What made him a hero? His techy self-protective attire that provided the needed anonymity and multi-million dollar equipment that sustained his awareness of the goings on in a city of rogues? The gliding properties of his uniform and his formidable physical prowess that dented the most threatening of rifles?

It is believed that his inner demons were the things that drove him into the streets and dark alleys in search of justice for those he perceived to be oppressed. The demons that taunted him within brought the very pain that propelled him into a righteous anger at the evil plaguing the city called Gotham.

He was a hero to many. People were more than happy for him to flout the county laws in order to clean the streets of Gotham from the heinous behaviours of criminal offenders. People never quite knew what exactly he was, let alone who he was. But his cause promoted him into a position of honour in public eye.

Until the archenemy, the Joker man, started killing people in pursuit of him.

Overnight, when it was their turn to lose their lives for the hero they loved, Batman became a villain. Joker wasn't wrong when he told Batman, "Don't talk about them [the public] as if you're one of them. To them, you're just a freak, like me."

Who knew better the state of the human heart?

Those seeking to be heroes because they think they can make the world a better place, or because they have unquenched anger within, or because they believe that humanity is fundamentally good and grateful for good things, are eventually bound to find themselves in a state of deep sadness; profound disappointment in what they thought to be a good human race.

Within everyone of us, there is a Joker. And that was what the Joker sought to prove. He wasn't after wealth. He was out to demonstrate this philosophy: "I'm horrid. But you're no better. The only difference is, I'm not pretending."

Posted by SK at 1:44 PM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

Nobody meme-d me; I'm meme-ing myself. And after this, I shall probably meme two or three other people because I'd really like to know how they'd respond to this meme. This is the meme:

10 things / people / events that I think are elegant:

1. Libera

2. The Roman Catholic Mass

3. Academic regalia

4. Monastic life

5. Literature

6. British English

7. The Holy Father Benedict XVI

8. Traditional attires

9. The human intellect

10. The concept of elegance

I tag the following:

1. Doulos

2. Judson

3. Winsome One

4. Wilful sunflower

5. Blogpastor

Posted by SK at 8:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

The following article is interesting:
"Clodovis and Leonardo Boff, Separated Brethren"

My brief response to the article:

I absolutely agree with Clodovis Boff that a fundamental flaw in Latin Liberation Theology is found in its reduction of Theology from one of divine revelation to a socio-economic reality as its starting premise. I think that when theological thinking is based on a human need/concern rather than on how God has revealed Himself, it leads to eventual bankruptcy even if it may seem to provide some "solutions" for the human condition in the shorter term.

Ultimately, all theology must begin with God's revelation of Himself as its starting premise. But this does not mean that theology will remain separated from the human condition. There will always be a point at which God - in His revelation - shows Himself to be One Who meets the human predicament. It is at this point that theology becomes truly liberating. It may not be liberation theology, but it will be nevertheless liberating.

If you notice a trend (which is present even here in Malaysia), many liberationists who engage in activism on behalf of the marginalised and the poor invariably seem to find themselves functioning apart from the Church. In their identification with the plight of the marginalised, they come up against the Church and accuse the Church of not standing with the marginalised. Very often, the comment that I hear is, "The Church is not doing anything, so we have to do something about it". What they usually means by this statement is that the Church is not addressing the problem in the way they think the Church should. This anti-ecclesial statement is not only untrue, but also goes against the very nature of the Church. The Christ Who instituted the Church and Who is the Head of the Body is the Christ for the poor and of the poor. As long as we remember the nature of the Church in Christ, we will not detract from this concern for the plight of the marginalised.

But there are two realities we must reckon with as well:

1) No matter how hard we work to alleviate poverty, we will always have the poor among us. Even Jesus Himself said this.

2) We can never help the marginalised perfectly. Our efforts will always fall short of perfection while we are on this side of heaven.

Whilst liberationists think that their revolutionary efforts would more effectively serve the betterment of humankind, poverty still remains a global reality and a vast many poor still remains beyond their reach. And worse still, such a brand of liberation has rendered the Church beyond the reach of the poor by attempting to serve Christ but condemning the Church, His Body.

The Church, we must always remember, is more than a mere sociological reality. We are a divine reality. Poverty came about because humankind fell away from God. There is a greater healing that humankind needs beyond economic healing (even though economic healing does constitute a part of this holistic healing). To seek economic healing alone without the means for holistic healing which God has given to humankind through His Church is to shortchange our neighbours.

Posted by SK at 10:19 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

For those of you way down south from where I am, I'll be giving a talk at the Department of Sociology (Faculty of Arts & Social Sciences) of the National University of Singapore (NUS).

The talk will be held in November, and the topic will be on "A Critique of Modernity in Singapore from a Christian Perspective".

More details will be given nearer to the event.

Posted by SK at 12:55 AM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

I was sternly reminded about this through someone’s life story tonight: we shouldn’t assume that those whom we have treated kindly will never harm us.

It really doesn’t take much for “a friend who was once in need” (who was supposed to have been a friend indeed) to turn against us regardless of what we have done for him.

This person who shared this story had learned it the hard way. He had once saved someone - a friend and business partner - from committing suicide. And when you’ve saved someone’s life, you’d expect the person to be eternally grateful and to never have the heart to harm you, right?

Wrong.

The “friend” had swindled him of a million ringgit. And that was just several days after he had saved him from taking his own life.

The world is not as simple as it sometimes seems. And people don’t always behave the way you expect them to, even if you think they owe it to you to behave well and be like the good human person you are.

Be as innocent as doves. Never stop doing good unto others. Never give up on kindness just because your goodness is returned with cruelty and betrayal. Keep on loving even if it puts you in a very vulnerable situation. And even if you are betrayed and your dignity is compromised, keep on being good anyway.

But be as shrewd as serpents. Be good, but do not assume that everyone else around you is as good as you are. You can help them save their lives, but they will trade you in for something as valueless as their own reputations. They may promise you their loyalty and faithfulness while you’re still of good use to them and serve their happiness; but for the same happiness, they will break all the promises that they’ve ever made to you. To expect their conscience to keep leading them to walk in faithfulness of friendship is to be foolish.

Judas sold Jesus for 30 pieces of silver, the price of a common slave. How much do you think you’d be worth to a friend who wanted to sell you out?

Posted by SK at 10:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

"It is terrible to contemplate how few politicians are hanged."

-- G.K. Chesterton --

Posted by SK at 12:05 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Thinkativity :

A wise old sage told me today: Nobody's perfect; a person can't have both intelligence and good looks at the same time. HAHAH!

Posted by SK at 11:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

On 4 July 2008, a seminar entitled An Islamic Perspective on the Commitment to Inter-Religious Dialogue organised by the International Institute of Advanced Islamic Studies, was held in the premises of the Institute of Strategic and International Studies (ISIS) in Kuala Lumpur. Fr Michael Chua and Br Sherman Kuek of the Kuala Lumpur Archdiocesan Ministry of Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs (AMEIA) were invited participants.

The distinguished scholar invited to be the presenter in the seminar was Dr Syed Farid Alatas, Associate Professor of Sociology in the National University of Singapore.

Dr Farid aptly began by noting the importance of dialogue for national integration and racial harmony. In other words, dialogue was a non-negotiable. He expressed a concern that dialogue had thus far been relegated to the mere exchange of theological ideas among scholars rather than being embodied as a joint effort to solve very practical issues facing a multi-racial society.

Using a host of historical examples, Dr Farid elaborated his insightful observation that the positive elements of modern civilisation found their roots in multi-cultural - and to be more precise, inter-religious - encounters. Such encounters were, in his assessment, focused on understanding and appreciating rather than converting “the other”.

At a very practical level, Dr Farid expressed his view that for such inter-religious encounters to take place authentically within Malaysia, the manner in which education took place had to be revised. The present education system, particularly its contents, caused polarisation more than giving rise to healthy dialogue. Since the way subjects were taught should propagate respect for various cultures, Dr Farid suggested that textbook contents should be changed. Should this effort be undertaken with utmost seriousness, he was quite confident that the next generation of people would be inherently dialogical in their view of inter-religious interactions.

The presenter was extremely and eloquently forthcoming with his views regarding the state of inter-religious dialogue in Malaysia. He commented that if real dialogue was actually taking place in Malaysia, the Muslims would be upholding the rights of Christians to, for example, erect crosses on their religious buildings instead of feeling threatened by such religious expressions. He emphatically stated that Muslims had a duty to help persons of other religions to solve their problems at a very practical level.

Listening to Dr Farid’s exposition on inter-religious dialogue from an Islamic perspective was extremely refreshing and hopeful. It is our hope that more Muslim scholars like him will rise up to reflect the spirit of Islam for what it really is - a religion of love and compassion.

Posted by SK at 10:27 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

I was contemplating going to the movies last night, but eventually decided that watching the midnight news would be more entertaining.

I mean, which movie in town would incorporate plots of a politician being accused of sodomising a good-looking university drop-out with another being accused of involvement in the blowing up of a beautiful young foreign woman over a submarine deal? And of course, surrounding that intrigue are also less major plots like private investigators proudly making statutory declarations but timidly retracting them within 24 hours and a retired prime minister yelling his throat out about the way he thinks things should be whilst nobody bothers to listen.

Could Hancock or the friendly green monster (The Incredible Hulk) be more engaging than this? No way. Reading the daily newspapers in Malaysia now is akin to treating one's self to a fifty-ringgit John Grisham novel from the nearest Borders Bookstore.

Most of my friends would find me quiet about such current affairs. I am quiet because I choose to be. But it by no means indicates that I am apathetic about what is happening. What it does indicate is that whilst the Malaysian populace is analysing and interpreting these events in one way, these affairs are provoking my mind to think in another way. It is provoking a spirit of self-critique in me.

So whilst I entreat myself to this Malaysian panorama, I'm also asking myself (in the same breath) if politics in many Christian circles that I know is different from the kind of saga we're witnessing in the larger political scheme (pun not intended) of the country. Plots, schemes, self-centredness, every person guarding his own arse at the expense of others - never seen that in high-level ecclesial politics? Look closer.

Posted by SK at 10:07 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Thinkativity :

I was speaking at an inter-religious event last night. The lady who introduced me to the crowd was reading from a script prepared in Braille, because she was visually impaired. By golly, the way she read the words with the tip of her fingers was amazing.

Posted by SK at 11:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

5. You have a particular concern for the youth in the Church. Can you describe your concern in some detail, and explain what you intend to do about it?

Technically, our Archdiocese defines “youth” as falling within the margins of ages 19 and 35, so I am extremely concerned for the development of our young falling within this category.

At the same time, there is also a host of young people preceding this age group in the catechetical classes. And most often, there is hardly a sense of continuity in their ecclesial life once the post-confirmation classes end. This is why we see many of them embodying a sense of “disconnectedness” with the Church once that catechetical phase is over, and some even dropping out of the Church all together.

To begin with, what do I not intend to do – I do not intend to develop a youth ministry that attempts to mimic other youth ministries which may seem very actively engaged in what they call “youth culture” and attracting crowds of young people.

In the understanding of the Church, the Church itself is a culture, over and beyond any other cultures present in our world. Whilst the two dimensions interact with each other in differing degrees and intensity, there are certain aspects of our Church culture which must be cultivated into the “spiritual DNA” of our young people.

In saying this, I am particularly referring to the liturgical life of the Church.

The liturgy is the greatest act of the Church. I desire to see the young people finding themselves so much a part of the liturgical life of the community that it becomes the nucleus of their life journey for the rest of their spiritual pilgrimage on earth.

I am hoping that we can work towards seeing them so assimilated into the liturgical life of the Church by the time of their confirmation that they would no longer see the termination of their catechetical classes as an “end”, but rather, the beginning of a vibrant life with the wider parish community in service to God and neighbour.

The Eucharist is mission; just as the Body of our Lord is given to us for our nourishment, there is also subsequently the sending out so that we too – like broken bread – might be sent out to be the sacramental presence of Christ in the world. I desire that this be a way of life for the youth of our Church.

If we can somehow journey with them towards this understanding and way of life, perhaps issues of being like other more “influential” youth ministries would not be of great concern. To this end, as far as concerns the young people, my goal is to cultivate a community of youth which knows its identity, each individual knowing who he/she is in the Christ who gave the Apostle Peter the mandate for the establishment of the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church.

--- End of Interview ---

Posted by SK at 12:17 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

4. Does this intensifying difficulty in the ecumenical efforts of the Church worry you?

What is more worrying to me is how a number of Catholics are taking on certain characteristics of these new forms of Protestant communities, wanting to mimic the way they worship and the way they regulate their ecclesial life. It is starkly a problem of deficient understanding pertaining to their own Catholic identity.

The liturgical life of the church is the nucleus of our Christian life, and we must be unmistakably clear about that. Nothing should erode the central feature of the liturgy and the Eucharist as the source and summit of our life and mission as a people of God. It is when we have forgotten this gift of God to us that we begin to seek other seemingly fascinating replacements to bring “excitement” and “meaning” back into our ecclesial life all in the name of relevance. It is deeply saddening and a grave cause for concern.

One important requisite of our ecumenical effort is that of standing firm in our Catholic identity. Any attempt to erode our Catholic identity for the sake of unity would merely lead to a false union. An authentic union is possible only when there is a true agreement of our code, creed, and cult. One thing we must never pander to is upholding unity at the expense of truth.

Further to that, I believe that true ecumenism finds its richness only when various partners enter into a conversation being able to freely embody their unique identities without having to suppress or erode them, and still being able to call one another “friends”.

Posted by SK at 12:33 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

2. Why the Catholic Church? Wouldn't Orthodoxy have been a possible alternative?

Undoubtedly, the Orthodox Church is a possible alternative to my Protestant faith rather than the Catholic Church. I do not deny that this was one of the alternatives that presented itself before me, given that I do have a fascination with Eastern theology.

However, I had three reasons for choosing to become Catholic:

i) my thorough belief in the doctrine of original sin as taught by St Augustine, which is absent in Eastern theology;

ii) my thorough belief in the primacy of the Petrine ministry exercised by the Catholic Church; and

iii) my deep agreement with the catholicity / universality of the Catholic Church as opposed to the ethnic-specific configuration of the Orthodox Churches with which I could not identify.

3. There are so many denominational churches today in Malaysia (and more are forming). Would you comment on this growing trend to “form a new church”? While we strive towards ecumenical closeness, there is a lot more ground to cover with this mushrooming.

The Protestant communities consist of some 40,000 denominations worldwide and continue to grow in that direction. One major development in these Reformation-based communities in the recent decades is the swift emergence of independent congregations which do not place themselves under the leadership of any denominational structure. They often see the historical denominations as a thing of the past, whereas the Holy Spirit is developing a “new wineskin” now in the form of independent ecclesial communities.

It is true that the growth of these newer forms of Christian communities poses a greater challenge to the ecumenical priority of the Catholic Church. But to begin with, the current ethos of Protestantism itself already makes the ecumenical priority difficult enough.

To cite a case in point, the Catholic Church reached a consensus in 1999 with the Lutheran World Federation on the doctrine of Justification by Faith. To be sure, this consensus represented an agreement on the part of the Catholic Church. But how binding was it upon all the Lutheran denominations around the globe? There was not an embrace of that consensus in unison as far as concerns the Lutheran denominations, let alone on the part of other denominations which are offshoots of Lutheran Protestantism.

What I am saying is, this is not a new problem; it is an intensification of an old problem.

Posted by SK at 12:46 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)