We have to keep in mind the World Youth Day to be held in Madrid, August 16-21, with Pope Benedict giving it its climactic point. Seeing a big gathering of youth simply astounds us. It’s like seeing the future.
The youth indeed hold the key to what is to come. How they are now determines to a certain extent the character of the world in the next generation. And so we need to see to it that our young ones receive the proper formation now.
This is the challenge we, the elders, have. Preparing the youth for the future is a task that is becoming more exciting, more daunting, precisely because of the complicated issues that practically wrap the world today.
As the Pope has been saying for some time now, the world ethos seems to be suffused with what is more technically known as moral relativism. It’s an attitude, a mentality, and even a lifestyle and culture that banishes any moral absolutes, while making tolerance an absolute law to follow.
It ultimately boils down to denying the existence of God, and to the belief that things just depend completely on us. So, morality or what is to be considered good or bad would just be a matter of opinions, consensus, and would just be based on such criteria as practicality, popularity, convenience, and the like.
In the end, we are making ourselves our own God. We deny that we are creatures, that our existence is something given and received, not self-generated. We deny that we need to be with God always, to put our mind and heart on him.
With this mindset, a good part of the world, especially the more developed Western part, has gone to the extent of legalizing abortion, mercy-killing, same-sex marriage, etc.
If we are not careful, this scourge is going to enter our own country also. There are already clear signs. The RH Bill, touted Divorce bill that some groups are pushing, the same-sex marriage buzz that we hear around—these are symptoms of an emerging moral confusion that threatens to be made part of our law and culture.
We have to give due attention to our youth today, equipping them with the means that would help them tackle the great responsibility before them. I was happy to learn that a big group of young people went to a UN conference and made their voices heard. They were complaining about a document, still in the making, that contained precisely questionable moral positions. That's a good sign.
Caring for the youth is no easy task at all. My own experience with dealing with young college students for many years indicates that they need abiding attention, a lot of patience and understanding, a good amount of flexibility and creativity, and at the same time, an unwavering hold on the faith and the doctrines that go with it.
Each one has to be handled in a very personal way. Away with putting them in boxes and branding and stereotyping them. Once this personal relationship is established, then things can be expected to go far.
The young people need constant encouragement. They sometimes strike me as toddlers who are still learning to walk properly—in the moral and spiritual life. They can be up one moment, and down the next moment. But they have a lot of energy to go on.
We just have to make sure that they are given the solid dose of formation in all its aspects—human, spiritual, doctrinal, apostolic and professional. We have to make sure that these aspects are properly integrated through the impulse of a genuine love for God and for others, because only then can they acquire a life and creativity of their own.
Caring for the youth actually never stops. It's just one stage in a life-long process. We just have to make it clear to them that our life requires continuing formation, continuing conversions and renewals, an endless process of having to begin and begin again.
In their weak moments or when they are down, we have to be quick to remotivate them, showing them new horizons and strong reasons to hope and to be optimistic. We have to show them the way, getting practical ourselves and not just remaining in the theories.
We should try to adapt ourselves to them, and if possible to speak their language, without abdicating our role as elders and teachers. In the end, we can only help them properly if we ourselves take care of own spiritual and moral lives. We can't give what we don't have.
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
Friday, August 5, 2011
Priestly celibacy
I KNOW I am treading on dangerous water here. But I feel the issue has to be aired somehow. Priestly celibacy just cannot be marginalized, especially now when it is vastly misunderstood and a persistent wave of misconceptions continues to assail it.
There are those who think that priestly celibacy is just an ecclesiastical law meant perhaps to serve some practical purposes in the life of the priest and of the Church.
For sure, there is a good amount of practicality in a priest leading a celibate life. For one, it would make his life simpler, largely undisturbed by domestic concerns. The priest’s heart, time and attention could get more focused, more undivided for God and others if he is celibate.
The Church leaders, bishops in particular, who are supposed to take care of their priests even financially, need not worry about having to support the families of these priests. The Church can run more smoothly with celibate priests.
But there are those who also think that a priest can manage to work properly and even to be holy without being celibate. Proof of this, they say, is the growing number of married people who are also very active in Church affairs and thus are practically working like priests themselves.
Some even say that these lay people can be more dynamic and effective than some priests. So, why can’t priests be considered like them? Or at least, why not make priestly celibacy optional? For those who want it, fine. But please don’t impose it on everyone!
They claim that priests are also men and that they have certain needs that cannot be met in a celibate life. To rub it in, they say that many priests are actually not leading continent or chaste life. Ok, the point is made. Pertinent pieces of evidence are aplenty. So let’s stop there.
We can actually go on and on with the pros and cons of priestly celibacy. I imagine that arguments, examples and statistics to support both sides will never be lacking. But I think we would be missing the point if we frame this issue within the parameters of practicality, human needs and ecclesiastical law alone.
The law on priestly celibacy is not just about practicality. It has a deeper reason. And ultimately it rests on the truth that priests are conformed to Christ as head of the Church. They act “in persona Christi,” and as such, they are expected to live like Christ in his full status as the Son of God who became man to redeem mankind.
Priests are the sacramental image of Christ wherever they are, 24/7. While their priesthood is most lived when they renew the sacrifice of Christ’s on the cross in the Holy Mass, they continue to be “in persona Christi” even in their sports, shopping and sleep.
Priestly celibacy is actually an intrinsic requirement of priesthood, because Christ himself, on whom priests are conformed sacramentally and ontologically, that is, affecting one’s being, was/is celibate, his will fully engaged with the will of his Father.
Recent studies show that while the law on priestly celibacy was first recorded in the 4th century, it must already have been required and lived during the time of the apostles. In short, the apostles must have understood their priesthood to involve celibacy.
Proof of this can be gleaned from that gospel passage where Peter who, like many of the apostles, was married, told our Lord that he has left everything behind to follow Christ. (cfr Mk 10,28ff.)
“Behold, we have left all things, and have followed you,” Peter said. And Jesus answered: “Amen, I say to you, there is no man who has left house or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or children, or lands, for my sake and for the gospel, who shall not receive a hundred times as much, now in this time, houses and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands with persecutions, and in the world to come life everlasting.”
And so, it is quite clear that during the time of the apostles, those apostles who were married understood that once they were ordained, they had to let go of their conjugal relations, of course in a voluntary way between the spouses.
This mindset is reflected in all the historically recorded laws about priestly life and celibacy in the Western Church. The Eastern Church followed a more tortuous path but somehow also upheld priestly celibacy. Those laws were precisely made to protect, not impose, this intrinsic requirement of celibacy in priesthood.
There are those who think that priestly celibacy is just an ecclesiastical law meant perhaps to serve some practical purposes in the life of the priest and of the Church.
For sure, there is a good amount of practicality in a priest leading a celibate life. For one, it would make his life simpler, largely undisturbed by domestic concerns. The priest’s heart, time and attention could get more focused, more undivided for God and others if he is celibate.
The Church leaders, bishops in particular, who are supposed to take care of their priests even financially, need not worry about having to support the families of these priests. The Church can run more smoothly with celibate priests.
But there are those who also think that a priest can manage to work properly and even to be holy without being celibate. Proof of this, they say, is the growing number of married people who are also very active in Church affairs and thus are practically working like priests themselves.
Some even say that these lay people can be more dynamic and effective than some priests. So, why can’t priests be considered like them? Or at least, why not make priestly celibacy optional? For those who want it, fine. But please don’t impose it on everyone!
They claim that priests are also men and that they have certain needs that cannot be met in a celibate life. To rub it in, they say that many priests are actually not leading continent or chaste life. Ok, the point is made. Pertinent pieces of evidence are aplenty. So let’s stop there.
We can actually go on and on with the pros and cons of priestly celibacy. I imagine that arguments, examples and statistics to support both sides will never be lacking. But I think we would be missing the point if we frame this issue within the parameters of practicality, human needs and ecclesiastical law alone.
The law on priestly celibacy is not just about practicality. It has a deeper reason. And ultimately it rests on the truth that priests are conformed to Christ as head of the Church. They act “in persona Christi,” and as such, they are expected to live like Christ in his full status as the Son of God who became man to redeem mankind.
Priests are the sacramental image of Christ wherever they are, 24/7. While their priesthood is most lived when they renew the sacrifice of Christ’s on the cross in the Holy Mass, they continue to be “in persona Christi” even in their sports, shopping and sleep.
Priestly celibacy is actually an intrinsic requirement of priesthood, because Christ himself, on whom priests are conformed sacramentally and ontologically, that is, affecting one’s being, was/is celibate, his will fully engaged with the will of his Father.
Recent studies show that while the law on priestly celibacy was first recorded in the 4th century, it must already have been required and lived during the time of the apostles. In short, the apostles must have understood their priesthood to involve celibacy.
Proof of this can be gleaned from that gospel passage where Peter who, like many of the apostles, was married, told our Lord that he has left everything behind to follow Christ. (cfr Mk 10,28ff.)
“Behold, we have left all things, and have followed you,” Peter said. And Jesus answered: “Amen, I say to you, there is no man who has left house or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or children, or lands, for my sake and for the gospel, who shall not receive a hundred times as much, now in this time, houses and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands with persecutions, and in the world to come life everlasting.”
And so, it is quite clear that during the time of the apostles, those apostles who were married understood that once they were ordained, they had to let go of their conjugal relations, of course in a voluntary way between the spouses.
This mindset is reflected in all the historically recorded laws about priestly life and celibacy in the Western Church. The Eastern Church followed a more tortuous path but somehow also upheld priestly celibacy. Those laws were precisely made to protect, not impose, this intrinsic requirement of celibacy in priesthood.
Monday, August 1, 2011
The bully pulpit
THIS expression became famous when first used by US President Theodore Roosevelt. Initially, it had a positive meaning, as it simply meant a terrific platform from which to advocate an agenda. But now, it refers more to the undue advantage one can have because of his position, office or work to rally support for a particular view.
I suppose it has reference to the church’s elevated stand, now hardly used, where priests preach at Mass. Obviously when priests abuse that function of preaching the word of God, and prefer to be demagogues or political partisans instead of being prophetic priests faithful to their mission, turning their homilies into harangues, complete with scolding and lecturing tones, they convert the pulpit into a bully.
But the expression is now more associated with public officials, politicians, media people, public relations practitioners, big businessmen, celebrities, ideologues of the left and of the right, advocacy and cause-oriented groups. Not that these people are no good. They are necessary and relevant—in varying degrees, of course—in any society.
But because of their money, power, privileges, connections, clout, etc., plus the pressures and challenges of their position, they can easily get intoxicated and trigger a mechanism that arouses their hatred, greed, lust, envy, or pure malice and lack of faith in God and a generalized skepticism toward everything and everyone, drowning in their own cynicism.
They can finance demolition jobs, organize rallies and stage demonstrations, pay columnists and radio block timers, hire public relations outfits to build or destroy reputations. They can sow intrigues, plant moles in different places, do espionage and intelligence work.
They can actually do anything just to achieve their evil ends. With the thinnest of basis like mere gossips and rumors, they can launch into an open, frontal attack on persons and institutions, generating a feeding frenzy and lynching mentality on their victims, not giving them the benefit of the doubt nor allowance to explain themselves.
They make gratuitous comments, hardly supported by any trace of R & D (research and development), often transmitting them recklessly and with impunity. They like absolutizing their opinions. Their targets are automatically branded as guilty and the vilest of men, attaching to them the worst of motives.
It’s good that we are aware of this phenomenon, so that we can be duly protected from the subtle twists and spins, the growing misinformation and disinformation that some people throw around to defend their self-interests at the expense of truth, justice and the common good.
We cannot be naïve and passive every time we consider the views and opinions of people. At this time, we need to be extra discerning and even critical in the analytic sense, because it is beyond doubt that many forces are at play and a good number of them are on the sly.
Take, for example, the case of the global warming alarmists and the demolition job of the so-called “Pajero bishops.” In spite of the clarifications and corrections of some of their claims, they continue to rationalize their own positions and attribute bad intentions on those who disagree with them, even if these are already authorities and experts.
Lately, the global warming alarmists have been corrected on their data about heat unable to escape the earth atmosphere and polar bears drowning in the North Pole supposedly because of massive melting of ice. In spite of contradicting data, they persist in their alarmism without offering counter-proofs.
Regarding the “Pajero bishops,” some opinion-makers are impugning certain people who are trying to help bishops by initiating a fund campaign for the bishops. These commentators suspect the move is purely political. I suppose they only see what they want to see or the tricks that they themselves play.
We have to examine ourselves and see to it that our integrity is intact and ever strengthened, grounded always on God and not just on us. Always a dynamic affair, it involves daily struggles against temptations and pressures. This is the indispensable element to assure objectivity and fairness in our judgments and pronouncements.
We also need to cultivate the appropriate attitudes and skills to undertake a healthy dialogue and fruitful debate on issues—open-mindedness, courtesy, ability to listen and understand the positions of others, even if they are contradictory to ours, etc.
These days, we have to be most aware of the need to have an interdisciplinary approach to the issues, giving special attention to the moral and spiritual aspects, and not just to the economic, political or social side.
I suppose it has reference to the church’s elevated stand, now hardly used, where priests preach at Mass. Obviously when priests abuse that function of preaching the word of God, and prefer to be demagogues or political partisans instead of being prophetic priests faithful to their mission, turning their homilies into harangues, complete with scolding and lecturing tones, they convert the pulpit into a bully.
But the expression is now more associated with public officials, politicians, media people, public relations practitioners, big businessmen, celebrities, ideologues of the left and of the right, advocacy and cause-oriented groups. Not that these people are no good. They are necessary and relevant—in varying degrees, of course—in any society.
But because of their money, power, privileges, connections, clout, etc., plus the pressures and challenges of their position, they can easily get intoxicated and trigger a mechanism that arouses their hatred, greed, lust, envy, or pure malice and lack of faith in God and a generalized skepticism toward everything and everyone, drowning in their own cynicism.
They can finance demolition jobs, organize rallies and stage demonstrations, pay columnists and radio block timers, hire public relations outfits to build or destroy reputations. They can sow intrigues, plant moles in different places, do espionage and intelligence work.
They can actually do anything just to achieve their evil ends. With the thinnest of basis like mere gossips and rumors, they can launch into an open, frontal attack on persons and institutions, generating a feeding frenzy and lynching mentality on their victims, not giving them the benefit of the doubt nor allowance to explain themselves.
They make gratuitous comments, hardly supported by any trace of R & D (research and development), often transmitting them recklessly and with impunity. They like absolutizing their opinions. Their targets are automatically branded as guilty and the vilest of men, attaching to them the worst of motives.
It’s good that we are aware of this phenomenon, so that we can be duly protected from the subtle twists and spins, the growing misinformation and disinformation that some people throw around to defend their self-interests at the expense of truth, justice and the common good.
We cannot be naïve and passive every time we consider the views and opinions of people. At this time, we need to be extra discerning and even critical in the analytic sense, because it is beyond doubt that many forces are at play and a good number of them are on the sly.
Take, for example, the case of the global warming alarmists and the demolition job of the so-called “Pajero bishops.” In spite of the clarifications and corrections of some of their claims, they continue to rationalize their own positions and attribute bad intentions on those who disagree with them, even if these are already authorities and experts.
Lately, the global warming alarmists have been corrected on their data about heat unable to escape the earth atmosphere and polar bears drowning in the North Pole supposedly because of massive melting of ice. In spite of contradicting data, they persist in their alarmism without offering counter-proofs.
Regarding the “Pajero bishops,” some opinion-makers are impugning certain people who are trying to help bishops by initiating a fund campaign for the bishops. These commentators suspect the move is purely political. I suppose they only see what they want to see or the tricks that they themselves play.
We have to examine ourselves and see to it that our integrity is intact and ever strengthened, grounded always on God and not just on us. Always a dynamic affair, it involves daily struggles against temptations and pressures. This is the indispensable element to assure objectivity and fairness in our judgments and pronouncements.
We also need to cultivate the appropriate attitudes and skills to undertake a healthy dialogue and fruitful debate on issues—open-mindedness, courtesy, ability to listen and understand the positions of others, even if they are contradictory to ours, etc.
These days, we have to be most aware of the need to have an interdisciplinary approach to the issues, giving special attention to the moral and spiritual aspects, and not just to the economic, political or social side.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)