Paradigm: The Hidden Enemy of the Catholic Church

Posted on by
Reply

INTRODUCTION: The Apostolic Ideal and the Taste of Power

Jesus chose twelve men from his disciples and designated them “apostles”—those who would be sent to carry the good news to the world. As his representatives, they were to live as Christ taught: poor in spirit, meek, humble, and dedicated to serving others. These qualities fueled the rapid growth of early Christianity, drawing converts through the witness of lives shaped by service. Yet as communities grew, leadership evolved from elders to bishops, and with Constantine’s favor, the Church tasted power for the first time. What began as discipleship rooted in humility gradually hardened into a paradigm1 of authority and messianism.

A paradigm is more than habit; it is a deep cognitive framework that shapes what feels natural or right, often unconsciously. Like the fish unaware of the water it swims in, the clergy became immersed in a culture of power that resisted reform even when confronted with failure. This essay argues that the Catholic Church’s enduring paradigm— formed in the crucible of Constantine’s patronage— has conditioned centuries of behavior and lies at the root of its present ailments: declining faith, intrusion into civil authority, pharisaic tendencies, and struggles within the Curia.

CONSTANTINE THE GREAT

In a battle for supremacy over the whole Roman Empire, Constantine is reported to have seen in a vision or a dream, a sign- a cross in one version and a shield in another version- that said, “In hoc signo vinces” (Under this sign you will conquer). Acting on the vision, Constantine ordered his troops to imprint the Chi-Rho2. Constantine attributed his victory in this “Battle of Midian Bridge” to an intervention of the Christian God paving the way to the Edict of Milan. Successes in subsequent battles led to Constantine’s rise to the Roman Emperor’s throne.

In recognition of the power of the Christian God, he abandoned his Roman gods, decriminalized Christianism by the Edict of Milan, and even doted on the Christian leaders (bishops), donating large amounts of money, ceding property and even appointing them to high level civil government positions.

Thus, Christians rose in social level from a persecuted minority to a class of powerful political bloc– with bishops consulted on political decisions and at times, even exerting civil authority. And as it very often happens, authority in one’s hands, especially in cases of sudden, expected turns of events, is intoxicating. Bishops began to see themselves as bearers of authority instead of servants as Christ decreed. This is antithetical to discipleship. But the headiness grows as may be seen from the intertwining of political and religious authority following Constantine’s time.

In 313 AD a split in the church arose, one side maintaining that Christ came after the Father, the other holding to the Trinitarian belief that the Son coexisted with the Father from eternity. Constantine called for the Council of Nicaea to settle the issue, marking the first time civic authority (the emperor) was called on to decide on theological areas of concern. This also placed the bishops in a direct line of authority in the civic government putting doctrinal matters within the purview of civic authority. And this was later reinforced by the Edict of Thessalonica, where Christianism was decreed by Emperor Theodocius to be the state religion– planting the seed of cujus regio, ejus religio. Bishops welcomed their place in the new state-faith rule. They were happy to hold civil authority in their hands– further signs of the growing paradigm in the Church hierarchy. The line between “…what is Caesar’s” and “…what is God’s” gradually faded. The bishops’ paradigm of messianism now said, “You are vital to keeping order in this planet. You are duty bound to defend the faith in society.”

THE CHURCH AFTER CONSTANTINE

After the fall of Rome, the Church continued to exert authority, making its will prevail- or at least try hard to- over monarchs. This led to frequent conflicts between Church and civil authority, but the Church has managed to retain a level of civil authority.

Kings had to seek counsel from bishops on state matters. The state-authorized Inquisitions, for example, granted authority to try and execute violators of religious law, especially, heresy. Another instance is the widely known vain struggle of King Henry VIII to obtain papal dispensation so he could marry Anne Boleyn. Popes called for Kings to organize the Crusades. The Italian government had to grant the Church compensation for lost Papal States as well as financial subsidy and recognition as an independent state. This merged religious and civil authority in the Pope. Today, many churches in Europe are sustained by taxes. In the United States, the Church is militant against acts of the state that impinge on religious laws. Examples of this are the protests against birth control, abortion, and other laws.

Drawing from Lord Acton’s remark about power, growing power tend to increase one’s sense of invincibility. Thus happened the excesses of the Borgias, the inhumanity of the Inquisition, religious orders’ owning of slaves, and in recent years the explosion into public view of sexual abuses of the clergy concealed by bishops, as well as the IOR’s involvement with the Mafia. It seems that many in the clergy, particularly the bishops, have enjoyed the feeling of power in their hands so much they lose their bearings. These bishops “lost their bearings”. Continued possession of position of authority developed in them paradigms that placed their individual beliefs as “divine truth”. Hence, any opposition to these beliefs must be debunked and destroyed.

For example, it may be logically conjectured that their zeal for converting the world to Christianism has led them to justify all actions, such as amassing wealth to finance evangelical activities, as primordial. An outstanding demonstration of this is the involvement of the IOR in money-laundering and handling of Mafia money. It is not difficult to believe that the Cardinals involved in this illegal act had in mind, the need for funds to defray expenses of evangelical missions all over the world. Bishops who covered up the sexual abuses committed by some priests very probably acted to avoid smearing public image of the church that would have discredited their missions and hinder their mission of converting the world. Preserving the authority of their position and their word became more valuable than adherence to the truth.

AWKWARD SITUATION

The continuation of the Church’s involvement in state affairs has led to an awkward– if not anomalous– situation.

As a powerful entity in the empire, the Church accumulated holdings of territories over which the Pope was sovereign. This secular power is antithetical to the office of Pope. As successor of Jesus, the Pope is supposed to be solely concerned with spiritual matters, or in Jesus’ words, “…teaching them, all that I have commanded you…”

But the kingdom of Italy conquered much of these territories beginning in 1859 and by 1860, almost all were occupied and annexed by Italy except the Leonine City which the Pope refused to give up until 1870 when the French who were protecting the Pope withdrew and the Italians were able to enter Rome. Still the Pope refused to accept this state until the Lateran Treaty in 1929 recognized the Vatican as an independent state with the Pope as sovereign, and also providing permanent financial support to the Vatican government.

Thus, today, the Pope holds a secular position– the political head of state– which as earlier mentioned, contravened Jesus’ admonitions (“Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s…”).

REFORM

In an unexpected event, Pope Benedict XVI resigned in 2013, leading to the election of Pope Francis I who was seen by many as commissioned by God to institute reforms in the Church and he proceeded to do just that. But many of his reforms were opposed and thwarted by the Curia.

In his approach towards reforms, Pope Francis, one could say, imitated Christ. He did not impose. He presented the desired reform in the form of advice or exhortation explaining why it was right. This was in recognition of the fact that God gave us free will- the right to choose which way to go.

But if reform is to be effected, the paradigm of the clergy- the apostles- has to be addressed. They must be led to a recognition and acknowledgment of their paradigm. To bring about a paradigm shift, the existence and nature of the paradigm must be seen. The overarching Christian motif of service, not rule, must be reinstituted.

But the Catholic Church’s infrastructure has been built on this secular paradigm. We may have a Pandora’s box situation here. Constantine may have opened it and now the Church has to find a way to collect the demons back and reseal it. An impossible task?

Asking this question evokes memory of a giant, IBM, that experienced a deep dive that threatened its very existence. The reason for the disaster, IBM’s adherence to its business model built around the mainframe, totally. Disconfirming data of continuing decline of its financial strength over a number of years shook them out of their comfort zones. The result: a new executive who updated its business model and totally overhauled its organization, adapting it to the rapidly changing environment, leading it to a comfortable recovery.

Constantine may have opened Pandora’s box, and most, if not all, say it is impossible to collect the demons back and reseal it. Yet perhaps the demons can be tamed by a paradigm shift. IBM nearly collapsed under the weight of its mainframe paradigm, but the shock of imminent crash forced recognition and reform. The Catholic Church may yet receive such a jolt. Perhaps Pope Francis is the harbinger of this awakening—a message that even what seems impossible may yet become the Church’s necessary task: to rediscover true, humble discipleship over the intoxication of power.

1 As used here, paradigm is a set of beliefs formed by a cognitive process into an individual’s view of everything around him. Among others, it forms a view of “how the world works”. It is a powerful determinant of human behavior in that it triggers actions or reactions bypassing mental deliberation. A simple example would be a driver slowing down and stepping on the brake pedal when he sees a pedestrian step onto the road ahead of him. He does it without thinking, without asking what he should do.

2 The Greek letters Chi and Rho super-imposed on each other, a symbol seen today in Catholic Church vestments, altars and other ritual instruments.

A Friend

Posted on by
Reply
Image

During my college days in a respected engineering school in Manila (let me call it Y), I did not have time to socialize with my classmates, the reason being that a married man, I had to work during the day then go to school. This meant that my classes ended late at night and I had to go home to have supper and get a bit of sleep before getting up to go to my place of work.

The few minutes break between classes gave me the time to get close to a few of my classmates and 55 years later, I could remember three fondly. Let me call them Roddy, Manny, and Al. I met Roddy from time to time after our graduation because he joined the Engineering Drawing faculty of Y, while I became a faculty member in Electrical Engineering. Manny was a bosom buddy of Roddy so he would join us for “coffee” occasionally.

I became close to Al because I perceived him to be reserved, quiet, unassuming and serious about his studies, perhaps a bit introvertive. This picture of Al drew me to him because I was an introvert myself.

My academic load during my junior year was a bit light so on top of my regular job, I had taken a part-time job as Design Engineer in a professional engineering firm to augment my income. One day, the boss asked me if I knew someone reliable to fill his need for an additional design engineer, Al immediately came to mind and I recommended him. A few days after hiring Al, my boss approached me and praised Al’s work and most especially his attitude towards his work and I felt proud my boss was happy about my recommendee.

A notable event in my friendship with Al is our graduation ball. His “date” was a lady (let me call her G) who we later learned is his cousin. G’s beauty eclipsed all the other women’s in the room so that the next day, we all started calling Al, “bayaw:” (brother-in-law). I was one of them, but it was clear in my mind that this was just in fun because I was already married at that time. Al would find out during our graduation that I was already married because I brought my wife along.

After graduation (1963), Al went home, eventually landed a job in the engineering group of the US Air Force Base. After some time, he and his family migrated to the USA. While I continued here with my multiple employment. We thus lost touch with each other.

Imagine my surprise when some 10 years ago, I received a message telling me that Al was asking for my contact information. Thus communication between us resumed and has continued through the years. Every time he came to visit relatives here in the Philippines, he would set aside a day for lunch with me.

Last year, he sent me a message different from the usual “friend-to-friend” messages we had been exchanging. He was asking me for details of my bank account; he was going to remit a certain amount of money! Expecting it to be a “token amount” as it was Christmas time, I just gave him the information he asked for. When I found out the amount he was remitting, I almost fell off my chair. It was not a token amount; it was much more. It seemed as if he could sense my financial straits.

In thanking him for the gift, I asked him why the big amount, and he said it was his way of thanking me for all the help I gave him during our college days. In reply, I told him that I really do not remember having extended precious help to him during our days in Y, but in any case, if I did, I have forgotten it because to me it was “consummatum est”- meaning that the matter ends there at the point of having given the help. I do not dishonor the gift, but he should not feel compelled to reciprocate in any way. The reward of a giver is in the giving itself.

This year, the same thing happened. Al remitted the same amount. I want to tell him that I am accepting his gift as his help to me, his friend, to cope with my financial needs. And I thank the Lord God Almighty for friends.

The 4th Commandment

Posted on by
3

The first three of the ten commandments refer to how we interact with God; the rest refers to how creatures should interact with one another. The fourth, and therefore the seemingly the most important among the remaining 7 is, “Honor thy father and thy mother”.

Seemingly, by placing it ahead of all the others, God told us that this is the most important our in relations with fellow human beings. The order is patent; from honor of parents, it flows to killing, adultery, stealing, lieing, and coveting in decreasing severity- the last being not positive actions but desires.

I guess God saw that the day would come when His human creation would consider it conventional wisdom to scuttle their parents when they have outlived their usefulness. This is seen in the “developed economies” where parents are abandoned to the care of nursing homes or worse, in some cases, just totally abandoned without any care or worry just because they cannot get along. But God is rarely conventional. If He were, He would not have said, “…but I say to you, LOVE YOUR ENEMY…” and “…PRAY FOR THOSE WHO HATE YOU…” or “…YOU MUST FORGIVE HIM SEVENTY TIMES SEVEN TIMES…” or “…OFFER HIM YOUR LEFT CHEEK ALSO…”

Yesterday, a tragic, most painful picture became etched in my mind: a mother knocking at the door of her home, I standing outside the fence waiting and the daughter and her family refusing to acknowledge the knocking at the door. Days earlier, I had sent messages to the daughter asking her to take her mother home. The messages were unanswered, giving me the perception that she did not want her mother to come home. We brought the mother to her place hoping that their meeting would awake some mother-daughter feelings. The experience told me the daughter did not care where her mother was and did not care what happened to her as long as she stays out of her life.

To the extent my meager resources will allow me, I will provide the care for my sister. We are both in the twilight of your earthly years so we will not suffer that long. Besides, we have no choice. Perhaps it is fortunate that we will not see what will happen to the world that sees parents as unwelcome burdens to be eliminated from their lives.

Honor Thy Father and Thy Mother…

Posted on by
Reply

The first three (the first four in the Old Testament, Ex 20:2–17 and Deut 5:6–21) of the Ten Commandments (or Decalogue) prescribe man’s relations with God; the rest to relations with fellow human beings.

The fourth (the fifth in the Old Testament), and therefore the first prescription for human relations thus appearing to the most important among the remaining seven is, “Honor thy father and thy mother”. The order in the Ten Commandments is patent; from mandating honor of parents, it proceeds to prohibition against killing, adultery, stealing, lieing, and coveting in decreasing severity- the last being not positive actions but desires.

God must have had a good reason for doing this. I suppose we can discern His foresight when we see the behavior of “civilized” people in “developed economies” where parents are handed over to the care of nursing homes or worse, in some instances, just abandoned and forgotten.

His people, Israel, must have understood the importance God gave to this Commandment because in their time, violation of this law was punished by stoning to death.

Today, it is conventional wisdom to get rid of anything that hinders one’s pursuit of material gain. Thus, today’s wisdom says it is better to put your “economically useless parent” in the hands of “trained” care-givers so you can earn the money to sustain your family and your parents overlooking the fact that these care-givers are just as money-oriented. Again conventional wisdom will say, “If it is wrong, then He would intervene.”

But God is rarely conventional. If He were, He would not have said, “…but I say to you, LOVE YOUR ENEMY…” and “…PRAY FOR THOSE WHO HATE YOU…” or “…YOU MUST FORGIVE HIM SEVENTY SEVEN TIMES…” or “…OFFER HIM YOUR LEFT CHEEK ALSO…”  It is not conventional wisdom for Him to send His Only Son to be mocked, physically harmed, tortured and ultimately killed to save man who turned his back on Him.

Hence we should be aware: He gave highest importance to man’s behavior towards his parents for a reason. But of course, He will not insist. He gave us free will and He allows us to choose our path.

Yesterday, a tragic, most painful picture became etched in my mind: a mother knocking at the door of her home, and I standing outside the fence waiting for the daughter and her family to acknowledge her presence and open the door. The door opened a bit then immediately and forcefully closed.

Days earlier, I had sent messages to the daughter asking her to take her mother home. The messages were unanswered, giving me the perception that she did not want her mother to come home. We brought the mother to her place hoping that their meeting would awake some mother-daughter feelings. The experience was most disappointing, she did not care where her mother was and did not care what happened to her as long as she stays out of her life.

This is a tragic event in human relations. And I had to be a witness to it; and her children too. I can only pray that her children will not treat her the same way.

God must have sent my sister to me, so to the extent my meager resources will allow me, I will provide the care for my sister. We are both in the twilight of your earthly years so we will not suffer that long. Perhaps it is fortunate that we will not see how children will treat their parents in the future.

Born Catholic

Posted on by
Reply

I was born CATHOLIC. This means I was born and spent my early years in a Catholic environment: all my elders in both my father’s and my mother’s side were Catholic. Hence I observed all the rituals prescribed by the Roman Catholic Church– Baptism, Confirmation,. Mass, Confession, etc.– without knowing what each is all about. There was no catechism teaching at all. The only statements I heard about God were those my elders used to scare me away from “sinful” behavior, picturing God as a stern, tyrannical ruler who meticulously keeps accounts of His creatures’ follies and sends them to a place of eternal fire called Hell. As a matter of fact, my first Communion was “extemporaneous”, that is, there were no instructions, briefing, formal teaching. In my fourth grade in primary education, my first experience in a Catholic school, I heard my teacher say on the last day of my first week, “I want to see you all at Mass this Sunday, and I hope you will also receive Holy Communion. So, dutifully, I went to Mass in the school’s chapel and joined the queue for Holy Communion. And just to complete the story of my ignorance, I was baptized when I was just a few weeks old so I did not even hear the priest’s script and my sponsors’ responses, much less understand the ritual. Later, at age 12 or thereabouts, I was taken to a cathedral to receive my Confirmation, again, neither hearing nor understanding the formula prayers and my sponsor’s responses. In another school, we were compelled to go to confession on Thursdays, and attend Mass and receive Holy Communion on Fridays; this in addition to the Sunday Mass. I had to hurriedly find a book on prayers to learn the formula for confession. There were also other rituals like blessing a house, or a car, or an image and oh, yes, processions. I obtained high grades in Religion (and related courses) but they came to be no more that academic courses that I had to pass in order to get my diploma.

It is not surprising therefore, that when I went to college in a non-sectarian school, all these observances were mere meaningless ceremonies except for the threat of Hell. But even this threat became obscure as I enjoyed personal freedom in a non-religious campus and forgot all about them. This kind of life continued during my employment in the commerce and industry jungle where growth and profit are the gods; and I wallowed in the pleasures that came as perks for this “management savvy”. Happily, approaching 50, I had an experience with my Lord. I say my Lord because the experience was person-to-person and without doubt spiritual. The confirmation of this experience came the following years when without conscious effort on my part, I lost all my “vices”– volatile temper, being critical of others, taking shortcuts around laws,  and so on. In short I became one who tries his best to emulate the life of Jesus the Christ– a Christian.

I am fortunate because I had the experience that opened my eyes that led me to a search for truth that led to affirmation of my faith. But what about the hundreds of millions of “practical Catholics”– that is, people who are Christian for about 60 minutes each week, then return to their aggressive, highly competitive (unChristian) selves who jostle and push to get out of the church ahead of the others right after Mass? Among these are the people who, according to a song: “I go to Church on Sunday; the vows that I make, I break them on Monday; the rest of the week, I do as I please; then come Sunday morning, I pray on my knees.”

Understandably, a theory comes to mind: the number of “practical Catholics” would be minimal if affiliation with the Church were a result of conviction of persons at a mature age. After all, we may recall, Jesus was baptized when he was 30 years old. The same is true of St. Augustine; he was about 30 years old when he decided to be baptized as his first step to his religious life. If Church practice would be changed to provide discussion of faith until people reached age of maturity before administering the Sacrament of Baptism and at the initiative of the person to be baptized, then the Church would be composed of faithful members and may be aptly called “the faithful” who would practice Christian acts in the spirit Jesus wants them to be done, that is, out of love.

Perhaps this practice is based on the Pharisaic Law on circumcision which is based on Genesis as well as Leviticus that required everyone in the household including slaves to be circumcised on the eighth day after birth. But it should be noted that Jesus was circumcised on the day prescribed by the Law and baptized at age 30. And we can assume that His disciples were also baptized at a mature age. The Old Testament does not contain any direct mention of a baptism ritual; it started with John the Baptist. Jews of Jesus’ time went through both rituals so they are separate and it should be repeated here, it was circumcision that was required eight days after birth. And St. Paul showed that this was not required of Gentile converts. This leaves just the baptism when the converts accept the Faith and to lay emphasis on the thesis of this essay, acceptance of the faith is a deliberate, thought out conviction after examination of oneself. And to help people reach a state of conviction about the faith, the apostolate of both the lay and the clergy should be the handing down, by words and deeds, the teachings of Jesus (or whatever faith) to the generations after them. After all, this is what Jesus commanded us to do. In His words: “Go and make disciples of all nations… teaching them all that I have commanded

God and Mammon

Posted on by
Reply

imageBrowsing the net for bits and pieces of the history of the Christian Church, I noted one characteristic that struck me. It seems that from the time of Emperor Constantine to the present, the Church has constantly been in a struggle for political power. This clearly contravenes Jesus’ instructions to His disciples. (Matt 20:24-28; Luke 22:24-30; Mark 9:33-37)

Before Constantine’s time, followers of Christ were persecuted for refusing to honor the Roman gods. Constantine’s Edict of Milan “decriminalized” Christianism. Further, he favored Christians with financial support and appointments to high offices. (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_the_Great) This seems to have given Christian church leaders a taste of the forbidden fruit.

Jesus had many times admonished His disciples against wanting and exercising authority. We can only guess that He was actually warning His disciples against the seductiveness of authority or power over others. This conjecture seems to be supported by His statement, “Anyone who commits sin becomes a slave of sin.” (John 8:34)

The taste of power must have started to affect the leaders of the Christian Church so that they actively fought to hold on to these powers, even, by the looks of it, resorting to fraud. The Donatio Constantini (Donation of Constantine) allegedly a Roman Imperial Decree was used to support a Pope’s claim to political authority especially in the 13th century. Pope Leo IX (1049-1054) was the first to use this in an official act to claim authority over Constantinople all the way to excommunicating the church leaders eventually leading to the schism between Rome and the Eastern Church. In the mid-15th century, a Catholic priest, Lorenzo Valla, showed that this document was obviously a forgery, identifying its language to be 8th century (Emperor Constantine died in 337 AD). (https://www.britannica.com/topic/Donation-of-Constantine)

Power and money are so intimately linked they may well be seen as one. Thus it may be noted that the Catholic Church has been active in accumulating and holding on to wealth. Today, the Catholic Church is one of the richest institutions in the world- the richest among religious groups. Reporting Total Assets of more than €3.2 billion, it is generally seen as the richest religion in the world. It cannot deny that it had dealings with the Mafia and possibly other syndicates particularly in money laundering. Some members of the Curia have been discovered to have engaged in illegal activities, particularly in financial transactions.

Revenue earning activities are justified by Canons 1259-1272; and Can. 222 §1 obligates Christian faithful “… to assist with the needs of the Church so that the Church has what is necessary for divine worship, for the works of the apostolate and of charity, and for the decent support of ministers…”

All these have happened in the Catholic Church Hierarchy despite the clear warning from Jesus: “…For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also… No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon…” [Matt 6:21,24_] The warning is very clear: “Ye cannot serve God and Mammon.” If one places value on a material thing, his focus is lost. Yet we see (mentioned above) the Catholic Church’s abundant wealth and lapses into unorthodoxy in growing its wealth. We also the the Catholic Church incorporating into the Mass, the Offertory collection (not practiced in the first millennium masses as described by St Justin Martyr), a price list for the Sacraments, a required stipend for Mass and other rituals outside Oratorios, and so on. The Church also solicits donations for aid to victims of natural calamities instead of dipping into its coffers.

I suppose, as a song says, “I go to church on Sunday; the vows that I make, I break on Monday. The rest of the week, I do as I please. Come Sunday morning, I fall on my knees.” This is the type of “faithful” that the lives of present day apostles have bred.

Walk the Talk

Posted on by
Reply

There is an anecdote that goes: A young man knelt at the foot of the crucifix in his parish church and with head bowed, prayed and prayed, pleading for wealth to afford a good life. After a while, he looked up at the crucified Jesus who said, “My Son, you are very fortunate.” So the young man asked, “Really, Lord?” Jesus replied, “Verily, you are fortunate. It is your luck that my feet are nailed to the cross. If they were not, I would have kicked you in the face.”

But of course, this is just an anecdote. In Matt 5:43-48, Jesus says, “…Love your enemy…” Walking the talk, as soldiers were hammering nails through his arms and legs, He looked at them and said, “Father, forgive them…” As a matter of fact, He included all, even those in the crowd whom He had healed and were now crying for His head.

This is a huge problem today. People find it enjoyable to pontificate and yet commit the wrongs they rant about without giving it any thought. They don’t walk their talk. Many people, the noisy ones, are quick to judge others. Jesus did not pontificate, He taught people to love. He did not point at anyone to accuse him of a sin; He manifested love toward them.

When a young man asked Him what else is lacking and His answer saddened the man [Mark 10:17-22], He was also saddened, more than the young man, I imagine. At the man’s questions, He already knew that the young man would find himself unable to part with his worldly wealth, but He did not accuse the man. He did not say anything that would give rise to the question. But, the New Testament says, He looked at the young man with love. Probably, this look was also with compassion and sadness because he knew of the young man’s attachment to his wealth.

When a woman was caught in adultery, a capital crime in the Old Testament, He saved her and let her go saying, “Neither do I condemn thee: go and sin no more.” [John 8:11 KJV] When Pilate ordered his flogging after pronouncing Him innocent of any crime, He did not protest but accepted the unjust punishment. [John 18:38-19:3, NIV] After all, He had said, “Blessed are they who hunger for [i.e., are deprived of] justice…” We recall that Pilate, after declaring him innocent, ordered his flogging and He passively accepted it. When the people of a Samaritan town did not want Him to pass through on His way to Jerusalem, He took an alternative route.

Many more acts in His life show this. And the earliest Christians (although the appellation, “Christian”, was not yet used then) emulated His behavior. With support from the Holy Spirit, these Christians gave witness to Jesus, meaning, they lived according to Jesus’ teachings by word and by deed even to the point of martyrdom.

Accounts of earliest Christian life (primarily in the Acts of the Apostles) exhibits this. The disciples who committed themselves to the mission entrusted to the Apostles did not engage in any secular occupation. They devoted themselves exclusively to their mission (“…and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you…”) [Matt 28:20]. And in the Acts, they decided “…It would not be right for us to neglect the ministry of the word of God in order to wait on tables. Brothers and sisters, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn this responsibility over to them and will give our attention to prayer and the ministry of the word.” [Acts 6:2-4 NIV]. The community provided for them without being asked.

 

THE EARLY CHRISTIANS WALKED THE TALK!

The Christians in Acts decided to focus exclusively to “…give our attention to prayer and the ministry of the word” [Acts 6:4]. This follows the example of Jesus who fought every attempt to secularize His mission. Among the many instances Jesus manifested this, two may be recalled. The first– the most direct is when a young man asked Him to help to tell his brother to share the inheritance from their father. Jesus’ reaction was “…who made me a judge or a divider over you?…” [Luke 12:14 KJV] By world values, the request was not improper. Jesus was recognized as “Master” and “Rabbi”. The asking and what was asked for were both legitimate and logical. Why did He react this way? This would bring His ministry to the secular (worldly concerns) level. He did not want to act or say anything outside the perimeter of His transcendent mission.

This is also why, in the other incident (the wedding at Cana), He said to His mother, “…Jesus saith unto her, ‘Woman, what have I to do with thee?’…” [John 2:4 KJV] He had to remind His mother of the transcendence of His mission. He was saying, “If I perform a miracle for you, I will be doing it for a secular purpose- your concern for your relative (or neighbor).” So when He did transform water into first class wine, His mother would know He did it as part of His mission; He performed the miracle to manifest the power of God. The Catholic church now uses this as Jesus’ act of sanctifying marriage (which very well may be).

The Acts also recount that members of the community would sell their worldly belongings to support the ministry– voluntarily, not under any pressure. Peter pointed this out to Ananias saying, “…And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal?” [Acts 5:4 NIV]. (Incidentally, the sin of Ananias was he did not have to, but HE LIED. The donations should be acts of the heart, manifestations of love for Him and His people. They should not be done to gain Brownie points.)

The apostles lived like their Master lived (the “…Son of Man [who] has nowhere to lay His Head…” [Matt 8:20 NASB]). They depended on their friends- the disciples’ (followers’) charity. (There is today, a tendency to associate charity with almsgiving. We should be mindful of the fact that the word, charity, is derived from the Latin, caritas, which means LOVE.) This is echoed today by Pope Francis’ remarks to an audience of journalists when he said, “Oh, how I would like a poor Church, and for the poor.” [Huffington Post, March 16, 2013]

Jesus never pointed an accusing finger at any sinner. He felt sadness, grief, sympathy for them (“Woe to you…”; and “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing.” [Matt 23 NIV] And He did not ask His disciples to act against a recalcitrant sinner. His instruction: “…and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.” [Matt 18:17 NIV] What does this mean? St Paul gives clarification: “…not to keep company…” [1 Cor 9:11 KJV] In plain language, Jesus told us to STIR CLEAR OF THE RECALCITRANT SINNER, NO REACTION whether in act or words or any other form of expression. Incidentally, this is the true meaning of PASSIVE RESISTANCE; a “childlike reception” of events or conditions Jesus was referring to when He said, “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.” [Matt 18:3 NIV] St Paul’s epistles (letters) are indications that they were living this trait and teaching their disciples the value of living like this- no evil or malice attributed to fellow men, no anger, no rancor against anyone, automatic forgiveness as against being judgmental against others.

Imagine how peaceful and strife-free the world would be if present-day Apostles could successfully teach this to their disciples.

Life is not a Picnic

Posted on by
Reply

In his “Life of Christ” Bishop Fulton Sheen points out there are only two philosophies of life: (1) “…first the feast, then the hangover…” and (2) “…first the fast and then the feast.”

Indisputably, pain and pleasure co-exist; there cannot be pain if there is no pleasure. The pleasure of a mother holding her baby against her breast cannot happen if she does not experience the pain of delivering; the feeling of satisfaction cannot be felt if the artist does not spend days and nights of pain and anguish to complete a painting. The list can go on and on. We choose our path and must accept the consequences.

This is a principal topic of M. Scott Peck (The Road Less Traveled). He points out that most have a tendency to avoid the pain of facing problems. These people postpone hoping that the problem will eventually go away. Yet as he illustrates in one of his cases, his patient’s problem was solved by dealing with the problem first. He suggested that she spend her first hour of work to those items she did not like so she could spend the rest of her working hours on those she enjoyed. Her problem– her tendency to procrastinate– was solved. By delaying gratification– facing the pain first– she was able to experience of satisfaction and forget about the pain.

In contrast, parents who cannot defer the gratification of their children’s approbation by indulging them often find later that they reared juvenile delinquents or even criminals. This calls to mind a psychiatrist who became very popular, especially in Hollywood, for advocating a “do not touch” (i.e., do not subject children to physical or mental restraints) approach to rearing children. According to reports, his son died from OD (an overdose of prohibited drugs).

Jesus put it more forcefully. He said, “…For whoever wishes to save his life shall lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake, he is the one who will save it…” [Luke 9:24] and “…unless a grain of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone; but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit…” [John 12:24]. Giving up gratification– satisfaction of one’s appetites– will earn Eternal Life.

Even Buddhism holds that suffering is due to cravings so that suffering is avoided by relinquishing these appetites. [The four noble truths]

Yet today what we find a generation devoted entirely to the “pursuit of happiness.” Each country jealously guards its rights, its borders, its possessions. Members of the Nuclear (Weapons) Club resent and actively prevent other nations from developing their own nuclear weapons. The fly in the ointment? The concept of happiness has been taken to mean experience of pleasures– food, drink, sex, etc. Being able to obtain these requires power, and its twin brother, wealth. Hence, from the slums to the corridors of power, there is an unceasing, unrelenting struggle to acquire both. Acquisition or the attempt to acquire is considered a right provided it is performed within the law; and many even skirt the law. No wonder one cannot find a peaceful place or state. Systems of governance (democratic, autocratic, etc.) are crafted such that the just and righteous cannot be elected into or otherwise placed in the position leadership of government.

Can this situation be corrected? Yes, like pulling an elephant’s tooth. We should see that the set of values and attitudes that determines a person’s behavior is virtually uncontrolled. Why? Because the sense of right and wrong is formed in early childhood and embedded in the unconscious part of the mind. The collection becomes one’s paradigm and any attempt to change is judged by this paradigm is wrong and summarily rejected; and this is passed on to the succeeding generation. This explains the perceived lack of scruples when a Senator diverts public funds to his own. But actually, this is not a lack of scruples but a set of misdirected scruples. Instead of seeing something wrong with stealing public funds, he deems it inappropriate to allow an opportunity to pass by. When a wife engages in an extramarital affair, it is because she is entitled to seek satisfaction elsewhere when her husband fails to. When a nation sends its military troops to subjugate another nation it is because the other nation’s principles are wrong and a “threat to world peace”.

Shall we wait for the time “…When whirlwinds of rebellion shake all shores…” [Edwin Markham, “The Man with a Hoe”] Dare we hope for a revolution a metanoia, via a spread of the practice along the lines of Buddhism’s “Path of Enlightenment”?

Mission

Posted on by
Reply

A mission is either a task to accomplish a specified objective, or a group of persons sent to perform the task. The group of persons directed to perform a task is also referred to as a commission. In turn, commission also refers to a fee paid for completing a task, such as performing a service.

Why this exercise in semantics? The Catholic church sees its raison d’etre as a mission. Jesus commissioned them to “…teach them all that I have commanded you…“ The clause, “…all that I have commanded you…“ deserves careful attention.

Jesus laid down the characteristics of His mission in two events: (1) as a 12-year-old Boy when He said, “How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father’s business?” (King James Bible); and (2) when He delivered His Sermon on the Mount.

Later translations changed “about my Father’s business” to “in My Father’s house“. The former is more specific; He was on earth on His Father’s business, namely, salvation of man. This is why He left His parents without notice. His mission is His Father’s business; it is transcendent. It overarches all human considerations. He was consistent in this. He fought against every temptation to drag Him into earthly affairs, the first of which is when He said the Satan, “Man does not live by bread alone…” He was to demonstrate this very clearly when someone asked him, “Teacher, tell my brother to divide the family inheritance with me.” [Luke 12:13, King James Bible] Refusing to be involved in a totally secular matter, He replied, “Man, who made me a judge or a divider over you?” Other proclamations of this required focus include: “Let the dead bury their dead: but go thou and preach the kingdom of God.” [Luke 9:60, KJV] and “No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.” [Luke 9:62, KJV] And the first Apostles, close up and personal with Jesus so they knew what He wanted, agreed among themselves saying, “It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables. Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word.” The instructions of our Lord are clear: No human distractions such as worrying about food or clothes. Just bring the Good News (Gospel) to the world. Implied in this is the need for complete trust (faith) in Him.

The beatitudes, we now call Sermon on the Mount proclaims the essence of being Christian: poor, meek, hungry for righteousness, merciful, and so on. In a way, He has described this bundle of virtues in the words “…become like little children…” [Matt 18:3], and “…the Son of Man hath nowhere to lay His Head…” [Matt 8:20]; simple, innocent, even naïve perhaps. Disciples do not seek worldly comforts and luxuries; they “turn the other cheek” instead of retaliating, forgive others without end, they do not give themselves to frivolous merry-making; they gladly accept being scorned and reviled because of faith. They aspire for either wealth or poverty, health or illness; they let the Lord decide what they should be or have.

These characteristics define the character of His mission. His two-fold mission: to teach and to save mankind, to teach us how to behave in this world and to redeem us from the banishment God imposed for man’s sin.

His way of teaching was by way of discourse as well as, more importantly, walking the talk. The first disciples became disciples after responding to His invitation, “Come and see.” [John 1:39] He lived according to His teaching. When Pilate said ordered Him flogged after declaring “…I find no guilt in Him…” He meekly accepted; He did not object or react in any way. Incidentally, He even acknowledged Pilate’s authority with the words: “Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above…” [John 19:11] and the power referred to is the authority to order execution of the Jews including Jesus.

It will be well for people on missions‒ missionaries or commissions‒ to use Jesus as model. Firstly, focus is all-important. Attention to anything outside of a mission will distract the missionary and derail the mission. A second point is virtue of “meekness” in the sense of being gentle, not militant, not aggressive. Someone on a mission makes himself inutile when he becomes noticed; the widespread attention derails his mission and/or he becomes ineffectual because being identified, he is easily neutralized.

As for the Christian (Catholic or other) clergy, this is a must. Jesus gave them this instruction‒ “…teaching them all that I have commanded you…” and “…you will be my witnesses…” In contemporary terms, “Photocopy Me…” and impliedly, “…do not Photoshop Me…” In simple words, tell them what I told you, tell them how I lived.

The 4th Estate

Posted on by
Reply

Edmund Burke is credited with the earliest use of the term as reported by Thomas Carlyle who stated in Parliamentary debates that there were “…Three Estates in Parliament; but, in the Reporters’ Gallery yonder, there sat a Fourth Estate more important far than they all…”

Later, Oscar Wilde is reported to have written:

In old days men had the rack. Now they have the Press. That is an improvement certainly. But still it is very bad, and wrong, and demoralizing. Somebody — was it Burke? — called journalism the fourth estate. That was true at the time no doubt. But at the present moment it is the only estate. It has eaten up the other three. The Lords Temporal say nothing, the Lords Spiritual have nothing to say, and the House of Commons has nothing to say and says it. We are dominated by Journalism.

Today, we see this everyday: news reporters, anchors, commentators, analysts tell the duly elected public officials what they should do, how they should do it, when and where they should do it; and if the public official does not, he/she is painted as incompetent and ignorant; even worse, at times, these public officials are made to look evil and monstrous. Sadly, more often than not, this monstrous journalism “…sells copy…” A large portion of the public eat their statements as authoritative and true and many even join their chorus.

Is this democracy or is it democrazy? As a student- from grade school to graduate school- I was led to understand that democracy is allowing the will of the majority to prevail. But in “democratic” societies of today, this concept has been turned on its head. A tiny minority who invoke “freedom of speech” to trample on the rights of the silent majority, is allowed to tyrannize the majority who in keeping with the principles of democracy allow duly elected public officials to do their work as they promised.

Worse, the power of the fourth estate has been used to bring down foreign- yes, FOREIGN- legally installed governments. This was done in Iraq and Libya and looks to be ongoing in Syria and other parts of the world including small nations like the Philippines. Concepts like blaming Afghanistan for the 711 event so Iraq had to be  bombed Iraq Saddam Hussein made to answer for it, were made palatable using the “power of the press.”

A case of the “Tyranny of the Minority”?