Moral Considerations--reflecting on the 2013 elections

Some Moral Considerations

Indifference can mean the absence of interest for someone or something. There is kind of neutrality. We can say that indifference can be a positive attitude in situations wherein we have to choose between contraries. Indifference helps us stay calm and objective. Fine. But indifference can also raise a problem. How can we stay indifferent in front of an injustice, when for example, human right and dignity is threatened and even violated? When there is the absence of interest in front of an injustice, even if the injustice is yet on a level of perception, indifference might have to be judged in ethical terms.

Why speak of ethics—or morality? We do have experiences of indignation when confronted by actions that are intolerable and unacceptable. Such actions show the inhuman. They violate human dignity; they do not respect the sacredness of the human person. So we become ethical—or moral—when we oppose the inhuman. Morality is a path of humanization. As we might want to say in Tagalog, ito’y daan ng pagpapakatao. We act morally to let the human (and not the inhuman) emerge in us and in the world around us. We want to make real as much as possible the human in us and in our society—“ang pagpapakatao sa lipunan”.

Unfortunately, there are times when we mix moral approval with social approval. In other words when we denounce inhumanity, we might be judged as partisan in our denunciation. When we try to be moral we might end up looking partisan. Let me illustrate.

We just held the 2013 elections. For a length of time, even prior to the elections, a lot of questions have been raised regarding the PCOS machines. After the elections a lot of questions and criticisms have again been raised. There is a tendency, unfortunately, to immediately interpret “raising questions” and “criticizing the election process” as a partisan act. They are interpreted as panggugulo. They are defined as rumors. Yes, our experiences in the past have shown the habitual riklamo of those who lost the elections and this has influenced our view of criticism. The tendency then is to say that when someone criticizes a political process this person is “against a party line”; she or he is opposing a “matuwid na daan”; he or she is affirming his or her affiliation with an opposition. This has become quite common—so much so that each time a criticism is raised it is immediately tagged as partisan.

Partisan thinking can polarize society. It can have the tendency to make society assume only one face—the face of “my party” or the face of “my program”. If you’re not with me then you’re against me and you belong to an opposite side. Your dignity depends on which side you take. Moral seeking, on the contrary, hopes to respect the differences we hold yet it tries to recognize that we are all in the same human condition and we all share the same human dignity.

Part of assuming our status as moral creatures comes with the recognition that, indeed, we are conditioned by partisan affiliation and yet we seek the unconditional. To seek the unconditional is to presuppose that we can think and reason out and that we can exercise our freedom to promote our humanisation—what is pagpapakatao—in our society. There are no conditions—no partisan conditions, for example—in respecting the dignity of the other person. It is ridiculous to say that I will respect you on the condition that you belong to my political party thinking. To seek the unconditional is to recognize the human underneath social and political processes we undergo.

Here is where I start to think about indifference. It is possible and it is moral to at least raise questions. If, even if it is still on the level of perception, the election process has manifested the possibility of having violated the human dignity of the ballot it is imperative to raise questions. How can we make indifference a universally accepted behavior in such a case? It is sad for me that criticism is dismissed easily as “rumor” or “being partisan” even if the criticism aims at promoting the dignity of the ballot. Such a dismissal promotes indifference. It is also sad for me that, to avoid being tagged as partisan, one opts to be indifferent.

Yes, it is tough to take sides. It is tough to voice out. We are in no position to make a blanket judgment against people opting indifference. (Who is not fully indifferent, anyway?) But there is no harm in wondering how far it can get us; how far it can promote pagpapakatao.   

I would like to quote from Abraham Heschel’s book The Prophets (volume 1). Heschel describes the prophetic sensibility. “To us”, he writes, “a single act of injustice—cheating in business, exploitation of the poor—is slight; to the prophets, a disaster. To us injustice is injurious to the welfare of the people; to the prophets it is a deathblow to existence; to us, an episode, to them a catastrophe, a threat to the world. … Our eyes are witness to callousness and cruelty…but our heart tries to obliterate the memories, to calm the nerves, and to silence our conscience”.

If it takes a prophet to guide us, then let us pray that a prophet be in our midst.

Some "Floating Ideas" about Political Life

Some Floating Ideas about Political Life

by Francisco C. Castro

Clearly my essay is “floating”. It is all words. As one friend used to say, “it’s all armchair talk”. But why not say something? Why should the “armchair” prohibit me from saying something? So here goes.

One has this opinion that the public leaders are powerless in resolving problems today and cannot even offer a clear future. Economic growth is a big hurray, but unemployment continues unabated. The poverty index is continually miserable. Shall we mention crime? Yes, there is economic growth but what does it do with income inequality? Politicians give us the impression that they are more interested in political survival than in putting to effect deep and necessary reforms. We do not have a sense of a “bright future”, do we? Our leading and governing offices that make decisions for us are in a world of anonymity. They fear, for example, transparency and transparency of information. We are not to know what they do…we are just told to be confident.

One gets this impression that the leaders are far from the realities of everyday life. They make promises as if they are in touch. The gap seems to widen. We see inconsistencies in the statements of our leaders and still we are told to have confidence. Have we given up participating in a “great destiny” because all we have is confidence on people whose actions we have no idea of. As usual, transparency is not in the exercise of governance. Have we also lost militancy? Have we grown indifferent to what is going on around us?

What we see among our leaders is a world of suspicion and generalized accusations. Has politics degenerated into conflicts of interests and the submission to a dominant political apparatus? Do we “live together” only if we submit to a dominant political color?

Yes, politics is essential. It is important. But what does it have to do with daily life? It is something that is in the hands and control of a few—a “class” of leaders? I have always understood politics as a manner of living together; it is a way of organizing social life so that we are not strangers to each other. In other words, even if in society we do not know each other, we can treat each other fraternally. We are sisters and brothers to each other and political life is designed to assure us of this. In society human rights, for example, are respected.

Political life exists also to assure us that the resources in our social world are destined for the accomplishment of our being-humans. The Tagalog word has a strong term for this: pagpapakatao. Resources are channeled so that each and everyone has the opportunity to live decently and with dignity, grow and development in a pagpapakatao way. Hence a major task of political life is to take into account the most marginalized and powerless—for they have the least access to the resources.

Violence is exerted not only when crime or corruption takes place. Violence also happens when the right to information and the right to be heard are thwarted. To give as much space as possible to the word of an other person is a step away from the brute life. Political life seeks to substitute this violence with the right to be informed and the right to speak.

Political life embraces the many parts of social life: economics, family life, the ecology, etc. Politics is in all of these but these are not always about politics. When political leaders try to have a hold even within the independence say, of family life and reproduction, the leaders become despotic.

Where is social life can politics serve? I can name a few:

1.       Human rights must be respected. Even if one is an adversary, there is no justification to deny his or her human rights. Even if one is an adversary, there is no justification to lose respect for her or him.

2.       Vigilance must be given to the plight of the poor. Economic growth is not just about GDP and financial investments. It is even ideal to be prosperous even without growth. That the poor have enough security in food and health and water is already prosperity.

3.       Economic growth by disadvantaging the environment is not healthy. It is not growth. It is an illusion of growth.

4.       Consider the rights of the future generations too. Think of the future with a plan that will benefit those generations.

5.       Freedom of information must be pursued. It is the health of a nation to make citizens well-informed of what governance is all about. To be kept in the dark is to develop suspicion and mistrust.

Political life today needs virtues. In other words, we let ourselves be guided—and this is virtue—by important values like the dignity of persons, justice and knowledge. Virtues are visible when leaders promote dialogue and even debates rather than quarreling and forming juvenile alliances.  

On the RH-Bill: Why the Church reacts so?

We say that when a man and a woman get married, they will share lives in full confidence to each other…each will say: “I give myself to you”. It is a “mutual self-giving”…for all life…”’til death do us part”. Contraception is a path of not sharing a part of oneself. What is this part? My fertility. I share all that I am to you—all except my fertility. Our mutual self-giving has limits. We will mutually self-give up to a certain point which is our fertility. We are willing to have full confidence with each other, except in terms of fertility. So a reservation is made. 

This opens the door to many other reservations. If fertility can be reserved, the why not… We can imagine many things. We can reserve resources—“oh now I can keep some for myself and not share”. We can reserve certain information—“oh now I do not have to tell you what happened to me during the day”. We can reserve friends—“Oh I do not have to tell you I have friendship with that person…and I do not have to tell you what we do together”. Etc. Next thing we know, we ask for a separation and divorce.

We reserve more…we share less. The unconditional love professed during marriage slowly falls apart. When contraception fails—and the wife becomes pregnant—the door to abortion is next opened. See what contraceptive mentality is. It is a cultural behavior that opens many doors.

Of course there is, maybe, an exaggeration here. Surely there are married people who have successful married lives even while practicing contraception. But we try to appreciate the stand of the Church.

What about the “natural methods”?  These involve watching closely the ways of the wife’s body…So the intimate "physiology" of the wife must be closely observed by the couple. This implies a dialogue between the husband and the wife. The dialogue will tell both of them “when to do it”, that is, the conjugal act.  

Can this be done in an adult way?  This is what the Church would like to say. Self-regulation and matured treatment of the body and sexuality are part of the “culture” of marriage. Today we seem to be so “free” with “sex”… How about a serious, not hedonistic, approach to sex?

And what about Onan? (See Gen 38/8-10). Well, it was about cheating…Onan was not true to his word. The Church would not go for this style. It is not just a lack of fidelity to what one says it is also about putting that to action. The “pulling out” is cheating. He promised descendants…he was not true to his word…and he pulled out. Many still doubt if this is wrong…. So the debate continues.

What this essay presents is a “very conservative” discussion, we admit. In the world today where “sex” is “more liberal”, the stand of the Church may, indeed, look so conservative. We try to appreciate what the Church says. She talks about sex—and fertility. It is a “power” we have—something given to us in creation. It is a power of the “male-female” that becomes “man-woman”. This power puts a child in the world. It is not a power to be joked with.

The Church invites married couples to lead a married life. There are ways of leading this life. “You may…but”, as Genesis (Gen. 2/16-17) would put it. Not all means of birth control are good, as the Church would say. Contraception is a method that relies on lack of confidence and mutual self-giving of the married couple. It is a way of refusing to “master your mastery”, again as Genesis (Chapter 1) would say.

Yes, the Church would go for “natural regulation” of birth. This requires maturity and adulthood in marriage.

It is understandable that priests and bishops react so strongly against the RH Bill. They have their manuals for confessions… “handbooks”...references. Look at what the handbook for married people will say about marriage and procreation:

“The virtue of conjugal chastity ‘involves the integrity of the person and the integrality of the gift’, and through it sexuality ‘becomes personal and truly human when it is integrated into the relationship of one person to another, in the complete and lifelong mutual gift of a man and a woman’. This virtue, in so far as it refers to the intimate relations of the spouses, requires that ‘the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love’ be maintained. Therefore, among the fundamental moral principles of conjugal life, it is necessary to keep in mind ‘the inseparable connection, willed by God and unable to be broken by man on his own initiative, between the two meanings of the conjugal act: the unitive meaning and the procreative meaning. The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable. Contraception is gravely opposed to marital chastity; it is contrary to the good of the transmission of life (the procreative aspect of matrimony), and to the reciprocal self-giving of the spouses (the unitive aspect of matrimony); it harms true love and denies the sovereign role of God in the transmission of human life. (Vademecum for confessors concerning some aspects of the morality of conjugal life Intro 2 and 2/4).

So it is in the tradition of the Church, held by priests, of course, to refuse the sexual act that is oriented to contraception. Contraception is, so the handbook says, an intrinsic evil. Conjugal love is always related with procreation. So even married people stay chaste—this is conjugal chastity. Contraception is opposed to this chastity. It is opposed to the transmission of life—and transmission is in the will of God. It harms conjugal love. Note what the handbook says: contraception is irreformable.(So now we see why priests in the Philippines are so firm in their stand…this is what their handbook says!

If we think back to Genesis, this handbook seems to be saying that the human being is a “steward” of creation. The human being is not the owner of the world. Procreation is part of stewardship. God creates, the human pro-creates.

Ok, so we try to understand our priests and bishops. More than less, we see the "maturity" in Church thinking. The Church has a high regard for the human person--that the human person is really capable of discerning and self-regulating. We make a final word. 

We have seen what the Church has done during the hot debate. We have seen Church people…including Bishops and Religious people…go to congress and be visible in their lobby against the RH Bill.

But there is also a limit to lobbying for and to rallying against…. “You may, but” (Genesis 2/16-17)…this rule applies even to Church people. Certain manifestations of Church people need to be questioned. When a big storm hit Mindanao and killed innocent people and destroyed so much properties, we cannot say that it was due God’s refusal of the RH Bill. When individuals wear pro-RH shirts and go to mass, must they be castigated in front of the crowd…and must the communion be preferential against them?

What has the Church done to educate the parishioners regarding the debate? To simplify the issue and say that there are only two types of people—the “pro” and the “anti”—is to over simply the issue and to treat people naively. If the Church is the assembly of all members—not just of priests and religious—then the ordained ministry is duty bound to educate the faithful. The maintenance of faith is part of the ordained priest’s job anyway.

Finally, to make a political stand on the RH issue and tell people who to vote and not vote….Well, does this not make the Catholic Church a “political party”? Banners and tarpaulins are set up inside parish church compounds. Written are persons not to vote for and persons to vote for. This is a political campaign done by the parish! This is not the way of the Church. Already the Philippine Church said this a long time ago: "The Church's competence in passing moral judgments even in matters political has been traditionally interpreted as pertaining to the clergy. Negatively put, the clergy can teach moral doctrines covering politics but cannot actively involve themselves in partisan politics. Religious men and women are also included in this prohibition" (PCP-II, 340). But lay people have competence in active and direct partisan politics. (PCP-II, 341). The laity may do partisan politics…but cannot use the parishes for their advocacy.    

Some Thoughts on Christian Social Action

Some Thoughts on Christian Social Action: Part 1

How do we see Church Social Action today in our country? Here are some points for reflection.

Social Action is a way of bringing life. We live and act according to the love of God—we respond to the love of God. Christian life is a response to this love of God. Christian social action also is a response. It responds by bringing life. God reveals himself as source of life in the heart of human action. Life is set out of confusion and darkness.

We can take cue from St. Paul: “Or are you unaware that we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were indeed buried with him through baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might live in newness of life” (Rm 6/3-4). There is a “new life”. We discover this new life as we move on and encounter others—the poor. Our baptism is a call to engage in the world and there bring out new life. As we engage socially we discover the truth about this. Social action becomes the moment when faith takes on a new life and we sense, in a clearer way, God who, himself gives life.

Discovering God who gives life makes us give life too. We give life. In our social action we see how we collaborate in God’s active life. Jesus has taught this to us: “My Father is at work until now, so I am at work” (Jn.5/17).

Social engagement gives the sense of life, so we say. This means, in more concrete sense, the sense of the future. There is a future in society. There is a future in a world where injustice reigns. No, injustice is not the fate of people. Social engagement is an emphasis on this sense of future.

This “sense of the future” can be a model or reference for Christian social action.  In social action we tell society that our God is a God of the future. Our God pulls us out of contradictions and pulls us out of the hold of darkness. Remember, be of good cheer, Jesus has overcome the world. So there is no victory for darkness, never in the future. Social action invites society to look at its suffering in the light of the resurrection.

Social Action is solidarity. We have a different kind of God—not of power but of weakness and fragility. In terms of representing God in social action we present a God who is himself poor. Jesus himself said it: “For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me, naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me… whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me” (Mt.25/ 35 and 40). Jesus revealed himself as one poor man also hungry, thirsty, a stranger, naked, ill, in prison. Our engagement with the poor is our engagement with Christ.

To be engaged socially with the poor is itself a way of encountering Christ. God loved the world he sent his son—incarnated into human life and human conditions. This is the incarnation of God’s love for all, especially the poor, the marginalized, the little ones who suffer so much. This is the solidarity of God with humanity. It is God’s participating concretely in our human lives.

Christian social action, therefore, is not exempted from tensions, difficulties and contradictions. Jesus is among the little ones, not among the powerful ones. So Christian action enters into that world of the poor—a world of tensions and contradictions. It is never easy, we know. Engagement is not running away from tension and contradiction. In fact, it is in engaging with the poor where the credibility of the faith is made more manifest.

Social action is a way of saying God is present in real time. Christian social engagement is a witnessing to the fact that God is actually engaged in the concrete history of society. God is concrete. God is true and really is involved. God is someone who accompanies the poor in the search for truth, justice, peace, etc. God’s poverty is marked by retaining nothing for himself. His nature is “giving totally”—the giving of the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit.

In fact, in social engagement, the strongest image of God is that of a mysterious presence each time people take seriously their struggle for justice—when people assume their responsibility to let their society live properly. Suddenly God is revealed!

Remember the prophets. They denounced the hypocrisy of religious practices that went together with the practice of injustice. Amos, for example, even went to say that religious practices were used to justify injustice. Powerful people used religious practices to exploit the poor. The prophets, already during their time, tried to weave together justice and faith.

Now we come to Jesus. In his words and actions, showed something different. Jesus showed the message of the unity between social life and life with God. God is made more present in the life of justice—or in the life of the search for justice. Miracles, as read in the Gospels, were signs of the Kingdom. Christian life, we said, can be miracle whenever it is lived in view of liberating—in view of showing the Kingdom. Christian life—and Christian social action—is a clear expression of the faith in the God who is present in real time. Christian social action is a way of manifesting God in society.

Christian social action is a combat with others, notably with the poor. It is a combat that wishes to make the Kingdom emerge. The way is, again, not easy. But we say it is a combat with. It is a community work—a solidarity with the poor. Together we perceive the truth of the Kingdom. Together we manifest and announce the love of the Father. Together we do our best to live in justice and peace. It is a true combat—not of violence, of course. It is a combat that reflects the Beatitudes of mourning and of peacemaking. We mourn against the darkness of society. We opt to work in terms of peace. 

Some Thoughts on Christian Social Action: Part 2

Think of the poor and think of God. When we say “social doctrine” we might think of documents and statements—mostly from Popes. This time, let us consider a deeper aspect—that of encountering the poor and God. Doctrine is also action—Christian social action. Some central points can be made.

Social engagement, a result of faith

1.       Social engagement is a result of faith. God entered into covenant with humanity, manifesting his concern for us. Because of this we respond. In the heart of our faith we put into concrete ways our attitudes, behaviour, values and actions. We put to concrete expressions our faith. This is how we can appreciate what Pope Benedict entitled his encyclical: “Love in Truth” (Caritas in veritate). The Pope saw how Jesus incarnated and was witness to the love of God in his earthly life…and in his death and resurrection. Love is a great force that makes us move with courage. Let us read the Pope: “Charity in truth, to which Jesus Christ bore witness by his earthly life and especially by his death and resurrection, is the principal driving force behind the authentic development of every person and of all humanity. Love — caritas — is an extraordinary force which leads people to opt for courageous and generous engagement in the field of justice and peace” (Caritas in veritate 1).

2.       Adhere in Christ, stick it out with Christ. This has a social impact. It means searching for justice and truth. It means searching for the common good. Again we read the Pope: “‘Caritas in veritate’” is the principle around which the Church's social doctrine turns, a principle that takes on practical form in the criteria that govern moral action. I would like to consider two of these in particular, of special relevance to the commitment to development in an increasingly globalized society: justice and the common good” (Caritas in veritate 6). Life is oriented morally in love. Life is pushed to act in justice. Remember what Jesus said: “Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven” (Mt.7/21). It is not enough to shout Jesus, Lord, or whatever else. What matters is living correctly.

3.       One way to express this “living correctly” is by showing the light of the Gospel in society. Is my social life coherent? Is it in line with values of the Gospel? Is the social world around me marked by Gospel values? Remember the Gospel is for life—it is for the good and happiness of life. The Gospel has social implications. It inspires attitudes and norms of living. It denounces injustice. The Gospel marks Christian life.

4.       No, the Gospel is not just a story…not just a nice story. It is not just something we hear about separately from concrete life. The Gospel is about the link we have with God—the love of God telling us how to live with true attitudes and values in life.

Social Action as a way of bringing life

5.       Ok, so we live and act according to the love of God. Life is a response to this love of God. There is something more. As we engage socially, we also bring life. God reveals himself as source of life in the heart of human action. Life is set out of confusion and darkness.

6.       God is before us, calling us to action. We can take cue from St. Paul: “Or are you unaware that we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were indeed buried with him through baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might live in newness of life” (Rm 6/3-4). There is a “new life”. We discover this new life as we move on and encounter others—the poor. Our baptism is a call to engage in the world and there bring out new life. As we engage socially we discover the truth about this. Social action becomes the moment when faith takes on a new life and we sense, in a clearer way, God who, himself gives life.

7.       Discovering God who gives life makes us give life too. We give life. In our social action we see how we collaborate—or “participate” (in the Thomistic sense)—in God’s active life. Jesus has taught this to us: “My Father is at work until now, so I am at work” (Jn.5/17).

8.       Social engagement gives the sense of life, so we say. This means, in more concrete sense, the sense of the future. There is a future in society. There is a future in a world where injustice reigns. No, injustice is not the fate of people. Social engagement is an emphasis on this sense of future.

9.       This “sense of the future” can be a model or reference for Christian social action.  In social action we tell society that our God is a God of the future. Our God pulls us out of contradictions and pulls us out of the hold of darkness. Remember, be of good cheer, Jesus has overcome the world. So there is no victory for darkness, never in the future. Social action invites society to look at its suffering in the light of the resurrection.

Social Action is the action of a poor God: Solidarity

10.   Now, we speak of the resurrection. Remember that Christ passed through the cross before the resurrection. We have a different kind of God—not of power but of weakness and fragility. In terms of representing God in social action we present a God who is himself poor. Jesus himself said it: “For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me, naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me… whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me” (Mt.25/ 35 and 40). Jesus revealed himself as one poor man also hungry, thirsty, a stranger, naked, ill, in prison. Our engagement with the poor is our engagement with Christ.

11.   To be engaged socially with the poor is itself a way of encountering Christ. God loved the world he sent his son—incarnated into human life and human conditions. This is the incarnation of God’s love for all, especially the poor, the marginalized, the little ones who suffer so much. This is the solidarity of God with humanity. It is God’s participating concretely in our human lives.

12.   Christian social action, therefore, is not exempted from tensions, difficulties and contradictions. Jesus is among the little ones, not among the powerful ones. So Christian action enters into that world of the poor—a world of tensions and contradictions. It is never easy, we know. Engagement is not running away from tension and contradiction. In fact, it is in engaging with the poor where the credibility of the faith is made more manifest.

Social action as a way of saying God is present in real time

13.   Christian social engagement is a witnessing to the fact that God is actually engaged in the concrete history of society. God is concrete. God is true and really is involved. God is someone who accompanies the poor in the search for truth, justice, peace, etc. God is “pverty”—God retains nothing for himself. His nature is “giving totally”—the giving of the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit.

14.   In fact, in social engagement, the strongest image of God is that of a mysterious presence each time people take seriously their struggle for justice—when people assume their responsibility to let their society live properly. Suddenly God is revealed!

15.   Remember the prophets. They denounced the hypocrisy of religious practices that went together with the practice of injustice. Amos, for example, even went to say that religious practices were used to justify injustice. Powerful people used religious practices to exploit the poor. The prophets, already during their time, tried to weave together justice and faith.

16.   Now we come to Jesus. In his words and actions, showed something different. Jesus showed the message of the unity between social life and life with God. God is made more present in the life of justice—or in the life of the search for justice. We hinted on this during our class in Christology. Miracles, we said, were signs of the Kingdom. Christian life, we said, can be miracle whenever it is lived in view of liberating—in view of showing the Kingdom. Christian life—and Christian social action—is a clear expression of the faith in the God who is present in real time. Christian social action is a way of manifesting God in society.

17.   Christian social action is a combat with others, notably he poor. It is a combat that wishes to make the Kingdom emerge. The way is, again, not easy. But we say it is a combat with. It is a community work—a solidarity with the poor. Together we perceive the truth of the Kingdom. Together we manifest and announce the love of the Father. Together we do our best to live in justice and peace. It is a true combat—not of violence, of course.

Social Action is ecclesiological

1.       Social action—our Christian social action—is a work of the Church for society. Christian social action is part of Church fidelity to Christ. Let us look at what Pope Benedict XVI would say: “For the Church, charity is not a kind of welfare activity which could equally well be left to others, but is a part of her nature, an indispensable expression of her very being” (Deus Caritas Est 25). It is a Church in communion not just within but with all humanity. The Church suffers with and struggles with all. In this way the image we have of the Church deepens. We are not just a “churchy” Church, but an engaged Church—engaged for the poor. The Church is an assembly—an ekklesia—on the move where each is responsible for others. The Church is a manifestation of our being brothers and sisters to all. We join in fraternity, in solidarity with others, knowing that the presence of Christ is here.

2.       The Church is God’s way of being present in the World. We adhere to Christ in the Church. We are in Christ in the Church. The revelation about Christ is transmitted by the witnessing of the Church. So the Church is with Christ too…passionate for life. So in a way, social action is Church action. It is the Church’s way of responding in faith to the love of Christ and admitting the presence of Christ in the world.

A theological reflection on the ecological issue

In the old times—when our country were still outside the influence of Christianity and Islam—our ancient peoples believed in spirits and other divinities dwelling in rocks and streams and trees. The divinities were part of the world. Our ancient descendants had myths of origins that explained the reasons why there were trees, why there were humans, why there were the things around them. Gods and divinities and nature formed a whole picture of reality. Do not disturb nature—the spirits will be disturbed too. So our very ancient peoples tried to live in parallel with the divinities surrounding them.

But then things have changed especially with the coming of Christianity here. We know that Christianity is marked by Judaism. For this Judea-Christian tradition, God is outside the world. God is beyond the created world—God is the creator. God placed the “domination” of the created world in the hands of the human being. The human can therefore “interfere” in nature. No divinity is disturbed. There is no sacrilege. In fact, by “intervening”—by “mastering over”—the world, the human is fulfilling the mandate given by God. Be master over the created world.

Ok, we know the Genesis creation stories. The human is made in the image and likeness of God. The human is given the charge to be master over the world. Multiply and fill the earth. At one point in Genesis, the human gives names to the beasts—a very “high” status!

Because the human can intervene in the world, something new is presented. It opens the doors to science and technology. As we know science and technology see themselves as having the right to explore the world and even transform it.

Since modernity rose, science and technology have been successful in exploring and transforming the world. For many centuries this never raised a major question as to the validity of the existence of science and technology. But slowly, we begin to feel that “something is wrong” too.

For one, humanity started to see in science the “answer to all problems”. Any problem can be resolved by “scientific approaches”. Yet, science and technology have been very instrumental in massive wars. All we have to do is look back at the atomic bomb in Japan…or the sophisticated wars in Iraq and Kuwait. In other words, science and technology have opened the doors to our self-destruction.

Just look at how we treat nature today. We pollute her. We destroy her. We spend non-renewable resources…we throw them up in waste. Now we say that we need to change our view of the world and our dependency on science and technology.

Let us admit it. In our Christianity we have been so focused on social issues. The place of “nature”  and the issues of “ecology and the environment” have not been so central in our discussions. In fact the Social Doctrine of the Church seems to have looked at the ecology issue only recently. Our reading of Genesis may have even led us to do some extreme activities unfavorable to nature. Multiply, fill the earth, dominate (see Gn 1/28).

In fact we can be criticized for having promoted the ruin of nature. The ecological issue might appear to be more of an “anti-Christian” movement too.

Maybe we, Christians, have been quite distant from the ecological issues. But we too are hit. We might also want to ask if our Genesis reading are favorable to ecology. How well do we understand the Genesis stories of creation?

Let us try some Biblical understanding. The Jews believed in the Lord God as beyond creation and as creator. For them it was ok to intervene in nature without trouble with any divinities. God gave the human the role of “mastering over”. Nature would be “brute nature” without spirits and divinities. So the view of nature was hostile—it was brute nature that had to be tamed.

So “dominate”. Let nature “submit under”. But wait, remember that the Jewish people had faith in the Lord God. So their understanding of “dominating” and putting nature “under” had to put God in the picture too. God had a plan—and so the responsibility of the human was to see to it that the plan was respected. So to dominate and to submit nature did not stop with the human domination. It meant putting nature under the plan of God. Submit it to God’s plan. And what was that plan? It was the plan of happiness—the plan of letting all creation participate in the joy and life of the Lord God. Domination was not brute domination—it had to include respect.

In Genesis we see that the human was given the charge to "dominate" or “be master”….but the human had to “master mastery”. The human was given the charge of being in the likeness of God who took a "Sabbath distance" from creation. There is a limit—the limit of respect—in mastering over nature. The human is, like God, to also take a "Sabbath distance" from domination and mastery over the created world. The human being would then be “steward” of the nature. Nature is not human property. It was simply confided. Genesis 2-3 tell us what happens when the human being becomes auto-god….a god unto oneself. You may eat of all the trees, but there is a limit. The human being has the tendency to go beyond. The human tends to live in the imagination of becoming absolute. But no! God is creator. God is absolute. The human remains creature.

The ecological issue tells us what Genesis 2-3 have already been telling us. We have created a culture that dis-respects nature. We have been trying to be “auto-gods”. The ecological issue really forces us to look at ourselves and how auto-gods we have been trying to be. How can we refuse to listen to the problem when our very own reading of Genesis alerts us to our capacity to destroy?

Ok, so Christianity is so focused on “social issues”. Love one another. Live in justice. But we recognize that ecological respect is also a way of loving one another. We love not just ourselves at this time but also future generations. By ecological respect we show love to the future people.

Anthropologist have an interesting finding about human-cultural evolution. The human started with “hunting-foraging” then moved to horticulture and agriculture…etc. Well, we see how it has also been very human to master over nature. The Bible confirms this. The Bible has confirmed that mastery-domination is human. This mastery does not necessarily put in danger the environment. Never, however, has the Bible said that nature and the environment have become human property. Never has the Bible put us “on top” of the world “looking down on creation”—as that song goes. In fact, just look closely. The Bible affirms how much we are part of the created world—that in us are the minerals and the cellular-animal-biological. We are still part of nature.

We are, let us admit, reflecting and learning. Before the idea of human rights was not so prevalent. Slavery was an accepted practice for many Christians. But slowly we learned. So today we can say we too are learning with the ecological issues.

The ecological issue obliges us to re-read our “foundation” texts—namely the creation stories in Genesis. We may need to be a lot more humble with our stand in the world of nature. The ecological issue may even ask us to re-think what God really wants in the created world.

It is a crisis—this ecological situation. Really, nature is hurting. But as Christians we can look at this with the perspective of Christ. Christ has taught us to live—to really live. Christ has told us that from death life arises—there is the resurrection. The uncertainties of what we face may open up doors of hope.

We can try our best to “die” to harming nature—and be more ecological. We may have to recognize the uncertainty of ecological respect—implying a change in our life styles, like with consumerism, the use of plastic, the use of paper, the “farm mile”, etc. We might need to conform to Christ, die to things that ruin nature—in order to give life again for our contemporaries and our future generations.

To follow Jesus is not just to follow certain doctrines and principles. It is to have a life too. Discipleship is life.

One note that we might need to take seriously. Do we really believe that the resurrection has overcome darkness, death and sin? Do we really accept the fact that there is the fulfillment of all time when God will gather all—not just humanity but the environment? Ever since Christ has “won”, nothing else can win—no death, no darkness, no sin, and no absolute destruction of nature. In Christ we know that human history is not vain. Maybe we need to be clear with this. Maybe the reason why we disrespect nature is because we are not so convinced that Christ has won. We still feel the need to “appropriate” nature and make her our property. We throw plastics in the street. We destroy our corals. We pollute our esteros. We waste our waters. We really need to look at these and many more.

As Christians we can dialogue with those who are ecologically interested in nature. No, we are not “dominators”. Our faith does not promote the wild domination and mastery over nature. We too love nature and we see nature in the light of God’s plan and in the light of the redemption offered by Christ. 

The Holiness of the Church and taking her as "Hostage"

The site Etymology On line tells us that the word “hostage” comes from the late 13^th century, from Old French. A hostage is a "person given as security or hostage". It can come either from hoste "guest" via the notion of "a lodger held by a landlord as security," or from Late Latin obsidanus which is the "condition of being held as security." The Latin obsidanus is from obsess, that is, ob- "before" + base of sedere "to sit". So a hostage is someone who “sits before someone else”.

What happens when I take someone as “hostage”? It means that I hold you in, lock you in, make you sit in front of me so I can watch you...so I can secure myself. I hostage you for me and my security. I refuse your movement for my security. I hold you as my security.

Look at the consequence. The movement—the mobility—and the freedom of the other is stopped. It is not given its opportunity. Why? Because I am using you for my security. I secure through you.

This can happen in an inter-personal relationship. Mr. X hostages Mr. Y. Mr. X stops the growth, the movement of Mr. Y for the security of Mr. X. “Do not make new friends…I am your exclusive friend”. “Do not do anything different…do what I am doing”. Etc.

This can happen in a community or a group. A member, for example, hostages the community and keeps the community from moving and growing and maturing. “My plan and my project should be the project of everyone else”. “I refuse to share…”  

Yes, of course this can be seen in terrorism today…but we are not interested in this area here in this essay.

What does all this have to do with the Church? The Church can be held as hostage by an attitude and even by a particular way of behaving. Think about the “holiness” of the Church. She is “holy” by virtue of the fact that she is called by Christ—called to assemble with Christ. The Church has a vocation to be on mission with Christ; she is to continue the work of Christ in promoting the love of God in the world.

The Church is holy even if there are so many members of the Church who show crazy and “unholy” behavior. During mass this is confessed: “I believe in the holy…Church”. I believe that the Church is holy. Note that we do not say “I believe in the holy members of the Church”. We do not say “I believe in the Church of holy members”. No. Rather, we pray, “I believe in the holy…Church”.

“Un-holiness” can possibly put the holiness of the Church to hostage. The holiness of the Church is kept—it is made to “sit before” the “hostage taker”. The holiness of the Church is refused its visible manifestation. Through my behaving I can hostage the Church and make her look so unholy and so perverted. This way I refuse to recognize the place of the Holy Spirit in the Church. It becomes “the Church that I want” and not the Temple of the Holy Spirit.

Of course the Church remains holy--even with many crazy things going on in her. She continues to be People of God, Body of Christ and Temple of the Holy Spirit. it is the task of members of this holy assembly to reveal the credibility of that holiness to "all the nations". So there is the major task of "witnessing" to the holiness of God. We can never place the Church on absolute hostage. The Holy Spirit will find the way to keep her dynamic, true and moving in the light of the gospel. Yet, this does not stop Church members from a certain vigilance in credible building.

During the recent RH-bill debates, could it be possible that the Church was kept hostage—by persons from both sides? Could it be possible that some held the Church on hostage for their own security, agenda and interests?