Musings from a another philosophical angle towards Tolerance

Eastern and Western thought has been characterized by antinomies between them. While Eastern thinking and philosophy tends to consider Existence from the angle of “nothingness”, Western thought and philosophy would start from being, even though at times it was confused, maybe starting from Descartes. Descartes made thinking prior to existence. With his “cogito, ergo sum” the flood gates of intellectual speculations about identity, existence, relationships were opened leading to a kind of disaster of ontological objective thinking. Subjective thinking becomes the norm of truth excluding and even to the point of denying objective norms of existence and being. God becomes a subjective fiction of the imagination and everybody thinks of what he/she wants God to be. This brings into doubt the objectivity of the Absolute itself, therefore all the things that are connected with God. My friend said: Take away the objectivity of God’s existence and you will take away objective morality. Take away objective norms of morality and conduct you take away the posibility of “rightness” of what others think. Take away the possiblity of the truth of the other’s perspective, then you give an absolute existence to “thought”. To give absolute existence to one’s thought is the cause of intolerance and fundamentalism. If this occurs, reasonable co-existence will die, absolute value is given to one’s perspective and opinion which then in turn absolutize moral, economic, political fields. Once this happens as it happens to some governments, war becomes a natural consequence together with its disasters and death.

To avoid this, one could go back to the realistic perspective of being and reality. Aristole and Plato and their disciples already discussed this at length. What is the truth? Is it in the mind, or is in outside the mind? Both: but it does not depend on our minds alone. Even St. Anselm thought that if God is a concept of the most perfect being, it “should exist” since perfection connotes existence. Existence is always better than non-existence. Yes, but the approach is quite idealistic, that is, it starts from mental idea of “the most perfect being.” The absolute God exists even without any person who thinks about Him. So existence is prior even to our thinking. We could say “I exist therefore I think” and not “I think, therefore, I exist.” Existence is always ontologically prior to thinking: “reality” is prior to “ideality”. The former – “reality” does not depend on our thinking, rather the latter – thinking and “ideality” depends on the former. Before I write this “idea” I must first exist. There is the ontoligical priority of objective existence before my ideas.

However, all the above deals with the Western “bias” on existence, as if existence is only “to be”. In the real world, it appears that existence, yes, is “to be” but upon examination, and here we take into consideration the Eastern thinking as the mode of looking at things, existence of a thing seems to depend so much, paradoxically, on its “non-existence”. The sun, in order to give light and heat has to be in itself a combination of gasses and chemical action and reactions. In other words, in order to be sun, it has to be, in its very core, anything except the sun as we perceived it to be. At the core of the sun, it is “not sun” at all. This could be clearer if we take into consideration some Eastern mode of thinking. They have two sides of seeing things, what generally the Buddhists or Hindus would call the the “appearance” or the seeming picture of things, and the what I might cal the “essence” of that thing is all everything except its appearance. The chair in its appearance is a chair, yes, but if you examine it, it is composed of combination of materials that serves the purpose of the chair. It has to be “no-chair” so that it could have an ontological grounding to become a chair. Here they see that the “essence” of the chair, is “no-chair” so that it could became a chair. Mind boggling yes, but it makes sense if you hear a sound. The sound of my key board, the sound that I hear while writing this, is perceived to me as a sound. But in reality, i.e., in its essense sounds are, what is usually called the “sound waves” without which there is not perception of sound. So with my fingers in my hand that types the letters , for example. They are composed of cells and muscles similar to the other cells of my body. My body seen from the inside are organs which when separate and examined does not give the beauty of the entire body. You might say it is not body at all.

In the West, Plato believes that what we perceive are appearances, just reflections of the world of ideas. The former are then called phenomena while the “dermiurge” the world of ideas are what he called the “real world.”

Eastern thought too, when it sees the “appearance” sees beyond the appearance which is not the “appearance” itself but it is something except what is perceived to be such. The essence of things then, is what it is not. The essence of the Sun is no-sun; the essence of chair, is no-chair, the essence of sound is no-sound; the essence of hand is no-hand; the essence of body is no-body.

Like the essence of light is no-light – otherwise it could be not light at all. In fact without that ontological grounding of light, i.e., no-light, there could never be light as perceived by us. As if to say, if there is no darkness, light could not exist. Light then could exist because there is no-light. No-light becames the very essence of light in its ontological existence. No-light becomes the ontological grounding of light. Now you ask, which is more true: the light or no-light? Again both are true. What is important is to see that in seing reality, there are always two sides, like a coin.

Ontologically, if light could exist only where there is an ontological grounding, and when there is no-light, then what is more true is no-light, although in the senses light is more perceived and appears to be more true. That is why, for Eastern philosophers, what is seen and perceived are only appearances but there is a much deeper truth, that is its ontological grounding, a “non-existence”. But, I would say both are also true and important.

This non-existence is also grounded in a deeper non-existence and this could lead us ad infinitum. For Eastern thought then, there must be a kind of an absolute ontological ground, which everything have its “locus” and this is what is called to be “Absolute Nothingness.” Is this a negative reality? Yes, if we see it under the categories of Western thought. But for the Eastern mind it is in fact the absolute positive reality without which all of “existence” in this world have the possibility to be. “Nothingness” becames the basis of “existence”. Existence then is existence because there is “non-existence”

Here we have a system of viewing at truth, from a certain angle. As I said it is like looking at a coin – it has always two sides. This angle provides another venue for opening to the other’s existence by at least becoming “empty” of something, in order to let the “being” of another be seen. It opens up itself for dialogue and it sees the other’s existence or ideas not as a challenge or a threat but an opportunity to be in that space where all existence could have the possiblity to be. It sees the side of the coin. Reality, as perceived by our mind, our opinion about politics, about economics about nations about everything, like seeing reality has an “ontological space” or grounding of its existence without which there there is no reality perceived by the senses. It is like your monitor. Without it, no letters which represents concepts which you are reading, could be written. What is more important? Both!

Let us help Guimaras and its people!

Being assigned in Iloilo some years ago, I used to go to bring my bike to Guimaras and stay overnight to enjoy its beaches, falls and idyllic place. The people are very kind and generous. Now they are striken with a man made catastrophe and oil spill of two million liters which still continues to flow from a sunken vessel. Its people are trying everything they could do but unless the tanker is not immediately removed, it will continue to leak its “deadly” oil.

Its local government appeals for help. Let’s drop by and do something in this site, called “project sunrise”.

Some Lights and Shadows in the Seminary Formation in the Philippines

I. Introduction

The Church in the Philippines is not exempt from the scandals which has arisen recently regarding the abuses of the clergy. It might even be thought of that, since the coming of the Spanish missionaries, there were pockets of sexual abuses even though it might be hidden from the public eye. Nevertheless cases have occurred. On the other hand, the Philippine Church has always tried its best to form the clergy. In fact the religious orders were in a sense tasked by the Holy spirit and the hierarchy to help in the formation of the clergy. So the religious order such as the Vincentians, the Dominicans, the Jesuits, the SVD’s and others have tried to help in the past and in the present. In this century new charisms like the charism of unity, which expresses itself in the words of the Holy Father, John Paul II, as the spirituality of communion enters little by little in the mainstream of diocesan seminaries through the priests who take seriously the challenge of the Holy Father.1

II. The Church as: Mystery, Mission and Communion

Any attempt to form the clergy of this millennium has to be based on an ecclesiology proper to the signs of the times. The history of the church could open for us some indications to understand how formation could be done according to the historical need of the time. Certainly during the time of Christ which is quite the original since the formator Himself is Jesus, we learned in the gospels that in fact, in as much as He is in constant communion with the Holy Trinity, he brought so to speak this communion here on earth starting with is chosen apostles. They live a life of intense communion in all aspects of life: sharing of spiritual and material goods, they proclaimed the Good News together, prayed as much as possible together, eat and rested together, in the same place be in the a house of outside a house, like in the garden of Olives for example, they shared together, talked, discussed together, learned together etc. We could say that locus of the formation of the first priests and bishops was in this unity where Jesus was in the midst them. This of course continued even after the death and resurrection of Jesus and specially after the coming of the Holy Spirit in Pentecost where the first Christian community had one heart and one soul and they placed everything in common.

The absence of the physical presence of Christ among his disciples led the Christians to a rather another reality, which could also be the basis of formation of priests as there were no seminaries before. For the new ones, mystery became more in evidence. The transcendence of Jesus who is God, led to a formation which emphasized more this aspect of mystery, also because the church has to take hold as it were to the divine treasures which were revealed by Jesus and handed down to the apostles who took great care, respect and awe to these mysteries.

After the discovery of the new world during the age, pushed by the Holy Spirit to go unto the ends of the earth, the church embarked itself to go for mission. Formation of priests then was geared towards this aspect of the church, which is, according to those times, zeroed in the missionary aspect of the church without of course forgetting the other two dimensions, namely, the aspect of mystery and communion.

Today and in this past century however, especially after the second Vatican Council, the church discovered herself more as a reality of communion.2 It would be enough to note Novo Millennio Ineunte, which speaks that the greatest challenge of today is to make the church a school of communion. The thrust of formation therefore in the church today is to form priests so that they could become men of communion and dialogue and make the church in accordance with what the Second Vatican Council wants her to be.

These are all aspects of the church. Without forgetting one or the other, I would like of offer some lights and shadows of seminary formation as far as the last aspect is concerned: communion. Seminary formation of today should form men to be men of communion in all aspects of his spirituality, prayer, apostolate, study, health, habitation, and communications. In this aspect, the spirituality of communion which the Holy Father recommends in all levels of the church is the over reaching principle of this paper.

II. The Philippine context:

Although it appears that statistically, the seminary in the Philippines are usually filled with seminarians, it does not mean that the increase in number corresponds to the increase of the Filipino population which growing is at a more rapid rate in proportion to the number of priests produced by the seminaries. It is useless to look at quantity; it would better to have few priests but are good and holy.

In the recent ad limina visit of the Philippine bishops the pope stressed three aspects which we could use to follow and see what are the lights and shadows in the seminary formation in the Philippine seminaries: The church in the Philippines, according to the Holy Father should be characterized by: a community of disciples, church of the poor and should be geared towards new evangelization.

A. A community of disciples:

Let first consider this aspect, i.e., to be more and more a community of disciples. First the light or/and shadows as far as the candidates is concerned. Later we will see the lights or/and shadows as far as the formators are concerned:

1. Light, on the part of the candidates: Centrality of the Family

Centrality of the Family is one of the strong characteristics of the Filipino culture. Frequently, a Filipino who aspires to be a priest is coming from a religious family and has strong family ties. In a sense he is quite immerse in a community, if not in a family, certainly in a parish to which he is attached or in a “barkada”, a group of friends where he belongs. This is an experience that could help the seminarian to grow if there is a strong seminary community. In fact this “barkada” mentality or a group of close-friends, were used by the Society of Jesus in the formation in order to be a community of disciples.

2. Shadow on the part of the candidates: Centrality of the Family

However, the centrality of the family could be a block for a seminarian since one could intend to become a priest only for the family’s prestige. In fact the Filipino family has this mentality that the priest is also for the service of their own clan. This could be reinforced if the formation in the seminary is not geared towards a community but rather in an individualistic way, i.e., to think as a priest only for the clan. There is a real need that seminary formation has to be a reality that facilitates the communion; to be a community of disciples in every aspect of formation, like prayer or spirituality, studies or intellectual formation, and apostolate has to be always communitarian. Communitarian spirituality is necessary.

3. Shadow on the Part of Formators: Lack of genuine awareness of community life

Community life is not just living under the same roof, having the same job, or persons who eat and have a regular meeting together. Community life has to be based on the new commandment of Jesus: i.e., “love one another as Jesus loves us”, till the point of death. Diocesan priests and formators have good fraternal relationships with one another, diplomatic, friendly and respectful but it still on the way towards the profundity according to the demands of the new commandment. We ask: are the structures in seminary formation geared towards a life of communion or rather of competition? (Do the formators themselves live a community life or individualistic one where each one lives according to his own schedule? Is the Eucharist celebrated by all formators together as much as possible? Do they join the seminarians in the liturgy of the hours? Community life among the formators has to be seen by the seminarians; mutual love, which is the basis of communion, should also be felt).

B. Church of the Poor

We cannot deny that the Philippines is a poor country and the church is having a prestige not only politically albeit diminishing, but also socially. The life of the priests is relatively better than the rest of the population.

1. Shadow on the part of the candidates who are coming from poor families vis-à-vis formation

It is not a surprise that seminarians could enter the seminary with the intention of having a financial or social security. More so in many seminaries, there are scholarships that are given by dedicated laypersons. This could be a shadow, which could influence the intention of those candidates to the priesthood. In fact it happens that after ordination, young priests think about their own well being and security, cars, air-conditioned rooms, parishes with cell sites, etc.

2. Light on the part of the candidates coming from poor candidates vis-à-vis formation

If seminary formation could, in a sense, utilized the poverty from where the seminarians come from, it could be a blessing for the Philippines church. The majority of our seminarians are coming increasingly from the poor families. It would appear that the Holy Spirit is sending the church persons who are adapted to this vision of being the church of the poor. Seminary formation therefore is invited to take this opportunity to have structures, programs and schedules in the seminary which instead of alienating the seminarians from the poor lifestyle in their families, they should be re immersed in that poor lifestyle which they came from. They could be formed to face and accept poverty so that instead of becoming estranged from the majority of the poor people, they would be really one in heart and mind with the poor and therefore make the Philippine church become really a church of the poor and not only a church for the poor. The value of poverty, not as poverty’ sake but at the service of communion and solidarity with the poor could be integrated in seminary formation. Therefore a poor lifestyle is very recommended in the seminaries. Work could be appreciated more. Seminary personnel in the kitchen and for maintenance could be minimized to give chance to the seminarians to help in this work, so that the value of work and service could be incarnated in the lives of seminarians.

PCP II proclaimed, among others, that in the country, nobody is so poor that has nothing to give and nobody is too rich that has nothing to receive. It is interesting to note that most, if not the majority of the seminarians, as been noted, come from lower middle class if not below the middle class strata of society. In fact almost 90 % of our seminarians in the seminary where I worked have benefactors. This generosity of giving oneself for the service of the church is very positive since the candidates could give their time and their being, their substance and not only their talents, or wealth.

C. Towards the new Evangelization:

If the Holy Father wished that the new evangelization will be more a way of evangelizing the Filipino people, i.e., with new enthusiasm, new means and new methods, which is really a new witness, the future priests in the Philippines have to become, more and more, witnesses rather than preachers of the Gospel not only in the Philippines but in Asia.

1. Shadow: Certain emphasis on concentrating on skills and techniques:

There seems to be the emphasis of training seminarians through different modules to master some techniques, psychological, spiritual, or pastoral. It makes the seminarians concentrate more on the skills, which of course is necessary. New evangelization has to be more a reality of witness rather than pastoral or even theological skills. Priests have to transmit God Himself not the knowledge of God. If the candidates do not know how to live mutual charity with his fellow seminarians, loving each other till the presence of Jesus is realized, then new evangelization of giving God, not skills, information, could be jeopardized. Filipinos and Asians has to “see” God in their priests through the witness of mutual charity, as Jesus said: “The world will know that you are my disciples if you love one another.” Rather than skills and information, seminary formation should be primarily geared towards true discipleship: to be a community of disciples, and secondarily to acquire techniques and information. Formation is quite different from information.

2. Light: charisms and new ecclesial movements

Seminarians coming from some movements and new ecclesial communities seems to offer be a promising pedagogy how to be a community of disciples to give witness to the Filipino people. They have evangelical formation based on the gospel according to the charism in which they belong.

3. Shadow: Absence of a program and theological subjects that makes the seminarians aware of the missionary dimension in Asia and ecumenism.

Being a catholic nation in Asia, (now also East Timor, which has 90% of its population are catholics) the Philippines was considered even already in 1981 by Pope Paul VI and is emphasized by the Holy Father John Paul II as having a missionary role for Asia. Seminary formation is invited to give this awareness to the seminarians, through a life, which is very deeply rooted in the Gospels. In front of the various religious traditions in Asia, some of which even ante date Christianity, and having strong religious values, evangelization in Asia has to be a strong witness of the community disciples of Jesus. There seems to be a lack of awareness of introducing the seminarians towards inter-religious dialogue and hence the study of oriental religious and traditions. A basic formation of community life. i.e., of mutual charity. could be extended to an attitude of dialogue of life with believers of other religions. In a sense, this could open the seminary formation towards the promptings of the Holy Spirit and offer to Asia the necessary witness of priests who are certainly needed in other Asian countries: men of dialogue. Moreover, regarding ecumenism, in its revised Directory issued by the Pontificium Consilium ad Christianorum Unitatem Fovendam, in its “Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism”, published on March 25, 1993, explicitly said: “Even though an ecumenical dimension should permeate all theological formation, it is of particular importance that a course in ecumenism be given at an appropriate point in the first cycle. Such a course should be compulsory.” (n. 79)

To be a community of disciples, to be a church of the poor, to embark on a new evangelization, seminary formation could open itself to the signs of the times from the Holy Spirit who is always blowing its winds of change in the church. Is it not that to become truly a community of disciples, seminary formation needs a spirituality of communion? Formation process has the innate capacity to transform our candidates to the priesthood, already imbued with the Filipino values like the barkada and family ties, towards a higher level of communion: to be holy together as a community united with and in Christ? It is not opportune that, confronted with the scandal of poverty in our country, our candidates could be formed as to become witnesses, who because of their mutual love, share their resources together in order that our kababayans may learn also to share the goods so that nobody will be in need? Could this be the new evangelization which is called of us?

IV. Spiritual, Pastoral and Intellectual Formation

Now we go into some details. The Ratio Fundamentalis treats seminary formation in three fields: spiritual, pastoral and intellectual. Here again we true to view this tripod of formation through the eyes of the spirituality of communion which as the Holy Father said is the guiding principle of formation when presbyters are being formed.3

A. Spiritual Dimension: Spirituality of Communion

1. Shadow: Lack of understanding the dynamics of the spirituality of communion

If we take seriously Novo Millennio Ineunte where the Holy Father suggests a spirituality of our times a spirituality of communion, we could therefore consider that the present spirituality, which is being emphasized in the seminary, is a kind of shadow in forming seminarians of the third millennium. There is need therefore to make a step from an individualistic spirituality to a communitarian spirituality in forming the spiritual life of our seminarians.

Like in the history of the church, formation is entrusted to a charism or another. In as much as there were no seminaries before, the charism of St. Benedict, though the monasteries served as the formation houses of the clergy. There was also the time when in the Philippines, formation were entrusted to the Vincentians, to the Dominicans, the Jesuits, the SVD’s and other religious congregations. They have their charism to offer to formation. But in as much as in these century, the Holy Father, reading the signs of the times, consider the spirituality communion as the spirituality of the times, aware that the challenge of today is to make the church a school of communion. We could ask: what better charism would help in the formation in the Philippines if not the charism of unity which espouse the spirituality of communion?

This however has to enter more in the mentality of the church in the Philippines in as much as the spiritual formation in many seminaries in the Philippines though, in the way towards a more communitarian one, there is need to perfect and know the elements of this spirituality with the help of a charism.

2. Shadow: Lack of the choice of God on the part of the candidates

Christian life including the spirituality of communion posits that God is in the first place in one’s Christian life. This choice is many times presupposed not only by the seminarians but maybe also by formators. Since the seminary is an institution of formation for priests, it is very easy to fall into the mentality that the priesthood has an absolute value, rather than God. There could be a risk of training good priests but not good Christians.

3. Light: The vision of the Second Plenary Council of the Philippines regarding the three points: of being church as community of disciples, church of the poor, and geared towards the new evangelisation has been inserted in the revised Ration Fundamentalis which was recently approved or about to be approve by the Catholic Bishop’s Conference of the Philippines.

B. Pastoral Dimension: To be witness of mutual charity towards a new evangelisation

1. Shadow: Lack of orientation of pastoral formation that is geared towards new evangelisation; Pastoral formation is geared more on skills of pastoral management.

Pastoral formation too could be geared towards new evangelisation. Without diminishing the importance of pastoral skills and preaching, new evangelisation is better served if first of all there is a witness among priests of mutual charity, by living first of all the new commandment of Jesus which is the core of the communitarian spirituality. The Philippines church like many other countries need more witnesses rather than preachers, organizers or preachers. As what the Holy Father said, there is no need of inventing new pastoral programs. Rather, there is a need that in seminary formation the seminarians would be formed to be true disciples of Christ, i.e., be like Christ by having Him always in the midst through mutual charity so that He will be the light and the way to “make” apostolate. Instead of concentrating more on programs and skills, formation could be redirected as to the manner, the “how” of apostolate, i.e., to be first witnesses and then preachers; witnesses of “reciprocal love,” to be first a community of disciples, before “acting”. “Operare sequitur esse”. We have always to realize the priority of “being” over “acting.”

2. Light: Team Ministry

In some seminaries, there is emphasis of training priests to be part of a team. This is something good and could be encouraged and perhaps deepened so that a team of priests could place at the basis of their ministry, the presence of Jesus in the midst where two are three are really willing to love one another, offering their lives for one another. That in doing their apostolate, the highest value is to give Jesus who is in their midst and not only their actions.

C. Intellectual Formation

We could also point out here, without diminishing the value of individual study, that another form of forming seminarians intellectually is first to “be” Jesus before studying. This could be realized through living the spirituality of communion. To have Jesus in the midst through mutual love, transforms one to be “another Jesus”. In this reality of being Jesus, one could have the “locus” as it were for studies. Jesus or God then becomes not only the object but also the subject of study. Jesus present among seminarians who love one another, becomes the light, the person who studies amongst them and in them. Here we have not only the “theology about Jesus” but a “theology of Jesus”, i.e., of Jesus is the midst. Jesus in fact is not only the way, but he is also the truth and the life. With him present in the midst, intellectual formation acquires a communitarian dimension. Instead of studying individually for the grades or for become more informed, the seminarians could be formed in a certain manner of studying in order to have – together through a process of loving one another – and therefore in having the light of Jesus in their midst, in order to understand the dogmas and teaching of the church and be inserted in the Magisterium of the church in a more profound way. In other words: to have and ecclesial perspective, to have“one heart and one mind” with the church.

1. Shadow: Certain tendency in some seminaries to emphasize intellectual formation as an individual pursuit.

Charity has always the highest value in Christian life and so for formation. We could form intellectual giants but moral dwarfs. A seminary could produce good thinkers and well informed priests with regards to doctrine but they may not be morally upright and holy. Intellectual formation could be more placed in the context the communitarian spirituality.

2. Shadow: Certain tendency in some seminaries to emphasize intellectual formation at the expense of the pastoral or spiritual one; or vice-versa.

Spiritual, pastoral and intellectual formation could not be divorced from one another; nor one has to sacrifice one aspect in favour of another. To give too much emphasis on intellectual formation risks in making the seminary a school of Christian ideology and dogma, a Cartesian school, rather than a school of charity, where the community of disciples learn to love one another, study and learn together, and witness together the presence of Christ among them.

Spiritual, pastoral and intellectual formation could be placed well and confortable in the context of the all-pervading ecclesiology of “communio”. Spirituality becomes not merely spiritualistic but should have a profound ecclesiological basis. Pastoral formation too or mission here springs from communion, nourished by it and at the same time nourishing it. Intellectual formation too comes about not only through individual bravado to study God but to study with and in Jesus who is present in “two or three gathered in His name”. Jesus in the community is the main Teacher.

Without denying the part of the individual to true asceticism, pastoral efforts or initiatives, and individual study, all these could be easily achieved when one shifts his paradigm from an individualistic ecclesiology and spirituality towards a more communitarian one.

IV. The evangelical counsels:

The evangelical counsels of poverty, chastity, and obedience could be another measuring standard to see whether there are some lights and shadows in the seminary formation in the Philippines. Based on the three fundamental presupposition of being the church as community of disciples, the church of the poor, and new evangelisation, the finality which we could say of seminary formation according the mind of the Holy Father of the church of today in the Philippines, as expressed by the Second Plenary Council of the Philippines, with an emphasis on a communitarian aspect, the evangelical counsels could be seen in function of this “communion.”

We will treat therefore these three evangelical vows in “function” of communion, i.e., not as an end in themselves but as a means to realize and make the church in the Philippines more a school and a reality of communion in all levels, through the communitarian spirituality, in order to be more a “community of disciples” a “church of the poor” and a church geared towards the “new evangelisation” which is precisely this witness “mutual love” especially a preferential option for the poor.

A. Poverty at the service of communion

“Communion” could be the light through which one could have the vision of how Philippine seminary formation could materialize the wish of the holy father of how the church in the Philippines would be. What is more significant way towards the “church of the poor” when the seminarians are formed to be in communion with the poor by acquiring spirit of poverty and really be poor in their lifestyle?

1. Shadow on the part of the formators: lack of witness and presence

The seminary for the formators could develop more this witness of simplicity of life. Basic needs could be provided especially for updating and continuous formation. What happens is that most formators accept more appointments outside to augment their income, or they don’t feel at home in their respective seminaries, that they are more often out than in.

This has an unseen but a realistic effect on the part of the seminarians who are very sensitive to the lifestyles of the priests. If there is a subculture which is within the life of the clergy, so too the seminarians, without even knowing it, are “contaminated” with this same individualistic lifestyle, even though the lectures in the classrooms point towards communitarian face of the church.

2. Shadow: lack of formators

In as much as the formators receive almost five times less income than the other priests in the diocese, priests prefer more not to work in the seminary. Though this also reflects a lack of evangelical spirit on the part of the priests, as have been noted, formators need to be supported or at least the diocese could take the responsibility especially with regards their updating, retreats and meetings. These basic “formative” needs of the formators may not be place on the shoulders of the priests assigned in the seminary, otherwise, again less and less priests could be interested in working in the seminary.

4. Light: “one month with the poor”

In some seminaries, during the “Spiritual-Pastoral Formation Year” wherein for one year the seminarians suspend their academic studies, to be exposed to the poorest of the poor within the region. This could have positive effects in making the seminarians identifying with the poor at least for one month and share with the concrete difficulties of daily life as much as the joys and happiness of the marginalized in the Philippine society.

B. Chastity could only be attained and maintained in charity; charity is the basis of chastity

It is interesting to note that some priests who are now called “priest-fathers” (those who bore a child) did work as formators in the seminaries in the Philippines. We could ask: is the atmosphere in the seminary favours a celibate lifestyle? Obviously, individual responsibility should not be excluded from those priests who leave, but has the seminary life among the formators, pushed this or that priest to leave?

1. Shadow: Lack of intense community life among the seminary formators

Chastity could be well maintained in the context of good, genuine and Christian relationship. It is not good for man to be alone. He has to relate because he is created under the image and likeness of the Truine God. If there is no true relationship among the formators in the seminary, or when each is a competitor of the other, since most of the priests assigned have their degrees or doctorates; if the relationship is based only on the intellectual and professional level, as it usually happens, when there is no atmosphere of family (Philadelphia) inside the seminary, it is not only that the seminarians but even those who have promised to be celibate, would not find meaning in their celibate orientation. When the human person, who is created for communion does not establish this Christian relationship to which is called for, one could not fully realized himself, and therefore would look for “another”, be it a partner of a thing, to fulfil himself.

2. Shadow: Lack of community prayer on the part of the formators

Mutual love among formators could be sustained through community prayer together as formators or with the seminarians. More often formators are seldom seen to pray together. Praying together does not only give benefits to the formators themselves but also it gives a witness to the seminarians.

Moreover, seminarians who are in vacation, may find wanting this “praying together” with their pastors. Even if in the seminary they are formed to pray in common, when they go to their apostolate or with their parish priests they find less encouragement from their pastors who are not praying their breviaries.

3. Shadow: Lack of recreating together among formators

Chastity and poverty could also be maintained not only through a spiritual atmosphere but also a good way of doing recreation together among formators. Even relaxation could help in fomenting communitarian way of life among formators. It would be good that they go outside the usual monotonous schedule and have an outing together. This would increase brotherhood and mutual respect if not mutual love for one another.

It would be nice for example to have only a common tv, so that the formators could comment and watch the news together. Increasingly, priests tend to acquire television within their rooms and view the tv alone.

4. Shadows: Most seminary buildings do not contribute to a communitarian lifestyle.

Here, one has to pay attention to the kind of physical structure of the seminary. Does it contribute to facilitate community life or it rather built in such a way the individualistic lifestyle is still the rationale behind the structures?

C. The evangelical counsel of obedience

With regards to the evangelical counsel of obedience, again, we would like to see it at the service of communion. Obedience has meaning if it is done out of love for the superior, which is in our case, the bishop. Obedience should foment unity and love between the bishop and the priests. A presbyterium without this communion of love between the priests and the bishop, risks in making the church an organization only. The unity in the presbyterium could be a means of sanctification through the communitarian spirituality, since, it is there that priests learn to follow and obey Jesus who was obedient till his kenosis and His death.

1. Shadow: “exit-the-tunnel syndrome” on the part of seminarians; untrue intentions

When there is no choice of God, that is, when a seminarian enters the seminary with other hidden agenda except to follow radically Jesus, he tends to obey all the rules of the seminary and even show externally an attitude of submission and obedience. After ordination however, when becomes “somebody” in the Filipino society, the submission inside the seminary is reversed: An unguided freedom and a false notion comes to the fore: since he is now a priest he could do whatever he likes, maybe with the best of intentions but many times he does things which is not in communion with the bishop.

Moreover, if the intention of the seminarian to enter the seminary is more financial rather that to be a disciple and make others disciples of Jesus, he could use the parish as a “milking cow” for his family or for his needs, and therefore it would not be easy for him to leave a “better” parish for a “good” one. Seminary formation has to screen and purify these intentions through formation which is very communitarian where everything is shared: intentions, reflections, realizations so that it would easy for to guide and redirect the intentions of the seminarians.

2. Light: Propaedeutic period, or “pre-theology” in some seminaries.

This is the period of accompanying the seminarians and introduce them to the community life through the spirituality of communion, wherein primary importance is given to the choice of God above the priesthood, the will of God, the word of God, the new commandment, Jesus on the cross and the true identity of the priest, and other points of the spirituality of communion. Here, the academic subjects are reduced to the minimum so that seminarians could rectify their intention and be clarified of what they are entering into.

3. Light: “month with the bishop”

This is done during the so called “spiritual-pastoral formation year”. Seminaries with this program, wherein the seminarians are asked to live with their respective bishop for one month, could deepen theirs relationship and could encourage obedience based on this relationship.

The evangelical counsels of poverty, chastity and obedience which are increasingly seemingly difficult for the candidates, have their own attraction, if it is “seen” being lived among the formators. It makes one a free disciple of Christ. They are not merely conditions for ordination but expressions of a true Christian life. They are beautiful gifts to be lived if they are accepted with joy and lived within the context of the spirituality of communion; otherwise they risk to become a burdens and heavy loads on one’s shoulders. What is more beautiful to express the love for God and the poor by living poverty so that there will be no one in need among one’s fellow priests? How sweet is the spiritual fragrance of those priests who live in together in communion in chastity because of mutual love like the three virgins of the Holy Family of Nazareth. How inspiring are those priests who, because they are in real communion with their bishop, readily obey him like Jesus obeyed His Father.

V. Conclusion

Yes, there are lights and shadows in the seminary formation in our country. In the light of the present ecclesiology of communion, I offered these lights and shadows under three aspects to which the Filipino church is called for: to be a community of disciples, to be a church of the poor and to embark towards a new evangelization. I tried also to see in same ecclesiological context the three areas of formation: spiritual, and intellectual under the same light of the spirituality of communion. And lastly, the three evangelical counsels of poverty, chastity and obedience. These could be beautiful expressions of love in the same context and light and the whenever there are shadows, they are only seen because there is the light of Christ in the midst of community.

1“To make the Church the home and the school of communion: that is the great challenge facing us in the millennium which is now beginning, if we wish to be faithful to God’s plan and respond to the world’s deepest yearnings.” John Paul II, Novo Millennio Ineunte, 43.

2 Cfr. Address of Most Rev. Luis Antonio Tagle, D.D. “Priestly Communion” National Congress of Priests, World Trade Cernter, July 5-9, 2004.

3 Novo Millennio Ineunte, n, 43: “. . . we need to promote a spirituality of communion, making it the guiding principle of education wherever individuals and Christians are formed, wherever ministers of the altar, consecrated persons, and pastoral workers are trained. . .”

Towards a Post-War Lebanon

Sometime ago, John Paul II made it clear that Lebanon as a nation has a certain vocation. In “Lebanese blogger” one concluded: “Lebanon is above all a ‘pluralistic’ model where the power is shared between different confessions who –nonetheless- strongly share common values through an ever booming culture and economy.” Fr. Joachin Bernas, SJ wrote and interesting column on the Inquirer quoting from a Jesuit-run America magazine that “the Lebanese experiment in multi-religious co-existence, what the Lebanese call ‘conviviality,’ a promising alternative to government by the mullahs, has been dealt a crippling blow. The weakening of Lebanon means fading possibilities not only for Middle Eastern Christianity but also for interreligious coexistence. . . . The current crisis calls for American and other Western Christians to defend Lebanon and its Christians with the strongest expressions of solidarity.”

If this experiment, which was strongly recommended by John Paul II in his last visit to that country, would succeed, then Middle East could have a fresh breath of freedom, based on this multi-religious, multi-ratial society, which I believe the Lebanese people have the right and capacity to build. We could have peace in the Middle East, a peace which would be based on justice not on “Pax Americana” similar to “Pax Romana” centuries before where the guardian of peace are arms and police power. History has to move ahead in dialogue based on justice and respect for each other.

Surely, it seems to be a step backward in this recent war. But this exercise in futility has to end in one way or another!

I would like to see a post-war Lebanon pursuing this end. Both Hezbollah and the so called Israel Defence Forces, who acted more as offensive should learn the futility of war and violence. If only instead of missiles and rockets where sent, goodwill, economic aid, food, mutual aid and help, perhaps friendships between them would grow.

It would take at least fifty years to even start maybe a riconciliation between these two warring nations. I hope and pray the sufferings of both would bring them to understand one another since the pain death and destruction escapes boundaries. May the members families of friends of both Lebanese and Israelites would take more the path of peace and riconciliation coming from a shared suffering of this horrible war towards a lasting brotherhood based on justice.

"To exist or not the exist" This is not the real question

“To be or not to be: that is the question” is an adage of an English writer borrowed from the Greeks’ antimony of “existence and non-existence” which is a basic and radical way of seeing at reality. Certainly, taking from the Hellenistic thought, existence is always better than non existence; quite contrary to the Eastern mentality where “nothingness” is a way of existence. A paradox? Biblical logic seems to be a paradox: “For if you want to save your own life, you will lose it; but if you lose your life for my sake, you will find it” (Mat 16:25). “ If any of you want to come with me, you must forget yourself, carry your cross, and follow me.” (Mat 16:24) Is the bible sees reality of the existence of the person in another perspective? It seems to us that there we could formulate one’s identity: “To exist is not to exist”. Existence and non existence are not considered as antinomies, contradictory to one another but, but in fact, helps one another to open up towards a better understanding, or a mode of seeing the reality – in these terms – considered as a harmony of opposites, which enhances one if the other is considered – Yin-Yang as some Eastern philosophers would say.

A new way of looking at things? Certainly not, it is old as reality itself. Take for example a grain of wheat: “a grain of wheat remains no more than a single grain unless it is dropped into the ground and dies. If it does die, then it produces many grains.” And another: “Those who love their own life will lose it; those who hate their own life in this world will keep it for life eternal.” (John 12:24-25)

Common sense could readily understand it. If the grain of wheat remains in its existence and does not die, i.e., not exist, then it remains just a grain of wheat – it does not live and multiply. The phenomenon of heroes who die or are killed give testimony that the more they are eliminated – “not exist” – the more they become famous, – “exist”. In fact “non-existence” and “existence” are not contradictory nor contrary terms, but they give the whole picture of reality. The question is not: “to exist or not to exist” but “not to exist in order to exist” in other words: “not to be in order to be.”

But how could we better understand this? Let us go the Christian Trinitarian God. In this paradigm, there is one God and three persons: a mystery but unity of the three persons which could be explained, as in fact, explained by St. John in 1Jo 4:8 “Whoever does not love does not know God, for God is love.” God does not only love nor He has love, but the very essence of God is Love. Obviously, love is that which unites the three divine Persons and makes them one. How could the Father and the Son be one except in love? The dynamics of love, however is: in order to be one, both has to be “nothing” out of love. The Son has not to do his will, in order to do the will of the Father because He love s the Father. The Father. in turn. since He loves and wants His love to be revealed, has to be one with the Son – He made Himself man, (incarnation) though He is God. His love for man caused Jesus, his son, to assume human nature.

Jesus has in a certain way “die” from His divinity in order to become the incarnate Son, a God who became like us, human beings. In human terms, any person, a husband for example has to die to himself, to be one with his wife and vice versa. The husband becomes a husband when he sacrifices, for the sake of love for his wife. He has “cease” to exist, to give way or to loose himself, in order to become one with his wife and vice versa. In so doing the husband becomes a true husband by “dying” to his very self, in other words, in his “non-existence,” he becomes what he is, a husband.

What is opened before us therefore is a new way of seeing reality not so much as an antimony between “existence and non existence” but a mode of being wherein, “non-existence” is a necessary element for “existence” because of love. My existence depends on how I love and loose myself for the sake of love for the others. My existence is never to deny the existence of another another. Instead, my existence depends on another, of how I love the other as a neighbor to me, as a Thou. This would lead me to a rediscovery of who really is “me”.

Filipino Culture and Christian Culture

Does Filipino culture have a capacity to be elevated to a Christian culture? Is there such a thing as a Christian culture, a culture beyond all cultures and therefore is capable to “inculturize” in every culture?

Basically culture is a way or a system of thoughts, words, lifestyle, manner of dressing, eating, praying, etc of a certain group of people in which in a determinate time, in a determinate place.

All cultures are based on two fundamental elements: on the one hand, on the belief of a God, like for example, the Hebrew, muslim, buddhist, or the absolute and on the other hand, a culture could be based on the belief on man himself, like European culture which gives importance to man – his humanity, his rights,

All cultures are ways of acting and thinking which fundamentally are based on either a belief on a God or on man. The problem is this: when one culture gives importance to God only, the value of man and his life is less until the point of even sacrificing a human life, like some cultures which offer human blood and life for their God. This is true for example on the culture of the Astecs before in central America.

Now, what is central to the Christian culture? This is based on a Christological event. That God became man in Jesus Christ. Our God became one with us, man. The Word of God became flesh. Jesus is a true God and a true man. This is the root of the Christian culture. God who became man, the God-Man. Our Christian culture therefore, gives importance not only to God, but also to man; or not only on man but also on God. Did not Jesus said: Love God with all your heart, with all your soul. . . and your neighbor as yourself?

What is the proposal of Christianiy? By living Love. If God is Love, love attacts love, one loves Him, and therefore does His Will. What is His fundamental Will? To love one another, to love the brother and above all to have reciprocal love. To love God and do His will, I have learned when I meet the ideal to do things out of love for the neighbor so that mutual love could be attained. This reciprocity of love has a marvelous fruit. This reciprocal love creates the conditions which makes God present amongst us. His new command solves the two tensions in a culture that tends more towards man or towards God because He is both Man-God.

Our Filipino culture sometimes, tends either only to God or only to man. For example our “bayanihan.” If this good culture of helping one another, could be done not only because it is our culture, but if it done because we really love one another as Filipinos and if we could extend it all the times so that it becomes a permanent culture, it could be raised to a life of mutual communion like to life of the Trinity where mutual love is actualized and lived permanently. Is this not then the culture of the Trinity? Bayanihan culture could become a culture of heaven.

Christian love is for all and is universal. It teaches us to love everybody because Jesus died for all and therefore God loves all. Our culture of the centrality of the family is very good because, in the clan, everybody helps each member. But if it is extended to the other families, without exclusivity, then it could be a potent change our country instead of the main cause of corruption. Love of man, the neighbor which is central to the Christian culture, means to love all, even it includes the enemies. Here centrality of the family becomes universal and extended; partisan or family politics which plague our country has no more space in this culture.

What does it mean to live the Christian culture? It means it we have to let ourselves be guided by Him, by His way of life. Well, Him who is both Man and God, who puts together the humanity and the divinity. He is not only a person of the past, but is really present among us if we love one another.

Our culture of “utang na loob” are good because it gives a certain respect and gratitude to the neighbor. But if we remember that God wants us to love all. Our gratitude must always first of all be directed to God and it is very beautiful if our “utang na loob” could not be also limited to individuals and if it is done on the context of the common good.

“Hiya” is one of our characteristics if it is tempered by an awareness that Jesus loved us also personally and immensely and therefore has a dignity of a son and daughter of God. Jesus is the “truth.” If this Filipino culture of “hiya” would be perfected with “truth”, this would bring us to a more genuine relationship, not based of false respect but a relationship in the “truth” because to love means to love in the truth.

“Pagmalasakit” is a very good Filipino attitude like to what Chiara would call, to make oneself one. To cry with those of cry. If, as Christians, we could enlighten it with the resurrection, that our Lord, the God-man rose from suffering and death, then pagmalasakit has the capacity to give the inherent joy it has within the suffering, since every “pagmalasakit” has a “resurrection.” Our culture of “pagmalasakit sa kapwa” would be beautiful if it is completed with the hope of the “resurrection”.

Kasakitan, sickness should also be redeemed in the presence of the Risen Lord

The Christian culture makes us aware that God is a Father who provides. In our culture, the “bahala na” system could be well rooted in this. This opens to us the beauty of God as Father and Provider but it should not lead us to “fatalism” We also usually say “Kalooban nang Dios” when negative things happen. This is good but we should remember that God allows everything for our sanctification. Failures, negative events, should rather lead us to go ahead and decide to be active in doing what God wills in the present moment,

In our culture is the father who earns and the mother who keeps the money. If the decision of expenses is done with Jesus in the midst, I think many quarrels between husband and wife could be spared in our families.

We could have many expressions of this kind of culture when we have truly Jesus in our midst, even now).

Yes, we all have “kagandang loob” since God has created us all good. If this it transformed into real mutual love as Jesus loves us, till having Him in our midst, even if we come from different cultural backgrounds, He will be amongst us.

As St. John said: 14:23 “Those who love me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and my Father and I will come to them and live with them.” If we do this, He lives with us. He is our light, our way, our truth, our life, and our culture. We build together this culture if in these days, we love one another as Christ loves us not only here but beyond and elsewhere.

Is our world leading to political self destruction?

From a certain point of view, which is basically general, and upon comparison of the last two wars in Iraq and now in Lebanon, there is a radical change of perspective in the manner of waging war. A dangerous development which leads to a precedent in warfare in international scene.  I am convinced that sooner or later the world will learn that war is an exercise in futility.  But it would take a certain process.

The world now is deprived of the awareness of a Father. The international community and family of nations could never be achieved fully if there is an absence of a deep consciousness that the world is really one family of nations and therefore what is presumed is the reality of a Father: whatever you want to call it, Yahweh, God, Allah. If humanity does not go deep in this awareness the realization of belonging to a family of nations and therefore as brothers, the dream of a world of peace and justice would just be a dream.

I am reminded of the biblical Jewish tradition, that after Adam and Eve’s separation from this “Father” otherwise called their creator, its immediate effect, at least in the Jewish bible, even though it maybe took place after thousands of years, Cain killed his brother Abel. It is said to be the first written account of murder in the world because the real family ties that bind brothers was turned into jealousy, mistrust, hatred, anger ultimately murder. Diplomacy was absent. From that act of violence, it grew exponentially in history, especially until now when the technology of the killing power of arms is doubled if not quadrupled.

But let us go back to this war of our times:

When in the 1990’s before USA and allies attacked Iraq, it was done when diplomacy seemed not to succeed. Even it could be said that there was a prior plan to invade Iraq, US led coalition forces kept their guns silent. Only after talks and diplomacy in the UN failed or was interpreted to fail, that hostilities began. This was repeated when again, Iraq was invaded for the second time. At least there was first of all an investigation of the so called weapons of mass destruction, and when Iraq did not anymore allow UN observers to enter Iraq, since they out rightly denied it, (and they were vindicated since it was proven to be true – the US led coalition did not find anything to conclude about these weapons of mass destruction), the guns were fired. US and invaded Iraq, which I believe was their first intention after all.

Now, in this war in Lebanon the inverse is true. The guns are now being fired at will irrespective of the innocent victims involved. While the guns are being fired, irregardless of where it come from, diplomacy is being painstakingly and slowly done. We have here a new working theory of war and diplomacy. An outright affirmation of “Might is right”. Superior force of gunpowder is being used at will since there is a loss of judgment what is a military target and civilian target. And while the killings are going on, diplomacy is being used to cover up the war till objectives are attained. And if diplomacy does not succeed or is intended not succeed, hostilities continue at the expense of civilian deaths, to uphold forward political, economic and cultural intentions of the aggressor. It seems to me that by the military actions of Israel, they do not want only to do away with Hezbollah but to change the political, cultural, economic reality of Lebanon. This, with the blessings of those who supply them arms. It is a war against Lebanon, not only Hezbollah. It is even termed: “collective punishment”

There is a blatant denial of the principle: “The end does not justify the means”. Irrespective of the end and the purpose of Israel, innocent victims are being killed! War and aggression is justified even the means are morally evil. Self defence is evoked but it’s not the militants that are being killed but civilians.

The world is leading itself to a “justification of the means, however murderous, in order to attain its end;” and that “power and decision making comes from the barrel of the gun.” This is very dangerous development to the civilized world which is fast becoming uncivilized. We are evolving backwards rather than forward.

If the divine “Fatherhood” is not established in the consciousness of man, diplomacy could be useless because there is not anymore a clear objective standard of right and wrong but much depends on the “number of missiles” and military equipment.

Divine Fatherhood of Allah/Yahweh is for me a basic solution in the Middle East, Muslims, Jews and Christians alike. Construction of a multi-religious, multi-racial Middle East is a must based of common brotherhood. It is not true that Muslims and Jews came from the same Father Abraham?

Here is a quotation from a Hebrew Holy Bible:

Gen 50:15 After the death of their father, Joseph’s brothers said, “What if Joseph still hates us and plans to pay us back for all the harm we did to him?” Gen 50:16 So they sent a message to Joseph: “Before our father died, Gen 50:17 he told us to ask you, ‘Please forgive the crime your brothers committed when they wronged you.’ Now please forgive us the wrong that we, the servants of your father’s God, have done.” Joseph cried when he received this message.

In fact forgiveness is mentioned one hundered and ten times in the Old Testament.

Here is another quotation from the Koran:

From the Sura 5 entitled “The Table”. (5:12) Allah did aforetime take a covenant from the Children of Israel, and we appointed twelve captains among them. And Allah said: “I am with you: if ye (but) establish regular prayers, practise regular charity, believe in my messengers, honour and assist them, and loan to Allah a beautiful loan, verily I will wipe out from you your evils, and admit you to gardens with rivers flowing beneath; but if any of you, after this, resisteth faith, he hath truly wandered from the path or rectitude.”

(5:13) But because of their breach of their covenant, We cursed them, and made their hearts grow hard; they change the words from their (right) places and forget a good part of the message that was sent them, nor wilt thou cease to find them- barring a few – ever bent on (new) deceits: but forgive them, and overlook (their misdeeds): for Allah loveth those who are kind.

I discovered that the forgiveness in the Koran is mentioned one hundred fifty four times!

Violence breeds another violence. “An eye for an eye” makes the world blind, as Gandhi once said. To reverse this tide of self destruction, we have to realize that all of us belong to the same family, having the same Father and therefore to preserve this family from within and without, ultimately all of us will be confronted by this choice which could be freely decided: to forgive to have lasting peace. A Christian leader, John Paul II, once announced at the end of the last millennium: There is no real peace without justice, but there is no real justice without forgiveness.

Is there light in this darkness of war in Lebanon?

This current war in Lebanon bleeds our heart: innocent, handicapped children, women families displaced, death, horror, bombs! It could make our hearts numb. Are there hopeful signs? The world seems to be deaf and blind of the sufferings of the Lebanese people and those victims of rockets from Hezbollah militias. Political solutions seems to diminish in face the roar of guns.

A light in the darkness through small could be seen from afar! E-mails from young people of Lebanon gives us some light in this immense darkness. Prayers and fasting done by many Filipinos, quitely.

Noteworthy is the news from the Statement of the Holy See Press office. It says:

«The Holy Father is following with great concern the destinies of all the peoples involved and has proclaimed this Sunday, July 23, as a special day of prayer and penance, inviting the pastors and faithful of all the particular Churches, and all believers of the world, to implore from God the precious gift of peace».
«In particular, the Supreme Pontiff hopes that prayers will be raised to the Lord for an immediate cease-fire between the sides, for humanitarian corridors to be opened in order to bring help to the suffering peoples, and for reasonable and responsible negotiations to begin to put an end to objective situations of injustice that exist in that region».
«In reality, the Lebanese have the right to see the integrity and sovereignty of their country respected, the Israelis the right to live in peace in their State, and the Palestinians have the right to have their own free and sovereign homeland».
«At this sorrowful moment, His Holiness also makes an appeal to charitable organizations to help all the people struck by this pitiless conflict».

In the past few days some young people from Lebanon had sent us their appeal for prayers –

“We need all your prayers”. “With the situation of our country which degenerates every moment, it could be the risk of losing hope… But, however, we want to continue to believe in the love of God and launch ourselves even more in loving concretely. We count on your prayers and your thoughts and we assure you of ours”.

A planetary prayer – In different parts of the world have already started initiatives of prayers and also different countries in the Middle East are praying for peace, with a prayer chain which covers the whole day by saying the Rosary. Spontaneously start off again with “Time-out”, a minute of prayer or reflection (at 12:00 noon Italian time) to implore for the gift of peace; prayer vigils are increasing, in small or big scale. Israeli youth leaders in “one voice” blog are doing what they can to change the situation and mentalities.

Another blog from Lebanon shows how they help young children cope up.

There are also prayer vigils among muslims and Christians in a Christian center near Beirut where organized by young people themselves, by reading from the Bibile and the Koran. Our very own Fr. Advincula in the parish of Perpetual Help showed a courageous act in welcoming refugees, and so with other catholic centers, which are open both to Christians and muslims alike.

Is there anything good that could come out of a seeming inevitable escalating war? All wars someday will never be justified. Morality and civil law will develop that it would be unthinkable to justify any war. Like in the past, some centuries before, slavery was quite accepted; now however, it is unthinkable in a civilized world to legalize slavery, more so to give it a moral approval. With regards to war, humanity has to learn, it seems, to experience the full extent of the evil of any war in order to understand its moral, military, legal, political, cultural, human, enviromental futility!

Violence breeds another violence! (See previous blog)