, and other worse things can follow.
In fact, we can even say that in spite of the over-all world progress in the sciences and technology, we still remain Jurassic in the field of the spiritual and supernatural realities of our life. It’s an unbalanced, monstrous picture of our human development.
We feel awkward at praying. We don’t understand why we need to make sacrifices. Oceanic loopholes and gaps clutter between what we profess and what we do. We’re good at intentions. But many times we are failures in deeds.
Advent is appropriate for correcting these anomalies. It’s a time for self-corrections, atonement and reparation. It’s also a time to strengthen our spiritual life and tighten our focus on what is absolutely necessary.
I think that’s the main challenge most of us have these days. With an explosion of things coming our way and asking our attention, we need to be most discerning, prudent and competent in integrating all the elements in their proper hierarchy.
For this, we can take comfort in the example of Christ. He came to save us by re-creating us. He came to put back everything to where it truly belongs—God. He was and continues to be involved in everything, I suppose, including our business and politics and all our earthly affairs.
Yet in the Gospel, it is clear that he refused to have to anything to do with certain things though they are good in themselves. He only rejected temptation and sin outright.
He did not get involved in politics. He did not like to be made king. He declined to be a judge in a dispute between brothers concerning family inheritance.
He made that distinction between what is Caesar’s and what is God’s, and though he rendered his duties towards both, he definitely focused on the things of his Father.
Clearly, he observed a certain scheme of priorities that made him refuse to do certain things though they are good. This is what we need to develop in ourselves—a sense of priority that would guide us everyday in organizing all our activities and concerns, seeing to it that we really do God’s will.
For this, we need to train ourselves to be discriminating in the many options presented to us daily. We have to learn how to say “no” to certain things if only to focus on what is truly necessary.
I feel this is the character Advent these days is proposing to us.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Call for civil disobedience?
THERE’S an intriguing manifesto issued recently by some 150 American religious leaders who threaten to call for civil disobedience if US laws compel them to do what is against their beliefs and consciences.
The coalition includes some Catholic bishops and cardinals, Orthodox and evangelical leaders who react strongly to the drift in American laws that pressure their faithful to participate or get involved in activities like abortion, same-sex marriage and others that violate their Christian faith and morals.
It was released only last November 20 though the draft was made a month earlier after, I suppose, a long period of consultation among the religious leaders. It’s entitled “The Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience.” It’s 4,700 words long.
It laments the proliferation of social ills that undermine the culture of life, marriage and the family in American society. Divorces, the group’s spokesmen say, have risen dramatically, marital infidelity is becoming more acceptable, and marriage is detached from childbearing.
They also say that the statement is meant to educate their faithful, especially the young ones, that there is a hierarchy of issues that they have to identify clearly and react accordingly. And the most important ones, they say, are those about abortion, marriage and religious freedom.
The manifesto, however, has not specified exactly what actions to take to carry out this possibility of civil disobedience. But it reassured all that civil disobedience is a legitimate and a moral option to resort to when proper conditions are present.
“Throughout the centuries, Christianity has taught that civil disobedience is not only permitted, but sometimes required,” says the document, citing the example of Martin Luther King, a civil rights hero who was willing to go to jail for his beliefs.
To me, this new American development, thank God, may not be immediately applicable to the situation to our country, but it certainly can serve as a great learning opportunity regarding our duties towards our faith and beliefs.
Very often, we seem to take our religion lightly, easily entering into compromises with hardly any effort to determine if a concrete planned action is good or bad to it, or to know the good side as well as the dangers of such action, so we can be properly guided.
A case in point is the Reproductive Health Bill now pending approval in our Congress. Many of us Christian believers give scant attention to it, even dismissing it as unimportant.
Truth is, just like what that American manifesto said, the issue of the reproductive health possesses far greater significance than many of the so-called raging political, economic and social issues we have. Without disparaging these latter issues, the reproductive health belongs to a higher category.
There is indeed a hierarchy of issues, and we have to admit that the one of reproductive health has potentials to harm us more deeply than any mistake committed in the other issues, because it affects us in our soul more than in our material and bodily dimensions.
But since it requires more introspection and discernment, the objective importance of the reproductive health issue can escape many of us. That’s why, religious leaders are there to remind, clarify and explain things to everyone.
Sometimes though, we have this saddening development when religious leader are remiss of their duties, and instead of giving clear and prudent indications, issue confusing directions. That’s when they can actually cause unspeakable damage to the spiritual and moral lives of the people.
They handle their prophetic office badly since instead of teaching what the Church says, they prefer to peddle their own ideas. Instead of stating the clear doctrine, they would rather have opinions and other casuistic arguments. Their words and actions often are not in tune with official teaching.
Sometimes, they want to mainstream what is actually meant to be an exception. Thus, with respect to the reproductive health, the morality of natural family planning method is diluted sometimes to a fatal degree such that the method becomes a tool of contraception rather than of true conjugal love.
We need to be aware and be alerted to these developments in our midst. We should avoid being alarmists, but neither should we take our little daily duties of living and defending our faith for granted.
Let’s remember that big catastrophes are often caused by little neglects we commit everyday, much like the unstopped drip or unattended leakage that can eventually collapse a large edifice.
The coalition includes some Catholic bishops and cardinals, Orthodox and evangelical leaders who react strongly to the drift in American laws that pressure their faithful to participate or get involved in activities like abortion, same-sex marriage and others that violate their Christian faith and morals.
It was released only last November 20 though the draft was made a month earlier after, I suppose, a long period of consultation among the religious leaders. It’s entitled “The Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience.” It’s 4,700 words long.
It laments the proliferation of social ills that undermine the culture of life, marriage and the family in American society. Divorces, the group’s spokesmen say, have risen dramatically, marital infidelity is becoming more acceptable, and marriage is detached from childbearing.
They also say that the statement is meant to educate their faithful, especially the young ones, that there is a hierarchy of issues that they have to identify clearly and react accordingly. And the most important ones, they say, are those about abortion, marriage and religious freedom.
The manifesto, however, has not specified exactly what actions to take to carry out this possibility of civil disobedience. But it reassured all that civil disobedience is a legitimate and a moral option to resort to when proper conditions are present.
“Throughout the centuries, Christianity has taught that civil disobedience is not only permitted, but sometimes required,” says the document, citing the example of Martin Luther King, a civil rights hero who was willing to go to jail for his beliefs.
To me, this new American development, thank God, may not be immediately applicable to the situation to our country, but it certainly can serve as a great learning opportunity regarding our duties towards our faith and beliefs.
Very often, we seem to take our religion lightly, easily entering into compromises with hardly any effort to determine if a concrete planned action is good or bad to it, or to know the good side as well as the dangers of such action, so we can be properly guided.
A case in point is the Reproductive Health Bill now pending approval in our Congress. Many of us Christian believers give scant attention to it, even dismissing it as unimportant.
Truth is, just like what that American manifesto said, the issue of the reproductive health possesses far greater significance than many of the so-called raging political, economic and social issues we have. Without disparaging these latter issues, the reproductive health belongs to a higher category.
There is indeed a hierarchy of issues, and we have to admit that the one of reproductive health has potentials to harm us more deeply than any mistake committed in the other issues, because it affects us in our soul more than in our material and bodily dimensions.
But since it requires more introspection and discernment, the objective importance of the reproductive health issue can escape many of us. That’s why, religious leaders are there to remind, clarify and explain things to everyone.
Sometimes though, we have this saddening development when religious leader are remiss of their duties, and instead of giving clear and prudent indications, issue confusing directions. That’s when they can actually cause unspeakable damage to the spiritual and moral lives of the people.
They handle their prophetic office badly since instead of teaching what the Church says, they prefer to peddle their own ideas. Instead of stating the clear doctrine, they would rather have opinions and other casuistic arguments. Their words and actions often are not in tune with official teaching.
Sometimes, they want to mainstream what is actually meant to be an exception. Thus, with respect to the reproductive health, the morality of natural family planning method is diluted sometimes to a fatal degree such that the method becomes a tool of contraception rather than of true conjugal love.
We need to be aware and be alerted to these developments in our midst. We should avoid being alarmists, but neither should we take our little daily duties of living and defending our faith for granted.
Let’s remember that big catastrophes are often caused by little neglects we commit everyday, much like the unstopped drip or unattended leakage that can eventually collapse a large edifice.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Overpopulation alibi revived
AFTER being caught for not being earnest in their surveys by withholding the ugly penal provisions of the Reproductive Health Bill in Congress, the supporters of the bill are now calling for a compromise, insisting that the bill is still necessary. Really?
Again their ultimate reason is, hold your breath, that there is overpopulation and that it is the main culprit for the poverty we see around. Some of our politicians are mouthing that mantra. We have to be careful with these simpletons passing for our most concerned leaders, as if they have the exclusive rights to compassion.
The overpopulation argument is a myth. In the first place, who among us can really say that beyond a certain number or level of population of our country, we are already too many?
Who among us can really say that such-and-such a person, for being old or handicapped or poor or whatever, should not have been born? And worse, who among us can really say that such couple or such family should only have so many in their household?
But thatś what this overpopulation alibi in the end amounts to, already shorn of its beautiful adornments. It tells us, nay, it dictates to us how many we should be. Crazy! The congenital infirmity of this approach is that it reduces the population issue into a numbers game mainly. And that is always wrong.
We are not dealing here with animals, plants or some products. We are dealing here with persons whose exercise of their reason and freedom, no matter how improperly done, just cannot be confined to a math exercise.
We need to deal with this population issue in a more humane way. And while the economic aspect is important, and even indispensable, we have to recognize the more important aspect of the morality involved in crafting any policy related to population or reproductive health.
Granted that there is some relation between the incidence of poverty measured in economic terms and population, this is no absolute, ultimate reason why we have to stop our considerations there. Our dignity requires a lot more.
Morality probes far deeper into human dignity and propriety than what the best economics can hope to cover. It should always be considered and in fact given priority over other criteria when dealing with delicate matters like the population and reproductive health issues.
Obviously, there are those who are quick to produce a morality to suit the numbers bias. They can talk about freedom of choice, cafeteria approach, etc., as if morality is just at these primitive or infantile levels.
Sorry to be blunt about that. But if all this talk about freedom and rights are not based on an absolute law, on God, but rather on oneś ¨best” ideas, I don´t think we will see the end of that talk. We´ll all be wrangling all the way to our tombs.
There had been so much playing around in this field itś no wonder we continue to remain precisely in those levels. To somehow resolve the issues, attempts at dialogue had been aplenty, as well as efforts to conclude everything in the level of legality alone, never mind morality. Fine.
But unless the dialogues and the legal efforts are based on the solid foundation of a moral law, one coming from an absolute source, we would just be shadow boxing and not really taking the bull by the horns.
Besides, some dialogues with a very questionable character had been made. They were dialogues meant to delay things, or worse, as in the case of some Church people dialoguing with population controllers, to undermine morals again.
In their desire to find some common ground, they have entered into unacceptable compromises with immorality. Their eagerness for unity and harmony is pursued without clearly drawing the line as to where white that becomes gray now has gone really black.
Pope Benedict in his encyclical, Caritas in veritate (Charity in Truth), has some relevant words to say: ¨Without truth, charity degenerates into sentimentality. Love becomes an empty shell, to be filled in an arbitrary way.
¨In a culture without truth, this is the fatal risk facing love. It falls prey to contingent subjective emotions and opinions, the word ´love´ is abused and distorted, to the point where it comes to mean the opposite.¨ (3)
The population and the reproductive health issues just cannot be handled by economics and our human laws. Morality should their primary criterion.
Again their ultimate reason is, hold your breath, that there is overpopulation and that it is the main culprit for the poverty we see around. Some of our politicians are mouthing that mantra. We have to be careful with these simpletons passing for our most concerned leaders, as if they have the exclusive rights to compassion.
The overpopulation argument is a myth. In the first place, who among us can really say that beyond a certain number or level of population of our country, we are already too many?
Who among us can really say that such-and-such a person, for being old or handicapped or poor or whatever, should not have been born? And worse, who among us can really say that such couple or such family should only have so many in their household?
But thatś what this overpopulation alibi in the end amounts to, already shorn of its beautiful adornments. It tells us, nay, it dictates to us how many we should be. Crazy! The congenital infirmity of this approach is that it reduces the population issue into a numbers game mainly. And that is always wrong.
We are not dealing here with animals, plants or some products. We are dealing here with persons whose exercise of their reason and freedom, no matter how improperly done, just cannot be confined to a math exercise.
We need to deal with this population issue in a more humane way. And while the economic aspect is important, and even indispensable, we have to recognize the more important aspect of the morality involved in crafting any policy related to population or reproductive health.
Granted that there is some relation between the incidence of poverty measured in economic terms and population, this is no absolute, ultimate reason why we have to stop our considerations there. Our dignity requires a lot more.
Morality probes far deeper into human dignity and propriety than what the best economics can hope to cover. It should always be considered and in fact given priority over other criteria when dealing with delicate matters like the population and reproductive health issues.
Obviously, there are those who are quick to produce a morality to suit the numbers bias. They can talk about freedom of choice, cafeteria approach, etc., as if morality is just at these primitive or infantile levels.
Sorry to be blunt about that. But if all this talk about freedom and rights are not based on an absolute law, on God, but rather on oneś ¨best” ideas, I don´t think we will see the end of that talk. We´ll all be wrangling all the way to our tombs.
There had been so much playing around in this field itś no wonder we continue to remain precisely in those levels. To somehow resolve the issues, attempts at dialogue had been aplenty, as well as efforts to conclude everything in the level of legality alone, never mind morality. Fine.
But unless the dialogues and the legal efforts are based on the solid foundation of a moral law, one coming from an absolute source, we would just be shadow boxing and not really taking the bull by the horns.
Besides, some dialogues with a very questionable character had been made. They were dialogues meant to delay things, or worse, as in the case of some Church people dialoguing with population controllers, to undermine morals again.
In their desire to find some common ground, they have entered into unacceptable compromises with immorality. Their eagerness for unity and harmony is pursued without clearly drawing the line as to where white that becomes gray now has gone really black.
Pope Benedict in his encyclical, Caritas in veritate (Charity in Truth), has some relevant words to say: ¨Without truth, charity degenerates into sentimentality. Love becomes an empty shell, to be filled in an arbitrary way.
¨In a culture without truth, this is the fatal risk facing love. It falls prey to contingent subjective emotions and opinions, the word ´love´ is abused and distorted, to the point where it comes to mean the opposite.¨ (3)
The population and the reproductive health issues just cannot be handled by economics and our human laws. Morality should their primary criterion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)