The earthly and religious aspects of politics

THIS is an attempt to make some crucial distinctions in this heady field of politics. Hopefully the effort will pay off, especially where the need to clearly delineate the different but complementary roles of the clergy and the laity in politics is involved.

This issue has been wallowing in the mire for quite some time, with even our educated class clearly confused about it. Everytime they talk about separation of Church and state, for example, most likely they are off course, as they repeat old errors that seem hard to correct.

So this piece is not political in the sense that it is partisan in political matters that, given their autonomous character, are open to opinion. In that regard, priests would do well to keep quiet and allow the play of opinions to be directly handled by the laity.

If ever there is a need for priests to comment in this aspect of politics, it has to be made clear that their views are mere opinions. As such, they are not binding in conscience, but obviously they may be given due consideration by the people.

But this piece is political in the sense that it considers politics an indispensable part of our life, where the fullness of Christian life, the full play of faith, hope and charity plus all the other virtues, are supposed to be pursued.

Politics does not put the Christian spiritual and moral standards in brackets. It´s where these ideals are put into action, in fact. But given it´s nature and character, its purpose and the varying ways it is lived in different places and cultures, the clergy and the laity, while all involved in it, play distinctive roles.

First of all, we have to understand that politics is not exclusively an earthly affair, with no spiritual, moral and therefore religious foundations. Since it is an exercise of our freedom, it has spiritual and also supernatural repercussions that need to be given due attention.

It is for the priests to give primary concern for its spiritual and moral dimensions. These dimensions basically refer to whether the political exercise, the options involved, etc., conform to fundamental moral requirements of good moral object, right intention and appropriate, moral circumstances.

For as long as all the political elements fulfill these requirements, there can be as many choices, options, programs and projects as possible, with their own advantages and disadvantages, strengths and weaknesses, and all of them must be respected. It now belongs to each one to choose freely what he thinks will work out best for all.

The moral object is in the end about whether the option presented and to be chosen can be said to be part of God´s will, since it at least does not go against his commandments. If not, then it has to be rejected right from the start.

Thus, any political option clearly violative of God´s commandments, like an open endorsement for contraception, sterilization, divorce, euthanasia, institutionalized cheating and all forms of injustice, should be rejected, obviously in a way that is charitable and fair.

Obviously, any political platform that sets aside God and puts man, an ideology or, worst of all, oneself as the ultimate source of wisdom, of good and evil, of truth and falsehood—and we already have some traces of this at present—should not be voted.

Aside from the moral object of the political elements, we also have to consider the intention and the circumstances which should be found to be all good and appropriate.

Since we do not live in a perfect society, and since everyone has the right to express his ideas, there should always be a climate of freedom, respect, dialogue, sportsmanship, etc.

Having said that, I must admit I felt happy at the outcome of the midterm elections in the US, because it´s clear the majority of the American people are rejecting a politics that tends to put God, his commandments and Christian morality aside.

The issues involved there, for sure, are not purely economic or social in nature, which is what some American politicians are trying to project. But that is not true. There are some serious spiritual and moral issues involved, and it seems the American majority rejected the wrong positions.

We in the Philippines need to be wary of these developments, since we tend to imitate or, at least, now that we are highly globalized, it´s likely we can be influenced wrongly.

All of us, depending on our possibilities, should take active but proper participation in our country´s political life.

The virtual ego

WE need to learn to properly deal with the digital world. It offers us new situations and new challenges that we have to cope with. Among them is how to maintain and even enhance our identity, and not to lose or distort it.

Many people are telling me of the new predicaments they find themselves in with the Facebook, for example. They echo more or less my own experiences. There´s always the tendency to spend a lot of time there such that you forget other tasks and duties. There are several other side-effects, many of them not good.

That´s because these new technologies extend our reach and coverage in heretofore untold levels. They offer a lot of conveniences, but they also come with a high cost, especially on our spiritual life, and even our psychological life.

For example, I can see that, especially among the young, their insecurities and other youthful anomalies get to be displayed there to a much higher degree than before. They may appear formal and proper to you in person, but they become a different persona on Facebook. You´d be confused as to which one is the real person.

That is why, I deeply believe that the new digital universe is challenging us to tackle the question of our personal identity. Who are we really? How can we maintain and strengthen our identity as we cruise the exhilarating world of cyberspace?

This challenge is actually not new, but it is made more urgent with the new situations these new technologies create. It now has more serious implications. Would we just be contented with having multiple identities, hiding ourselves behind different masks, assuming different egos by creating different avatars for ourselves?

While it´s true that that the Gospel encourages us to be all things to all men, that is, to have some multiple personas for different situations, we need to remind ourselves that we should have an integrating and stabilizing principle to do this. Could we just assume different identities for any reason at all—convenience, practicality, popularity, etc.?

We cannot deny that this phenomenon is setting us up for an avalanche of future confusion and its ilk—deception, hypocrisy—that can contribute to the weakening of social stability and unity, and of our relation with God. With it, we reinforce our tendency to create our own world, detached from God and from others.

We need to strengthen our sense of identity, rooting it on the objective and ultimate truth about ourselves, as we enter into the digital world of infinite possibilities. Otherwise, we would get lost.

In that passage of St. Paul about our being all things to all men, that is to say, that we need to adapt ourselves to different situations even to the point of varying our character and temperament if possible, the reason and the efficient cause for achieving it is given.

“I became all things to all men that I might save all,” St. Paul says (1 Cor 9.22) “I do all things for the gospel’s sake, that I may share in its blessings.”

The reason is religious, the ultimate domain of our being where the origin and purpose of our nature are found. Perhaps, this is the truth that needs to be spread around more widely. Many of us are still at sea or non-committal about this aspect of our life.

We tend to get contented only with the here and now, the purely tangible, sensible and intelligible dimensions of our existence. Though we are capable of going beyond these levels, we get satisfied with the material or natural world. We tend to avoid the spiritual and the supernatural world.

But the pull of God cannot be denied. Even if people subjectively deny it, the reality of things always points out to the fact that we are drawn toward him. God is “the alpha and the omega,” the beginning and end of things. We need to flow with this objective reality.

Unless we have this truth clear in our mind and start to conform ourselves to that reality, unless we go beyond playing the human and natural games of politics, economics, entertainment, etc., there’s no alternative but to get lost in the much trickier world of the Internet.

And so, to keep our proper identity intact, and even to enhance it as we take advantage of the many possibilities of cyberspace, we have to see to it that our virtual ego is properly grounded and skilled to cruise the treacherous waters of the Facebook, for example.

Let´s care for our seminarians

POPE Benedict XVI wrote a beautiful letter to seminarians last October 18, and poured out his sentiments and desires for the young men who are preparing themselves for the priesthood.

I feel the content of the letter should be shared with the general public, so that this intricate care for the seminarians becomes a concern not only for a few officials, but also for all of us in the Church, priests and lay people alike. Though in different ways, we are all involved in this issue.

The priesthood will always be necessary since man will always need God. The Pope reassures us in that letter that precisely because of the growing secularization of the world today, priests, good, holy priests are needed. Instead of becoming irrelevant, they have become more urgently needed.

Thus, those preparing for the priesthood should be given the appropriate attention, considering that the Church after the scandals of clerical sex abuses has to recover from the severe damage she suffered. Hopefully, the future batches of new priests from the present seminarians would be an improvement.

There´s indeed a lot of bright spots in the Church today. But ugly stains and blots, the unwelcome weeds are also present, and they involve the clergy themselves. The letter of the Pope, though couched in tactful language, should be considered under the light of our Lord´s severe reproaches on the leading men in his time whom he accused as hypocrites.

It cannot be denied that even up to now very disturbing cases of priestly anomalies still proliferate. There´s alcoholism, gambling, lack of prayer life, discipline and basic virtues of obedience, poverty and chastity. Some priests even have children, and many people know it except that no action is being done out of a misplaced sense of compassion, etc.

At the height of the priestly scandals, many bishops even went to the extent of making an appeal to actively gay priests to please get out. There definitely is a need for some weeding out of bad elements, obviously with due process. Justice cannot swerve from charity. But the ongoing formation of seminarians and priests should be strengthened, the loopholes plugged. There´s a crying need for a drastic shake-up.

There are reports that in many seminaries, the seminarians are left pretty much to fend for themselves as they are expected to live full freedom in responsibility, but without due guidance from the authorities. It´s a policy that has been twisted beyond recognition.

And so even homosexual practices are tolerated, unorthodox doctrines are taught, a culture of pretension and hypocrisy is promoted, etc. It´s a very painful picture. It´s like the seminary is left to bleed to death. When classes or spiritual exercises are given, there´s a general feeling they are just playing games. Traces of agnosticism and skepticism can even be detected in these activities.

If we have to view these developments from another angle, we can readily say that the devil must be behind all this. We should not be surprised by this, but it would be funny if we don´t do our part to tackle this threat adequately. We have all the means. We just have to put our mind and heart to it.

And that attitude, more or less official, of hiding these things because of discretion, tact, etc., should be buried. True, we need to be discreet and charitable all the time, but we also need to do some strong action in imitation of Christ. Our time calls for it. The complicating developments we have now literally require it.

In that letter, the Pope mentioned some important points to be given utmost attention. The seminarians should be a true man of God. They should live a deep eucharistic life, and have a great love for the sacrament of penance. They should love popular piety well. They have to study the ecclesiastical sciences thoroughly, and work hard to attain genuine human maturity.

Obviously, these goals need daily administration. They just cannot be left simply as goals. They have to be planned out and worked out, their details adapted to the very concrete personal circumstances of each seminarian. Their spiritual life should be in good order. Once the first signs of slackening up appear, appropriate measures should be rushed.

For sure, personal spiritual direction is a must here. But how many priests and seminarians go to it? How many really pray and go to confession with true penance?