SINCE I joined Facebook, I felt the need to stretch to the max my flexibility skills. I have to deal with persons from all walks of life—old and young, relatives, friends, students, professionals, those in the A and B as well as in the C and D classes, the refined and the rough, etc. They have their own characters, styles, views, quirks.
Imagine communicating with a wide range of individuals: CEOs, politicians, journalists, priests, seminarians, students from universities and technical schools, close and distant relatives and friends, acquaintances from the province and from abroad!
It actually complicates my life. But I think it’s a complication that’s worth it. The reason I’m there is definitely not just social. It goes way beyond that. But that’s another story. Right now, I just have to sharpen and polish my ability to adapt and to be agile, not allowing myself to be caught in an emotional corner or a spiritual dead-end.
I think my predicament reflects that of many FB users. We have to learn how to be politically correct while at the same time managing to put our messages across as integrally as possible. It’s not easy. Many uncharted waters have to be crossed. I think we just have to take our chances as prudently as possible, knowing gaffes can happen.
I take my inspiration from St. Paul who once said, “I became all things to all men, that I might save all. And I do all things for the gospel’s sake, that I may be made partaker thereof.” (1 Cor 9,21)
Actually the chapter from which that passage was taken gives a vivid description of the nature, purpose and means to achieve this holy flexibility much needed today given the multiplying things, not to mention, kinds of persons, we now have to deal with.
We have to understand that this ability to adapt and to be flexible is more a spiritual power ruled by our reason and will than a bodily capacity ruled mainly by emotions and passions. As spiritual power, flexibility can be properly only nourished by love of God, and because of that love, also by love of neighbor.
But alas, how many people see this connection? Many of us just get contented with political, practical and economic expediency to fuel our ability to be flexible. Without being sourced in God and oriented towards him, this flexibility—while allowing a wide range of possibilities—can only be dangerous.
This worldly-based type of flexibility does not cover the fullness of man’s dignity into consideration. It’s more of the stop-gap kind, whose effect of immediate relief may not exclude the possibility of imprudence.
We need to be most wary of this possibility, since it’s a possibility that is most likely to happen, and in fact is going viral at the moment.
Many people are multi-tasking and are doing all sorts of things, with eyes, ears and mouths engaged in different objects at the same time, with gadgets to facilitate this multiplicity. They end up burned out, sick, destroyed, leaving a trail of damage to family, society and relation with God.
Being with God and living in him is never synonymous with restricting our flexibility. If anything at all, it fosters that ability to adapt in the proper way. We have to realize that there are good and bad kinds of flexibility. And we just have to choose the right one.
Again St. Paul said: “I know both how to be brought low and how to abound, both to be full, and to be hungry, both to abound and to suffer need. I can all these things in him who strengthens me.” (Phil 4,12-13)
Only in God is the flexibility proper to us possible. It’s the kind that, while engaging in all things and is open to all possibilities, also gives us the impulses for rest, relief and renewal.
Those with faith have tasted the amazing truth of these words of our Lord: “Come to me, all you that labor and are burdened, and I will refresh you.” (Mt 11,28) Saints have given abundant testimonies of the veracity of this promise.
We need to learn the true nature, source, purpose and means of our flexibility. Let’s not dance just to the tune of worldly activism, but rather to that of God’s multi-faceted will, one meant for us, one that is properly ordered and oriented.
We need to anchor our flexibility on God, with a concrete plan of life to make that ideal real.
Friday, October 15, 2010
Monday, October 11, 2010
Democracy and religion
THAT funny albeit unfortunate incident of a tour guide making a scene in the Manila Cathedral recently and the flurry of opinions that it provoked have brought to the front and center the question of the relationship between democracy and religion.
How should the so-called best form of government treat the matter of religion? If we have to follow the views of the US president Obama, religion should not be taken seriously in public life. It would just create unnecessary tension in society, he would say.
That kind of view happens to be widespread these days. And it’s very understandable, given its practical and other immediately useful implications. But it does not resolve the issue. It would just prolong the agony, and generate more pent-up sentiments.
The issue, let’s be clear about this, would not just go away simply by ignoring it, or by giving it a merely pragmatic treatment. It would be oppressive to restrict religion as a purely personal and private affair. And inhuman to ban it altogether.
Democracy, if it wants to be true to its vaunted love and defense for freedom and human rights, should not only tolerate but also foster religious freedom in all its aspects.
Leaders of democracy should know, with wisdom and prudence, how to be open to all kinds of religious creeds and views, including those that do not have any or are against religion itself, and contribute in guaranteeing a healthy atmosphere for a peaceful and fruitful discussion among the different groups.
What they cannot do is just to be indifferent to this human need. They would be betraying their office if they neglect this duty, since in fact religious freedom is the most important if also the most difficult aspect of human freedom.
They therefore have to learn the necessary skills to handle this very delicate and demanding task. They cannot be contented with simply taking care of the socio-economic and political aspects of social life.
The religious aspect also has to be attended to, since religion truly has a social dimension and tremendous social implications, which our public officials should know how to handle and manage.
It has to be made clear to everyone that while religion mainly talks about spiritual and supernatural things, it does not mean that it is not based on truths and facts, that it’s just all a matter of opinion. As a matter of fact, the truths religion proclaims are the ultimate truths with social dimensions.
Given the many and often conflicting religious views, it is understood that an abiding public discussion will always take place one way or another. The religious leaders play prominent roles here, but the political and other civil leaders should see to it that the exchanges continue peacefully and fruitfully.
Some kind of ground rules have to be specified. And that’s why it is important that every religious group has to be known in so far as its activities have social consequences. As much as possible, its nature, mission, laws and social scope, etc. should be studied by our public officials.
We then have to realize that our public officials should have a good understanding of this human and social need involving religion. One criterion for choosing or electing them is whether they are skilful enough to handle this task.
We need to outgrow and debunk the mentality, derived from an erroneous notion of the doctrine of the separation of Church and state, which says that the state has nothing to do with religion and the Church or group it involves. That simply does not reflect the reality of things.
As of now, some state recognition of the Church is already held, but it certainly needs more clarification and improvement. That “Damaso” incident in the Manila Cathedral, the question of the Church law on excommunication, etc., are occasions to clarify this delicate relation between democracy and religion.
So I was stunned to hear from some of our prominent opinion-makers that what Celdran did at the Cathedral was just ok, because it was simply an exercise of freedom of expression, and worse, because the Church deserves it. There were a lot of reckless, shooting-from-the-hip commentaries. Amazing!
As to the matter of excommunication, it was clarified that the Church has such penal law to be given under specific conditions. If a bishop brings it up to remind people of its existence, what’s wrong with that?
Let’s hope that this incident occasioned by this notorious RH Bill could give more clarification to the ticklish questions like Church-state relations, faith and reason, etc.
How should the so-called best form of government treat the matter of religion? If we have to follow the views of the US president Obama, religion should not be taken seriously in public life. It would just create unnecessary tension in society, he would say.
That kind of view happens to be widespread these days. And it’s very understandable, given its practical and other immediately useful implications. But it does not resolve the issue. It would just prolong the agony, and generate more pent-up sentiments.
The issue, let’s be clear about this, would not just go away simply by ignoring it, or by giving it a merely pragmatic treatment. It would be oppressive to restrict religion as a purely personal and private affair. And inhuman to ban it altogether.
Democracy, if it wants to be true to its vaunted love and defense for freedom and human rights, should not only tolerate but also foster religious freedom in all its aspects.
Leaders of democracy should know, with wisdom and prudence, how to be open to all kinds of religious creeds and views, including those that do not have any or are against religion itself, and contribute in guaranteeing a healthy atmosphere for a peaceful and fruitful discussion among the different groups.
What they cannot do is just to be indifferent to this human need. They would be betraying their office if they neglect this duty, since in fact religious freedom is the most important if also the most difficult aspect of human freedom.
They therefore have to learn the necessary skills to handle this very delicate and demanding task. They cannot be contented with simply taking care of the socio-economic and political aspects of social life.
The religious aspect also has to be attended to, since religion truly has a social dimension and tremendous social implications, which our public officials should know how to handle and manage.
It has to be made clear to everyone that while religion mainly talks about spiritual and supernatural things, it does not mean that it is not based on truths and facts, that it’s just all a matter of opinion. As a matter of fact, the truths religion proclaims are the ultimate truths with social dimensions.
Given the many and often conflicting religious views, it is understood that an abiding public discussion will always take place one way or another. The religious leaders play prominent roles here, but the political and other civil leaders should see to it that the exchanges continue peacefully and fruitfully.
Some kind of ground rules have to be specified. And that’s why it is important that every religious group has to be known in so far as its activities have social consequences. As much as possible, its nature, mission, laws and social scope, etc. should be studied by our public officials.
We then have to realize that our public officials should have a good understanding of this human and social need involving religion. One criterion for choosing or electing them is whether they are skilful enough to handle this task.
We need to outgrow and debunk the mentality, derived from an erroneous notion of the doctrine of the separation of Church and state, which says that the state has nothing to do with religion and the Church or group it involves. That simply does not reflect the reality of things.
As of now, some state recognition of the Church is already held, but it certainly needs more clarification and improvement. That “Damaso” incident in the Manila Cathedral, the question of the Church law on excommunication, etc., are occasions to clarify this delicate relation between democracy and religion.
So I was stunned to hear from some of our prominent opinion-makers that what Celdran did at the Cathedral was just ok, because it was simply an exercise of freedom of expression, and worse, because the Church deserves it. There were a lot of reckless, shooting-from-the-hip commentaries. Amazing!
As to the matter of excommunication, it was clarified that the Church has such penal law to be given under specific conditions. If a bishop brings it up to remind people of its existence, what’s wrong with that?
Let’s hope that this incident occasioned by this notorious RH Bill could give more clarification to the ticklish questions like Church-state relations, faith and reason, etc.
Saturday, October 9, 2010
Yellowing journalism
EVERYONE is familiar with what is called “yellow journalism,” that kind that is screaming and sensationalistic, not averse to exaggerating things and even inventing and staging events to grab people’s attention.
Yellowing journalism is the process involved in making it. It’s a dynamic mix of many elements and factors, conditions and circumstances, multi-layered and multi-threaded, whose course is uncharted, like an adventure that gives suspense and excitement, except that it can end in a big destructive mess.
The media coverage of the current RH bill controversy reminds me of this yellowing journalism. All the ingredients seem to be present and made to stew. There’s passion and emotion, slogans and buzz words, myths and speculations. Biases and questionable ideologies are the driving forces.
If reason is ever used, it is made to serve the passions. Faith, that is supposed to guide reason, is considered Public Enemy Number One in what is supposed to be an objective pursuit for what is good for us. In fact, there’s a shrill cry for liberation from Church, faith, religion and the like.
This yellowing journalism is not associated with the tabloids. It affects more the broadsheets, the more standard and mainstream brand of journalism. They have become vulnerable because of certain journalistic requirements that have been neglected.
Most of the media practitioners, from publishers down to the reporters, do not know the relation between faith and reason, between religion and their work, the spiritual and material aspects of man, Church and state, etc.
These things are considered abstract and academic and are kept that way, with no effort to convert them into something concrete and practical. If ever they have to acknowledge these values, it’s mainly just lip service, for photo-ops, and not much more.
Those who still care about their faith are ashamed to show it, let alone, to shape and define the character of their work and their life. So they become easy target to atheistic and agnostic sophistries that are often stuffed with immediate practical benefits.
In fact, they usually frame issues like the RH Bill within a strictly economic or social point of view, as if problems are solved only in these levels. Purely human means are flaunted as our authentic savior. This is the tyranny of this kind of attitude. It shuts out the inputs of faith.
Besides, they cite the scandals in the Church as reason to discredit the faith, a clear example of throwing the baby out with the bath water. As if there are no scandals in other places, forgetting we are all humans, with our own share of shortcomings irrespective of where we are placed.
Remember that there was a Judas among the apostles. And Judases can spring up anywhere anytime. That’s always a possibility, given our weakened human condition.
Our attitude should rather be to help one another, and be objective in distinguishing between the truths involved in an issue, derived from faith and our human sciences, and the personalities involved, between the office and the occupant, between the doctrine and the way it is lived.
Faith-based morality is placed at the margins, since nowadays it seems to be the fad to deem morality to be nothing other than a result of economic, social, political and other human and earthly considerations. Sorry, but with this attitude, we are in deepening trouble. We won’t be getting nowhere.
Since faith requires grace, then effort, often torturous, and even sacrifice, it’s no surprise it many times loses to the practicality of reason unburdened by faith.
What aggravates this situation is the phenomenon of strange creatures who call themselves Catholics only to go against the Catholic faith. Their Catholicism is self-produced, self-arrogated and self-inflicted. They go around proudly proclaiming they are Catholics for Choice.
These, I think, are the deadly elements present in yellowing journalism. They thrive in an environment stirred by emotions and passions, with reason playing second fiddle. Faith is ridiculed and ostracized. The crisis is at bottom a question of faith in relation to our earthly affairs.
Worsening things is the emerging reality that much of what we see in the press today regarding the RH Bill seems to be orchestrated by a tremendous machinery of public relation outfits, clearly funded by moneyed international groups and helped by their local lackeys, the NGOs, etc. The fingerprints are all over.
Unless faith is given a fair hearing in this debate, I don’t think we can really resolve this issue properly. Faith, the very soul of our reason, has to be given its proper place.
Yellowing journalism is the process involved in making it. It’s a dynamic mix of many elements and factors, conditions and circumstances, multi-layered and multi-threaded, whose course is uncharted, like an adventure that gives suspense and excitement, except that it can end in a big destructive mess.
The media coverage of the current RH bill controversy reminds me of this yellowing journalism. All the ingredients seem to be present and made to stew. There’s passion and emotion, slogans and buzz words, myths and speculations. Biases and questionable ideologies are the driving forces.
If reason is ever used, it is made to serve the passions. Faith, that is supposed to guide reason, is considered Public Enemy Number One in what is supposed to be an objective pursuit for what is good for us. In fact, there’s a shrill cry for liberation from Church, faith, religion and the like.
This yellowing journalism is not associated with the tabloids. It affects more the broadsheets, the more standard and mainstream brand of journalism. They have become vulnerable because of certain journalistic requirements that have been neglected.
Most of the media practitioners, from publishers down to the reporters, do not know the relation between faith and reason, between religion and their work, the spiritual and material aspects of man, Church and state, etc.
These things are considered abstract and academic and are kept that way, with no effort to convert them into something concrete and practical. If ever they have to acknowledge these values, it’s mainly just lip service, for photo-ops, and not much more.
Those who still care about their faith are ashamed to show it, let alone, to shape and define the character of their work and their life. So they become easy target to atheistic and agnostic sophistries that are often stuffed with immediate practical benefits.
In fact, they usually frame issues like the RH Bill within a strictly economic or social point of view, as if problems are solved only in these levels. Purely human means are flaunted as our authentic savior. This is the tyranny of this kind of attitude. It shuts out the inputs of faith.
Besides, they cite the scandals in the Church as reason to discredit the faith, a clear example of throwing the baby out with the bath water. As if there are no scandals in other places, forgetting we are all humans, with our own share of shortcomings irrespective of where we are placed.
Remember that there was a Judas among the apostles. And Judases can spring up anywhere anytime. That’s always a possibility, given our weakened human condition.
Our attitude should rather be to help one another, and be objective in distinguishing between the truths involved in an issue, derived from faith and our human sciences, and the personalities involved, between the office and the occupant, between the doctrine and the way it is lived.
Faith-based morality is placed at the margins, since nowadays it seems to be the fad to deem morality to be nothing other than a result of economic, social, political and other human and earthly considerations. Sorry, but with this attitude, we are in deepening trouble. We won’t be getting nowhere.
Since faith requires grace, then effort, often torturous, and even sacrifice, it’s no surprise it many times loses to the practicality of reason unburdened by faith.
What aggravates this situation is the phenomenon of strange creatures who call themselves Catholics only to go against the Catholic faith. Their Catholicism is self-produced, self-arrogated and self-inflicted. They go around proudly proclaiming they are Catholics for Choice.
These, I think, are the deadly elements present in yellowing journalism. They thrive in an environment stirred by emotions and passions, with reason playing second fiddle. Faith is ridiculed and ostracized. The crisis is at bottom a question of faith in relation to our earthly affairs.
Worsening things is the emerging reality that much of what we see in the press today regarding the RH Bill seems to be orchestrated by a tremendous machinery of public relation outfits, clearly funded by moneyed international groups and helped by their local lackeys, the NGOs, etc. The fingerprints are all over.
Unless faith is given a fair hearing in this debate, I don’t think we can really resolve this issue properly. Faith, the very soul of our reason, has to be given its proper place.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)