Reviving the catechism

MANY of us may still remember the catechisms that we studied and tried
to memorize in our grade school and high school. The usual memory we
have of those days is that of simply rattling off what was memorized
if only to pass the quizzes and long tests. But understanding what was
said or written, and much less, living them, was another story.

Obviously, when we were freed of the requirement or when no exams
threatened our comfortable life, we did not bother anymore to open it.
And yet I must say that some remnants of those memorized points
lingered and would come to life from time to time.

We may explain the phenomenon as simply a matter of our psychological
or emotional conditionings, or some social or purely random factors.
But neither should we discount the possibility that through those
returning catechism points the Holy Spirit is trying his best to enter
into our consciousness, practically begging us to listen to him.

This is actually what is proper of the Holy Spirit in relation to us.
He always intervenes in our life, often in ways we are not aware of.
Obviously, we need to be more aware of this reality and start to
correspond to it more adequately.

And that can mean that we need to give more due attention to the
importance of the catechism, among other things. It is the compendium
of all the doctrine of our faith that articulates in some systematic
way the entire mind and will of God for us. So, if we are interested
to know the global mind of God, the catechism is a good instrument.

We have to remember that as image and likeness of God, and as children
of his, we are expected to have the mind of God also. His knowledge
and wisdom about everything, his desires and designs for us and for
the world should somehow be also ours. He shares all these with us,
and we should try our best to receive them and live by them.

That, I believe, is what the catechism is and what it is meant for.
It’s not just some little book, or sometimes a thick book as in the
case now of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, that bombards us
with points to memorize or, at least, to be familiar with. It has a
very strategic role to play in our Christian life.

The catechism puts together in some organic way the salient points of
the sources of our faith—sacred scripture, tradition, citations from
fathers, doctors and other saints of the Church and Church
magisterium. And it has been made by people with both authority and
competence. It is not just a personal project of some individuals or
private institutions.

Thus, reading and studying it, meditating on it and putting it into
practice is like having a living encounter with Christ who is the
fullness of divine revelation. It certainly would help us to live our
life with Christ in the Holy Spirit. In that light, it is to be
considered as necessary and always relevant to us. It can never be
passé.

The catechism may not give us the technical answers to our questions,
the practical solutions to our problems, but it certainly will give us
the proper way or spirit with which we have to tackle these questions,
issues, problems, etc., that we will have in life.

It helps us to refer everything to God, making them acquire a
spiritual and supernatural value which in the end is what matters in
our life, because even in our worst scenarios when we commit mistakes
and suffer failures, all that would still be good for us as long as
they are referred to God in the spiritual and supernatural way.

We need to promote the abiding study of the catechism in homes,
schools, parishes, even in offices and other public places. Whatever
event or situation we may be in, some points of the catechism should
somehow be put to the fore, no matter show briefly or casually they
are made.

We also have to understand that the study of the catechism actually
invites us to a lifelong effort to know and incarnate it more and more
in our lives. We can never say enough to that effort, thinking that we
have already mastered it.

The study of the catechism encourages us to probe more deeply and
extensively the breadth and length of our faith which can lend itself
to limitless considerations without losing consistency. This is going
to be an on-going, lifelong affair.

Marriage redefined?

US President Barack Obama came out of the closet sometime ago and
announced that he is for same-sex marriage. He said that was the
conclusion of his long period of “evolving.”

Many political observers, however, say that he originally was for it,
then against it, then was reconsidering, and then finally is for it
again. They say this flip-flopping is a reaction of a political animal
to changing political conditions.

Well, we know how this stance is called in our country.
“Weather-weather lang ni, bai.” To a certain extent, this attitude is
valid given the temporal nature and autonomous character of politics.

But when used indiscriminately, it can enter into forbidden territory
as when it is applied on matters of faith and morals, and on the fixed
nature of things. And I am afraid this is what is happening in this
present issue.

Marriage is not a political issue that has to be defined, and its
problems resolved, solely or mainly in a political way. Marriage has a
universal, immutable nature, applicable to all of us regardless of
race, gender and whatever condition we may be in. When nature of
things is involved, we just accept it, we don’t redefine it.

Marriage simply has to be a stable relationship between a man and a
woman, because it involves a love that entails the use of sex whose
primary purpose is procreation before it provides pleasure and other
benefits to the couples concerned.

That’s simply the nature of sex and marriage. It is not a religious
imposition, but rather a result of careful, comprehensive metaphysical
study of the matter. If we pursue this study thoroughly, then we will
arrive at the conclusion that marriage in itself has properties of
exclusivity, unity and indissolubility.

Of course, people can have varying understanding of the nature of sex
and marriage, and so we just have to undertake a continuing
discussion, clarification and formation. The government should also
feel the duty to do this. This is everyone’s responsibility.

But we just cannot stop at the level of
“that-is-your-stand-and-this-is-mine,” since the issue at hand is not
a matter of opinion or personal preferences. It binds everyone to
conform to this nature of sex and marriage, in a way that should be
more forceful than the binding quality of our tax and traffic laws.

Ironically, the latter laws on taxes and traffic are more strictly
pursued than our marriage laws. It seems we are now having the wrong
priorities, the wrong emphasis on our varied concerns.

I was shocked when I heard President Obama’s reasons for supporting
same-sex marriage. They had the usual rationalizing taste of the
tolerance bit. It’s a reasoning that has overreached its purpose,
trying to go to a bridge too far.

This alibi about tolerance, while it has its merits, should not be the
only, much less, the primary consideration to make especially in
issues like marriage. There are many other more fundamental and
indispensable considerations that precede it.

Obama was quoted as saying: “No matter who you love or what God you
worship, you can still pursue happiness—I will support you every step
of the way."

So, if one happens to love an animal in a sexual way, he is free to
marry it, and bestiality can now be elevated to the level of marriage?
Or if one happens to fall in love with his own sister, or his own
brother, he can also marry her or him, and incest can be marriage?

Anything is always possible with man. That’s why we need laws based on
some absolute truths to guide and educate us.

Or if one happens to believe in violence and terrorism as his own God,
it would just be ok? The words of Obama did not include any qualifier
as to who can be the object and God of one’s love and devotion.

I may be exaggerating and blowing out of proportion Obama’s words, but
these words certainly give us a direction that, in their most lenient
interpretation, can be considered as potentially dangerous.

There are things that we can not and should not tamper. Marriage is
one of them. Everything has to be done to strengthen it. Those who
violate them, while we always have to be charitable and fair, should
be dealt with clearly, and even strongly.

I have no problem with gays. I know many of them and they are
excellent persons, workers and friends. But let’s not call what is
wrong, right, and bad, good, just because we are friends.

To be legal is not enough

WHILE in some reunion recently with former college
classmates and colleagues at work during my pre-priesthood years when
I myself was active in the professional field, I was struck by one of
the comments I heard in our conversations.

            A friend who is also an economist mentioned that the
different ways many Western governments took to tackle the global
economic crisis that started sometime in 2008, taken from both the
capitalistic and socialist models, could not adequately resolve the
problem because they just relied on certain laws and policies
prevailing in their respective countries at that time.

            Many of these political and economic leaders are
discovering that it takes more than just following purely economic and
civil laws to resolve the problem in a way that could be considered
most fair.

            I have always believed that merely following articulated
laws or man-made laws, whether in business or in our life in society
in general, would not be enough, since these laws would always be in
need with the proper spirit for them to be as they should be.

            These laws, at best, can only give some kind of guideline.
They dispose us to the ways of truth, charity, justice. But they
cannot by themselves achieve those goals unless they are animated by
the real source of truth, charity and justice which can only be God,
our creator and Father.

            At best, they can somehow regulate the external aspects of
a given problem or situation but are quite silent on the internal
aspects. They can be good in sanctioning the macro dimensions of our
economy or political life, but are again very tentative in the micro
level.

            These laws and policies cannot function on their own. They
need a deeper foundation, a terra firma that in the end could only be
God and his laws and standards. It’s the hesitation or even aversion
to put God in the core of our legal systems that would somehow pervert
our laws and policies even if they are formulated with the best of
intentions.

            When crafted, developed and lived independently of God or
when pursued outside a loving and faithful relationship with God,
these laws can easily be manipulated to suit one’s self-interest at
the expense of the common good. They would miss the finer points of
ethics and morals so crucial in our life, personal and social, here on
earth.

            And in that set-up, it would always be the more powerful,
in terms of wealth, fame, talents, etc., who would dominate and tend
to exploit the others. Their authority, which is supposed to be a
sharing of the authority of God, would be used not to give glory to
God and to serve others, but more to give glory to themselves and to
be served by others. In short, there is always the tendency for people
to abuse their authority.

            In that set-up, what are often excluded, deliberately or
unintentionally, would be the elements of mercy and compassion, the
need for sacrifice, detachments from things and others that are
necessary and at the same time unavoidable in our life here on earth.

            It is a set-up that is blind to these things and is prone
to follow the law of the jungle or the law of Talion that usually
caters to the baser instincts of men and hardly goes beyond them. The
higher values of faith and morals are disregarded, if not frowned
upon.

            The requirements of our moral and spiritual life, so
inalienable in us that even in our mundane activities like business
and politics they are always relevant, are often unmet if not totally
ignored.

            It is a set-up that tends to give a knee-jerk reaction to
things at the expense of a more comprehensive attitude. It is often
taken up by the passion and the excitement of the here-and-now and is
quite subjective at the expense of a longer and more objective view of
things.

            We need to overcome the fear or whatever bias we have
regarding the need to involve God in our human affairs. We cannot say
that just because what we are doing are purely business or politics,
God should not be involved.

            While it’s true that there is a certain legitimate
autonomy in our temporal affairs, it does not mean that God has
nothing to do with them. Yes, we need to uphold that autonomy and
should not unduly mix God and religion in living out those affairs,
but it does not mean that God is not the beginning and end of these
affairs.