WE have to rescue this virtue, now largely distorted and misunderstood, if not ignored and allowed to drift, it seems, toward extinction.
When Pope Benedict issued his second encyclical, Spe Salvi (Saved by hope) November last, there hardly was any ripple about it in the secular press.
Put bluntly, this extensive discussion on hope, the virtue that forms an inseparable troika with faith and charity, was left out in the cold. It’s telling that this sad phenomenon is happening. It exposes the real, sorry state of our Christian life.
In Christian understanding, these three virtues are indispensable. They bring us to God. They practically form Christian life’s essence.
They infuse our intelligence and will with the capacity to participate in the divine knowledge, activity and life itself, allowing us to be in sync with God’s ways. Without them, there really is no Christian life, no matter how impressive we manage to fake it.
The Pope himself offers some explanation for this turn of events. First, he says that many people are afraid of what faith and hope promise—eternal life.
“Many people,” he said, “do not find the prospect of eternal life attractive. What they desire is not eternal life at all, but this present life, for which faith in eternal life seems something of an impediment.”
This situation truly poses a tall order to those whose business is to evangelize souls. This, of course, requires nothing less than grace. But it also requires us to find convincing arguments and ways to link the present life with eternal life.
We have to find a way to show that it is God who adequately corresponds to our deepest yearning for joy and peace. It’s not just any lofty human goal or worldly idea of success.
This observation can provoke a second concern—that hope leads us to pursue only our own personal salvation, without regard to our duties toward others and the world in general.
The Pope answered by saying that this eternal life with God is always lived not by oneself alone, but in union with a people. Union with God is also always a union with others. It’s never just an individualistic affair.
It presupposes, he said, “that we escape from the prison of our ‘I’, because only in the openness of this universal subject (we) does our gaze open out to the source of joy, to love itself, to God.”
Again, this truth needs to be fleshed out in concrete forms imbued with a sense of immediacy, for us to appreciate it. It’s another hard task for the evangelizers.
A third question can also be raised: how did we come to conceive Christian hope as a selfish search for salvation which rejects the idea of serving others?
The Pope answers by saying that modernism’s attitude of replacing faith in God with modern science and praxis has relegated the faith and hope in God to a purely private and other-worldly level, irrelevant to the here and now.
That’s, of course, wrong. True faith and hope in God, while transcending worldly dimensions, are intrinsically immersed in earthly affairs. They play a crucial role in our lives and history, as individuals and as people.
For these truths to shine out, we need concrete examples and models. And they can be found in the lives of martyrs and saints who with God’s grace and their efforts show how faith and hope in God have shaped their lives.
This is the challenge of today’s evangelizers. And I’m sure that with the proper attitude and skills we can find such examples and models not only in ancient times but more so in contemporary life.
There’s need to present these wonderful narratives in a more secular style. We have to say enough to empty celebrity obsession.
An appropriate theology has to be developed, where the elements of dogma blend well with the cultural character of the people and of the times.
The spiritual has to be materialized, and the material spiritualized. In short, a theology that produces holiness in the flesh, and generates hope with substance and not just a matter of conviction. It should be one where God and we in all our dimensions enter into a living, vibrant relationship.
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Snake in the grass
I BELIEVE this is not paranoia. Rather, it is a simple norm of prudence and vigilance.
Even if we seem to have a very civilized world now, what with all the gadgets and technologies coming out, we still need to look out for a possible snake in the grass.
In fact, I would say that our so-called progress in society can offer a trickier cover for serpents to get to us. Mainly material and external development, without the corresponding spiritual growth, makes for a good ground for such treacherous creatures to breed, flourish and later infest.
Thus, it happened recently that in Manila the police had to be called to catch a big, fat python right in the middle of a crowded street. No owner claimed it. But since it was huge, it was easily seen and caught. We have to be more wary of the smaller ones, and even more so of the less material ones.
And we cannot deny that as attested in Church history, both remote and contemporary, when these troublemakers are tolerated and even encouraged, they really can make a big mess in both the Church and society.
So it might be good to alert everyone of such snake in the grass in the form of a heresy called modernism. We need to know what it is, why it’s dangerous, and why it’s condemned by the Church.
We have to do this because it seems it is making a come-back, a revival, especially in our crucial centers of learning, that is, in universities and even in seminaries!
Modernism can be understood in many ways, and there are many good things about it. That’s really the source of the problem, since we often get confused as to what’s good and bad with it, what’s right and wrong with it.
Its controversy came to a head long time ago, with Pope Pius X condemning it with his encyclical “Pascendi” in 1907. Before that, the then Holy Office issued a decree “Lamentabili,” enumerating the modernistic theses that had been disapproved.
It would be good, especially for those in the field of philosophy, theology and the humanities, to be familiar with these proscribed modernistic views, so they can be guided and be more discriminating in their work.
In layman’s language, modernism is a kind of movement mainly within the Church that tends to examine and question traditional belief in the light of contemporary researches.
Of course, at face value there’s hardly anything wrong with it. In fact, it’s good that continuing study and research be done on our Christian faith. By its very nature, our faith requires such study so as to be better understood by all.
The problem arises when the modernist’s efforts to develop and update Christian belief and dogmas starts to give absolute value to modern findings at the expense of the authority of the Church magisterium.
It’s a tendency that causes a kind of paradigm shift in doing philosophy or theology, since it can lean and gravitate toward a purely subjective way of understanding things.
The Church authority is little by little replaced by subjective criteria, albeit presented as being scientific and attuned to modern conditions and mentalities. Doubts begin to be raised about the supernatural character of the Church and the sacraments, about the nature of revelation and dogma, etc.
At bottom, what drives a modernist’s efforts is his so-called religious experience that now plays the leading role in determining what’s from God and what’s not.
He goes on a rampage of “demythologizing” the faith, of distinguishing, for example, the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith, etc. He develops an increasingly hostile attitude toward all Church authority, toward papal infallibility while bestowing that quality on himself.
He most likely will mouth the mantra of academic freedom for effect, accusing Church authorities of overstepping their competence. It’s a well-known ploy.
University and seminary professors in the faculty of philosophy, theology and the humanities should be keenly vetted at least for their doctrinal soundness if not also for their personal spiritual life.
These two aspects should go together, since they make for what can be considered as teachers and models fit for students and seminarians to listen and follow. Church authorities should laser-focus their supervision on them.
Even if we seem to have a very civilized world now, what with all the gadgets and technologies coming out, we still need to look out for a possible snake in the grass.
In fact, I would say that our so-called progress in society can offer a trickier cover for serpents to get to us. Mainly material and external development, without the corresponding spiritual growth, makes for a good ground for such treacherous creatures to breed, flourish and later infest.
Thus, it happened recently that in Manila the police had to be called to catch a big, fat python right in the middle of a crowded street. No owner claimed it. But since it was huge, it was easily seen and caught. We have to be more wary of the smaller ones, and even more so of the less material ones.
And we cannot deny that as attested in Church history, both remote and contemporary, when these troublemakers are tolerated and even encouraged, they really can make a big mess in both the Church and society.
So it might be good to alert everyone of such snake in the grass in the form of a heresy called modernism. We need to know what it is, why it’s dangerous, and why it’s condemned by the Church.
We have to do this because it seems it is making a come-back, a revival, especially in our crucial centers of learning, that is, in universities and even in seminaries!
Modernism can be understood in many ways, and there are many good things about it. That’s really the source of the problem, since we often get confused as to what’s good and bad with it, what’s right and wrong with it.
Its controversy came to a head long time ago, with Pope Pius X condemning it with his encyclical “Pascendi” in 1907. Before that, the then Holy Office issued a decree “Lamentabili,” enumerating the modernistic theses that had been disapproved.
It would be good, especially for those in the field of philosophy, theology and the humanities, to be familiar with these proscribed modernistic views, so they can be guided and be more discriminating in their work.
In layman’s language, modernism is a kind of movement mainly within the Church that tends to examine and question traditional belief in the light of contemporary researches.
Of course, at face value there’s hardly anything wrong with it. In fact, it’s good that continuing study and research be done on our Christian faith. By its very nature, our faith requires such study so as to be better understood by all.
The problem arises when the modernist’s efforts to develop and update Christian belief and dogmas starts to give absolute value to modern findings at the expense of the authority of the Church magisterium.
It’s a tendency that causes a kind of paradigm shift in doing philosophy or theology, since it can lean and gravitate toward a purely subjective way of understanding things.
The Church authority is little by little replaced by subjective criteria, albeit presented as being scientific and attuned to modern conditions and mentalities. Doubts begin to be raised about the supernatural character of the Church and the sacraments, about the nature of revelation and dogma, etc.
At bottom, what drives a modernist’s efforts is his so-called religious experience that now plays the leading role in determining what’s from God and what’s not.
He goes on a rampage of “demythologizing” the faith, of distinguishing, for example, the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith, etc. He develops an increasingly hostile attitude toward all Church authority, toward papal infallibility while bestowing that quality on himself.
He most likely will mouth the mantra of academic freedom for effect, accusing Church authorities of overstepping their competence. It’s a well-known ploy.
University and seminary professors in the faculty of philosophy, theology and the humanities should be keenly vetted at least for their doctrinal soundness if not also for their personal spiritual life.
These two aspects should go together, since they make for what can be considered as teachers and models fit for students and seminarians to listen and follow. Church authorities should laser-focus their supervision on them.
Monday, August 25, 2008
Meant to serve
“SERVIAM,” I will serve, has been a favorite motto of many Popes and other ecclesiastics, as well as many other people, prominent and ordinary. It’s taken from the Bible, and expresses a basic attitude we all ought to have.
I think that’s still the breaking news many of us have yet to know. We are still uncomfortable, if not averse, to the idea, and if there’s any serving that we do, it’s most likely to serve our own self-interest, a caricature of how things ought to be.
In fact, to serve must really be an essential part of our nature, because Christ himself did and lived it, and then taught it to all of us. Our sin, first the original and then our own, have distorted and muffled this yearning to serve we actually have deep in our hearts.
But consider the following words and actions of our Lord:
- “The Son of Man came to serve, and not to be served, and to give his life as ransom for many.” (Mt 20,28)
- “If any man desires to be first, he shall be the last of all, and the servant of all.” (Lk 9,35)
- After washing the feet of his apostles in the Last Supper, he said: “If then I being your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; you also ought to wash one another’s feet. For I have given you an example, that as I have done to you, so you do also.” (Jn 13,14-15)
There’s no other way to interpret these words and actions of Christ. We need to understand that to serve is a necessity of our life, as persons and children of God. By refusing to serve, we violate our own selves.
Of course, to serve properly can only be done if the first and ultimate object is God, and because of God, others. Our Lord said: “No man can serve two masters…You cannot serve God and mammon.” (Mt 6,24)
To serve outside of this orbit is to reduce serving into something servile or enslaving, something that degrades us rather than dignifies us.
The reason we often end up hating to serve is because we serve improperly—we serve ourselves rather than God, first, and then others. Serving in this way would inflict us with a short-circuit sooner or later.
To serve should be our guiding principle, since it gives meaning and direction to our life. It’s what fulfills us, what brings us to our proper end and joy. It identifies us with Christ and unites us with others. It builds up our communion with God and our solidarity with the others.
Said another way, it is only in serving that we can know and love Christ and let others know and love Christ as well. Christ cannot be discerned with the head alone. Knowing and loving him involves our whole being whose different aspects are actuated and integrated when we serve.
It is only in serving that we can start building and strengthening our Christian culture of life and love. We have to do everything to make serving like the motive for our thoughts, desires, words and deeds.
Let’s be wary of the subtle tricks the devil and we can play on our own selves, blurring the distinction between God’s will and ours, and making God’s will to conform to ours instead of ours to his.
Let’s welcome every opportunity to serve God and others, which can always be done anytime, anywhere. In the small and big things of our day, we are always faced with the choice between working for God and others, or working for ourselves.
To achieve this, we need to develop virtues and eradicate our vices. We need to pray, study God’s will and be familiar with his ways and commands. We need to fight against pride, laziness, attachments, etc. that blind us.
We need to fill our hearts with desires to serve always. The moment we wake up, the first thought that should come to mind is to serve God. It’s a resolution that we have to renew many times during the day.
This will make our life simple, imbuing it with a clear sense of direction. This will somehow always attract grace and generate its own energy for us to carry out God’s will irrespective of problems and difficulties.
I think that’s still the breaking news many of us have yet to know. We are still uncomfortable, if not averse, to the idea, and if there’s any serving that we do, it’s most likely to serve our own self-interest, a caricature of how things ought to be.
In fact, to serve must really be an essential part of our nature, because Christ himself did and lived it, and then taught it to all of us. Our sin, first the original and then our own, have distorted and muffled this yearning to serve we actually have deep in our hearts.
But consider the following words and actions of our Lord:
- “The Son of Man came to serve, and not to be served, and to give his life as ransom for many.” (Mt 20,28)
- “If any man desires to be first, he shall be the last of all, and the servant of all.” (Lk 9,35)
- After washing the feet of his apostles in the Last Supper, he said: “If then I being your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; you also ought to wash one another’s feet. For I have given you an example, that as I have done to you, so you do also.” (Jn 13,14-15)
There’s no other way to interpret these words and actions of Christ. We need to understand that to serve is a necessity of our life, as persons and children of God. By refusing to serve, we violate our own selves.
Of course, to serve properly can only be done if the first and ultimate object is God, and because of God, others. Our Lord said: “No man can serve two masters…You cannot serve God and mammon.” (Mt 6,24)
To serve outside of this orbit is to reduce serving into something servile or enslaving, something that degrades us rather than dignifies us.
The reason we often end up hating to serve is because we serve improperly—we serve ourselves rather than God, first, and then others. Serving in this way would inflict us with a short-circuit sooner or later.
To serve should be our guiding principle, since it gives meaning and direction to our life. It’s what fulfills us, what brings us to our proper end and joy. It identifies us with Christ and unites us with others. It builds up our communion with God and our solidarity with the others.
Said another way, it is only in serving that we can know and love Christ and let others know and love Christ as well. Christ cannot be discerned with the head alone. Knowing and loving him involves our whole being whose different aspects are actuated and integrated when we serve.
It is only in serving that we can start building and strengthening our Christian culture of life and love. We have to do everything to make serving like the motive for our thoughts, desires, words and deeds.
Let’s be wary of the subtle tricks the devil and we can play on our own selves, blurring the distinction between God’s will and ours, and making God’s will to conform to ours instead of ours to his.
Let’s welcome every opportunity to serve God and others, which can always be done anytime, anywhere. In the small and big things of our day, we are always faced with the choice between working for God and others, or working for ourselves.
To achieve this, we need to develop virtues and eradicate our vices. We need to pray, study God’s will and be familiar with his ways and commands. We need to fight against pride, laziness, attachments, etc. that blind us.
We need to fill our hearts with desires to serve always. The moment we wake up, the first thought that should come to mind is to serve God. It’s a resolution that we have to renew many times during the day.
This will make our life simple, imbuing it with a clear sense of direction. This will somehow always attract grace and generate its own energy for us to carry out God’s will irrespective of problems and difficulties.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)