JUST got hold of the latest issue of the magazine my old alma mater in Spain sends me regularly. A feature about a movie actor, now also a producer, immediately got my attention.
First, a magazine that tries to be serious in character would normally not talk about actors and celebrities. Second, though I’ve heard of the story before in a tangential way, I thought it would just have a short shelf life, just a flash in the pan, you know.
In short, the article broke my guiding principles. It deserved to be read. And I did. Now, I feel I was not shortchanged in my effort. But I must confess that my prayers and hopes for a definitive happy ending of the still unfolding story have surged.
Is it possible to have a saint or at least a saint-in-the-making in Hollywood? Let’s try to follow the story of Eduardo Verastegui.
A typical actor who started young in his career at 18 as model and singer in his native Mexico, Eduardo enjoyed all the perks of the notorious industry, with “stains” and “scars” to prove it. But at a certain point as he was preparing for Hollywood, grace touched him and led him to a deep conversion.
At that point of the story, I immediately remembered St. Augustine, that pillar of patristic theology who also had a very colorful life before his conversion. But Eduardo likens himself more with St. Francis of Assissi. Of course, I also saw the similarities.
All these conversion stories remind me that God’s grace can touch and fell us anytime anywhere. It’s no respecter of persons. God can choose anyone to be a special vessel of his divine redemptive will for the world.
Think of St. Paul, to cite just one example. Also consider the apostles. They were a bunch of ordinary people, mostly fishermen, whose personal flaws were more obvious than their virtues.
Yes, God can choose anyone. In fact, he chooses everyone since all of us are called to take part in his life. But he sets aside a few to give them a special mission to carry out his plan that is meant for all of us.
But mind you, God’s grace never takes away our freedom. We can even go to the extent of pitting, stupid but true, our freedom against grace, our will against God’s will. Thus, we can have cases like Judas, who clearly misused the divine privilege given to him.
Still, as the Pope told us sometime ago, the final judgment on Judas can only belong to God. We cannot condemn him definitively. We can only judge him for some of his actions, like his betrayal of Jesus, but the final verdict on his entire life can only come from God.
Back to Eduardo, that path that led to his conversion was in the person of an English professor hired to polish his speech for Hollywood standards. It was a woman by the name of Yasmin who, according to the actor, was so consistently Catholic that every class with her left him deeply stirred spiritually.
God’s grace, of course, works in very mysterious ways. As someone said, God writes straight in crooked lines. Eduardo just felt that though he had “everything” in life, he felt empty inside. He was not at peace. He was not happy. He needed to fill it up urgently.
That’s when he sharply realized he had to change his life drastically. And he did it, in a painful road-to-Damascus process, disappearing from the scene for a while. At one point, he thought he would enter the monastery, but he was advised to stay put in Hollywood and do something about it.
He’s now back there, all fired up and has started to produce films. The first one was “Bella”, about a woman who decided to save her baby from abortion. The pro-life movie won the People’s Choice Award in the Toronto Film Festival. More are coming, all infused with Christian values and packaged like any movie.
Eduardo’s story is still rolling. For sure, he is going to meet all sorts of trials. That’s why, we on our part should realize that since we form one spiritual family called “communion of saints,” we should feel the duty to pray for one another, and especially for Eduardo so he fulfills his mission faithfully.
Hollywood is in dire need of conversion itself!
Friday, October 30, 2009
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Be realistic but not too political
THAT’S what Pope Benedict told African bishops recently as they closed their synod in Rome. The synod’s theme was “The Church of Africa at the service of reconciliation, justice and peace.”
It’s obvious that the assembly was meant to tackle a tricky and delicate situation where the Church, especially the bishops and priests, have to know how to strike the balance between the spiritual and political dimensions of Christian life. I can just imagine how things are in that volatile continent of Africa.
It’s a situation similar to ours, and I suppose to many other places. That’s why that piece of news immediately grabbed my attention, since I would like to know exactly how the balance is made, what requirements and considerations are kept.
Especially now when we are celebrating the Year of the Priests, and the clergy is agitated to sharpen the exercise of their prophetic role in social matters, clear guidelines from the Vatican would be most welcome and helpful.
We cannot deny the blatant fact that controversial interventions, confusing at the very least, by some of our ecclesiastical big shots in social and political issues have left many of us bewildered and even scandalized.
Many of the faithful have complained that some Church leaders are too condemnatory in their statements, with words and tone that are laced with a condescending know-it-all attitude and sarcasm.
They also observe that the leaders seem to speak more vociferously in areas where they do not have or have less competence, while almost being silent or weak in the media in questions they should be clear and loud about.
For example, a bishop told some priests in their retreat that contraceptives like condoms are ok as long as it is not abortifacient. Many were wondering what happened to Pope Paulś Ḧumanae Vitae” after listening to that enlightenment.¨
Also, the irregularities within the Church structure give the impression Church officials are remiss in their duties as they stray into matters they should not be.
In short, people think these leaders only manage to embarrass the Church and religion in general in the eyes of the world. Thatś why there is also a growing fallout of the faithful.
In that address to the African bishops, the Pope only hinted that the synod was successful in identifying the way to reach that balance, but no details were mentioned. I suppose we have to wait a little for the relevant document to come out. That should be very exciting!
Also the Pope pointed out the significance of a synod, saying that it is ¨a common journey,¨ referring to the truth that in serving God and men the Church has to go together, talk and discuss things together, especially to determine solutions and remedies to problems along the way. Beautiful idea!
Let'ś quote some lines of that address:
¨The theme "Reconciliation, Justice and Peace" certainly implies a strong political dimension, even if it is obvious that reconciliation, justice and peace are not possible without a profound purification of the heart, without a renewal of thought, a "metanoia" ("conversion"), without a newness that must come precisely from the encounter with God.
¨But even if this spiritual dimension is profound and fundamental, the political dimension is also very real, because without political realizations, these new things of the Spirit are not commonly realized.
¨Thus, the temptation could have been to politicize the theme, to speak less of pastoral work and more about politics, with a competence that is not ours.
¨The other danger was -- precisely to flee from the first temptation -- that of retreating into a purely spiritual world, into an abstract and beautiful but unrealistic world.
¨But the discourse of a pastor must be realistic; it must deal with reality, but from the perspective of God and his Word.¨
How I wish the spirit and flavor of these words become palpable every time we read and hear Church leaders' interventions in social and political issues!
Obviously we cannot discount the likely possibility of how media play up these interventions that distort and even annul their original intent. This has been happening often lately. It is also an area clamoring to be studied well and remedied.
In the end, I think it is a matter of continuing formation for all parties involved—clergy, the lay faithful, media, etc.
It’s obvious that the assembly was meant to tackle a tricky and delicate situation where the Church, especially the bishops and priests, have to know how to strike the balance between the spiritual and political dimensions of Christian life. I can just imagine how things are in that volatile continent of Africa.
It’s a situation similar to ours, and I suppose to many other places. That’s why that piece of news immediately grabbed my attention, since I would like to know exactly how the balance is made, what requirements and considerations are kept.
Especially now when we are celebrating the Year of the Priests, and the clergy is agitated to sharpen the exercise of their prophetic role in social matters, clear guidelines from the Vatican would be most welcome and helpful.
We cannot deny the blatant fact that controversial interventions, confusing at the very least, by some of our ecclesiastical big shots in social and political issues have left many of us bewildered and even scandalized.
Many of the faithful have complained that some Church leaders are too condemnatory in their statements, with words and tone that are laced with a condescending know-it-all attitude and sarcasm.
They also observe that the leaders seem to speak more vociferously in areas where they do not have or have less competence, while almost being silent or weak in the media in questions they should be clear and loud about.
For example, a bishop told some priests in their retreat that contraceptives like condoms are ok as long as it is not abortifacient. Many were wondering what happened to Pope Paulś Ḧumanae Vitae” after listening to that enlightenment.¨
Also, the irregularities within the Church structure give the impression Church officials are remiss in their duties as they stray into matters they should not be.
In short, people think these leaders only manage to embarrass the Church and religion in general in the eyes of the world. Thatś why there is also a growing fallout of the faithful.
In that address to the African bishops, the Pope only hinted that the synod was successful in identifying the way to reach that balance, but no details were mentioned. I suppose we have to wait a little for the relevant document to come out. That should be very exciting!
Also the Pope pointed out the significance of a synod, saying that it is ¨a common journey,¨ referring to the truth that in serving God and men the Church has to go together, talk and discuss things together, especially to determine solutions and remedies to problems along the way. Beautiful idea!
Let'ś quote some lines of that address:
¨The theme "Reconciliation, Justice and Peace" certainly implies a strong political dimension, even if it is obvious that reconciliation, justice and peace are not possible without a profound purification of the heart, without a renewal of thought, a "metanoia" ("conversion"), without a newness that must come precisely from the encounter with God.
¨But even if this spiritual dimension is profound and fundamental, the political dimension is also very real, because without political realizations, these new things of the Spirit are not commonly realized.
¨Thus, the temptation could have been to politicize the theme, to speak less of pastoral work and more about politics, with a competence that is not ours.
¨The other danger was -- precisely to flee from the first temptation -- that of retreating into a purely spiritual world, into an abstract and beautiful but unrealistic world.
¨But the discourse of a pastor must be realistic; it must deal with reality, but from the perspective of God and his Word.¨
How I wish the spirit and flavor of these words become palpable every time we read and hear Church leaders' interventions in social and political issues!
Obviously we cannot discount the likely possibility of how media play up these interventions that distort and even annul their original intent. This has been happening often lately. It is also an area clamoring to be studied well and remedied.
In the end, I think it is a matter of continuing formation for all parties involved—clergy, the lay faithful, media, etc.
Reproductive health a defining issue
CONTRARY to what a local churchman said recently, reproductive health is not just one more issue among the many that we have to consider when choosing our candidates for this coming election.
Occasional reckless and erroneous statements from ecclesiastics are actually no surprise to us anymore. In Church history, false prophets have always arisen. But they sooner or later were exposed, corrected and neutralized. Still we have to be careful and prompt to clarify matters as they come.
Reproductive health happens to be a defining issue, one that can drastically change the complexion of our society, since it goes directly on the spiritual and moral aspects of our life. It just cannot be one more issue to tackle. It is “the” issue.
Just look now at some countries swimming in reproductive health. There’s no correlation between it and its vaunted political, social and economic benefits. What’s obvious is the surge of irreligion and immorality.
As an issue, reproductive health certainly is not simply a matter of opinion, taste or preference. It touches on God’s law insofar as our own nature is concerned. To Christian believers, it clearly goes against natural law, no ifs or buts about it.
The other issues, though with moral implications, are more political, social or economic in character, and we are free to take any positions, with their relative advantages and disadvantages, as long as they all respect the spiritual and moral requirements of our human nature.
Not so with the reproductive health as defined and described by their proponents. It involves not just economics or politics. Its essential features already tamper with our basic spiritual and moral nature.
It’s all-out for contraception, and thus violates the unitive and procreative nature of the marital act. And though our local version does not include abortion yet, it certainly heads toward that direction.
It fosters sexual promiscuity not only among the adults and married, but also among the young. It undermines the virtue of chastity. It weakens parental rights in forming and educating children.
It forces us to subscribe to its tenets and ordinances. Going against them is now considered a criminal offense. This is really funny, because it brags about being pro-choice, ever respectful of people’s rights and freedom.
Besides, it is not an original Filipino initiative. Alien parties, heavy with funding and tricky in their ways, are the main pushers of the idea. It’s now common knowledge that many public officials are on the take from them. It certainly does not promote health.
It is clearly inspired by wild feminist, liberal and materialistic ideologies that are now infesting many Western and developed countries. Among its bizarre ideas is to give women absolute right over their own bodies. God and his laws have no more authority over them. Women are now their own God and law.
It’s truly a part of what is now known as the “culture of death.” But I feel what we have here is more than just conflicts in a culture war. It looks more to me like a war of beliefs.
The powerful people behind the reproductive health have actually waged a persistent propaganda campaign for decades. And they continue, this time busily introducing reproductive health language into other pieces of legislation, like in our Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program, etc.
They are also into asking cities and towns to make reproductive health ordinances for their localities. More, they often offer aid purportedly for poverty alleviation, for example, to push their hidden agenda.
They obviously are now enjoying some dividends. They can count on many supporters, lackeys and those open to their ideas. But, for sure, this is not an irreversible phenomenon. The situation simply calls for more active and aggressive reaction from Christian believers.
Obviously the Church hierarchy and clergy will give the guidelines and the inspiration, but it’s the laity who should do the leg work. There are a lot of things that need to be done. An effective organization with the specific mission to counter reproductive health has to be made in different levels and sectors.
At the moment, we need to closely monitor the RH bill now being deliberated upon in Congress. We also have to examine the different candidates as to their stand on the reproductive health and give helpful indications to the people.
To underlie all this should be an abiding effort to have formation, highlighting the true meaning and value of human sexuality, marriage, family, and care for our spiritual and moral life.
Occasional reckless and erroneous statements from ecclesiastics are actually no surprise to us anymore. In Church history, false prophets have always arisen. But they sooner or later were exposed, corrected and neutralized. Still we have to be careful and prompt to clarify matters as they come.
Reproductive health happens to be a defining issue, one that can drastically change the complexion of our society, since it goes directly on the spiritual and moral aspects of our life. It just cannot be one more issue to tackle. It is “the” issue.
Just look now at some countries swimming in reproductive health. There’s no correlation between it and its vaunted political, social and economic benefits. What’s obvious is the surge of irreligion and immorality.
As an issue, reproductive health certainly is not simply a matter of opinion, taste or preference. It touches on God’s law insofar as our own nature is concerned. To Christian believers, it clearly goes against natural law, no ifs or buts about it.
The other issues, though with moral implications, are more political, social or economic in character, and we are free to take any positions, with their relative advantages and disadvantages, as long as they all respect the spiritual and moral requirements of our human nature.
Not so with the reproductive health as defined and described by their proponents. It involves not just economics or politics. Its essential features already tamper with our basic spiritual and moral nature.
It’s all-out for contraception, and thus violates the unitive and procreative nature of the marital act. And though our local version does not include abortion yet, it certainly heads toward that direction.
It fosters sexual promiscuity not only among the adults and married, but also among the young. It undermines the virtue of chastity. It weakens parental rights in forming and educating children.
It forces us to subscribe to its tenets and ordinances. Going against them is now considered a criminal offense. This is really funny, because it brags about being pro-choice, ever respectful of people’s rights and freedom.
Besides, it is not an original Filipino initiative. Alien parties, heavy with funding and tricky in their ways, are the main pushers of the idea. It’s now common knowledge that many public officials are on the take from them. It certainly does not promote health.
It is clearly inspired by wild feminist, liberal and materialistic ideologies that are now infesting many Western and developed countries. Among its bizarre ideas is to give women absolute right over their own bodies. God and his laws have no more authority over them. Women are now their own God and law.
It’s truly a part of what is now known as the “culture of death.” But I feel what we have here is more than just conflicts in a culture war. It looks more to me like a war of beliefs.
The powerful people behind the reproductive health have actually waged a persistent propaganda campaign for decades. And they continue, this time busily introducing reproductive health language into other pieces of legislation, like in our Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program, etc.
They are also into asking cities and towns to make reproductive health ordinances for their localities. More, they often offer aid purportedly for poverty alleviation, for example, to push their hidden agenda.
They obviously are now enjoying some dividends. They can count on many supporters, lackeys and those open to their ideas. But, for sure, this is not an irreversible phenomenon. The situation simply calls for more active and aggressive reaction from Christian believers.
Obviously the Church hierarchy and clergy will give the guidelines and the inspiration, but it’s the laity who should do the leg work. There are a lot of things that need to be done. An effective organization with the specific mission to counter reproductive health has to be made in different levels and sectors.
At the moment, we need to closely monitor the RH bill now being deliberated upon in Congress. We also have to examine the different candidates as to their stand on the reproductive health and give helpful indications to the people.
To underlie all this should be an abiding effort to have formation, highlighting the true meaning and value of human sexuality, marriage, family, and care for our spiritual and moral life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)