The grass is always greener on the other side.

The married man says, "How nice it would be if I could be single like my bachelor friends, to be free of bothersome obligations towards my wife and children". The bachelor says to himself, "How great life would be if only I had a family to be with when I return from work each day and loneliness is wiped away forever".

The poor man looks across the road and says to himself, "If only that house belonged to me and I could be rich like that man, and I wouldn't have to strive so hard to make ends meet". The rich man looks through his window across to the poor man's simple hut and says, "Lucky man, his cost of maintenance is so low he doesn't have to worry much about survival".

Much of our discontentment in life and lack of gratitude stem from myths we entertain about other people's lives. We often think that other people somehow have it better, that perhaps their lives are better than ours, that the gravity of their problems is somewhat significantly lighter than ours. We think that if we had their lives, or perhaps that if we could swap our disabilities with theirs, life would have been much better.

I have met and spoken with enough people to realise by now that everyone is confronted by very personal problems in life. And no matter how small we may think their problems are, everyone thinks his problem is huge. Just like we too think our problems are humungous.

Our liberation comes when we realise that each is apportioned his lot in life, and that we are all called to carry our crosses. For a cross to constitute a cross, it has to be proportionately large to the bearer. Otherwise, it wouldn't truly be a life trial, and therefore, hardly a cross at all.

Too often, we try to separate ourselves away from our crosses like Peter Pan's repeated attempts to separate himself from his shadow. But true liberation comes when we embrace our own shadows and do the best we can to live with them.

Our life project isn't so much about killing our shadows or solving problems that may be unsolvable. It is probably more about befriending our shadow and integrating it as a part of our life identity. It is also about nurturing the shadow so that it becomes a source of strength for us rather than the source of our downfall.

Carrying our crosses calls for a very special skill, that is, the skill of self-mastery. And all of our lives are a process of cultivating self-mastery, beginning with an awareness of one's own inclinations, intentions, and motivations. When one masters the self, the shadow becomes a friend and no longer a foe.

Contrary to what we may think, we are not the only broken people in the world. If we cared to listen to stories that people may tell about themselves, we would come to realise that people are generally wounded, because we're all born into a wounded world. But in befriending our shadows, our wounds can become sources of healing to ourselves and to others.

Posted by SK at 9:08 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Thinkativity :

There are times when some truths of faith are enveloped in great obscurity. It is then that faith is purified and, in time, is deepened.

Posted by SK at 5:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Church Fathers Speak on the Economic Crisis

Sherman Kuek, SFO
Published in Catholic Asian News
(May 2009 Issue)

As Asians, one of our reference points in moments of crises is our forefathers. When Asian individuals and families are faced with crises and crucial decisions to be made, we are often told to turn to the wisdom imparted by our ancestors. This is perhaps exactly what we should do as we contemplate on the present economic situation confronting us and the rest of the world; we should turn to our ancestors in the faith, our Church Fathers. They certainly have a thing or two to teach us about economics and wealth.

In the face of present economic and financial crises plaguing the world, it is in order that we should examine what has been wrong with the economic system in the first place. Much finger pointing has been taking place, particularly among those blaming America for its implementation of financial systems that permitted for banks to grant unsafe loans since the 1980s.

This is not an economic article that assesses market mechanisms. It is a theological article that examines the human attitudes underlying those market mechanisms. Taken from that perspective, truth be told, a vast many of us might have been guilty collaborators in the success and the subsequent breakdown of these mechanisms.

The problem lies in society’s attitudes towards wealth and possessions. And this is by no means a new problem; just exploring some of the homilies preached by the Church Fathers in the third and fourth centuries would clearly point to the existence of this age-old human disease called “greed”.

THE TWOFOLD ECONOMIC CRIME
Humanity in the developed world as a whole has been guilty of a twofold economic crime: firstly, the obsession with abundance of private possession, and secondly, an obsession to the extent of an indifference towards the economic needs of our deprived neighbours.

This has been precisely the value undergirding the world economic system of the modern era, which propels the excessive drive for ever increasing profits without ethical controls. As a result, two thirds of the world population has lived in relative poverty as the wealth of the other third has kept on increasing.

Much of the suffering in the world today can find its roots in this reality which take a tremendous amount of honesty to acknowledge.

We (even well-meaning Christians) have often failed to distinguish between “wealth” and “riches”, and have misperceived these two terms as synonyms when they should actually be opposites. “Wealth”, referring to the creation of wealth, is to be seen as an activity sanctioned and blessed by God, whilst “riches” refers to the selfish amassing of commodities which results in shortage and the deprivation of others’ needs.

It is important that we understand the Christian calling to create wealth as a fruit of one’s labour, for this is an ordained means of one’s participation in God’s continuous creating acts for the betterment of creation itself. However, the creation and amassing of wealth at the expense of others is another matter all together. Unfortunately, such thoughts are often beyond the scope of our contemplation in our efforts for wealth creation.

As we return to the wisdom of our Fathers in the faith, we would perhaps be able to glean some crucial economic principles with the hope that it can aid an economic recovery for us (even if only a minor one).

THE CHURCH FATHERS ON ECONOMICS
St Augustine distinguishes between the “use” (usus) and the “enjoyment” (fruitio) of material wealth. Such finite commodities are to be merely instrumentalised for the service of God’s greater purpose. His concern seems to stem from the human inclination to possess these things for temporal and obsessive pleasure.

St Ambrose teaches: “Not from your own do you bestow upon the poor man, but you make return from what is his”. Basil of Caesarea is recorded to have emphatically asserted that the hoarding of wealth at the expense of one’s neighbour is to commit a wrong towards him.

St John Chrysostom also speaks of the failure to share one’s possessions as “theft and swindle and defraudation”. He reminds his listeners, “I beg you remember this without fail, that not to share our own wealth with the poor is theft from the poor and deprivation of their means of life; we do not possess our own wealth but theirs”.

It is apparent from these instances that the tradition of the Church warns the wealthier Christians to be mindful of the plight of the poor. The failure of these Christians to provide for the sustenance of the poor constitutes a moral injury. Their ventures for wealth creation at the expense of those who had no ability to create wealth were construed as oppression.

It is this line of thought that is perpetuated by St Thomas Aquinas, as he seemingly reiterates the principle that each human person has an implicit or innate right to a means of sustenance, and that it is the rightful duty of those who possess excess wealth to provide a way of access for the poor. (In fact, according to Aquinas, in the case of a failure on the part of the wealthy to execute such provisions, the deprived are permitted the privilege of secretly or forcefully taking what is rightfully theirs!)

In accordance with this, the provision of wealth to the poor by the wealthy is not to be seen as a gift, but rather, a moral duty. Aquinas also emphatically prescribes the use of material wealth for the meeting of one’s most fundamental needs in life such that one is able to reasonably subsist. The breach of such prescribed moderation would render a human person beastlike.

Apparent, the Christian tradition upholds the virtue of temperance and the employment of one’s abundance for the welfare of the needy. It is precisely at this point that the peril of a modern economic culture has been found endangering to the spirit of the Christian faith.

Market players, Christians and non-Christians alike, have indulged themselves in the amassment of wealth with little or absolutely no regard for the wellbeing of the larger society. In most economic activity, the welfare of the neighbour has ranked last in our list of priorities. The present crisis is the resulting consequence of such attitudes.

THE WISDOM OF THE FATHERS FOR TODAY
Where do we go from here? This article has been deliberately focused on the wisdom of the Church Fathers with the hope of demonstrating that economic problems suffered by Christians and the larger society are an age-old phenomenon. But further to that, if there is anything that the Church Fathers offer affluent Christians like us who are caught in the modern economic rut, it is anything but a gentle word of comfort. In many ways, they would come across as saying, “It’s a good time to repent”.

For a fourth-century church leader like St John Chrysostom, the Christian community’s responsibility towards the poor is not dissipated and its conscience not free for as long as there exist the poor in the world. For far too long, we have ignored the economic wellbeing of the larger humanity, often justifying this nonchalance through our occasional Lenten almsgiving.

Chrysostom’s agony stems from the inequitable distribution of resources within his society. For him, such unjust distribution is the inevitable ramification of economic injustice, which in turn is the result of the very existence of the concept of privately owned wealth and luxury. Therefore, this leads Chrysostom to conclude that the categorical existence of “private property” is the source of social and economic evil.

Goods, he asserts, are placed alongside the human existence as a way of testing the human capacity to exercise stewardship with the poor in mind. However, people have become consumed by their love for such goods and degenerated into overt material obsession, hence a perverted economic system for illusory wealth creation.

Chrysostom also speaks of an idolatry which surpasses the abomination of pagan idolatry. Idol worship, according to Chrysostom, means worshipping something which God created. This he distinguishes from the idolatry of covetousness in that the latter pertains to the worship of something of one’s own creation, i.e. the voracious propensity towards acquisition. The latter of the two is considered a more hideous form of idolatry. As such, Chrysostom makes it his project to safeguard the wealthy from an obsessive concern over their possessions.

The only properties that are legitimate, as far as he is concerned, are those things that are required for one’s daily survival. These do not include exaggerated accesses and luxuries we do not need. Isn’t it true that people most usually face economic crises from trying to acquire luxuries rather than from trying to meet their simple subsistence needs?

The solution out of the present economic crisis is quite obvious, if only people would be willing to abide by the law of love and charity. Maybe the Christians should start first.

Posted by SK at 7:08 PM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

Today my family and I grieve very deeply over the departure of a very great friend. Anthony Yeo passed away yesterday.

To many, he was an iconic figure for mental / emotional healthcare, an expert in counselling and the Father of Counselling in Singapore. For me, he was much more than that. He was my lecturer for three years in seminary and my counsellor for almost six years.

One of his favourite topics of discussion in class was death. One of the first assignments he gave us at seminary was that of preparing the order of service for our own funeral. In explaining why this preparation was necessary, he said, "Life is a preparation for death".

He has crossed the threshold very gracefully. I'm extremely saddened by his unexpected departure. And I'm thankful that he rests peacefully in the loving arms of Jesus. For eternity.

Few people have inspired me so much. Anthony did. He was no icon; he was my friend.

Posted by SK at 11:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBacks (0)

Wow, never had so many people giving me birthday wishes before in my life. In previous years, my birthdays had been so silent I often remembered my birthday only a few days after it had passed - that's how silent they were! Thanks, everyone, for wishing me godspeed as I grow several more wrinkles.

In response, here's a song of gratitude and petition to the Holy Mother of God to lead us in our journey of devotion towards her Son with her as our example par excellence:

Posted by SK at 11:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Thinkativity :

I'm 33 today.

Posted by SK at 10:27 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Is the Church Political?

Sherman Kuek, SFO
Published in Catholic Asian News
(April 2009 Issue)

CHURCH AND POLITICS
Contrary to the notion among certain segments of society that the Church should “go back to the sacristy”, Christian believers are becoming increasingly aware that they are very much the Church in the world. In an address in July 2008, the Holy Father Benedict XVI spoke of the need for “evangelising the world of work, the economy, politics, which requires a new generation of committed Christian laypeople capable of seeking with competency and moral rigour solutions of sustainable development”. This was no new teaching, for it was a mere resonant echo of Vatican II’s Apostolicam Actuositatem (Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity, 1965, point 5):

Christ's redemptive work, while essentially concerned with the salvation of men, includes also the renewal of the whole temporal order. Hence the mission of the Church is not only to bring the message and grace of Christ to men but also to penetrate and perfect the temporal order with the spirit of the Gospel.

In this light, the Church undoubtedly needs to be involved in politics in order that her voice finds adequate representation in temporal affairs. Her political participation purposes to uphold divine justice, honesty and defence of true and authentic values like the safeguarding of human life, marriage and the family. Political isolation is not an option for the body of Christ-followers who desire the coming of the Kingdom of God and who consistently pray that the will of God be done on earth as it is in heaven. Where Christian presence is too negligible in the political sphere, insufficient influence will be exercised over the state of secular affairs. For this reason, Pope John Paul II was unflinching in his assertion that political participation was a key for the evangelisation of society.

What has been said so far hopefully mitigates misconceptions that the Church is dispassionate about political participation. It seeks “the renewal of society in all its strata through the interplay of the Gospel truths and man’s concrete total life” (Quoted from the Canon Law Society of the Philippines). It is thus evident that the Church does not want to restrict its influence to the sphere of private morality and only within churches; it is not meant to do so.

However, the discussion needs to be brought further than this. The Church is not just concerned for the importance of political participation, but also in the manner of this participation.

The political participation of each particular person goes back to the issue of vocation. Beyond the common priesthood of all believers, it is for each believer to discern together with the Church his/her calling to specific vocations. Some find themselves being called to the ministerial priesthood, others to the religious life, and yet others are called to fulfil the mission of the Church in the world as lay people embodying the secular way of life.

LAITY AND POLITICS
When we speak of the involvement of the Church in politics, we are referring first of all to the laity, that portion of the Church which constitutes more than 99 percent of its membership. It is through the laity that the Church finds its most direct involvement in the political sphere.

For those who have chosen the secular life, by virtue of their being laity, it is their specific and proper role to “become actively engaged in their responsibilities in the professional, social, cultural and political world” (Christifideles Laici, 1988, point 2). Such laity are primarily called to be agents of change in the world; this is a responsibility proper to their role in the light of their baptismal vows. They are to bring Christ and His Church to places and circumstances where only they can go, and make fruitful vineyards where only they can labour: in their families, workplaces and communities, and in political affairs (Ad Gentes Divinitus, 1965, point 21; Apostolicam Actuositatem, 1965, point 14).

While most remain ordinary citizens endowed with certain rights common to all members of society, some laity eventually move on to enter the realm of politics as politicians. Laity should, if it is their discerned vocation (within their already established vocation as laity), concede to take on leadership positions in society in order that the temporal affairs may be directed towards the will of God. As politicians, they would naturally have to be aligned to specific political parties, according to how they think the common good can be best upheld. But most importantly, they should be people of integrity who seek to contribute to the achievement of good governance. They are to act in accordance with the mind of the Church, for it is the common faith of the Church that should guide and shape their conscience as officeholders.

As members of society, laity are to practise their rights as citizens by upholding freedom and the common good of all, which should be the political goal of all Catholics. Since they profess the Catholic faith, their political choices should be assessed in the light of the faith. The moral teachings of the Church are the standards by which the values and conscience of both officeholder and voter should abide. This would (or should) include Catholic principles such as compassion, justice and charity that would serve as guidelines on issues like taxes, education, foreign policy and immigration reform, among others.

The laity have a rightful duty to strive to be heard in the public square. It is their duty to ensure that the moral teachings of the Church are publicly advocated in such a way that they can conscientise, inform law and public policy, and not be artificially confined to the private domain of personal belief.

In their patriotism and in their fidelity to their civic duties Catholics will feel themselves bound to promote the true common good; they will make the weight of their convictions so influential that as a result civil authority will be justly exercised and laws will accord with the moral precepts and the common good...

Apostolicam Actuositatem, 1965, point 14

The laity should work along with ecclesiastical hierarchy and turn to the clergy for “guidance and spiritual strength” (Gaudium et Spes, 1965, point 43). They should not, however, expect ready answers from the hierarchy for every social and political problem, for finding such solutions is the practical responsibility of the laity guided by the wisdom of the Church.

In certain instances where public authority becomes oppressive, Catholics are bound to obey the laws of the state insofar as they do not contradict divine law. But no parliament, legislature and court has the authority to defy divine commandments or to command obedience to laws and regulations that are contrary to the natural moral law. Whenever such an abuse of authority occurs in the political system of a nation, its Catholics must take all legal and political steps necessary to defend themselves and their fellow citizens.

Furthermore, they may be obligated to exhibit conscientious objection, civil disobedience, non-cooperation and other forms of non-violent resistance in accordance with the natural moral law and the Gospel (Gaudium et Spes, 1965, point 74). Should such steps become necessary, the unity of Christians and non-Christian believers in God and their willingness to suffer will ultimately overcome the abuse of state governmental authority.

CLERGY AND POLITICS
Bishops and priests are, primarily, shepherds of souls. Their role is to instruct and to remind voters, candidates and public officials of the moral obligations and social principles that should guide their political actions. This is the sphere of political activism specific and proper to their vocation.

Two provisions of the 1983 Code of Canon Law expressly forbid participation by clerics in certain types of political activity:

Canon 285, §3: Clerics are forbidden to assume public offices, which entail participation in the exercise of civil power. This provision means that priests cannot assume public offices which entail the exercise of legislative, administrative and judicial authority.

Canon 287, §2: Clerics are not to have an active role in political parties and in the direction of labour unions unless the need to protect the rights of the Church or to promote the common good requires it in the judgment of the competent ecclesiastical authority. Priests cannot engage in partisan political activity unless in a particular case, this is truly required by the good of the community, and receives the consent of the bishop after consultation with the priests’ council and, if circumstances call for it, with the episcopal conference.

Permanent deacons, even though they are clerics, do not fall under these prohibitions but these apply also to members of religious orders (c.672) and to members of societies of apostolic life (c.739).

These canonical prohibitions to priests and bishops are in line with the pronouncements of Pope John Paul II. To an assembly of religious priests in Mexico in January 1979, he asserted: “You are not social directors, political leaders or functionaries of temporal power… Let us not be under the illusion that we are serving the Gospel if we ‘dilute’ our charism through an exaggerated interest in the wide field of temporal problems”. This exact position was reiterated in Manila, the Philippines, on 17 February 1981.

In Zaire, he similarly exhorted the priests: “Leave political responsibilities to those who are charged with them. You have another part, a magnificent part; you are ‘leaders’ by another right and in another manner, participating in the priesthood of Christ, as his ministers. Your sphere of interventions, and it is vast, is that of faith and morals, where it is expected that you preach at the same time by a courageous word and by the example of your life.”

It is therefore clear that as a general rule, priests and bishops are not to hold public office that calls for the exercise of civil power, and they are not to engage in partisan politics. As the Synod of Bishops of 1971 categorically affirmed, priests “must keep a certain distance from any political office of involvement”.

However, priests are not at all excluded from political activity. In certain circumstances priests are not only allowed, but even obliged to engage in political action. The same 1971 Synod document states:

Together with the entire Church, priests are obliged, to the utmost of their ability, to select a definite pattern of action, when it is a question of the defence of fundamental human rights, the promotion of the full development of persons and the pursuit of the cause of peace and justice.

If the election of a particular party clearly seriously endangers the rights of the Church or the common good, for example, then members of the clergy, like all other citizens, are not only allowed but are obliged to prevent the victory of such a candidate or party.

Bishops and priests, therefore, may undertake non-partisan types of political activity, involving the defence of human rights, the promotion of the full development of persons and the pursuit of justice and peace, when such activity does not entail holding public office that calls for the exercise of civil power.

CHURCH IN THE WORLD
That clergy have competence in proclaiming the moral principles governing politics and laity has competence in active, direct, partisan politics is a good guiding principle. Bishops, priests and religious must refrain from partisan politics, avoiding especially the use of the pulpit for partisan purposes, to avoid division among the flock they shepherd.

Even as they are fully entitled to lay down moral guidelines regarding elections, bishops and other members of the clergy have no special competence to indicate the best persons to vote for. Much less can they oblige the faithful to vote for a certain candidate. In the matter of choosing candidates, lay people should know that they enjoy and should exercise their Christian freedom. The Council of Vatican II reminds pastors to “respect and recognise the liberty which belongs to all in the terrestrial city”.

Such is the manner in which the Church’s political involvement is regulated. It almost leaves no room for a confusion of roles on the part of all the faithful of the Church. At the same time, it calls upon each member of the Church to be utterly aware of the state of affairs in the world.

A new state of affairs today both in the Church and in social, economic, political and cultural life, calls with a particular urgency for the action of the lay faithful. If lack of commitment is always unacceptable, the present time renders it even more so. It is not permissible for anyone to remain idle.

Christifideles Laici, 1988, point 3

Francis Cardinal George, OMI, Archbishop of Chicago, ends his letter Catholic Participation in Political Life (10 October 2004) as follows: “May the Lord be good to us and give us the courage to participate in political life with consciences truly formed by the faith that comes to us from the apostles.” Let it be so.

Posted by SK at 10:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Thinkativity :

In a world that tells you of the impossibility of things, and that you're made of inferior blood, all it takes is a few people who truly believe in you to help you soar. But first, make sure you're an eagle.

Posted by SK at 2:15 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I've just read this article from the Star Online. I think Kit Siang is being very honest, although I'm not sure why the DAP and PKR people did not seem to foresee this serious possibility much earlier.

To be honest, this is why I wasn't feeling very jubilant at the March 8 general elections just because the opposition alliance was successful in shaking the ruling party. When people come together as allies just because they have a common enemy, it is a sure recipe for an impending disastrous alliance.

How can various people with such differing ideals for a nation, some even drastically conflicting with one another's ideals, form an alliance just because the only thing they have in common is the enemy before them? Once the enemy is defeated, the allies begin creating new enemies - one another.

And as they begin fighting with one another over their own unique ideals for Malaysia, leaving the country in continued economic and political instability, who's left feeling stupid? The rakyat.

To be sure, if I sound like I'm making a political statement, I'm no political commentator. In fact, I'm not even partisan when it comes to my political position. I support neither the ruling party nor the opposition. I prefer to think in terms of the values of each individual candidate.

But with what's happening now among the component parties of the opposition alliance, I think they're no threat to the ruling party. At least not anymore.

We cannot be friends just because we hate the same person. Such alliance is illusive.

Posted by SK at 12:34 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I've just realised that I made a mistake last night in my understanding of Canon 917 in regard to the frequency with which one may receive the Eucharist within a day. So to clarify my mistake, here's the full explanation from EWTN. For your ease of reading, I'm copying it into this post:

One of the significant changes for the faithful in the Code of Canon Law which was promulgated in 1983 was the permission to receive Holy Communion more than once per day. In the past the law set certain conditions, such as participation in a funeral, marriage or ordination Mass. The new canon, however, simply states,

c.917 A person who has received the Most Holy Eucharist may receive it again (iterum) on the same day only during the celebration of the Eucharist in which the person participates, with due regard for the prescription of can. 921, part 2.

What it is saying is that if one attends a Mass after receiving Holy Communion previously that day, one may receive it again. If it is not a Mass, but a Communion Service for example, one may not receive again.

However, since the Church encourages the full participation of the laity in the Masses they attend, including Holy Communion (if they are worthy), the question arose whether this canon might not permit Holy Communion in any Mass, regardless of the number of times one attended per day. After numerous bishops asked this question of the Holy See, the Pontifical Commission for the Authentic Interpretation of Legislative texts gave the following authentic interpretation, approved by Pope John Paul II,

Doubt: Whether, according to canon 917, one who has already received the Most Holy Eucharist may receive it again on the same day only a second time, or as often as one participates in the celebration of the Eucharist.

Response: Affirmative to the first; negative to the second. [AAS 76, (1984) 746]

In the accompanying commentary it was explained that the meaning of again (iterum) was to allow a second time, but not a third, fourth etc... The exception to this is the one given in the law itself, canon 921, 2.

2. Even if they have received Communion in the same day, those who are in danger of death are strongly urged to receive again.

Thus, Communion given as Viaticum may be received at any time.

One final note, this law applies to Latin Rite Catholics. In the Eastern Catholic Churches the practice of frequent daily Divine Liturgy (Mass) is not found, and so the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches is silent on this matter.

Posted by SK at 11:45 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by SK at 9:45 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)