Filipino Centrality of the Family: a blessing or a curse?

Filipinos love their families. Perhaps there is something “confucian” in the filipino blood. The family or the clan is very important for the family. He will sometimes do the extreme for the sake of family honor. “Utang na loob” and “Hiya” are very much linked to the centrality of the family. (November 1 is just one of the days that we emphasize this)

There is something good in this and it could be really a blessing since the family is the basic cell of our society. Good human values come from there, education, honesty, sharing, love, patience, etc.

But when this “centrality” becomes exclusive, and this loves is deviated into a kind of “social selfishness” for one’s own family and clan it could become a curse. The other families become relative to one’s own family. It then becomes an absolute value at the expense of the others, even if it is for the sake of the common good.

Corruption and abuse becomes the means to an end to protect or enchance any family or clan, and when it comes to a political family, then we could understand that self-preservation of a regime is not so much that the value of the common good is forgotten but the absolute value of protecting, preserving ones family, or clan or party becomes absolute. We have this tendency as a filipino people which we have to address.

How? by placing always the common good as a higher value. We are a Christian nation and a 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 which should emerge from a value like the centrality of the family into a society based on the civilization of love for all and the common good.

Other links:  Editorial of New City Magazine; Filipino and Christian Culture.

The Rosary, Priesthood and a School of Prayer for any Formation in a Seminary and Family

I. Introduction

The rosary is a prayer closely identified to Mary. To write about the rosary and the priesthood, I will first deal with the necessity of prayer, understandably as a necessary element for those who want to radically follow Christ; and then about Mary who was the first disciple and lastly on this prayer of the Holy Rosary which is typically Marian. On this last part I will have to quote the last Apostolic Letter of John Paul II, Rosarium Virginis Mariae.

II. The seminary is also called a school of prayer.

A. Since we cannot separate prayer life from persons who want to follow Christ, the seminary can be rightly called a “school of prayer”. Christ himself was a man of prayer, His is a lifestyle that is based on prayer in order to be in communion with His Father in Heaven so that His actions would always be in harmony if not one with the will of the Father. He would always bring his disciples to a far away place apart from the crowd to pray so that He would teach them by example that to have a dialogue with His Father in order is a necessity so that their actions, decisions and words would always be in accord with the will of His Father.

B. Prayer, in the life of a Christian cannot be delegated. It is of its very essence. As oxygen is very important in our body, without which even for some minutes, our body will die, so is also prayer with regards to our life in Christ. Prayer is that which makes us one with Christ, to his will, his mentality, with his actions. It makes us one with Christ so that little by little, Christ will be formed in his disciples.

III. Mary and the Priesthood

A. There is a link between Mary and the ministerial priesthood which is not only devotional but, we could also say, essential. Through the annunciation Mary has conceived in her womb the Word of God, Jesus. He has given us Jesus through her “fiat”. In the Holy Eucharist, does not the priest realize the same reality? The priest, through the mass, gives to us the Body and Blood of Christ. It is as if were, he generates Christ, albeit sacramentally. Is this not the role of Mary, to give Christ? The priest necessarily is related to Mary theologically. As Peter Chrysologus said that Christ “is the bread that sowed in the Virgin, leavened in the flesh, kneaded in the Passion, baked in the oven of the sepulcher, kept in the Church, taken to the altars, gives the faithful heavenly food every day.” The divine wheat is her Son and the priests continues to give Him every time there is the “breaking of the bread”.

B. Moreover, the priest has to be first of all a disciple of Christ. Was not Mary, as has been presented by the Second Vatican Council, the perfect disiciple, a model to who we could imitate and base our lives in order to become like Jesus. St. Louis M. Grignion De Montfort writes in “True Devotion to Mary”: “Take notice, if you please, that I say the saints are molded in Mary. There is a great difference,” continues Montfort, “between making a figure in relief by blows of hammer and chisel, and making a figure by throwing it into a mold. Statuaries and sculptors labor much to make figures in the first manner; but to make them in the second manner, they work little and do their work quickly.” And St. Augustine calls our Blessed Lady ‘the mold of God’ – the mold fit to cast and mold gods. He who is cast in this mold is presently formed and molded in Jesus Christ. At a slight expense and in a short time he will become God, because he has been cast in the same mold which has formed a God.” Mary then is closely related to the priests, as disciples of Christ.

IV. The Rosary

A. The Pope, two years ago wrote an encyclical Novo Millenio Inneunete. In that letter he invited us to a “high standard” of Christian life, to fix our eyes on the crucified and risen Lord, to believe in the love of God for every man and woman, for everyone, and to live the Church as the home and training ground of communion: where the law is loving one another as Christ loved us.

B. The new gift that John Paul II gave us October of last year, with the letter on the Rosary of the Virgin Mary, is in perfect continuity with the invitation and program of the Novo millennio ineunte. The Pope underlines this in the introduction of this latest letter. He says that it is “a complement” to the previous one. In order to fix our eyes on our Lord, it is not enough to learn what He taught but of learning him. And so “could we have any better teacher than Mary?” (n. 14). Because, he says, “from the divine standpoint, the Holy Spirit is the interior teacher who leads us to the full truth of Christ. But among creatures no one knows Christ better than Mary.” (ibid).

C. Here is therefore is the intimate relationship between the Rosary and the priesthood. Saying the Rosary – explains the Pope – puts us on this wave length. The rosary is a pedagogy invented by Mary. It is her maternal love helping us to “learn” Jesus. Do we not meditate, in the mysteries of the rosary, the main events of his life? And do we not meditate them, impressing them on our mind and heart so as to “clothe ourselves” with his very own sentiments?

D. This prayer, which is so simple that it can be everyone’s prayer in all circumstances, affirms the Pope, “marks the rhythm of human life”, bringing it into harmony with the “rhythm” of God’s own life, in the joyful communion of the Holy Trinity” (n. 25). And he confesses: “The rosary is my favorite prayer” (n. 2). How much more for us priests who want to be the presence of Christ on earth? If the Pope invites all Christendom to do so, how much more those who are dedicated to the service to teaching others to be like Christ?

E. Looking at Jesus with Mary’s eyes teaches us how our heart should be: open, trustful, almost like an empty chalice ready to receive the gift of God.

V. The Holy Rosary: The school of prayer

A. The seminary and any family for that matter, as I said, is a school of prayer. To pray with Mary, and contemplate Christ through the eyes of Mary, in a word to pray the rosary is to be in the school of Mary. We can speak “of the art of praying”, as John Paul II had suggested in his Letter “At the beginning of a new millennium” (n.32): “This training in holiness calls for a Christian life distinguished above all in the art of prayer.” Here, specifically, the Pope is introducing us to this art, or better, to the beauty and the joy of this prayer that is roused in us by the Holy Spirit.

B. We could say that the Rosary that has grown from being a simple prayer to becoming a road to holiness, a road of discipleship, to the extent that it inserts us, by this art of praying, into the communion of the Holy Spirit, and directs our attention to the whole mystery of Christ and Mary. It helps us to have within ourselves constantly, with the strength of the word of God and the formulae of prayers in the Church, the same thoughts that were in Christ Jesus and were in the heart of the Mother. We are able to travel the way of Christ, the way of joy and light, of sorrow and of glory, in communion with the one who in the first place for herself and also for all of us has traveled the way of Christ. And she teaches us the way that is hers and ours, living her mysteries in the holy Rosary: the “Way of Mary”, Mary’s road. (cf.n.24)

C. As disciples, future priests, sons and daughters in any family, by praying the rosary, we also bring Mary into the home of our hearts and in the living room of our souls. There she could teach us about He Son, our Lord. Like St. John the beloved disciple who was also a priest. She is the best teacher who could lead us towards Christ. Through praying the holy rosary, we could always be in the school of Mary.

VI. Conclusion

I would like to end with a simple experience. Even if as a child we always pray the rosary, it was during my first year in the seminary that I truly began to pray sincerely the Rosary. One older seminarian handed me a chocolate which I gratefully eate, only to hear him saying after it was consumed, that there are addictive elements placed on that bar of chocolate would which would make me a drug addict. In my ignorance, I prayed to Mary during our daily rosary not make me an addict and free me from the toxic and addictive substances in that chocolate. Of course I realized later that it was not true and therefore I did not become an addict but I became an “addict” in praying the holy rosary. Now, I am a priest for almost twenty five years. Thanks to the Holy Rosary. Without it I could have not become a priest nor remained in the ministry. It was Mary who has shown me the way towards her Son and still continues to do so.

“Transparency” and “Human ecology”: areas where to fight corruption!

There is a new document from the Vatican against corruption entitled bluntly as “The Fight against Corruption.” It offers new lights towards a “better understanding” of this phenomenon, “identify the best methods for countering” this evil, and to forward “the contribution that the Church can make” towards its eradication. (n. 1) Actually it is a result of the international conference of “high-level officials of international organizations, specialists and scholars, ambassadors to the Holy See, professors and experts” organized by the same pontifical council held in the Vatican last summer of 2006.

Though “the phenomenon of corruption has always existed, nonetheless it is only in recent years that awareness of it has grown at the international level”. (n. 2) Corruption which is not limited by politics or geography “makes societies less just and less open” is a sounding conclusion. It therefore makes the person or a society less human and hinders the promotion of his/her complete dignity. In fact “the Church considers corruption to be a very serious fact that distorts the political system. The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church offers a very negative judgment: “Corruption radically distorts the role of representative institutions, because they are used as an arena for political bartering between clients’ requests and governmental services. In this way political choices favor the narrow objectives of those who possess the means to influence these choices and are an obstacle to bringing about the common good of all citizens” (No. 411). Corruption is listed “among the causes that greatly contribute to underdevelopment and poverty” (No. 447) and sometimes it is also present within the very mechanisms by which aid is given to poor countries.” (n. 5) Very clear are the “connections between corruption and an absence of culture, between corruption and functional limitations of institutional systems, between corruption and the index of human development, between corruption and social injustices. This is not merely a process that weakens the economic system: Corruption hinders the promotion of the person and makes societies less just and less open.” (n. 4)

But how could corruption be eradicated? How could we identify it, so that, like sickness we could cure it? Put into the fore by this document are: “transparency” and “human ecological balance.” Like any internal sickness of the body which can be discovered by x-ray, CT scan, and MIR, corruption, can be more identified by transparent lifestyle of any individual, social, political, or corporate groups. It admits an obvious fact that “a ready climate [for corruption] is fostered by a lack of transparency in international finances by the existence of financial havens and by the disparity between the level at which corruption is fought — often limited to the level of single states — and the level at which corruption is carried out, usually at the supranational and international levels. It is also facilitated by limited cooperation between states in the fight against corruption, by the excessive differences in the norms of various legal systems, by the lack of media coverage of corruption in parts of the world, and by the lack of democracy in various countries. Without a free press, without democratic systems of checks and balances, without transparency, corruption is made that much easier.” (n. 3)

Transparency, on the one hand, is like a means or an “x-ray check up” to discover some illnesses in the body, and on the other, it is also the cure and a deterrence for further corruption. The identification of the sickness is very important in curing that sickness.

Another way of curing the body is the overall “ecological balance” of the body. “The Church’s social doctrine proposes the concept of “human ecology” (“Centesimus Annus,” 38), which can also be a useful criterion in the fight against corruption.” It explains that “the attitudes of corruption can be satisfactorily understood only if they are seen as the result of a breakdown of human ecology. If the family is not put in a position to fulfill its educational role, if laws contrary to the authentic good of men and women — such as those against life — miseducate citizens concerning what is good, if the pace of justice is excessively slow, if basic morality is weakened by tolerance of transgressions, if living conditions have deteriorated, if schools do not stimulate personal growth and do not create independence, it is not possible to guarantee “human ecology”; and the absence of human ecology allows the phenomenon of corruption to thrive.” (n. 7)

The health of the body is present when the balance and equilibrium in our body’s systems and functions are in place; when the contrary happens, the body feels sick. So as in a social body, like our society, international or national, “it must not be forgotten that corruption implies a whole series of relationships and complicity; it involves the numbing of consciences, blackmail and threats, unwritten agreements and conspiracies that first involve, overall, people and people’s moral conscience, and after, their structures.” – a breakdown of human ecology. (n. 7) It is in this context that the “task of the moral education and formation of citizens, and for the duty of the Church, which — with her communities, institutions, movements and associations, and with the presence of individual members of the faithful in every segment of modern society — can play an ever more significant role in preventing corruption. The Church can cultivate and promote the moral resources that will help to build a “human ecology” in which corruption will not find an hospitable habitat.” (n. 7)

So transparency and human ecology are the areas of battle. What are the weapons? The church’s social teachings: “all its fundamental guiding principles, which it puts forth as indications of personal and collective behavior, placing them on the front-line in the battle against corruption. These principles are the dignity of the human person, the common good, solidarity, subsidiarity, the preferential option for the poor, the universal destination of goods. Corruption stands in radical contrast to all these principles” (n. 8 ) Convincing are its statement that “the whole of the Church’s social doctrine proposes a perspective of social relationships that is completely at odds with the practice of corruption.” (n. 8 )

While this is true in the level of knowledge and theory, it is not enough to know the causes of the sickness and the solutions in our “health of the body” analogy. To have good health, concrete actions are necessary, like diet, exercise or the regular taking of right medicines. “The fight against corruption requires a greater conviction, by means of the consensus given to moral evidence, and a greater awareness that this fight will provide important social advantages.” (n. 9) In the concrete it means to actualize the “the characteristics of virtuous behavior in men and women, and also to encourage these characteristics; to think of the fight against corruption as a value, and also as a need; that corruption is an evil, and that it also involves a great price; that rejecting corruption is a good, and also an advantage; that abandoning corrupt practices can lead to development and well-being; that behavior marked by honesty is to be encouraged and behavior marked by dishonesty is to be punished. In the fight against corruption it is very important that responsibility for illicit acts be exposed, that the guilty be punished with reparative measures aimed at restoring socially responsible behavior. It is likewise important that there be rewards for countries and economic partnerships that work in conformity with an ethical code that does not tolerate corrupt practices.” (n. 9)

What a high aim, perhaps a lifetime. There is a need to organize to awaken one’s consciousness, perhaps into advocacies, symposia, exposes, rallies both in the local and international levels. “On the international level, the fight against corruption requires that people work together to increase transparency in economic and financial transactions and to enact within different countries uniform legislation in this area.” (n. 10) Also, “since organized crime knows no borders, international cooperation between governments also needs to increase.” (n. 10)

These are but to mention the few suggestions of the relevant and timely document. Yet, the urgency of solutions seems to be obvious: now is high time to cure it. It is like cancer in global society that spreads quite in an alarming rate. When it is not discovered through “transparency” it could attack the whole body in no time. Once transparency becomes a lifestyle, and “formation of a civil conscience” and “education of citizens to a true democracy” human ecological balance could be achieved through the right application of the social teachings of the church which has given much light to political activity and various countries. Truly they are guiding beacons of light in this already dark and sick world.

Other Links: On human ecology; Corruption a Threat to democracies; Lack of Democracy, decline in Morals add to Corruption

Towards a Christian Anthropological Humanism

Introduction: Do we need a new anthropological method?

Pope John Paul II, in a message for the 11th International Meeting on “People and Religions,” said, “if we consider the past centuries and especially the past 100 years, we can easily discern many shadows. . . . How can we forget the appalling tragedies which have stricken humanity throughout the century now drawing to a close? We still vividly remember the two world wars and the atrocious slaughter they caused. And unfortunately violent and cruel massacres of defenseless men, women and children, still persist today. . . . All this is unacceptable!”^[1] This is a true description of our world situation. Its inner causes could be of course varied, cultural, political, religious, economic or even personal. Basically, however, this is due to a certain individualistic, ego-centered and undialogical anthropology which has dominated in the last millennium.

The world today looks for a new anthropological outlook which could satisfy his inner desire for peace. The Pope continued, “The time has come for a resolute decision to set out together on a true pilgrimage of peace . . . It more necessary than ever to put aside the ‘culture of war’ in order to develop a solid and lasting ‘culture of peace’.”^[2] To build a solid ‘culture of peace’ needs a solid and robust anthropological philosophy.

Modern Philosophy has, through the “cogito ergo sum” of Descartes, started to make “thinking” as the starting point of existence and hence of any philosophical endeavor. The basis of existence therefore became subjective reason and it created a kind of paradigm which builds a philosophical anthropology from a perspective of thought – man’s thinking became the center and basis of his own existence making the thinking subject as the center of philosohy. He made an anthropological shift from existence itself and placed man’s conscious subjectivity as the standard of the world around him even in front of his creator and therefore of the objective truths like the truths of faith. His own conciousness, rather than his ens and esse became the center. He became the subject and at the same time the object of his own study without any point of reference to objective existence. The result therefore is a view of man from the perspective of the thinking man himself. This goes without saying that any endeavor that makes a judge of his own self without any objective standard will make himself as the standard.

In this process, it is inevitable that man disengages himself, as de facto, with God his Creator and make himself as the center of everything leaving behind God and objective values and truth. Brought to its extreme, this leads to an atheistic mentality which takes away the God who is the origin of man. Without this creator, in as much as he sets himself as the standard, man easily becomes homini lupus, a wolf to his fellow men instead of being a fratelli homini, a brother to his fellow men. With this anthropological outlook, in as much as he is the center, man was led to deny the other which has its tragic consequences like wars, cruel massacres, etc., in order to affirm one’s own existence.

Mission of a Catholic Institution: towards a ‘culture of peace’

Any catholic institution has a specific mission in terms of making dialogue between our Catholic faith, reason, and other convictions. This is not only for any academic endeavor but is part of its nature. John Paul II states that a catholic learning institution is called “to explore courageously the riches of Revelation and of nature so that the united endeavor of intelligence and faith will enable people to come to the full measure of their humanity, created in the image and likeness of God, renewed even more marvelously, after sin, in Christ, and called to shine forth in the light of the Spirit.”^[3]

Any seminary or catholic school therefore should “institute a incomparable fertile dialogue with people of every culture”^[4] even atheistic ones. This is true because, “man’s life is given dignity by culture, and, while he finds his fullness in Christ, there can be no doubt that the Gospel which reaches and renews him in every dimension is also fruitful for the culture in which he lives.”^[5] Any cultural outlook therefore on man has to be founded in its fullness in Christ.

According to Pope John Paul II, “this task [of dialogue] is incumbent on every Christian institution which has an intellectual calling, since Christian thought is open to the truth wherever it is found; this thought is ready to encounter the different opinions existing in the world of other religious and cultural traditions.”^[6] Without this attidude the building of a solid culture of peace could be unattainable.

Towards a New Christian Humanism

Among another things, the Pope invites, “to make an original contribution to creating a renewed Christian humanism, presenting the humanity of Christ as the model for the generations of the new millennium. A splendid programme: to create beauty, to draw from the good, to understand and express the truth!”^[7]

Reflecting on these words of the Holy Father, and conscious of the fact that the first characteristic of a catholic institution is a “Christian inspiration not only of individuals but of the . . . community as such.,”^[8] I invited my class to consider this renewed Christian humanism based on a sound Christian anthropology presenting Christ as the model of our philosophical endeavor. Living and studying in a framework of a seminary which is a life that is basically communitarian and in unity with other priests friends, we believe that this task is possible.

On the outset, we would like only to focus on a new understanding of man in the light of Christ, a Christian anthropology and humanism. We believe that a Christian view on man is universal and can be applied to any culture and could assume good elements of any culture the study of which could be taken up in a separate study. From this understanding we could attempt to come up with an ontological formulation of who man is.

Man is Created under the Image and Likeness of God

Man is created by God according to his own image and likeness.^[9] This is a biblical truth which constitutes the foundation of any Christian anthropology and therefore, anthropological ontology.

The biblical mystery of our origin is explored by John Paul II as “the unchanging basis of the whole of Christian anthropology.”^[10] In many of his apostolic letters especially in His “Mulieris Dignitatem,” he focuses first of all on the rich anthropological meaning contained in the affirmation of the creation of man and woman “in the image and likeness of God.”^[11]

The rich meaning of this biblical teaching has been summed up in theological tradition by the concept of person, a concept which gathers together its multiple aspects. The Pope gave the two fundamental aspects which define the human person.^[12]

The first is already known: We are God’s image and likeness because we operate with intelligence and freedom. These are attributes of God and as His image we share in this aspect. So the rationality of man. In other words, the free and intelligent character of the person which allows him or her to exercise dominion over the other creatures of the visible world (Gen 1:28), and in the first instance to know and love God.^[13]

Man’s nature however is not only rationality but also relationality. By the fact that the human being is not created to be alone (Gen 2: 18), but can only exist as the “unity of two” this second aspect is as important as the first. He has to be seen therefore in relation to another human being. We would like to dwell and emphasize this second aspect.

Christ as the Way to know God’s Image.

We could know who really man is by entering into the reality of God which can only be known through Christ.

Christ is the light because, in his divine identity, he reveals the Father’s face. But he is so too because, being a man like us and in solidarity with us in everything except sin, he reveals man to himself. . . . By the Incarnation, the Word of God came to bring full light to man. In this regard the Second Vatican Council says that it is: “only in the mystery of the Word made flesh that the mystery of man truly becomes clear.” (Gaudium et Spes, n. 22)^[14]

The mystery of the Incarnation has given a tremendous impetus to man’s thought and artistic genius. Precisely by reflecting on the union of the two natures, human and divine, in the person of the Incarnate Word, Christian thinkers have come to explain the concept of person as the unique and unrepeatable center of freedom and responsibility, whose inalienable dignity must be recognized. This concept of the person has proved to be the cornerstone of any genuinely human civilization.^[15]

We can know the face of the Father our God only through His Son who reveals fully to us Himself. In as much as Jesus is both human and divine, we can cross the infinite bridge from humanity to the divine in and through Him.

On the other hand, “man has lively awareness of the fact that the truth is “above” and beyond him. Man does not create truth; rather truth discloses itself to man when he perseveringly seeks it. The knowledge of truth begins a spiritual joy at having known the truth we can see also a confirmation of man’s transcendent vocation, indeed, of his openness to the infinite.”^[16]

God’s image is revealed as Trinitarian communion

If man is the image of God, the human being is a “language” through which God expresses Himself: if “the human being is ‘like’ God,” “then God is also in some way ‘like’ the human being, and on this basis of likeness God may be known by human beings” (Mulieris Dignitatem, 8).^[17]

God exists as one Being but in as much as the divine Revelation affirms that He is Love, His essence is charity.^[18] And in as much as He is charity, He cannot but be more than one. Divine revelation says that the nature of God is one but in as much as He is charity, He is Truine. There is one God but three Persons in the Divine Trinity.

We have said that to understand what it is to be a human person ought to be enlightened not only by the biblical mystery of the “beginning” but also by the mystery of the Person of Christ and, in the final analysis, by the mystery of the Most Holy Trinity.^[19] The fulness of this mystery is inaccessible to our limited minds, the Pope admits, yet it is revealed to us by Jesus, the Son of God made man. “No man has ever seen God”, says the Evangelist John. “The only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known”^[20] Jesus revealed to us who the Father is for He and the Father are one.^[21] Their love is so intimate and infinite that Love itself is a person, the Holy Spirit.

Now, the interiority of God, which He alone can reveal through Jesus, the second Person of the Divine Trinity, is the communion of three: where the absolute does not say anymore who He is in the solitude of the One (- and in such the personal face disappears -) but We are, in the communion of three – such that the face of Each of the Three is revealed by the other two. Each of the three EXISTS, but as communion of Love. (And the creature is englobed in this life.)^[22] To be created in this likeness therefore cannot but be a being in and for communion. Man’s realization, his perfection and self-fulfillment is no other than “communion for and in love.”

The Trinity professed by Christianity in no way prejudices the unity of God. The one God is not presented to our gaze as a “solitary” God, but as a God-communion. The First Letter of John marvelously expresses the mystery when it says: “God is love” (1 Jn 4:8).^[23]

Yes, God not only loves, but loving is his very essence. By virtue of this love, he is Truine for in the interiority of God is the loving communion of the three Divine Persons.^[24]

Only God could open this horizon of comprehension, opening in the Incarnate love, His intimacy, through Christ which is otherwise unreachable by the creature.^[25]

Man, in as much as he is the image and likeness of God has to have a relational nature, therefore. His very essence is to relate and to be in communion with others. “It is not good for man to be alone” therefore is a divine revelation which could be understood in the light of this image of God who is Truine.

We are all called to have a living experience of this ineffable mystery of love. “If a man loves me”, Jesus has assured us, “he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.” (Jn 12:23).^[26] Man can attain through charity his divine and transcendental vocation to be in communion with his creator through living communion in charity with his neighbors.

The Absolute, the Supreme person to which man has always tended, in the Christ-event has opened his interiority, calling man to model, enter and to live to the full his own essence upon which he was created and at the same time, live, in a certain way, the life of the Trinity.

Moreover, because God is love, He could not but be disclosing Himself in Creation and in man. “It is the existing-in-Himself in God through his ontological disclosing of his profound being, that the creature becomes what it is: because it is the Epiphany of God-Love, who is Himself in going outside of Himself in that Otherness of personal kenosis which is the Trinity, and in the otherness of His ontological kenosis – the unthinkable transcendence of God towards Himself -, in which He is Creator.”^[27]

This dimension of communion is the root of man’s being “created” in that immanent-transcendence which is Love, and reveals itself in the antinomy of interior life, where the creature is made completely itself.^[28] The “locus” where man can find himself is in this “trinitarian communion.”

So, man, in as much as he comes from God, cannot but be his image and likeness. God in as much as He is love cannot but self-disclose himself in man. In the interiority of this Truine God, we find that the three Divine persons really love one another. This is the reason why they are one. On the other hand in as much as God is charity, they are three at the same time. In as much as the core of God is charity man cannot but have this image of charity, and therefore relationality. His essence has to be in communion, in charity with another.

“To be a person, [therefore, created] in the image and likeness of God means being in relationship with another ‘I’ (MD, 7), to the point where “humanity signifies a call to interpersonal communion” (MD, 7). This fundamental truth which is inscribed in the very mystery of our beginnings “is the prelude to the definitive self-revelation of God as one and three” (MD 7). The full revelation of the mystery of God in Christ as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, who are “one God through the unity of divinity,” but who exists as distinct Persons “through the inscrutable divine relations” (ibid.), throws therefore a new a decisive light on the mystery of the reciprocal relationship of man (and woman) who [is] . . . called to “mirror in the world the mystery of the communion of love which is in God and through which the three Persons love one another in the intimate mystery of the one divine life” (MD 7).^[29]

Here the truth about man is revealed. Not the abstract truth an equation, or a logical operation, but the truth of a living Person, (the aletheia).^[30]

The interiority of the life of man is therefore, “to walk in overcoming the unique individuality defined by the pure immanence in itself, reaching and transcending the love-heart of man, to attain the heart of the Absolute who is Love. . . . “^[31]

Man is called to reached where he is not any more what he thinks he is, but what he truly is – his essence as being created under the image and likeness of the Trinitarian God which is at the same time his “ought to be”.

Christ’s Abandonment, the Door towards Communion

How did Christ revealed this Trinitarian God to us? In as much as Christ is the way the truth and the life, to know Him is to know also the Father for He and the Father are one. The self-disclosure of Christ which is at the same time the moment when He Himself reveals who He is, by revealing to us the Father, is on His kenosis on the Cross, his abandonment. There, he became really the nothingness of love, annihilating Himself so that He could reveal the fullness of His love to the Father and at the same time, He opened to us who the Father is, for He and the Father are one. It is in through His non being that He truly is. Annihilating himself, he is what He is – love, and here he allowed us, through Him and in Him, to enter into the reality of this communion – enosis.

In as much as he is the way in which we can have our being, to be non-being out of love is also the via per excellence in reaching our true Being in God. We become what we are by being non-being. In as much as Christ became who He is by non-being, we too through non-being, can be, is.

The Pope called this a “sincere gift of oneself.” When man, by his non-being, i. e., by seemingly loosing himself in loving the other, really becomes who he is: “being by non-being.” His self-realization is centered in being participant in the divine life of the Trinity because it is only through non-being that we are in communion with others. It is also here that man lives to the fullness his freedom. “Christ on the cross reveals the authentic meaning of authentic freedom, he lives it in itss fullness in making a total gift of oneself and invites His disciples to participate in this same freedom.”^[32]

The ontological identity therefore of man is “being by non being.” He is what he is by being-not. We can base a philosophical anthropology and humanism in this “identity” of man. Man is man as long as he is a “sincere gift of himself” for the others. He is who He is in loosing himself out of love for the others. That is why martyrdom is the highest expression of freedom. The martyrs are the most realized and most free persons.

Therefore, communion, through kenosis is both an ontological truth (who man is) and the ethical truth (how we are to live, our “ought to be”). In this, the foundation is first and foremost the union of man with God his creator through Jesus Christ who opened to man the divine life of Trinitarian communion. This unity is to be the model of every other unity among men, peoples, nations and religions, and, in them of all creation. But this unity is not the cancellation or the absorption of all differences, for God himself is one in the distinction of the Three divine Persons. In this Trinitarian unity, although they are one, each person is distinct from each other, diverse, but equal in dignity. It is both a gift (from God’s revelation of Himself) and at the same time an ethical task towards the freedom of the human being, a task to be fulfilled by means of love.^[33]

As mentioned earlier, we are called to this experience. The divine precepts lead to this fullness so that the life of communion could be realized. In fact the Church is no other than the “sign and sacrament of communion with God and of unity among all men.”^[34] Communion is also the “source and at the same time the fruit of mission” of the Church.^[35] It is the same time the starting point, the beginning and the end.

Conclusion

We have tried to present therefore a way towards a Christian anthropology with some ontological formulations. Based on the fact that man is created under the image and likeness of God, and in as much as this image is revealed by the Christ-event as a trinitarian communion, through his kenosis on the cross, He revealed to us the face of the Father as love, who gives His only Son, thereby loosing Himself in the Son. At the same time through this annihilation, Christ truly reveals who he is - love. And with Him, in Him and through Him, we could understand who man is. Man’s true identity is this relational communion of love with God and his fellow man by his non-being, his loosing himself for the sake of love for others. It is only through this non-being for love that he becomes what he truly is.

In the world today, after Descartes, man still insists that the way to attain self-realization and self-fulfillment is to emphasize his being, his consciousness, his ego, himself. Other systems of economics that lead to a certain lifestyle, would emphasize man’s having. To be more means to have more. This is usually done by accumulating a lot of “something” in order to affirm more who one “is.” Ontologically and philosophically and even psychologically, this form of viewing at man has created a lot of problems which extend not only in the personal and spiritual level, but also in the social, economic and political level to the point of annihilating one another to affirm one’s own identity. But this deviates from his true being. There must be another way of living in this dawn of the second millennium: the way of communion based on a sound Christian anthropology and humanism – a path in taking the first steps “to set out together in a true pilgrimage of peace” by being a communion of love through a “sincere gift of oneself” by “non-being” for love for others. From cogito, ergo sum we need to start from a new basic proposition: amo, ergo sum: a fresh paradigm shift towards an anthropological humanism to build the “civilization of love”.

Evangelical Poverty and Miserable Poverty

There is poverty which is caused by greed, injustice, inequality: this is a bad poverty which has to be eradicated. There is also a poverty which is evangelical and this is something good and desirable if on wants to be perfect. It is a freedom that all are called so that the first kind of poverty could be solved.

We have to grow rich in the sight of God.

The possible application of this are too numerous to be dealt with here, but certainly any proposed application must reflect the spirit of the Gospel, which itself is already quite eloquent: “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdo of heaven” (Mt. 5:3) “It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of the needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”(Mt. 19:24). 14:33 “In the same way, everyone of you who does not renounce all his possessions cannot be my disciple.” Any application of these principles that nullifies Jesus’ words is most certainly mistaken.

Jesus asks all Christians to be detached from their possessions; however he does not ask that everyone demonstrate this detachment in an outward way by living in complete poverty. The Gospel, in fact, tells us that even the rich can be Christians: “when evening fell, a wealthy man named Arimathea arrived, Joseph by name. He was another of Jesus’ disciples.” (Mt. 27:57)

The rich, and however, must become spiritually poor: “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdo of heaven” (Mt. 5:3) Those who do not, run the terrible risk of being damned forever. “It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of the needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”(Mt. 19:24).

This detachment from possessions wits Jesus asks of us is one of the fundamental points of his teaching, and yet in its is one of the areas in which our own Christian life leaves most to be desired. Consequently, we hardly ever hear people speak of Christian poverty, a poverty which is visible in those who consecrate their lives to God, but which should be lived in the spiritual way by all Christians.

Nowadays there is an emphasis on social justice, and rightly so, but frequently it is forgotten that true social justice is a consequence of the spirit of Christian poverty and that this spirit of poverty is demanded of all, rich and poor alike.

You might ask how one is rich can ever say in conscience that he or she spiritually poor. The in depht consideration that this question requires is not possible here, but the following points may shed some lights on the subject. First: one who is rich must look upon himself or herself not so much as the owner of the goods he or she possesses, but rather as their administrator, since these goods belong first of all to God. Augustine makes this very clear: “All that you do not posses is mine, says the Lord, And all that you do posses is mine.” Mine, says God, “is the gold and teh silver; not yours, O rich of the earth.”

Therefore, a rich person must utilize his or her possessions in a way that is designed to contribute to the good of the whole community.

Since the right of private property is subordinate to the fundamental right of all persons to enjoy the goods of the earth, we can legitimately conclude that the social dimension of the right to private property is not only an extension of the personal dimension, but dominates and transcends it.

From this it follows that an owner is not acting in accord with the moral law if he or she administers his or her possessions in a selfish manner and then distributes what is left over.

Although the rich remain in possession of their goods, in using them, they must take inot account the good of society. Moreover, in th eir personal lives, rich Christians should not be wasteful but thrifty and honest. As St. Basil says, “If each person took only what was necessary to meet his or her needs and left the rest to the poor, no one would be rich and no one would be poor.”

Finally the surpluus of the rich should serve the needs of the poor, as Pope Leo XIII syas in his encyclial Quod Apostolici muneris

[The Church] places the rich under grave obligation to give their surplus good to the poor, and she puts fear into their hearts by threatening them with divine judgment; for if they do not come to the aid of those in need, they will be punished with eternal torment.”

The possible application of these principles are too numerous to be dealt with here, but certainly any proposed application must reflect the spirit of the Gospel, wh ichitself is already quite eloquent: “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdo of heaven” (Mt. 5:3) “It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of the needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”(Mt. 19:24). 14:33 In the same way, everyone of you who does not renounce all his possessions cannot be my disciple.” Any application of these principles that nullifies Jesus’ words is most certainly mistaken.

If you cannot physically rid yourself of your possessions, because of family ties or other responsibilities, or if your position in life demands that you live in a certain way, still you should detach yourself from them spiritually, being no more than their administrator. In this way, while dealing with wealth you can love others, and by administering it on their behalf, you can accumulate a treasure which moths cannot destroy, nor thieves carry off.

How can you be certain about what you should keep and what you should dispose of? Listen to the voice of God within you; and if you cannot decide on your own, seek someone’s advice. Then you will discover how many superfluous things there are among your possessions. Do not keep them. Give. Give to those who have not. Put into practice these words of Jesus: “Sell… and give.” If you do this, you will fill up purses which do not wear out.

Since you live in the world, it is only logical that you should be concerned with money and other materials things. However, God does not want you to be preoccupied with them. So only be concerned with securing that amount which is indispensable for you to live in accordance with your needs.

Pope Paul VI was truly poor. The way in which he wanted to be buried (“in a plain coffin in the bare earth”) proved this. Shortly before dying he told his brother: “My suitcases for that important trip have been ready for some time.”

This is what you should do too: prepare your suitcase.

In the time of Jesus it may have been called “purse,” but the meaning is the same. Prepare it day by day. Fill it with things that might be useful to others. You truly possess that which you give away. Think of how much hunger there is in the world, how much suffering, how many needs….

Put every act of love and every deed done for your neighbor into your suitcase as well.

Do everything for God, telling him in your heart: “This is for you.” Perform every action well, perfectly, because it is destined for heaven. It will remain for eternity.

To solve the negative poverty, there is a need to live evangelical poverty. It makes us one with those who are materially poor, fragile like them. Without this detachment our help for the poor would contain a tinge of pride and we give because we have the they do not have. Instead, all of us are equal in the eyes of God, and each person’s dignity have the right to have a share of this earth’s goods.

The Seven Last Words are Possible because of Silence

Wihout Silence the Word could not be Spoken.
All His Words, even the seven last words, were spoken because there was silence.
All, were interpersed in that silence.

So, the Word Himself, spoke also because there was silence.
I failed to appreciate this silence, would prefer the word rather.
Noises of the world make the soul deaf.

Pain, suffering, exile, that bursts into the cry of
Jesus’ Abbandonment of the cross, all were assumed
in that word: “My God why have you forsaken me!”

Yet, all are possible, because there was silence
of a God who loves.

At twelve years old, all together in front of my Prefect of Discipline

Fear, anxiety, maybe our Father Prefect of discipline will send me out of the seminary in my first year, at twelve years old. I just came from Christmas vacation and was very happy inside this “quite” not normal institution called the minor seminary. Why should be afraid? Yet, it is there, I trembled! It did not occur to me that I was at fault. No, it was not even bad. I was just communicating, the truth about him, our prefect. But I expressed to the wrong person – his half sister, petite and friendly. I told him, since she asked, also with a since of surviving the ordeal, that he clips his thumb and index finger to someone of us who disobeys the rules and one would express the pain in his face. Was he mad? We had only one term in our dialect to use that action: “LO-OK” (the same term used for “strangling”)

Then, my suspicion could be confirmed. There was miscommunication. It was a too much for him, that his half sister would tell or maybe reprimand him that he is “strangling” us! The older seminarians had assured me earlier that, since I have offended him personally, I will be kicked out! To be out? This was the greatest misfortune. What would they think? My parents, my friends? Did I do really something wrong? Does this deserves this kind of punishment, unproportional and unreasonable?

I tried to be always good, but I could not face this possibility of being sent out. I could not even understand it. I suffered, and suffered much. My future, my reputation was life was at stake! At least in the mind of a twelve year old.

Did I have my recourse to Mary? Did I asked her help? I did not remember for I knew. And there our prefect comes for his weekly conference. We were all seated after falling in line in the chapel. I was in the front pew, a third from the center, on the left, in fron of his right. My world was shaking. He talked about it! He knew, and maybe he knew I was the one who said it, though he did not annouce it. I did not remember what he said but he clarified: if some one told a lie and destroyed the good name of another, he should repair the damage he has caused.

I was confused. Was there misinterpretaion of my works. What I told to his half-sister using the word “lo-ok”. Did he strangled seminarians? No! but this “term” is used when someone uses pressure from his thumb and middle finger and clip the neck of someone. Could his step sister misinterpret the “term”? Maybe, and it was my impression that my dear prefect understands that he is being maligned as very very strict, that is bad. He could be fuming with madness as he listened to his half sister. Yes he knew maybe that I was the one.

Am I capable of lying? My parents taught us not to lie, imparting us the right values. Could it be that I have a high concept of my moral standards and I could not see that it is not true?

And so it was. I was oppreseed by my own self-rightousness, my own self concept, build by my own imagination. He wanted to defent his good name, his goodness, and here I am preplexed, afraid to be sent out, seemed to be accused by telling a lie and destroying a good name.

Now, I understand a little, each has always a tendency to defend one’s ego, real or not. I was defending my own position, but I was silent. I could not express it. He wants to defend his! And he was too powerful! I am a dead meat!

Now, I also understand, if only I have tried to love him and understand him, the pressures in his role, the irritations of forming us to be good. For several yeas, I too was assigned as formator. I am sorry for myself now. I did not mean to cause such embrassment. I love him as our prefect, as a priest. I did always love and felt loved by him later that event. The forgiveness and love of God for us suddenly is revealed. He was mature in his love by putting always, after the school year his arms on my soul’s shoulders. He was really my prefect of disciple. Firm, strong but tender in his love. I have not enough words but “thank you!”

Now, I would not allow others to suffer by threatening one of not being accepted. All are loved by God in a personal and immense special way. He has a plan for each one. I need to see all with love, in the perspective of God. As someone who longs for something sublime – to see the positive and goodness in each one, the need to be accepted, the need to be loved.

I should have seen events in God’s love, in His plan, even for me. In my wounds and psychological pains of that first year in the seminary was a light to go ahead. Yes, till now. It was as if our Lord, was waiting for me to recognize Him. But it is not too late. . . It is Him who liberates. . . He makes me get out of my wounds. There are scars, and pain will return in other fresh wounds, not only in me but outside of me. But I know Who is behind them. The one who loves me and who is waiting for me. Lord, help me always to recognize you in the pains of my life and of others.

Truth and Words

Preachy. “Sermonizing ” – seeming explanation of Divine Things?
There are the few things that I abhor. Who has the truth?

Is man really able to guide another man without a tinge of insult to
another’s intellegence and dignity? Each man has “a” and “the” truth in himself!
Who could be one’s guide? Man? who is a fellow traveller with another men?

A blind could not help a blind. Only He who calls Himself light could guide.

And our words, ah. . . always words. I am tired of words, words, words.
Even concepts expressed in gentle words, reprimanding words, strong words,
inticing words, inviting words, exhortations, angry words, living words. . .

Words could cease to have meanings in many. Yet, preachers still use them.

My truth is in inside me, it is outside me. It is in you and in him, in each person. It is in the smile
of a baby, in a budding flower, in a seed that decays, in the storm, in calmness of the lake
and sea, in the beach, in action or non-action. It is also in joy and its interruption. It is beautiful,
noble, one.

How many times did I offend the truth with words.

Yet, the truth of the one who is TRUE is mercy, love, forgiveness.

I remain prostrate in front of this immense truth without words!!