First of all, there is the cultural universalization that the Church has to undertake if she wants to get beyond the boundaries of the European mind. This is the question of what in­culturation should look like in the realm of sacred music if, on the one hand, the identity of Christianity is to be preserved and, on the other, its universality is to be ex­pressed in local forms. Then there are two developments in music itself that have their origins primarily in the West but that for a long time have affected the whole of mankind in the world culture that is being formed. Modern so-called “classical” music has maneuvered itself, with some exceptions, into an elitist ghetto, which only specialists may enter - and even they do so with what may sometimes be mixed feelings. The music of the masses has broken loose from this and treads a very different path.

[The Spirit of the Liturgy (SF, CA: Ignatius, 2002), p. 148]

Commentary: At one level, the Holy Father seems to acknowledge the fact that the music emanating from a particular Catholic community must not be alienated from its peculiar cultural expression. This goes in line with the universality of the Catholic faith which is to be expressed in ways that reflect the faith to be one belonging to all humankind and from all walks of life.

At another level, though, he also continues to assert the imperative of continuity with the great tradition of sacred polyphony, which in today's terms, would mean classical music. However, classical music has now become the sole prerogative of only a selected elite and no longer belongs to the masses. There may be a variety of reasons for this, which are perhaps best known only by those who dwell in its realm. But the distancing of our worshipping community at the grassroots from our sacred polyphony is really symptomatic of how far removed they are from the culture of classical music.

The problem is, when you remove something, it has to be replaced with something else. What used to be classical music in the liturgy has now been taken over by contemporary pop music. And inasmuch as many who opt for the assimilation of contemporary pop culture into the liturgy today say that they are "inculturating", it is a bogus claim. One would be inculturating if there were, say, Indian, Chinese, or indigenous cultures incorporated into the liturgy. But to move from high Western culture to low Western culture in the name of inculturation only betrays a self-uncritical ignorance of inculturation and what it truly means.

Posted by SK at 8:43 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

An authentic updating of sacred music can take place only in the lineage of the great tradition of the past, of Gregorian chant and sacred polyphony.

[Pope Benedict XVI, Speaking in the Sistine Chapel following a tribute concert to Dominico Bartolucci, June 24, 2006.]

Commentary: It is a great certainty that many Catholics around the world would rather not have heard or read the above statement made by the Holy Father. It is something they would have been more comfortable dismissing as a sentiment of "Roman domination" or "Western imperialism" rather than a prescription that truly bespeaks the mind of the Church.

For decades, especially since a good number of Catholics have begun adopting and mimicking Protestant-type contemporary praise-and-worship music, heated debates have taken place on what sort of music would be considered a legitimate updating of the Church's traditional liturgical music. Conveniently, many communities have embraced the sentimentality and sensationalism of modern popular music. The reason given is that "the Church does not explicitly forbid it, therefore it is permitted".

Such an elusive way of interpreting the permissibility of certain genres of music for liturgical use truly fails to reflect the sentire cum ecclesia principle. To be so legalistic about what is permitted and what is not permitted, in black and white, simply is an exercise born out of self-will, not out of love for the Church. A hermeneutic which speaks of love for the Church would function in accordance with what would please the Church; one desires to please the Church because one loves the Church. This attitude separates the legalistic from the beloved.

The Church has gone so far in her openness to permit the use of polyphony in her liturgical music. However, this does not mean there are no limits imposed on how far poliphony can go. The extent to which our new liturgical music can depart from the old is limited by the imperative of maintaining continuity with the great tradition of the past. Any endeavours to update our liturgical music must not depart so whimsically from the great tradition that it no longer sounds familiar to the ears of the ancient Church.

So if we are now thinking of liturgical music that radically departs from what the Church has been familiar with for centuries, as many of us have done (and badly, at that), we need to think again what radical obedience to the Church truly means. A friend of mine says, "We are servants of the liturgy, not its masters".

Posted by SK at 7:44 PM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

Artistic freedom increasingly asserts its rights, even in the liturgy. Church music and secular music are now each influenced by the other. This is particularly clear in the case of the so-called “parody Masses”, in which the text of the Mass was set to a theme or melody that came from secular music, with the result that anyone hearing it might think he was listening to the latest “hit”. It is clear that these opportunities for artistic creativity and the adoption of secular tunes brought dan­ger with them. Music was no longer developing out of prayer, but, with the new demand for artistic autonomy, was now heading away from the liturgy; it was becoming an end in itself, opening the door to new, very different. ways of feeling and of experiencing the world. Music was alienating the liturgy from its true nature. At this point the Council of Trent intervened in the culture war that had broken out. It was made a norm that liturgical music should be at the service of the Word; the use of instruments was substantially reduced; and the difference between secular and sacred music was clearly affirmed.

[The Spirit of the Liturgy (SF, CA: Ignatius, 2002), pp. 146-47]

Commentary: We are naive for often thinking that there isn't a war of culture, and that secular culture - in the name of inculturation - is always to be assimilated into the culture of the Church. Whilst the Church speaks of the need for inculturation and interaction with the larger societal ethos, this does not in any way mean that all the elements of secular culture agree with the elements of Catholic worship.

"Parody masses" today are a dime a dozen, whether or not we care to acknowledge this reality. There are many masses celebrated around the world, even in modern Asia, in which music is played and songs are sung such that "anyone hearing it might think he was listening to the latest 'hit'". This is almost always done citing the excuse that it is being "charismatic" or that we need to keep up with the state of the world today. Alarmingly, a good number of prelates themselves are failing to see what is wrong with this cohabitation between the sacred and the secular.

The Pope reminds us (once again) in this writing that this "artistic autonomy" which many people seek actually do a great disservice to the Church in that it "[alienates] the liturgy from its true nature". I believe what he means is that the over-humanisation of the liturgy erodes the visibility of its divine dimension. When the music used in the liturgy speaks too much of anthropological expression and sociological sensationalism, the liturgy's celestial timelessness is dissolved in the pool of human manipulation.

Leaning to the extreme left by assimilating everything in the name of inculturation is, really, as unjust and unreasonable as the extreme right's ghettoing of itself from any form of cultural interaction for fear of compromise. Whilst we seek to interact with larger societal culture, we need to remember also that the Church too has a culture of its own.

Posted by SK at 10:03 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by SK at 9:45 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

I would be in favor of a new openness toward the use of Latin. Latin in the Mass has come meanwhile to look to us like a fall from grace. So that, in any case, communication is ruled out that is very necessary in areas of mixed culture... Let's think of tourist centers, where it would be lovely for people to recognize each other in something they have in common. So we ought to keep such things alive and present. If even in the great liturgical celebrations in Rome, no one can sing the Kyrie or the Sanctus any more, no one knows what Gloria means, then a cultural loss has become a loss of what we share in common. To that extent I should say that the Liturgy of the Word should always be in the mother tongue, but there ought nonetheless to be a basic stock of Latin elements that would bind us together.

[God and the World (SF, CA: Ignatius, 2002), pp. 417-18]

Commentary: One of the shadows of the Vatican II Council has been the blatant rejection of everything Roman, including the Latin language in the liturgy. In fact, much like the propaganda begun at the inception of the Church of England (where the Catholic Church was derogatorily termed "Roman"), the word "Roman" once again falls into disfavour, this time by the Catholics themselves.

Many, after Vatican II, have come to take pride in their being "Catholic", because in their subjective assessment, being Catholic speaks of a plurality. Being Catholic is the perfect excuse for not toeing the liturgical line, e.g. "We're Malaysian Catholic, so let's do it the Malaysian way.

While these take pride in being Catholic, they detest the thought of being ROMAN Catholic, because being Roman, for them, speaks of a particularity to which they object. In which case, Latin as the language of the Roman Church is discarded with distaste. After all, why should anyone want to use a language that isn't theirs?

This is ethnocentrism. We react to that which we perceive as external impositions, and in return, impose our own right to use our vernacular language whilst discarding Latin in totality simply because the latter isn't our language. The reason given is that we know our own language and we're more comfortable in our own language. But really, if you were truly Catholic as you say you are, you'd be very aware of the fact that not all Catholics are like you. And if all Catholics abided by such ethnocentric principles, it wouldn't take very long before the Church would lose its linguistic catholicity. Imagine hundreds of thousands of Catholics coming together as one Church, and yet, not being able to pray or worship together simply because they all insisted on the use of their own languages at the expense of the greater unity of the Catholic Church. What misperceived notions of Catholicity.

Therefore, today, if anyone speaks against the preservation of even the slightest tint of Latin in the liturgy of the Church, it cannot be anything more than a manifestation of myopic self-serving ethnocentrism.

Posted by SK at 11:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

The singing of the Church comes ultimately out of love. It is the utter depth of love that produces the singing. “Cantare amantis est”, says St Augustine, singing is a lover’s thing. In so saying, we come again to the trinitarian interpretation of Church music. The Holy Spirit is love, and it is he who produces the singing. He is the Spirit of Christ, the Spirit who draws us into love for Christ and so leads to the Father.

[The Spirit of the Liturgy (SF, CA: Ignatius, 2000), p. 142]

Commentary: Most people, fans of modern music and proponents of modern music in liturgical use included, would not have issues with the statement that "the singing of the Church comes ultimately out of love." It is indeed this love that often propels them to sing with great expression and sensation.

But this short paragraph seems to have brought an unexpected twist into our often humanised interpretation of "love" in the worship of God's people. It is often construed that because we love, we therefore sing with great sensation, even to the extent of engineering the entire worship of God's people into a sensational orgy of pop-rock indulgence. To justify this, we say that God enjoys all sorts of music and that all sorts of music can be used to worship God - so long as the words of the music are infused with lots of religious language and mentions of "Jesus".

The Pope is not vague about this - our contemplations on the love of God must lead to a trinitarian interpretation of Church music, not to a humanisation of the Church's liturgical actions. Since the Holy Spirit, in the economy of the Trinity, is the bond of love between the Father and the Son, it is He who will show the Church how to sing and what music most pleases the Godhead of which He Himself is a part.

In the liturgy, there is no place for individualistic interpretations of Church music, especially when such interpretations tend to take place apart from the mind of the Church. Church music is not a matter of one's whims and fancies; it is a matter of divine grandeur and majesty.

Posted by SK at 8:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

The importance of music in biblical religion is shown very simply by the fact that the verb “to sing” (with related words such as “song”, and. so forth) is one of the most commonly used words in the Bible. It occurs 309 times in the Old Testament and thirty-six in the New. When man comes into contact with God, mere speech is not enough. Areas of his existence are awakened that spontaneously turn into song. Indeed, man’s own being is insufficient for what he has to express, and so he in­vites the whole of creation to become a song with him: “Awake, my soul! Awake, 0 harp and lyre! I will awake the dawn! I will give thanks to you, 0 Lord, among the peoples; I will sing praises to you among the nations. For your steadfast love is great to the heavens, your faithful­ness to the clouds” (Ps 57:8f.). We find the first mention of singing in the Bible after the crossing of the Red Sea. Israel has now been definitively delivered from slavery. In a desperate situation, it has had an overwhelming experi­ence of God’s saving power. Just as Moses as a baby was taken from the Nile and only then really received the gift of life, so Israel now feels as if it has been, so to speak, taken out of the water: it is free, newly endowed with the gift of itself from God’s own hands. In the biblical ac­count, the people’s reaction to the foundational event of salvation is described in this sentence: “[T]hey believed in the Lord and in his servant Moses” (Ex 14:31). But then follows a second reaction, which soars up from the first with elemental force: "Then Moses and the people of Israel sang this song to the Lord” (i 5: i). Year by year, at the Easter Vigil, Christians join in the singing of this song. They sing it in a new way as their song, because they know that they have been “taken out of the water” by God’s power, set free by God for authentic life.

[The Spirit of the Liturgy, (SF, CA: Ignatius, 2000), p. 136]

Commentary: It is apparent from the above description that the biblical understanding of "singing a new song" is not literalistically defined as the continuous writing of newly produced songs for the industry of gospel music as many think it is today. Singing a new song is about singing a song that has been sung for decades and centuries, repeatedly, but tirelessly. Every time we sing those songs of our ancient past, it is as if a new freshness enters it as we are confronted by its essence anew, again and again, and experience the ever-unchanging truth again and again in our lives as the worshipping community.

At Easter, we sing a song of Moses that spans thousands of years, but the song is sung anew again and again, and the Church trumpets that song tirelessly. Every year, this song is sung all over again as if it had never been sung before, because the story of our salvation and deliverance is told in our midst once again in music and song.

Newness in the music of our worship is not about novelness as many people have come to misunderstand. The precise mystery of the worship of God's people is not in that they keep writing new songs which give them a status as the "state-of-the-art" community of songwriters. The mystery of the worshipping community lies in the very fact that it is a continuation of a century-old story, and that it never gets bored or feel ashamed of telling forth that story continuously - because the song reminds the community where it has come from and assures it of where it is going.

Posted by SK at 10:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The great­ness of the liturgy depends - we shall have to repeat this frequently - on its unspontaneity (Unbeliebigkeit)…. Only respect for the liturgy’s fundamental unspontaneity and pre-existing identity can give us what we hope for: the feast in which the great reality comes to us that we ourselves do not manufacture but receive as a gift. This means that “creativity” cannot be an authentic category for matters liturgical. In any case, this is a word that developed within the Marxist world view. Creativity means that in a universe that in itself is meaningless and came into existence through blind evolution, man can creatively fashion a new and better world. Modern theo­ries of art think in terms of a nihilistic kind of creativity. Art is not meant to copy anything. Artistic creativity is under the free mastery of man, without being bound by norms or goals and subject to no questions of meaning. It may be that in such visions a cry for freedom is to be heard, a cry that in a world totally in the control of technology becomes a cry for help. Seen in this way, art appears as the final refuge of freedom. True, art has something to do with freedom, but freedom understood in the way we have been describing is empty. It is not redemptive, but makes despair sound like the last word of human existence. This kind of creativity has no place within the liturgy. The life of the liturgy does not come from what dawns upon the minds of individuals and plan­ning groups. On the contrary, it is God’s descent upon our world, the source of real liberation. He alone can open the door to freedom. The more priests and faithful humbly surrender themselves to this descent of God, the more “new” the liturgy will constantly be, and the more true and personal it becomes. Yes, the liturgy becomes personal, true, and new, not through tomfoolery and ba­nal experiments with the words, but through a coura­geous entry into the great reality that through the rite is always ahead of us and can never quite be overtaken.

[The Spirit of the Liturgy, (SF, CA: Ignatius, 2000), p. 170]

Commentary: Evidently, the liturgy is not a matter for manipulation, humanly initiated creativity, entertaining performance or artistic flaunting. Further to that, it is much less a platform for the exercise of uninhibited freedom often desired by people. Of course, it is for this very reason that many people find the liturgy rigid, unchanging, too predictable, and sadly, mechanistic.

But the Holy Father seems to be saying, in this paragraph, that it is precisely the quality of unchanging predictability and stability that gives the liturgy its beauty and meaning. This is God's gracious way of acting in the liturgy to provide us with the life that we need without having to to be confronted by unpleasant surprises. Participation in the liturgy the way it has been delivered to the community of faith, together with the constant expectancy that the same divine substance is given unfailingly, is the very thing that defines the nature and constancy of God.

If I may add a further thought to this flow of argument, it is also this liturgical predictability that provides a sense of heavenly "changelesness", through which the consciousness of the People of God are brought into the reality of a God who is always the same, and a heaven that is eternal. Simply put, if the liturgy is to be "heaven on earth", it must be characterised by the timelessness it represents.

The liturgy is therefore not to be open or subject to the whims of human creativity which aims to excite the human self. It is not to be a human act, but rather, a timeless divine act during which God once again penetrates in the human history to offer Himself again - in the very same way that He always does. Unfailingly.

Posted by SK at 10:47 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Christian faith can never be separated from the soil of sacred events, from the choice made by God, who wanted to speak to us, to become man, to die and rise again, in a particular place and at a particular time. “Always” can only come from “once for all”. The Church does not pray in some kind of mythical omnitemporality. She cannot forsake her roots. She recognizes the true utterance of God precisely in the concreteness of its history, in time and place: to these God ties us, and by these we are all tied together. The diachronic aspect, praying with the Fathers and the apostles, is part of what we mean by rite, but it also in­cludes a local aspect, extending from Jerusalem to Antioch, Rome, Alexandria, and Constantinople. Rites are not, therefore, just the products of inculturation, how­ever much they may have incorporated elements from different cultures. They are forms of the apostolic Tradition and of its unfolding in the great places of the Tradition.

[The Spirit of the Liturgy, (SF, CA: Ignatius, 2000), p. 164]

Commentary: In this paragraph, it seems like the Holy Father (then Cardinal Ratzinger) is saying that not everything in the liturgy is a matter for inculturation, even if the Church has a long history of inculturation within her Sacred Tradition.

We are, as the Church, bound by what some theologians would call "the scandal of particularity". God's saving act in the history of mankind took place during specific moments, in specific ways, and through specific means. The liturgy, no matter how inculturated it is, cannot detract from the reality of these particularities. We cannot, for example, change the wine into a can of Coke or the bread into a pack of Pringles, for the historical reality of God's saving act in the Eucharist took place through bread and wine.

This means that the liturgy is not simply a matter for human manipulation, because it finds its root in the acts of God Himself in Christ. What Christ did, we must do; and how Christ has ordained for these acts to be performed, we must follow. Even if the liturgy has aspects which are cultural in nature because it grows and takes root within certain specific cultures, the Apostolic dimensions of the liturgy which make it recognisable as the liturgy of God's people cannot be compromised.

Posted by SK at 1:47 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I will not be starting an original series on the liturgy here. When it comes to discussions on liturgy, many people - both adherents and dissenters alike - are rather adamant about hearing from the "horse's mouth". Even simple statements like "This is just common sense" somehow won't do.

Various aspects of the Sacred Liturgy have been hot topics of discussion among Catholics who are devoted to the liturgy as the source and summit of the Church's life. The liturgy has also been a topic upon which frequent disagreements (un)rest.

Whilst there are explicit magisterial pronouncements on the liturgy and also areas in which the Sacred Magisterium often seems silent, there are certainly other writings which reflect the mind of the Church on this issue of music and liturgy. Perhaps that best reflection on this is to be found in the writings of the present Pope, the Holy Father Benedict XVI, even from the time he was Cardinal Ratzinger.

The next few postings, therefore, will contain paragraphs from his writings on various aspects of the liturgy. If the Magisterium seems silent on certain aspects of our liturgical practices, surely the writings of the Pope himself would be reflective of the mind of the Church.

After quoting each paragraph, where deemed appropriate, I will also give brief commentaries on what I think the thoughts penned by the Pope mean for us today. Of course, again, these thoughts are always debatable - even if I claimed them to be indisputable, many would still argue for hermeneutical freedom anyway. It is never so much what is written, but rather, how what is written is to be interpreted that frequently becomes the subject of disagreement.

I hope this series will be helpful for those of you who have no time or access to the various writings of the Holy Father on the liturgy of the Holy Catholic Church.

Posted by SK at 9:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Says Role of Clergy Is That of Guide, Teacher

VATICAN CITY, MAY 26, 2010 (Zenit.org).- The Pope cannot do whatever he wants, and instead must obey Christ and his Church, Benedict XVI says.

The Holy Father made this reflection today at the general audience when he spoke of the last of the three primary tasks entrusted to priests. Noting that the Year for Priests is nearing its conclusion, and that he had already given catecheses on teaching and sanctifying, the Pontiff considered the theme of guiding.

He acknowledged that broaching the theme of authority in today's world is complex. He reflected that dictatorships of the last century have made mankind suspicious of authority -- a "suspicion that, not rarely, is expressed in upholding as necessary an abandonment of all authority that does not come exclusively from men and is subject to them."

The Church's authority, however, is that of service, exercised "not in her own name, but in the name of Jesus Christ, who received from the Father all power in heaven and on earth," Benedict XVI clarified. And Christ "willed that the Apostolic College, today the bishops in communion with the Successor of Peter, and priests, their most valuable collaborators, should participate in his mission to take care of the People of God, to be educators in the faith, guiding, animating and sustaining the Christian community."

Pastors in God's Heart

The Pope noted that priests' authority comes from God, but its efficacy is closely linked to the person of the priest.

"To be a pastor according to the heart of God there must be a profound rootedness in living friendship with Christ," he said. "In fact, no one is really capable of feeding Christ's flock if he does not live a profound and real obedience to Christ and to the Church, and the docility itself of the people to their priests depends on the docility of priests to Christ."

Looking at the history of the word "hierarchy," the Holy Father reiterated that "authority does not come from man himself, but has its origin in the sacred, in the sacrament; hence it subjects the person to the vocation, to the mystery of Christ; it makes of the individual a servant of Christ and only insofar as he is a servant of Christ can he govern, guide for Christ and with Christ."

He clarified that "even the Pope -- point of reference for all the other pastors and for the communion of the Church -- cannot do what he wants; on the contrary, the Pope is custodian of the obedience to Christ, to his word taken up again in the 'regula fidei,' in the Creed of the Church, and must proceed in obedience to Christ and to his Church."

Entrusted with such a weight of obedience, the Bishop of Rome concluded the audience by asking for prayer.

"I would like to invite you to pray for me, the Successor of Peter who has a specific task in governing the Church of Christ, as well as for all your bishops and priests," he said. "Pray that we will be able to take care of all the sheep of the flock entrusted to us, also those who are lost."

Posted by SK at 9:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Vatican Releases Statistical Yearbook

VATICAN CITY, APRIL 27, 2010 (Zenit.org).- The Vatican announced today that its publishing house has released a new edition of the Statistical Yearbook of the Church, comprising information from 2000 to 2008, including that the number of Catholics in the world is now 1.16 billion.

Over these nine years, the Catholic presence in the world has grown from 1.045 billion in 2000 to 1.166 billion in 2008, an increase of 11.54%. Considering the statistics in detail, numbers in Africa grew by 33%, in Europe they remained generally stable (an increase of 1.17%), while in Asia they increased by 15.61%, in Oceania by 11.39% and in America by 10.93%. As a percentage of the total population, European Catholics represented 26.8% in 2000 and 24.31% in 2008. In America and Oceania they have remained stable, and increased slightly in Asia.

The number of bishops in the world went up from 4,541 in 2000 to 5,002 in 2008, an increase of 10.15%.

The number of priests also increased slightly over this nine-year period, passing from 405,178 in 2000 to 409,166 in 2008, an overall rise of 0.98%. In Africa and Asia their numbers increased (respectively, by 33.1% and 23.8%); in the Americas they remained stable, while they fell by 7% in Europe and 4% in Oceania.

The number of diocesan priests increased by 3.1%, going from 265,781 in 2000 to 274,007 in 2008. By contrast, the number of regular priests showed a constant decline, down by 3.04% to 135,159 in 2008. Of the continents, only Europe showed a clear reduction in priests: in 2000 they represented 51% of the world total, in 2008 just 47%. On the other hand, Asia and Africa together represented 17.5% of the world total in 2000 and 21.9% in 2008. The Americas slightly increased its percentage to around 30% of the total.

Non-ordained religious numbered 55,057 in the year 2000 and 54,641 in 2008. Comparing this data by continent, Europe showed a strong decline (down by 16.57%), as did Oceania (22.06%); the Americas remained stable, while Asia and Africa grew (by 32% and 10.47%, respectively).

Female religious are almost double the number of priests, and 14 times that of non-ordained male religious, but their numbers are falling, from 800,000 in 2000 to 740,000 in 2008. As for their geographical distribution, 41% reside in Europe, 27.47% in America, 21.77% in Asia and 1.28% in Oceania. The number of female religious has increased in the most dynamic continents: Africa (up by 21%) and Asia (up by 16%).

The Statistical Yearbook of the Church also includes information on the number of philosophy and theology students in diocesan and religious seminaries. In global terms, their numbers increased from 110,583 in 2000 to more than 117,024 in 2008. In Africa and Asia their numbers went up, whereas Europe saw a reduction.

Posted by SK at 8:58 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

The Catholic Church and Ecumenism Today
The Roman Catholic Church has always considered it a duty of the highest rank to seek full unity with estranged communions of fellow Christians, and at the same time to reject any promiscuous and false union that would mean being unfaithful to or glossing over the teaching of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

Over the recent past, there has been a change in emphasis of the Catholic perspective on ecumenism. Before the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), the main stress was laid on this second aspect, i.e., avoiding the possibility of compromising the teaching of Scripture and Tradition.

For example, Canon 1258 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law says: “It is illicit for the faithful to assist at or participate in any way in non-Catholic religious functions. For a serious reason requiring, in case of doubt, the Bishop's approval, passive or merely material presence at non-Catholic funerals, weddings and similar occasions because of holding a civil office or as a courtesy can be tolerated, provided there is no danger of perversion or scandal”.

The most recent 1983 Code of Canon Law, however, whilst absolutely forbidding Catholic priests to concelebrate the Eucharist with members of communities not in full communion with the Catholic Church (canon 908), allows, in certain circumstances and under certain conditions, other sharing in the sacraments. Furthermore, the Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism, 102, states, "Christians may be encouraged to share in spiritual activities and resources, i.e., to share that spiritual heritage they have in common in a manner and to a degree appropriate to their present divided state (italics my own)."

Pope John XXIII, who called together the Council that consequently brought about this change of emphasis, said that the Council's aim was to seek renewal of the Church itself, which would serve, for those separated from the See of Rome, as a "gentle invitation to seek and find that unity for which Jesus Christ prayed so ardently to his heavenly Father”.

Ecumenical endeavours continue to remain a priority of the Roman Catholic Church today. But what the Catholic Church construes as an ecumenical endeavour should not be misunderstood by other Christians who insist on their own brand of ecumenism. The Catholic Church respects that these have their own rendition of ecumenism, whilst she works out of her own ecumenical endeavours in ways consistent with her Sacred Tradition and ecclesial life.

The Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, has issued an unmistakable call to the Body of Christ, emphatically instructing the Church that “ecumenism is not an option but a sacred duty”.

-- End of Series --

Posted by SK at 11:24 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Our Understanding of Other Christians
The Catholic Church does not take a simplistic view of other Christian communities. Her understanding of the various communities is well-nuanced and therefore does not lump them all together.

The Orthodox Churches are seen as “true churches”. The Catholic Church recognises the Orthodox churches as true churches; in fact, they are frequently called “sister” churches. These churches born in the East, although not in communion with the Bishop of Rome, are distinctly characterised by apostolic succession and therefore have valid sacraments.

We do estimate that such churches are suffering from a “wound” since they do not recognise the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, the Pope, among other Patriarchs. However, the wound is not so severe that it has caused them to lose the gravity of the marks of a true Church: oneness, holiness, catholicity and apostolicity. They still contain sufficient marks to constitute true churches.

[Note: Of course, there are some Eastern Churches who have throughout the centuries returned to full communion with the Bishop of Rome and have come to be called “Eastern Catholic Churches”. These are not wounded and continue to exercise their ecclesial life based on the distinctives of their traditions in consistency with the deposit of faith and in full communion with the Pope. There are also about two Eastern Churches which have never broken communion with Rome before in the course of their history.]

Protestant communities are called “ecclesial communities”. Whilst there is a measure of woundedness in the Eastern Churches, it said that the “wound is still more profound” in the Protestant denominations. The wound is so profound that these communities do not sufficiently possess enough marks of a church to be properly called “churches”. Therefore, the Catholic Church calls these communities “ecclesial communities originating from the Reformation”, a term used to refer to Protestants and Anglicans (the latter often do not identify themselves as “Protestants”, therefore it is right to identify them separately with due respect to their self-identity). A document of the Catholic Church says, “Despite the fact that this teaching has created no little distress ... it is nevertheless difficult to see how the title of 'Church' could possibly be attributed to them”.

The Catholic Church does not mean these terms to be derogatory; rather, they are meant to be honest terms. She would expect no less from her dialogue partners. In the same way, there are well-meaning Protestant segments who call the Catholic Church “the Harlot of Babylon” and the Pope “the antichrist”. The Catholic Church does not react even to such derogatory name-calling, perhaps by way of respecting the rights of such well-meaning Christians to determine what they truly believe and to be honest about it. A Pentecostal theologian once said in a dialogue with the Catholic Church, “We think you Catholics are not saved, and our aim is to save you!” The point was well-received because the open honesty was respected.

But at the same time, the Catholic Church continues to recognise that within these ecclesial communities is to be found elements of truth and sanctification which assist people in the salvific process. The Catholic Church also continues to acknowledge, admire and deeply respect those who continue to proclaim Christ in local and foreign lands, the evangelists and those who die because of their faith.

And yet, whilst the Second Vatican Council's opening to other faiths recognised that there were “many elements of sanctification and truth” in other Christian denominations, the Church stresses that only Catholicism has all the elements to be Christ's Church fully.

It is possible, according to Catholic doctrine, to affirm correctly that the Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches and ecclesial communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church, on account of the elements of sanctification and truth that are present in them […] In fact the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them (other Christian denominations) as instruments of salvation, whose value derives from that fullness of grace and of truth which has been entrusted to the Catholic Church.”

[Responses to Some Questions Regarding
Certain Aspects of the Doctrine of the Church]

Recognising also that the Protestant Reformation took place in waves, and that each wave of the Reformation represented a further drift away from the fullness of the deposit of faith, the Catholic Church further categorises the ecclesial communities into three separate clusters. The first batch of communities arising from the Reformation is known as the “Reformation communities” (i.e. Reformed, Anglican, Presbyterian, Lutheran). The second batch, most often further breakaways from the Reformation communities themselves, are termed “free communities” (i.e. Methodists, Baptists, Quakers). Finally, the subsequent communities arising from further breakaways are categorised under “sects” (i.e. Brethren, Salvation Army, Pentecostal denominations, Seventh Day Adventists, etc).

Posted by SK at 3:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

What Ecumenism Is
Having elaborated what ecumenism is not, from the Catholic perspective, it is also important to define what it is. In order that dialogue may be open and respectful, this definition must be given in utter honesty and without a hidden agenda born out of the fear to offend. The Catholic Church speaks respectfully with distinct honesty and expects her partners to do the same; this is a basic requisite for healthy dialogue.

Ecumenism, as far as concerns the Roman Catholic Church, is to be a visible unity. In other words, for her, the goal of ecumenism is union with the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church does not demand union, but it hopes to arrive at it through mutually respectful dialogue. And even if this union was not possible, the Catholic Church would continue striving in dialogue so that she may honour the desire of her Lord for His disciples to eventually be one.

The Catholic Church makes no apologies for being so forthcoming about its agenda and its understanding of ecumenism. Again, it must be emphasised, she believes that honesty is a requisite of fruitful dialogue, and would therefore rejoice in the respectful honesty of all other Christian communities in laying out their self-understanding. So it really is about laying out our cards in the open, with utter honesty and yet respect, and then proceeding with dialogue from there. It is fundamental to any kind of dialogue that the participants are clear about their own identity. Dialogue cannot be an occasion to accommodate or soften what you actually understand yourself to be.

The Pope, along with all Christians, believes salvation comes from belief in and acceptance of Jesus Christ as one’s personal Lord and Savior, as the only mediator between God and man. The Bible says as much. But he also affirms the long-standing doctrine of the Catholic Church that Jesus chose to work out this plan of salvation through His Church under the direction of His twelve Apostles and their successors (bishops in communion with the Pope).

The Catholic Church does not see the unapologetic expression of theological differences as a barrier to friendship, respect and brotherhood. In fact, a false sense of tolerance has made it now almost impossible to say, “I think I’m right,” without being called a bigot by denominational pluralists. Neither the Pope nor the entire Catholic Church would/should stand for that.

Posted by SK at 12:28 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

What Ecumenism is Not (continued)
Thirdly, ecumenism is not false union. The Catholic Church does not see that the endeavour towards ecumenism necessitates the putting aside of all our theological differences. Pretending that there are no differences and relating to one another as a “united body” by resting on the lowest common denominator of the faith is to pander to false and promiscuous union. True ecumenism, by the standards of the Catholic Church, is to be measured in terms of consistency with our Creed (the faith and moral claims of the Church), Code (the discipline of the Church) and Cult (the liturgical worship of the Church).

So why do we not practise, say, open communion at the celebration of the Eucharist? Because for the Catholic Church, the sharing in one bread is not a means to unity, but rather, a sign of a unity (of Creed, Code and Cult) that should have already taken place prior to the sharing in one bread. We understand that our Protestant brethren do not agree with this, but the Catholic Church expects that her standards be respected within the context of her own liturgical celebration. It is, after all, our liturgy.

Similarly, the Orthodox Churches generally do not permit for our Catholic communicants to receive their Holy Eucharist in their liturgies even though the Catholic law permits for them to do so where they cannot find a Catholic Church in which to worship. Out of ecumenical respect, the Catholic Church teaches its children to abide by the disciplines of the Orthodox Churches even if it means the sad reality of being “deprived” of participation in the Holy Eucharist. No big fuss is made about such. That much respect the Catholic Church accords to the preferences of other communities, and that much respect it expects from others in her own ecclesial practices in accordance with her theological beliefs.

Unity is indeed important to the Catholic Church, and it remains her priority to strive towards that. However, it is a unity in the service of truth that she seeks, not just a unity for the sake of itself. For this reason, the Catholic Church does not - she cannot - sacrifice truth at the altar of unity. In the understanding of the Catholic Church, when an authentic unity has been reached, it is a unity of truth.

Therefore, two conflicting truths (e.g. the Eucharist being the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ for some and being a mere symbol for others) can neither be a source of nor a means to unity. Whilst the Catholic Church respects that this inconsistency does not perturb the Protestant practice of inter- and open-communion despite the presence of over 300 different interpretations on the Eucharist among the over 40 thousand denominations, she herself cannot pander to it.

Ignorant denominational pluralists are frequently scandalised by the fact that the Catholic Church refuses to take such a pluralistic position on ecumenism. The position of the Catholic Church is always inclusive but not pluralistic. The principle of inclusion enables the Church to make space for others and to recognise the good in others without having to compromise our self-understanding. It also respects the self-understanding of others, keeping in mind that respect does not mean consent or agreement. Unity based on a whitewashing of differences, according to Pope Benedict VI, is a facade and only stalls fruitful dialogue.

Furthermore, the pluralistic position is often not as generous as it claims itself to be, because it actually excludes those who refuse its position. In other words, to the denominational pluralist, everyone must acknowledge that all "brands" of Christianity are on par with one another. Those who refuse to acknowledge that are automatically excluded; this irony is often a blind spot to the denominational pluralists who are quick to exclude those who disagree with their enterprise of leveling down all Christian traditions. Denominational pluralism, often justified in the name of “ecumenism”, is therefore a logical fallacy. The authentically inclusive position, on the other hand, respects one’s self-identity and the self-identity of others: all are not necessarily seen as equal or agreeable, but all are respected.

Posted by SK at 4:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

What Ecumenism is Not
Before the Catholic conception of ecumenism is expounded, it is first crucial to clarify some points in the negative, i.e. what ecumenism is not.

Firstly, ecumenism is not yet achieved. It must be known to the dialogue partners of the Catholic Church that ecumenism is not something that has already been achieved, in our understanding. Ecumenism is a desired future, a goal, because it is the desire of the Son of God who prayed “that [we] may be one”. But this does not in itself mean that we are already one, even though we all profess faith in Him.

Ecumenism is not yet achieved because, unlike the conception of some factions of Christians, ecumenism is not merely an attitude or state of mind which says “Let us just behave like we are one, and we will be one”. Ecumenism, in the assessment of the Catholic Church, is much, much deeper than that, and she refuses to take a superficial stance on the matter.

Secondly, ecumenism is not easily achievable. It needs to be clarified that the Catholic Church does not think that ecumenism is something easily achievable. In fact, from a human viewpoint, it is not even remotely achievable, especially with our Protestant brothers and sisters. To return to a state of unity with over 40 thousand denominations globally, each with its own distinct doctrinal claims, is not a human possibility. This is true even without taking account of the fact that even within any one particular denomination, its individual members (i.e. both clergy and laity) hold differing theological viewpoints on crucial matters.

Of course, many would then say that we should focus our ecumenical efforts on a spiritual unity rather than a theological unity. This will not do for the Catholic Church; neither will it do for the Orthodox Churches, for that matter (although I will not assume the audacity of right to speak on behalf of that well-respected tradition in this series). This proposed alternative would sorely compromise our understanding of revelation and truth.

Well, ecumenism is indeed a possibility; just not a human one. Therefore, while we seek unity, prayer is the ultimate embodiment of that desire, because only God can unite His own fragmented Body. And as we pray, we also dialogue prayerfully with others by gentle invitation.

(More to come on "What Ecumenism is Not...")

Posted by SK at 3:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Introductory Comments
The Catholic faith is one of the most known but least understood of various faiths, not just among people of other religions but also among other Christians. Besides the fact of the mysteries surrounding the mystical aura of the 2000 year-old Church institution, this lack of understanding is in part because of the intricacies of its faith system which cannot be understood in simplistic monotonal terms. When people confront this system with simplistic mindsets without first truly understanding the vast minute intricacies underlying each Catholic truth claim, some tend to become hostile to the Church because of such lack of understanding or ignorance.

And so it is with the prevalent ignorance of many other Christians on the Catholic Church’s understanding of ecumenism. When questions like “Why does the Catholic Church not permit other Christians to receive the Eucharist when we are all supposed to be part of the same Body of Christ” or “Why does the Catholic Church not apply the term ‘church’ for us?” are asked, they betray a lack of understanding of what the Catholic understanding may be on such issues.

Of course, agreeability is not a requisite in ecumenical efforts; but the pursuit of understanding is. Therefore, it is not the aim of this writing to solicit agreement, but rather to clarify underlying assumptions and theological presuppositions as we all embark on ecumenical efforts in the service of truth (yes, the Catholic Church believes there is indeed objective truth as revealed by God and interpreted by the Church according to her divinely endowed right and responsibility, so it is not merely a matter of differing theological opinions among the pseudo intellectual elite).

Many non-Catholics Christians tend to impose their assumptions on the Catholic Church by telling us how ecumenism should be exercised (for example, insisting that we should practise open communion at the celebration of the Eucharist), and even going so far to try telling us what we believe based on their own misconceptions about Catholicism (for example, that the Catholic Church’s claim of commitment to ecumenical efforts is “dubious and smutty”).

Contrary to such ignorant accusations, Catholicism has over the years developed what has probably become the most substantive system of understanding ecumenism among the various Christian traditions. Therefore, in these next couple of days, I will be posting up a series on the Catholic Church’s position on ecumenism.

This treatise will not be exhaustive (because any discussion on ecumenism would necessitate a thorough investigation into the Catholic dogma of the Church), but it will be adequate to provide an understanding to people who truly wish to begin their journey of deeper understanding. And yet, this treatise would indeed be found sorely lacking for people who desire to antagonise and interrogate by picking on what is absent rather than what is present in this treatise. Hence, I post this series for the former and not the latter.

Posted by SK at 5:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Recently, I happened to come across a weblog entry of a current student from my former seminary. It was a rather brilliant critique of seminary life, to be sure. But it was the following paragraph that caught my attention:

During lessons, I have heard lecturers made remarks like, "Being critical is okay but being over-critical is problematic," and, "the task of theologians is first and foremost to be faithful to what the church has been passing down, and not to be overly creative or novel." Now the question that I have is how does one measure the "overs"? Was Jesus being overly creative when he pronounced the forgiveness of sins, an office which the Israelites believe belongs to God alone? Were the apostles being overly novel to proclaim the resurrection of Jesus as the dawning of the eschaton? Were the church fathers like Athanasius and Cyril of Alexandria being over-critical when they engaged Arius and Nestorius? Was the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea being overly creative to introduced terms like 'hypostaseos' and 'ousias' into the creed? Was Augustine of Hippo being over-critical to go against Pelagius on one hand, and being overly creative in formulating his theology of history and political theology in City of God? Was Benedict of Nursia being overly novel to set up a monastic order? Was Anselm being overly novel with his articulation of the atonement theology? Was Thomas Aquinas being overly creative to incorporate Aristotle's philosophy into his theology? Was Martin Luther over-critical with the Roman Catholic Church? Was John Calvin being overly creative to propose a new institution of Christianity? Was Friedrich Schleiermacher being over creative to write about religious nature of humans? Was Karl Barth being overly critical over liberalism? Was Mother Teresa, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Desmond Tutu being over-critical against the social condition of their time and overly novel to have done something about it? And finally, is not discouraging 'over-criticality' and 'over-creativity' (assuming they can measure the 'overs') among the students an over-critical and an overly creative suggestion which seems to go against all the listed events above and many more in the rich history of the Christian church?

For Christians who have been steeply traditioned into the faith as has been handed down by the Fathers, the immediate diagnosis derived from this query is all but glaring: there is, herein, an acute failure in recognising the Apostolic Tradition from whence comes the Christian deposit of faith.

Such is the malady suffered by communities of Christians who have lost their sensus fidei because of the erosion or absolute eradication of the doctrine of apostolic succession from their faith. Theology, as a result, is no longer about preserving in faithfulness the body of teachings as has been passed down from Christ Jesus to His Apostles and further transmitted in all faithfulness from one generation of believers to another. The deposit of faith, in which case, has either shrunk or been obliterated all together from the memory of the faith community, leaving them either a frustratingly narrow schema within which to work, or worse yet, with no framework at all.

The nature of theology is such that when it is not guided by the voices of the Fathers who had passed down to us the depositum fidei in its fullness, there is also no understanding of how the heads of the Church today, the Bishops, form the Magisterium together with the Bishop of Rome as the successor of St Peter, Chief of the Apostles. Together, they are jointly responsible - by divine appointment - for the faithful transmission of the faith to the present generation of earthly human inhabitants.

To be a product of the Protestant Reformation's sola Scriptura without any trace of memory whatsoever of the equal vitality of the Sacred Tradition of the Church would inevitable lead one to tamper with the deposit of faith and to exercise self-election as the arbiter of one's own faith. After all, we can make Scripture say anything we want it to say; this much the Church Fathers knew.

The Church preceeded Scripture, and it was the Church that had come to recognise the canon of Scripture. For this One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, the contents of the faith had never been exhausted by Scripture itself. Sacred Scripture contained truths in faith and morals that would never contradict the deposit of faith or the Sacred Tradition, but in itself, it was only a part of the entire wealth of the deposit. For the Church, Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture had to both function as one, communicating each other and moving towards a common goal.

Together, Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition are one, and are to be known as Dei Verbum (Word of God). This Word of God is the deposit of faith, and the credibility of any one theological teaching is measured and judged by its fidelity to this very Word of God. The task of the theologian, accordingly, is not so much to innovate beyond the boundaries of the truths that have been revealed by God to his Holy Church, but rather, to seek ways to explain and further expound that which has become a part of the sensus fidelium.

Hence, the "hierarchy of truth" that had been spoken of by the Fathers at the Second Vatican Council holds true. Here, we see that without apostolic succession, there would be no fidelity to the fullness of the Word of God as reflected by both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Without this fidelity, there would be no theological honour attributed to the divinely instituted Sacred Magisterium which serves to guard the teachings of the Church. In the face of such deficiencies, any truth claim made on account of the sacred teachings of the Holy Church is inevitably confronted by the epistemological question, "Whose truth?" At worst, such disdain for the kerymatic claims of the Church is expressed through profanity and ad hominem attacks (read here for an example of such utter ignorant forms of reactions arising from self-arbitration of truth and an incomplete understanding of the present state of ecumenism). For the child of the Reformation, it is ultimately his own truth that holds true, for it is he who has judged it to be, in fact, true.

I know the lecturer of this seminary who had most probably been the one stating the claim against theological novelty. He is one who has recovered an infinite treasure lost with the currents of the Protestant Reformation: the treasure of authority. He has come to understand that the all too often exalted exercise of "theological innovation" is a mere betrayal of Protestantism's intrinsic tendency to sway leftward. He surely has come to understand, there is nothing new under the sun!

Therefore, his statement that "the task of theologians is first and foremost to be faithful to what the Church has been passing down, and not to be overly creative or novel" is, in the assessment of the Holy Catholic Church, TRUE.

Posted by SK at 10:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

KUALA LUMPUR: Archbishop Tan Sri Murphy Pakiam today accepted the public apology by the Al-Islam magazine for a May 2009 special report and said no legal action will be taken against them.

“I am happy that the editor and journalists of Al-Islam have made the apology on their website and promised to print the apology on their forthcoming issue,” the head of the archdiocese here said in a statement faxed to The Malaysian Insider.

He also thanked them for their “quick response”.

“I accept the apology and no legal action will be taken against Al-Islam on this ‘matter’,” added Pakiam, who is also the president of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of Malaysia, Singapore and Brunei.

Pakiam had held a media conference four days ago to express his outrage at the delay by the Attorney General (AG) in responding to a police report against the Islamic magazine and its two reporters who wrote about their undercover exploits inside a Catholic church published in May last year.

The duo claimed they were investigating a rumour about a Muslim teen who had converted to Christianity and had gone to the church to check.

While there, they took part in the Holy Communion, a ceremony central to the Catholic faith.

Catholics believe that the bread - represented by a thin white circular wafer – and wine undergoes a spiritual transformation and becomes the body and blood of Jesus Christ.

They were highly offended by the journalists’ recounting of how they had eaten the wafer, spat it out and photographed it.

The archbishop recently found out the AG had dropped charges against the duo and the magazine, owned by a subsidiary of Umno-owned Utusan Malaysia, and urged him to rethink the decision for the sake of maintaining the fragile state of Malaysia’s religious harmony.

Pakiam said he would stop lobbying the government to prosecute Al-Islam as long as the magazine apologised.

The magazine carried the editor’s apology on its website the very next day, explaining it had wanted to do so earlier but feared there may be legal consequences.

Pakiam today assured them that “the Catholic community is appeased.”

“I extend my peace and goodwill to the editor and journalists,” he said.

He added that a “peaceful demonstration” planned at Dataran Merdeka here for March 15 has also been called off.

[Reported in The Malaysia Insider]

Posted by SK at 6:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Catholic authorities in Malaysia on Sunday accepted an apology from a Muslim magazine after its writers took part in a Catholic service and allegedly desecrated the communion wafer.

"We accept the public apology. It is laudable," Father Lawrence Andrew, the editor of the Catholic "Herald" newspaper, told AFP. "We trust they will not repeat it. We are not holding any grudges."

Two journalists from the Al-Islam magazine took the wafer and spat it out after entering a Catholic church to investigate claims that Muslims were illegally converting to Christianity.

"Al-Islam magazine apologises... because the article had unintentionally hurt the feelings of Christians, especially Catholics," it said on its website Utusan Karya on Friday.

"It is also not the intention of Al-Islam to insult the Christian religion nor to desecrate their house of worship," said the monthly magazine which reports on issues concerning Malaysian Muslims.

'Utmost disrespect'

The apology came after the archbishop of Kuala Lumpur Murphy Pakiam criticised the government's "failure to act" over the incident.

"The journalists have displayed utmost disrespect for the Catholic community when they admit receiving and spitting out the Holy Communion," he said.

However, Attorney-General Abdul Gani Patail defended the handling of the incident, saying the pair did not understand the significance of the wafer, which Catholics believe represents the body of Jesus Christ.

Muslim-majority Malaysia has been beset by religious disputes in recent months.

The multi-ethnic country was hit with a spate of firebombings against churches and mosques in January, triggered by a dispute over the use of the word "Allah" as a translation for "God" by non-Muslims.

The rows have strained relations between majority Muslim Malays and minorities including ethnic Chinese and Indian communities who fear the country is being "Islamised."

About nine percent of Malaysia's 28 million population are Christians, including 850,000 Catholics.

[Reported in Malaysiakini]

Posted by SK at 5:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

KUALA LUMPUR: The Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur, Tan Sri Murphy Pakiam, today said the Catholic Church would not pursue legal action against Al-Islam magazine and its reporters who had desecrated a ritual sacred to the Catholic community if it was offered a public apology.

Speaking at a press conference on behalf of the church and the Catholic community at large, Pakiam said it would be enough for the magazine editor and the two reporters to apologise publicly for their acts.

“Forgiveness is a main part of our ‘club’,” the head of the KL archdiocese quipped, referring to the Catholic church’s central belief.

“We strive daily in our prayers for forgiveness,” he added.

He pointed out that it would not be the first time the church had dropped the pressure to take a publication to court, referring to a Tamil newspaper that had published an advertisement a few years back mocking a popular image of Jesus Christ holding a can of beer in one hand.

“As soon as the editor apologised, I told them, ‘Yes. I accept the apology. The matter is closed,” Pakiam said.

Pakiam had earlier at today’s press conference slammed the Attorney-General for deciding against prosecuting the Islamic magazine and its two reporters who had published a report of their exploits while undercover at a Catholic church in Ipoh last year.

Two Catholics had filed a police report against the magazine last July, claiming its reporters had desecrated church grounds when they pretended to be Christians and took part in the Holy Communion, a ceremony sacred to Catholics.

The police had investigated the reporters under section 298A (1) of the Penal Code for causing disharmony, disunity or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill will, or prejudicing harmony or unity on religious grounds.

The punishment carries a jail sentence of between two and five years.

But the A-G last week disclosed that it would not press charges against the magazine which had published the incident in its May 2009 issue.

The district police headquarters at Dang Wangi here had subsequently informed the complainant, KS Sudhagaran Stanley, in a letter that the deputy public prosecutor had decided to take “No Further Action”.

“It appears that the DPP’s instruction of no further action implies and conveys the message that no crime has been committed, despite an admission by the journalists of desecrating the Holy Communion,” Pakiam said.

The man of the cloth noted that the authorities had failed to understand the magnitude of the wrong done to the Catholic community.

Pakiam described the acts by the magazine’s writers as not only disrespectful but “shows contempt for our belief and a hatred for the church when our belief is violated”.

However, he told reporters he was not in support of Sudhagaran Stanley’s idea for a public demonstration and discouraged other supporters from the Catholic Church from joining in because “it is not an effective way to bring about the resolution to the issue”.

“If those in authority fail in their duty to take action against the perpetrators, then others will feel less compelled to act within the constraints of law and basic civilised norms of decency, if this or like incidents are repeated.

“The lack of positive action would appear to legitimise the actions of the journalists,” he added, lamenting that Home Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein had failed to respond to a memorandum sent by the Catholic Lawyers’ Society protesting the outrage and received at his office by Deputy Home Minister Datuk Abu Seman.

Pakiam denied the inaction was related to the church’s suit on the “Allah” issue, which it finally won in the High Court on New Year’s Eve 2009.

In very strong language, Pakiam challenged the home minister to do his duty, but stopped short of saying the church would file another suit to review the A-G’s decision.

Pakiam appeared less than eager to push the legal path for justice. Instead, he said, he was “advocating greater understanding and foremost respect from all concerned”.

“We live in a multicultural, multi-religious community. There is a need to be respectful of each other’s beliefs, failing which we will lose sight of our own humanity and dignity, the very best of the 1Malaysia concept,” Pakiam said.

[Reported by the Herald]

I have seen much passive-aggressiveness and aimless anger in my work with social activists that I know non-violence does not come easy or naturally to people. Even peace work can be a cover for a dark warrior. Often the violence has only gone underground.

Richard Rohr, Adam's Return, page 125

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

VATICAN CITY (UCAN) - Pope Benedict XVI has extended his good wishes to the Chinese, the Vietnamese, and all other people in Asia and around the world who are celebrating the Lunar New Year.

He conveyed his greetings from his study window in the Vatican at midday on Sunday, Feb. 14, when he spoke to thousands of pilgrims from many lands gathered in St. Peter’s Square.

“Today the Lunar New Year is celebrated in various countries of Asia — I am thinking in particular of China and Vietnam, and in many communities scattered throughout the world,” the pope told them.

“These are festive days, which these people live as privileged occasions to strengthen family and generational bonds,” he added.

He concluded by expressing the wish that “all of them may maintain and increase the rich inheritance of spiritual and moral values, that are firmly rooted in the culture of these peoples.”

His words brought warn applause from the thousands in the square, and especially from several small groups of Chinese and Vietnamese present among them who waved to him.

In sending this greeting, Pope Benedict was following in a tradition started by John Paul II as he reached out to improve relations, particularly with China and Vietnam.

Posted by SK at 6:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

This afternoon I visited an Evangelical Christian community to watch my little nephew's performance in his Sunday School Camp's concert. Over a hundred children were there, and since it was their concert, many parents were around as well.

To my surprise, I met a couple of old friends of mine from seminary. It had been close to ten years now since we'd last been in touch. What surprised me about meeting them at this event was more that the last time I knew them, they weren't a part of this particular community.

Anyway, we managed to catch up. And of course, the big news: Sherman was now Roman Catholic.

This was the reaction I received to this news release: "You?! Of all people?? Sherman - the free-spirited open-ended Charismatically-inclined guy we knew at seminary - you?!" Yeah, me. "But... but... what made you decide to become Catholic?"

I was hardpressed for an answer, because what would've taken me an hour and a half to relate had to now be compressed into a fifteen-second answer. For the first time, I realised I had to have an instant fifteen-second answer for pressing moments when people asked me, "Why have you become Catholic?" I had to have an answer that was compelling enough, that wouldn't communicate a wrong impression that being Catholic was equivalent to joining "just another Christian denomination" like all other Protestant denominations to which I'd belonged prior to this.

(Just a by-the-way clarification: the notion of "denominations" is a Protestant notion. For the Catholic Church, the concern is simply whether a particular community constitutes a true Church or not based on the four marks of the true Church. So you're either a Church or you're not; the word "denomination" doesn't come within our ecclesiological radar.)

As I began searching my mental database for an answer, my mind quickly started racing down the hierarchy of truths, and it stopped at this point: APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. And I quickly told my friends, "I became Roman Catholic because my conviction led me to an understanding of Apostolic Succession". And of course, there wasn't time to explain further.

But why Apostolic Succession? Because of this:

• Apostolic Succession gives you the Magisterium which is responsible for guarding and transmitting the Deposit of Faith in its purity. With this, there is no longer a need to make ourselves the arbiters of truth as if we could be wiser than Holy Mother Church which has existed through the guidance of the Holy Spirit for 2,000 years.

  
  

• Apostolic Succession gives you a validity of the Holy Orders of Bishops, Priests and Deacons. Your sacraments are valid, and your Eucharist is truly the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ through which you receive divine life. No more having to struggle with 300 possible alternative interpretations for the sacrament; you can just return to the most ancient understanding / reality embraced by Jesus and His Apostles.
  

Perhaps I was once free-spirited and open-ended because I never truly knew what to believe. Or who to believe. Despite all that I'd thought I knew, I felt disconnected (in many ways) from my faith and the institutions with which I was associated.

As a Catholic, because of having received the entire Deposit of Daith and having accepted the duty of loving obedience to Holy Mother Church, I know that what I believe is the very faith lived by the Holy Apostles of Christ.

So what made me become Catholic? It's a one-and-a-half-hour story. But here's what it was if I had only fifteen seconds to answer this question: Apostolic Succession.

Posted by SK at 8:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

BANGKOK: Bishop Paul Tan Chee Ing of Melaka-Johor says the Church in Malaysia must continue to push for the rights of non-Muslims amid growing Islamization in the country.

The 69-year-old Malaysian Jesuit gave an interview to UCA News on the sidelines of the recent Federation of Asian Bishops' Conferences symposium on Religious life, held in Hua Hin, Thailand.

He spoke about the ongoing controversy surrounding Malaysian Christians' use of the word "Allah" and various aspects of Islamization taking place in Malaysia. Muslims comprise about 60 percent of its 28 million people.

This year, the government reportedly confiscated 15,000 Malay-language bibles because they contain the word "Allah." The national Catholic weekly, "Herald," has also become embroiled in a dispute with the government over its use of "Allah" in its Malay section.

Bishop Tan co-founded the Malaysian Consultative Council for Buddhism, Christianity, Hindusim, Sikhism and Taoism (MCCBCHST) in the 1980s and has served as its vice president. He has also served as assistant secretary and later as an executive committee member of the Christian Federation of Malaysia.

The interview follows:

What is your view of the ban on non-Muslims using the word 'Allah'?

When Christian leaders met in Kuching in 1989, it resulted in a declaration that says we have the right to use the word "Allah" for God. No one has the right to forbid its usage, and it is part of the national language. It is a pre-Islamic word. All the Arab Christians and Indonesian Christians use the word "Allah." Why should Malaysia forbid it? But what we call "Islamization" is not only a question of forbidding certain Arabic words and phrases.

What more does it involve?

To understand this concept, one has to understand that for Muslims in Malaysia, there is no such thing as separation of state and religion. Islam, for them, is all-embracing. Therefore, it should penetrate all strata of life -- from daily living to politics. As a result, Islamization is a long-term plan in which Islam, with all that it entails, should gradually seep into the life of Malaysians -- Muslims and non-Muslims.

Forbidding non-Muslims from using certain Arabic words and phrases that have become part of the Malaysian language is, according to them, "to prevent non-Muslims from confusing Muslims and thus converting them subtly." Of course, this would involve the whole political scene of fishing for votes.

This Islamization process has now begun to penetrate our Federal Constitution, which is rooted in British common law. Using their own words, the federal law should be made "compliant with Islamic Law."

Our mission schools have all but lost their character, with non-Christian headmasters and headmistresses. The conversion of children under the age of maturity, which is 18 years old in Malaysia, becomes automatic when one of the parents converts. There is also the taking of dead bodies of people whom the Islamic department claims have been converted.

The present controversy surrounding Banggarma Subramaniam is another case. They claim she was converted as a child. Now she is married to a Hindu, and the Registrar of Marriages has refused to register them because it claims she is Muslim. Now 27 years old, she "asserts that she has lived as a Hindu for most of her life."

I could give you a whole string of attempts made to Islamize Malaysia.

How should the Church respond?

It should have the fortitude to continue standing up for the rights of non-Muslims and, at the same time, push for equality in dialogue with all parties.

Catholics form a small portion of the population, slightly more than 3.5 percent. Christians altogether form 9 percent of the population. Hence, it is vital that we join hands with all the other non-Muslims in the framework of the MCCBCHST. This way we will not be singled out as being against the Muslims, and we make our voice louder along with the others -- about 40 percent of the population.

(The Church should also) dialogue at all levels -- from dialogue of life to intellectual and spiritual dialogue. The Church, in spite of everything, must be open to dialogue with others, especially with Muslims, without allowing herself to be trampled upon.

What has MCCBCHST accomplished?

It has made itself accepted by all as speaking for the non-Muslims, not a small achievement seeing the political situation. All in all, it has not done a bad job, taking into account it is such a diverse group with various views. It has protested when rights were trampled upon. It has approached government authorities to put right what is wrong. Most of the time, we have been listened to, but no action has been taken to right what is wrong.

What is the role of East Malaysians in the future of the Church?

We have been pushing the East Malaysian Church to play a greater and more prominent role, because its Catholics are largely bumiputra. [Editor's note: Bumiputra, literally "sons of the soil," is a term used to describe the indigenous peoples of Malaysia including Malays.]

Having a larger number of Catholics (in East Malaysia), the Church will have a stronger voice with the government. If they take a stand, the Malaysian government cannot ignore them, because of their votes. It depends on the Catholics and the Catholic politicians from there.

[From UCA News]

Posted by SK at 11:46 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Personal commentary: Many people, Protestants and non-Christians (and even some Catholics!), often accuse the Roman Catholic Church of being rigid in its theology, of hampering explorations, and most of all, of being opposed to scientific progress. Well, look here:

The Pontifical Academy of Science recently hosted a gathering leading scientists from around the world to assess the most recent research on life in the universe and to discuss the possibility of life on other planets.

Though Father Jose Gabriel Funes said questions on life’s origins and whether life exists elsewhere in the universe offer “many philosophical and theological implications," the chief papal astronomer said the five-day conference – which attracted 30 astronomers, physicists and biologists, including non-Catholics – “focused on the scientific perspective.”

"The questions … are very suitable and deserve serious consideration," Funes said, according to the Vatican news service.

In recent years, technological breakthroughs have led to the discovery of more than 400 planets beyond the solar system. And with the field of astrobiology only just burgeoning, scientists such as Prof. Chris Impey of the University Arizona believe the discovery of life elsewhere may be just around the corner.

"If you were going to take a set of bets of the 30 scientists gathered for that meeting, I think most of them would have said on about a time scale of 10 years maybe," said the Tucson, Ariz.-based astronomer, who was one of the organizers of the Nov. 6-10 Vatican conference.

But Impey was quick to point out that there is a big distinction between the finding of microbial life such as bacteria – the most likely form of life to be discovered initially – and intelligent life.

“[I]t (microbial life)'s not likely to challenge the world's major religions,” he told The World Today, “but if we find creatures that rival us or exceed us in intelligence, then I think that's going to be very interesting."

Though the philosophical and theological implications of the discovery of intelligent life elsewhere were not discussed during the conference, several attendees weighed in afterward with their thoughts – most of which suggested that such a discovery would not contradict scripture nor pose a problem to their faith.

Evangelical scholars, similarly, have expressed such sentiments, holding that the existence or non-existence of other people, other planets, and other universes is of no significance concerning the Christian worldview.

“If there is or is not something out there beyond our knowledge – whether it’s a conscious or unconscious creature – it really doesn’t matter,” commented Dr. R. Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, in a radio broadcast last year.

“What matters is what God’s revealed concerning His plan for this world, this cosmos and this creature – human beings, the creature made in His image – and His redemptive purpose for us for His glory,” the preeminent evangelical scholar stated.

According to Funes, participants of the recent Vatican-hosted meeting hope to publish the conclusions from the event in a book.

Topics discussed included “Formation of Earth-Sized Planets,” “Habitability of Exoplanets,” and “Searching for Multiple Origins of Life.”

Participants included two professors from the California Institute of Technology, three professors from Harvard University, and two professors from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, among others.

The event was held to mark the International Year of Astronomy, a year-long celebration of astronomy that coincides with the 400th anniversary of the first recorded astronomical observations with a telescope by Galileo Galilei and the publication of Johannes Kepler's Astronomia nova in the 17th century.

Eric Young
Christian Post Reporter

Posted by SK at 8:02 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Dialogue is indeed an integral part of the evangelising mission of the Church. But let us also not forget, “proclamation is the foundation, centre, and summit of evangelisation” (Evangelii Nuntiandi, 1975, point 27). To drive this point further, we can surmise that the Church would not have so emphasised the importance of proclamation as “the foundation, centre, and summit of evangelisation” if all religions were equal in revelation and truth. We can dialogue and share in order to learn, understand and respect one another. But ultimately, the truth must be spoken, and all dialogue must be at the service of truth. There must be a point at which dialogue transposes into proclamation.

At the same time, dialogue, by its sheer nature, also means that the religious conscience of the human person must be respected, that “no one must be constrained to act against his conscience, nor should he be impeded in acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters" (Dignitatis Humanae, 1965, point 3). Dialogue ensures that the graces of voluntary and willing conversion are preserved in the evangelisation efforts of the Church.

Evidently from this entire discussion, it does not necessarily follow that anyone who is not visibly within the Church is necessarily damned. And yet, Holy Mother Church continues to invite our non-Catholic neighbours to dialogue, and to ultimately proclaim among them the truth of Jesus Christ.

But lest we who are already found within the Church sink into complacency about our own salvation, we are also reminded: still less does it follow that everyone who is visibly within the Church is necessarily saved. St Augustine of Hippo once remarked, “How many sheep there are without, how many wolves within!” (Homilies on John, 45, 12). This serves as a stern warning to we who distort the truth in our dealings with our non-Christian neighbours: we must be careful what we teach, in both word and deed.

Posted by SK at 12:37 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Church Dialogues with Other Religions

Proclamation is squarely ”the communication of the Gospel message, the mystery of salvation realised by God for all in Jesus Christ by the power of the Spirit. It is an invitation to a commitment of faith in Jesus Christ and to entry through baptism into the community of believers which is the Church” (Dialogue and Proclamation, point 10).

Dialogue, on the other hand, is less straightforward, and in this article I would like to dwell on this particular facet of evangelisation. Here is what dialogue means:

…in the context of religious plurality, dialogue means "all positive and constructive interreligious relations with individuals and communities of other faiths which are directed at mutual understanding and enrichment", in obedience to truth and respect for freedom. It includes both witness and the exploration of respective religious convictions.

(Dialogue and Proclamation, point 9)

But why do we have to couple dialogue with proclamation? Why would proclamation itself not be sufficient? To put it succinctly, the Church deems it fit that dialogue be an integral part of our evangelisation activity because we represent a God who dialogues. “God, in an age-long dialogue, has offered and continues to offer salvation to humankind. In faithfulness to the divine initiative, the Church too must enter into a dialogue of salvation with all men and women” (Dialogue and Proclamation, point 38).

The Church speaks of four different forms of interreligious dialogue in no particular order of priority:

a) The dialogue of life, where people strive to live in an open and neighbourly spirit, sharing their joys and sorrows, their human problems and preoccupations.

b) The dialogue of action, in which Christians and others collaborate for the integral development and liberation of people.

c) The dialogue of theological exchange, where specialists seek to deepen their understanding of their respective religious heritages, and to appreciate each other's spiritual values.

d) The dialogue of religious experience, where persons, rooted in their own religious traditions, share their spiritual riches, for instance with regard to prayer and contemplation, faith and ways of searching for God or the Absolute.

(Dialogue and Proclamation, point 42; also in
The attitude of the Church Towards the Followers of Other Religions:
Reflections and Orientations on Dialogue and Mission, 1984, points 28-35)

Posted by SK at 12:32 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Is My Neighbour Saved?

However, the Church also acknowledges the reality that not all people are privileged to hear the Gospel in its fullness. Some receive it only partially, perhaps because of the inadequacies of its transmitters, whilst others almost never receive it at all throughout their lifetimes. As a result, their religious conscience does not incline them to realise a need for Christ and His Church. Of these, the Church says,

Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience. Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel.

(Lumen Gentium, point 16)

In summary, the Holy Catholic Church acknowledges the goodness found in all religions, and the possibility of salvation for those who seek God to the best of their abilities. However, in the same breath, it affirms the abiding efficacy of Christ’s work to save the world. In other words, we believe that if people are saved, regardless of their religious adherence, it is Christ who saves them. Other religions are a preparation for the Gospel of Christ; they are not the Gospel itself. Hence, the all too common practice of substituting our reading of Sacred Scripture with the scriptures of other religions is nothing less than a scandal to the integrity of Christ’s redemptive work.

We should not be ashamed to make unique truth claims about our faith, because making exclusive truth claims is innate to the nature of religion. After all, which religion does not claim itself to be uniquely true? To defy this nature of religious beliefs by turning truth claims upon themselves, and insisting that no one religion is unique, would constitute starting a whole new religion; and ironically, this new claim itself would be exclusive too!

For the Church to acknowledge the possibility of salvation for peoples of other faiths is entirely different from saying that all religions are the same, for such a notion defies the very nucleus of our faith - that it is Jesus who saves! The words of the first Pope of the Church, the Apostle Peter, continue to resound today: “Only in Him [i.e. Jesus Christ] is there salvation; for of all the names in the world given to men, this is the only one by which we can be saved (Acts of the Apostles 4.12)”.

Posted by SK at 11:03 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Who Is My Neighbour?

The Second Vatican Council teaches that God’s salvation plan includes all peoples: even Jews, Muslims, and peoples of other non-Christian religions. “Christ, the New Adam, through the mystery of His incarnation, death and resurrection, is at work in each human person to bring about interior renewal.” (Dialogue and Proclamation, 1991, point 15).

This holds true not for Christians only but also for all persons of good will in whose hearts grace is active invisibly. For since Christ died for all, and since all are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partners, in a way known to God, in the Paschal mystery.

(Gaudium et Spes, 1965, point 22)

The Church further goes on to say that all these who have “not yet received the Gospel are related to the people of God in various ways” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, point 839). In points 839 to 842 of the Catechism (also in Lumen Gentium, 1964, point 26), further explication is given on the unique nature of each of these relationships. Then, point 843 sums up these relationships as follows:

The Catholic Church recognises in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since He gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as “a preparation for the Gospel…”

It is imperative that we should note here - categorically - that the Church does not say that all religions are equal or that all religions bring salvation. In fact, the Catechism also speaks of how “in their religious behavior… men [i.e. people of other religions] also display the limits and errors that disfigure the image of God in them” (point 844). This unambiguously points to the necessity of evangelisation.

Posted by SK at 7:16 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

One of the complications arising from living in Asia stems from the religious composition of the Asian population. The Asian continent is the very source of the world religions that thrive in the world today: Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, and a good many other religions.

Having to make sense of this plethora of religions together with their variety of truth claims must be disconcerting to the Asian man on the street. This is so even for those of us who follow Jesus Christ, who call ourselves Christians. Over the centuries, Asian Christians have come to make sense of these other religions among them in different ways. There are two prevalent notions I would like to briefly explicate here:

Two Common Notions about Other Religions

This very exclusivist position on the salvation of peoples of other religions is one of two common notions among Christian people of other religions. For most of the strict Evangelical Christians (although not all), there is no relationship whatsoever between the Christians and people of other religions; it is only those who explicitly profess the Christian faith who will ultimately be saved. For the record, there are some of them who think Catholics are not saved either, since “they worship Mary and not Jesus Christ”!

ii. All people will be saved regardless of their religion. Another common position, strangely, seems to be very prevalent among Catholics in this part of the world. It is the pluralist position which claims that all religions lead to salvation, and that no one religion is better than others.

This pluralistic notion is, of course, rejected by the Holy Catholic Church. If all religions led to salvation, then Jesus Christ would have been a most foolish or insane person to think that He would have to die for the sins of the world. Furthermore, if the truth claims of all religions were equal, the unenviable onus would fall upon the adherents of all these religions to reconcile their seemingly conflicting beliefs. For example, some religions believe that after death, there will be judgement, heaven, and hell, whilst some others believe that death would merely lead to one’s reincarnation into another life which may be of a similar or different state. Two conflicting claims such as these cannot both be right; one must be correct and the other wrong.

The Catholic Church does not give assent to either one of these two positions in regard to her relationship with non-Christian peoples. It is therefore sad that many Catholics continue holding on to at least one of these two notions. What is even sadder is the fact that many, if not most, Catholics have no idea of the position of the Catholic Church on her relationship with peoples of other faiths. For those who have come to this knowledge, they continue to be fascinated and awed by the beauty of this position. It is a position that is inclusive, which takes into account God’s grace and love for our neighbours but without having to compromise the uniqueness of Jesus Christ who gave His life for the sins of the world, and whose Body and Blood is offered upon the altars of our churches daily as a result of His one timeless sacrifice.

Clearly, there is a need for Catholics to understand the finer nuances of the Catholic faith and position in regard to this issue rather than to hold naïve positions on it.

Posted by SK at 9:34 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Throughout the past two years since I became Catholic, countless people have asked me what the Catholic position was on peoples of other religions. Does the Catholic Church think that only Catholics will be saved, or can peoples of other faiths be saved too? Of course, this question may seem rather strange to Evangelicals. Ironically, many of those who have asked me about this before were themselves Evangelical Christians.

One of the things that have amazed me very much about the Catholic faith is how the Roman Catholic Church is perhaps the only existing religion that has such a comprehensive (and official) position on other religions in relation to itself. This is not to say that other religions do not have such systematic notions of thought. It is just that the extensiveness and depth of Catholic thought pertaining to this issue in question continues to amaze me.

I will be posting up in this blog, in installments, an entire series called "Through No Fault of Their Own: The Catholic Church and Peoples of Other Faiths" to explain the Catholic position on this matter.

Stay tuned for this series...

Posted by SK at 11:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

MADRID, Spain, JULY 30, 2009 (Zenit.org).- The logo for World Youth Day 2011 in Madrid was presented today: The image reflects youth of the world beneath the cross, united to form the crown of Our Lady, patron of Madrid.

The upcoming World Youth Day is scheduled for Aug. 16-21, 2011.

The logo designer, José Gil-Nogués, explained that the image symbolizes "youth of the whole world united to celebrate their faith together with the Pope, at the foot of the cross, and they form the crown of Our Lady of Almudena, patron of Madrid."

The crown, Gil-Nogués added, forms the "M" of Mary and of Madrid. And the cross, symbol of Christianity, presides over the event.

The message of the logo, the designer continued, is "a catechesis, an opportunity for evangelization: The quick and sure path to reach Christ is the Virgin Mary, Mother of God and of mankind. In Mary's faith, youth have the example and model for reaching Christ and fulfilling the primary goal of World Youth Day: to bring their message to the world."

"The logo has a firm and spontaneous stroke," Gil-Nogués suggested, "like youth of the 21st century. It is close, friendly, open. Joyful, carefree and positive."

"The use of a palette of warm colors -- red, orange and yellow -- transmits unmistakable warmth and friendliness, symbols of the identity of a city like Madrid, a nation like Spain. These colors also reflect the 'divine warmth' of Trinitarian Love."

The logo was selected after a competition among professional graphic designers.

Posted by SK at 10:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

MADRID, Spain, SEPT. 3, 2009 (Zenit.org).- The cross that tours around the world leading up to World Youth Days will begin this month a pilgrimage through Spain, the host country for the 2011 youth event.

Sept. 14, feast of the triumph of the cross, will mark the beginning of the youth day icons' travels through Spain. In addition to the cross, there is an image of the Virgin Mary that goes from place to place in preparation for World Youth Day.

The next international youth event will be held in Madrid in August 2011.

The cross and icon of Mary will visit Spain's vicariates for two- to four-week intervals. It will also be taken to a jail and form part of an annual youth pilgrimage.

Posted by SK at 12:57 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Deacons as Administrators
of the Church

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

The employment of salaried administrators in dioceses and parishes today is an entirely new phenomenon. There is little that Holy Mother Church, being a two-thousand year old institution and community, has not thought about. Right from the time of the Apostles, Church administration had already become a challenge, and a special order created in response to the need for effective administration.

In the Acts of the Apostles (6:1-6), the landmark election of seven men as deacons of the Church took place arising from administrative concerns. The Greek-speaking widows, who were not attendees of the Temple where the Apostles preached, were said to be somewhat neglected since their needs were not attended to in their own homes. They, unlike the Aramaic-speaking, had allegedly not received their fair share of the goods which were distributed by the Christian community among the people in need of aid. The Apostles, in having their attention brought to this need, concluded, “It is not right for us to neglect the word of God in order to wait on tables”. They therefore laid hands on seven “deeply spiritual and prudent” men for this ministry of serving the catechetical needs of the widows and the bringing of their rations to their homes. They were called “deacons”. These deacons served as the Apostles directed.

Arguably, the institution of the order of the diaconate preceded that of the priests. The reason for this is that at the institution of the diaconate, the Apostles were still in active ministry and had not had to grapple with issues of succession, whilst the Church was relatively still small.

As has been explained, the foundation of this ministry is found in Acts 6:6 wherein men were elected to serve in the distribution of daily rations to the widows. Its original Greek word diakonia very simply means “service”. This perhaps explains why the dalmatic, one of the deacon’s liturgical vestments, has short wide sleeves with a somewhat apron-like appearance - he is an icon of Christ the Servant.

Church history documents the growth of the deacon’s role. So crucial was the role of deacons that the See of Rome, by the third century, was administered by The Seven Deacons of Rome, who were deputised by the Bishop of Rome to handle the operational affairs of the diocese. In the scheme of the diocese, the bishop and deacon were very closely bonded to each other.

Tradition records a deacon called Lawrence in the year 258 AD in the See of Rome. The emperor Valerian had been cultivating a desire to possess all the wealth and riches of the Church in his lust for power. He therefore ordered for Lawrence to gather all the wealth of the Church before him, this being an offer of a way out of martyrdom for Lawrence. Just four days before that, the Bishop of Rome - Sixtus - had been martyred. So close was the relationship between Sixtus and his deacons that as he was led away to his death, Lawrence and his other six brother deacons followed along, crying, “Father, where are you going without your deacon?” Lawrence’s six brother deacons were subsequently also martyred.

In response to the emperor’s instructions, Lawrence requested for three days to gather all the wealth of the Church together. Within that three days, Lawrence congregated all the poor, the handicapped and the needy from all over Rome who were being supported by the wealth of the Christian community in obedience to the Gospel imperative. When the emperor arrived, Lawrence presented all these people before him as the true “gold and silver” of the Church. The deacon, known today as St Lawrence, was put to death by being burnt slowly over a gridiron.

Among the many lessons projected by this account of St Lawrence, one acquires a rather clear idea of how deacons were very much involved in administrative matters in the Church, particularly, the administration of Church property and the administration of its people.

The deacons of a diocese constituted the eyes and ears of the bishop, his "right hand men". The bishop's principal assistant was known as the "archdeacon", and was often charged with daunting responsibilities, namely, in the financial administration of the local church and the distribution of funds and goods to the poor. So crucial was the diaconate in the Church that of the 37 men elected pope between 432 and 684 AD, only three are known to have been ordained to priesthood before their election to the Chair of Peter, whilst the rest were elected popes whilst they were still deacons.

One reason for this diminishment of the diaconate as a permanent function in the Latin Church was the failure of both presbyters and deacons to understand the unique role of the diaconate as a distinct order within the life of the Church. It also was less than helpful when deacons who had major responsibilities, together with powerful authority accompanying these responsibilities, became lofty and self-serving in their attitudes. The presbyters too were often unhappy that in certain responsibilities held by the deacons, they found themselves having to submit to the administrative authority of the latter. Even St Jerome demanded an explanation for why deacons had often been endowed with such authority by bishops: “After all, deacons could not preside at Eucharist, and presbyters were really the same as bishops".

As a result, by the early middle ages, the diaconate in the Latin Church had become an intermediate step in one’s journey towards priesthood. The deacon, now a solely transitional role, was perceived by the clergy and populace as an incomplete priest awaiting the completion of his sacramental ordination. He was a mere priest in the making, rising through the ranks, this being a traditional system of gradual promotion adapted from the Roman secular government.

But at the Second Vatican Council, the Holy Father Pope Paul VI definitively restored the permanent diaconate in the Latin Church through his apostolic letter Diaconatus Ordinem. Subsequent to his reinstatement of the permanent diaconate, he said “the permanent diaconate should be restored as a driving force for the Church's service (diakonia) toward the local Christian communities, and as a sign or sacrament of the Lord Christ himself, who 'came not to be served but to serve'" (Ad Pascendum, August 15, 1972, Introduction).

One reason cited for the restoration of the diaconate as a permanent order of the Church during Vatican II was that it would at least temporarily alleviate the shortage of priests in certain parts of the world. The presence of deacons would somewhat relieve the absence of priests and provide for the spiritual sustenance of communities which rarely caught sight of priests in their midst. This rationale continues to be valid and even compelling in certain contexts today. However, holding solely to this argument that deacons would merely be helpful in situations where relief of priests was required, and that the former would not have been needed should there have been sufficient numbers of priests, would constitute a deficient understanding of the threefold hierarchy of the Holy Orders. The diaconate possesses its own intrinsic reason and right to exist.

In the document Lumen Gentium of the Second Vatican Council, the function of the deacon is clearly delineated:

At a lower level of the hierarchy are deacons, upon whom hands are imposed "not unto the priesthood, but unto a ministry of service". For strengthened by sacramental grace, in communion with the bishop and his group of priests they serve in the diaconate of the liturgy, of the word, and of charity to the people of God. It is the duty of the deacon, according as it shall have been assigned to him by competent authority, to administer baptism solemnly, to be custodian and dispenser of the Eucharist, to assist at and bless marriages in the name of the Church, to bring Viaticum to the dying, to read the Sacred Scripture to the faithful, to instruct and exhort the people, to preside over the worship and prayer of the faithful, to administer sacramentals, to officiate at funeral and burial services. Dedicated to duties of charity and of administration [italics added], let deacons be mindful of the admonition of Blessed Polycarp: "Be merciful, diligent, walking according to the truth of the Lord, who became the servant of all".

[Lumen Gentium, 29]

Notice that this paragraph in Lumen Gentium alludes rather explicitly to the fact that administration is very much a part of a deacon’s sacramental function. Thus, the diaconate is a rather distinct and specific role in the Church which is not to be confused with that of the priesthood; the deacon should never try to be a priest. He is also not an assistant to the priest, except when specifically instructed by the bishop to be so, for he serves the bishop’s bidding just as the deacons in the Early Church were directed by the Apostles.

Having said that, it must also be noted that despite the decisive reinstatement of the permanent diaconate at Vatican II, its restoration in the particular churches falls under the discretion of the local bishops: "But it pertains to the competent local episcopal conferences…with the approval of the supreme Pontiff, to decide whether and where it is opportune that such deacons be appointed" (Lumen Gentium, 29).

The task belongs to him, in the first place, to inspire dedicated service among the laity. The very person of the deacon himself is a visual reminder that Christ is not only the high priest, but also a servant, “For the Son of man himself came not to be served but to serve... (Mark 10:45)”. The deacon’s presence exists to consistently propel the people of God out of lackadaisical complacency over issues of peace, justice and mercy, challenging all the faithful to respond to their baptismal calling to fulfil the mission of the Church. A task like this certainly entails more administrative considerations than meet the eye.

There is, to be sure, nothing wrong with dioceses and parishes employing lay people to work as administrators of their various offices and ministries. In fact, many times, lay people are able to accomplish that which clerics are never able to find time to achieve. But to rely solely on the role of the laity in the administration of the Church is to keep the Church in sacramental poverty, since God’s gift of the diaconate to the Church for very obvious purposes is not utilised.

The deacon therefore continues to be revered as an icon of Christ the Servant for whom works of charity and administration are a permanent vocation in his life, together with the service of word and altar. His role is profoundly different, but not necessarily better, from the role of the laity, because his ordination into the Holy Order leaves a permanent mark on his soul.

Like Lawrence and his six brother deacons, the deacon today is to be so bound to the ministry of his bishop that in the face of the bishop’s peril, the deacon would cry out, “Father, where are you going without your deacon?”

Posted by SK at 11:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | 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 5:43 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Mary, the Mother of the Church, is not God. But our admiration abounds for the tenderness with which she approached God, the willingness with which she cooperated with God for the sake of mankind's salvation, and the sacrifice with which she gave of herself and continuously gives of herself in intercession for her children.

The two modern Marian dogmas of the Catholic Church are of course fodder for ecumenical disputes. But what most Reformation-based Christians have forgotten is that the two ancient Marian dogmas - the dogma of the theotokos, the Mother of God, and the Perpetual Virginity of Mary - were promulgated as early as the Third and Fifth Ecumenical Councils respectively. These were supposedly Church Councils whose decisions we all share in common, save for the Oriental Orthodox Churches who recognise only the first three Councils as being of ecumenical nature (even so, they hold on to the validity of these dogmas).

Looking beyond these dogmas, there is something of the spirit of Mary that the follower of Christ needs to capture. From Mary, the model of discipleship par excellence, we learn this: there is a certain tenderness of heart that is called for in discipleship.

It was she who, in all humility, said "Be it unto me according to your word" when the impending conception of the Lord Jesus Christ was announced to her. Truly, she was the favoured one of God, chosen to bring the Saviour into the world. Not because she was worthy, but rather, that she was made worthy of the promises of God.

Contrary to much of that for which feminists battle today (the right to behave like men, etc), Mary was and is the model of a woman that most deeply pleases the heart of God. She was and is blessed among women, and is a tender woman honoured by all men.

Hail Mary, full of grace,
The Lord is with you.
Blessed are you among women,
And blessed is the fruit of your womb, Jesus.
Holy Mary, mother of God,
Pray for us sinners
now and at the hour of our death.

Posted by SK at 6:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

For centuries, Holy Mother Church has sought ways and means of communicating the message of the Gospel to the world. Now, this ancient Church containing the ancient Faith embarks on a new way of daily communication - youtube.

Watch it here.

Posted by SK at 10:15 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

The Church's Teaching on Human Dignity


Sherman Kuek, SFO
Published in Catholic Asian News
(December 2008 / January 2009 Issue)

The dignity of the human person forms the most basic premise of the Church’s social teaching. It is the key which unlocks what has come to be known as the Church’s “best kept secret” or “buried treasure”.

The Church, having a moral vision for society, has deemed it fit to begin her teaching with an affirmation of the sanctity of human life and the dignity of the human person. The human person is invariably the concentration point of the Church’s social vision.

Accordingly, therefore, human persons are endowed with an inherent dignity which entails certain basic rights and responsibilities to be exercised within a social framework. Every person possesses a fundamental dignity that comes from God, not from any human quality or accomplishment, not from race or gender, age or economic status.

The “link of being” between God and humanity was rendered even more pronounced when God became flesh by entering the human race in the person of Jesus Christ, fully God and fully man. The God-Man - the Christ - challenges us to see His presence in all humanity. More than that, he confronts humanity with the need to see His presence in our neighbours, especially those who suffer or who lack the things that are crucial to their human development.

Identifying with the sufferings of our fellow neighbours and endeavouring to relieve their sufferings and to meet their needs, in Jesus’ own assessment, tantamount to serving Him (Matthew 25:34-40). For the Christian, there is no more honourable privilege and duty.

Any human society, if it is to be well-ordered and productive, must lay down as a foundation this principle, namely, that every human being is a person, that is, his nature is endowed with intelligence and free will. Indeed, precisely because he is a person he has rights and obligations flowing directly and simultaneously from his very nature. (Pacem In Terris, 1963, #9)

... there is a growing awareness of the exalted dignity proper to the human person, since he stands above all things, and his rights and duties are universal and inviolable. Therefore, there must be made available to all men everything necessary for leading a life truly human, such as food, clothing, and shelter; the right to choose a state of life freely and to found a family, the right to education, to employment, to a good reputation, to respect, to appropriate information, to activity in accord with the upright norm of one's own conscience, to protection of privacy and rightful freedom, even in matters religious. (Gaudium et Spes, 1965, #26)

... this Council lays stress on reverence for the human person; everyone must consider one's every neighbour without exception as another self, taking into account first of all life and the means necessary to living it with dignity, so as not to imitate the rich man who had no concern for the poor man Lazarus. (Gaudium et Spes, 1965, #27)

... Whatever insults human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children; as well as disgraceful working conditions, where men are treated as mere tools for profit, rather than as free and responsible persons; all these things and others of their like are infamies indeed. They poison human society, but they do more harm to those who practise them than those who suffer from the injury. (Gaudium et Spes, 1965, #27)

At the centre of all Catholic social teaching are the transcendence of God and the dignity of the human person. The human person is the clearest reflection of God's presence in the world; all of the Church's work in pursuit of both justice and peace is designed to protect and promote the dignity of every person. For each person not only reflects God, but is the expression of God's creative work and the meaning of Christ's redemptive ministry. (The Challenge of Peace, 1983, #15)

Every perspective on economic life that is human, moral, and Christian must be shaped by three questions: What does the economy do for people? What does it do to people? And how do people participate in it? (Economic Justice for All, 1986, #1)

The basis for all that the Church believes about the moral dimensions of economic life is its vision of the transcendent worth - the sacredness - of human beings. The dignity of the human person, realised in community with others, is the criterion against which all aspects of economic life must be measured. All human beings, therefore, are ends to be served by the institutions that make up the economy, not means to be exploited for more narrowly defined goals. Human personhood must be respected with a reverence that is religious. When we deal with each other, we should do so with the sense of awe that arises in the presence of something holy and sacred. For that is what human beings are: we are created in the image of God. (Economic Justice for All, 1986, #28)

Human persons are willed by God; they are imprinted with God's image. Their dignity does not come from the work they do, but from the persons they are. (Centesimus Annus, 1991, #11)

The dignity of the human person is rooted in his creation in the image and likeness of God... (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1992, #1700)

Christ is "the image of the invisible God" in whose image humanity is created. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1992, #1701)

The Australian Catholic Migrant and Refugee Office notes that “the tragic plight of refugees, while not new, has reached unprecedented levels in recent times as massive political and social upheavals, wars and internal conflicts continue around the world, forcing people to migrate and to seek asylum in countries other than their own”. This apt observation implies that the numbers of migrants and refugees in our midst will only increase in time to come. Compounding this problem is the reality that many of these will be present in our countries with no legal status and therefore no entitlements.

In our assessment of social policies pertaining to such migrants and refugees, among other policies, the test of every institution or enactment lies in its priority of human dignity, namely, whether it enhances or threatens human dignity and human life itself. Policies which consider people no more than mere economic units, or those which reduce people to a passive state of dependency on welfare, do not do justice to the dignity of the human person.

This teaching rests on one basic principle: individual human beings are the foundation, the cause and the end of every social institution. That is necessarily so, for men are by nature social beings. (Mater et Magistra, 1961, #219)

How all these considerations are translated into tangible endeavours on the parts of the Church and society in upholding and sustaining the dignity of the migrants and refugees in our midst remains a work in progress.

One immediate issue plaguing the migrants and refugees is, of course, that of work and subsistence. It has always been taught in the Christian Tradition that one’s vocation is fundamental to what it means to be human. And if this is indeed so, then perhaps active efforts for the provision of vocational training is necessary in collaboration with non-governmental agencies in order to promote their dignity by way of vocational equipment.

Together with that, their rights to be treated human by employers is another major factor to be addressed, especially in situations where no legislative enforcements assure the wellbeing of migrant workers. Such would include adequate medical attention, reasonable living conditions, and humane working hours.

Inasmuch as the teaching of the Church in issues of human dignity is comprehensive, the translation of her teaching into tangible solutions for the predicament of migrants and refugees is also a substantially comprehensive plan which requires long-term strategies and collaborative planning. Where the latter does not happen, the teachings of the Church might continue remaining etched in ecclesial documents as the Church’s best kept secret.

Posted by SK at 12:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

My temporary profession to the Secular Franciscan Order will take place on 02 December 2008 (Tuesday) at 1640 hours before the Blessed Sacrament at the sanctuary of the Church of the Visitation Seremban. All are welcomed to witness the occasion.

The Secular Franciscan Order (SFO) is a community of Roman Catholic men and women in the world who seek to pattern their lives after Christ in the spirit of St Francis of Assisi. The Order was founded by St Francis himself about 800 years ago at the beginning of the thirteenth century.

The Secular Franciscan Order is approved and recognised by the Holy See by the official name of Ordo Franciscanus Saecularis (OFS). It is open to any Roman Catholic not bound by religious vows to another Religious Order. It is made up of the laity (men and women) and also secular clergy (deacons, priests, bishops).

The Holy See has entrusted the pastoral care and spiritual assistance of the Secular Franciscan Order (SFO), because it belongs to the same spiritual family, to the Franciscan First Order (Friars Minor) and Franciscan Third Order Regular (TOR).

Posted by SK at 10:57 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

The Catechism of the Catholic Church affirms the following:

In the [Catholic Church] subsists the fullness of Christ's body united with its head; this implies that she receives from him “the fullness of the means of salvation” (CCC #830).

It goes further to explain the following:

The Church is catholic: she proclaims the fullness of the faith. She bears in herself and administers the totality of the means of salvation (CCC #868).

It is now a world that no longer takes delight in such absolute statements. These statements, for the many relativists of various degrees one meets in the intellectual arena, are too arrogantly certain. Such protestors say, “We must never take any one group or denomination of believers to be in full possession of the truth”.

This statement usually means that every group has some fraction of the entire body of truth, and that full truth is found only when one embraces the sum of all these fractions of truth. And many actually audaciously call this “ecumenism” - to be sure, many Catholics are guilty of this too.

Underlying this statement is to be found a series of logical fallacies.

Many claimants of this statement do not realise that such an assumption is intrinsic to their argument. The nature of his claim, that no one body of truth encompasses truth in its completeness, presupposes that the claimant himself knows what a complete body of truth must look like. If he himself had no possession of the full truth, he should not know what the full truth is like. And if he possesses not the full truth, he has no logical basis - without first having known full truth - of knowing that other groups have incomplete bodies of truth. If every body of belief, as he claims, is incomplete, then there would be no standard of fullness by which all other bodies of faith claims are to be measured. This would render his own claim arbitrary at best and defective at worst.

Therefore, the fallacy in this position lies in its self-contradiction. It is found in the assumption that the knower knows the extent of truth propositions required to constitute a “fullness” of truth. Even if he does not yet possess the full truth, it assumes that he at least possesses the capacity to collate the sum of truths found in every group of believers, and consequently emerging with a set of full truths. Furthermore, even if he has not yet attained the sum of truths or the fullness of truth, this position must necessarily assume that he can and will one day attain the fullness of truth.

But in the first place, if such fullness of truth was at all possible, then why would this knower be the only one for whom it was possible to attain that fullness? Why would it not be possible for any one group of believers to have attained it prior to the claimant’s attainment of this fullness?

In reality, certain beliefs held by the various groups, even if they are all Christian, may be mutually exclusive because they totally contradict one another. In such cases, someone must be wrong, and the other right. One cannot therefore assume that all the different truths of the various groups of believers can be indiscriminately taken together to form a greater whole.

In this sense, to almagamate the various bodies of truth to form a complete whole, one would have to in the process purge these various bodies of truth from their errors before merging them together. But such an enterprise, again, actually assumes that one is in possession of the complete body of truth in order to recognise truth from error. And the irony is, if one already possessed that complete body of truth, he would not have a need to bring together the various bodies of truth to form a greater whole in the first place.

Hence, when one makes such a statement, the question must arise as to who or what constitutes the final arbiter of completeness and orthodoxy. The one who makes such a relativistic claim is not very much of a relativist himself after all, because his claim implicitly implies completeness in the claimant’s own body of faith claims.

Such a relativistic viewpoint of the deposit of faith shows itself to be a logical fallacy on various accounts when one thinks deeper about these claims. In saying “we must never take any one group or denomination of believers to be in full possession of the truth”, it refutes exclusive claims to completeness. But it refutes exclusive claims in a very exclusive way. It accepts exclusively people who reject exclusive claims, and rejects people who accept exclusive claims. In the final analysis, it shows itself to be more exclusivistic than those who make exclusive claims but acknowledge that others’ exclusive claims may not be in agreement with their own.

To set the record straight, I am not objecting to any group of believers’ claim over absoluteness and completeness in their “deposit of faith”. In fact, I am arguing in favour of it. Because this would be the only way by which one can judge any other belief to be incomplete. It takes a claim to complete knowledge of the deposit of faith to recognise incompleteness.

And so this is the Catholic position – we assume (no, we believe!) that our body of truth, our deposit of faith, is complete. And we hope that our dialogue partners would assume the same about their own bodies of faith. Otherwise there would be no grounds for dialogue, only grounds for teaching and evangelisation.

I call this logical fallacy dialogical relativism.

Posted by SK at 8:30 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Sherman Kuek
Published in Catholic Asian News (November 2008 Issue)

In the 2000-year life of the Christian faith, the Church has engaged in a great multitude of educational efforts. Taking the context of the West, the Church’s involvement in education is observable from ancient schools of rhetoric to the tertiary academic institutions of the High Middle Ages, from the elementary rudiments of grammar schooling to the sophistications of philosophical and scientific thought. Through these multiple levels and layers of education and human reasoning, she has been there.

True to the observation of the Pope John Paul II that a number of significant Catholic academic institutions grew ex corde ecclesiae (“out of the heart of the Church”), the great European universities such as Oxford, Louvain, Paris, Bologna, Prague and Padua arose from a Christian West. However, Western Catholic theological academia has perennially existed in a state of tension between faith and reason - between the search for logical truth and the fervour for divinely revealed truth - as if the two stood in contradiction to each other.

I firmly embrace and retain each and every thing which has been proposed by the Church regarding the teaching of faith and morals, whether defined by solemn judgment or asserted and declared by the ordinary Magisterium, especially those things which concern the mystery of the Holy Church of Christ and its sacraments and the sacrifice of the Mass and the primacy of the Roman Pontiff.

Evidently, the conventional oath emphasised the creedal aspects of the Catholic faith. However, at the dawn of this new announcement, the newly sanctioned oath replaced the old formula with three comprehensive statements:

With firm faith I believe as well everything contained in God’s word, written or handed down in tradition and proposed by the Church - whether in solemn judgment or in the ordinary and universal Magisterium as divinely revealed and calling for faith.

I also firmly accept and hold each and every thing that is proposed by that same Church definitively with regard to teaching concerning faith and morals.

What is more, I adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman pontiff or the college of bishops enunciate when they exercise the authentic magisterium even if they proclaim those teachings in an act that is not definitive.

This change was in all probability a response to the Vatican’s fear at the way in which many Western Catholic theological institutions were becoming increasingly secular in character. The past recent decades has witnessed a number of Western Catholic theologians either being formally censured (having their teaching licences revoked and removing their rights to be presented as “Catholic theologians”) or at least being perceived as dissident voices in the Catholic Church. The Vatican continues to monitor the movements of theological thought that flow from the Church’s theologians.

Surely and unsurprisingly, such an act of theological policing is construed by dissidents as an obsession with control on the part of the Church hierarchy. Cardinal Ratzinger’s policing activity while he was Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith had earned him the infamous title of “the Grand Inquisitor”. These dissident voices wavered with apprehension at their prospects for survival when Cardinal Ratzinger was subsequently elected as Pope Benedict XVI in April 2005.

Is he truly the power hungry control freak many dissident voices have made him out to be? Is his conservatism so acute that he would not allow for any freedom of theological exploration which might jeopardise the stability of the Church hierarchy? For a theologian so astute and thus widely published, it would seem strange for such accusations to ring true regarding the Holy Father’s own paradigm of theology and scholarship.

According to the Pope Benedict XVI, if theology “was [merely] a systematic reflection about questions of religion, about the relationship between man and God”, then it would constitute nothing more than a “science of religion”. Essentially, theology is a field of study that deals with truth that is “greater than our own thought”. The route of theology must therefore be characterised by the formulae fides quaerens intellectum (“faith seeking understanding”) and credo ut intellegam (“I believe in order that I may understand”).

Theology speaks of the work of God in bringing the human mind to grasp truths that are beyond its own initial capacity. It is about God helping the human mind to transcend itself and to recognise realities that are beyond its own powers to understand, let alone grasp in totality.

However, this does not exclude the role of human reason. Faith and reason can coexist, but not in the order prescribed by the rationalistic mind. For the Christian mind, faith precedes reason. Yet, the content of faith is never hollow or shallow, for this faith shall always be found rational, although the former is not on any account contingent upon the latter. Faith precedes reason and seeks to help reason to understand.

The Church does not advance a bias against the interest of academic freedom. In fact, academic freedom is so deeply valued that the Church seeks to ensure that ultimate truth must be recognised in the process of this search. Although the pursuit of scientific and logical findings and the recognition of divinely revealed truth both possess discovery methods that are autonomous from each other, both fields of truth discovery find their existence in the same Source. This means that both cannot contradict each other; there is a point at which both faith and reason must converge to reveal the greater reality.

This also means that academic freedom cannot be exalted at the expense of divine revelation. There must be symbiotic relationship that exists between the two dimensions of inquiry. On the one hand, freedom needs faith to be its guiding light and its safeguard, in order that the authenticity of this freedom may always be preserved. On the other hand, the recognition of divinely revealed truth must be explicated and deepened through the exercise of reason. To be truly free is to be truly open to both these dimensions of divine and reasoned truth. In this sense, faith is the guarantee of the authentic freedom so desired by reason. “There can be no reason apart from or in opposition to the truth...” (Veritatis splendor, 96). When either one of these two orders seek to function apart from each other, there is an absence of authentic freedom or real openness.

When academic freedom leads to a contradiction of the faith proclaimed by the Church, it compromises its own virtue of true freedom. True academic freedom implies even a willingness “to speak uncomfortable truths which do not please public opinion” but, nevertheless, are “necessary” in order “to safeguard the authentic good of society” (Ex Corde Ecclesiae, 32). If academic theology becomes a pathetic imitation of secular inquiry prevalent in many academic institutions and sacrifices the integrity of divine revelation, it loses its prophetic power in a world that exalts the infallibility of human reason, which is itself an unsustainable notion.

Actually, the common assumption that even secular intellectual life does not operate within certain boundaries constitutes a fallacy. Every intellectual community is regulated by its own rules of research and discovery. Theological thinkers should not be ashamed of the fact that theology itself is regulated by its own unique rules of engagement as set out by the community of faith; what more when it speaks of divinely revealed truth.

Perhaps the tension between faith and reason - and its profound implication upon the much treasured academic freedom - is best explained by the Holy Father himself in his statement regarding the Magisterium of the Church: “The Magisterium, rightly understood, is a humble service that makes possible true theology”.

The policing activity of the Vatican, together with its censure of dissident theological voices in the Church, is on all accounts a most sacred duty that exists to preserve the integrity of both faith and reason. Only then is authentic academic freedom upheld.

Posted by SK at 2:07 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Sherman Kuek
Published in Catholic Asian News (October 2008 Issue)

At the conclusion of the Second Vatican Council, the council fathers highlighted the divinely endowed role of women in society which urgently summoned the attention of womenfolk:

The hour is coming, in fact, has come, when the vocation of woman is being acknowledged in its fullness, the hour in which women acquire in the world an influence, an effect and a power never hitherto achieved. That is why, at this moment when the human race is undergoing so deep a transformation, women impregnated with a spirit of the Gospel can do so much to aid humanity in not falling.

(The Council's Message to Women, 08 December 1965)

This statement marked the call for women to rise up as guiding forces in a modern society characterised by decadence in various aspects of life. It was a most natural result of the inherent and alienable dignity of women being recognised by the council fathers.

The inherent value and dignity of the woman is implied from the intrinsic value of every human being (CCC 1928-1938). Sacred Scripture writes, “God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them” (Genesis 1:27). Men alone do not reflect the glory of humanity in its fullness. In accordance with God’s scheme of creation, it is the complementarity of both sexes together that brings about the more complete reflection of God’s own image.

Based on such universal human rights that emanate from the Christian understanding of personhood, the Holy Father John Paul II spoke of a “Christian feminism” which he deemed necessary for the exposure of the fuller truth about women. He affirmed the vitality of women’s presence in all aspects of social life. In relation to that, he defended the dignity of their being: their skill, their professionalism, their intellectual abilities, their deep sensitivity, among many other admirable qualities inherent to the person of the woman.

Evidently, the Church of this century has affirmed the role of women in an unprecedented way. Like never before, the equal dignity of women is defended as an intrinsic right that is divinely endowed, and which no other person has the right to take away.

However, whilst propelling the Church to examine the human historical past with courage, it must be noted that the kind of feminism John Paul II spoke of took a rather different shape in comparison with the kind of feminism found in many sociological movements today (and which, very sadly, has also pervaded the Church).

In accordance with the teachings of the Church, authentic feminism is that of women finding the “entire meaning of their femininity and thus [being] disposed to making a ‘sincere gift of self’ to others, thereby finding themselves” (Mulieris Dignitatem, 15 August 1988). It is only in this sense that a woman can be said to be “acting freely”.

As most women themselves point out, equality of dignity should not be taken as a synonym for "sameness with men". Such an understanding would merely impoverish women and greater society by distorting or compromising the unique wealth and intrinsic value of femininity (Letter of John Paul II to Mrs Gertrude Mongella, 26 May 1995).

On this note, one may observe that certain factions of feminists in society tend to exhibit rather disturbing inclinations. For example, some feminists implicitly imply that the acknowledgement of women’s equality involves the trivialising of manhood. The undertones of their verbal expressions can be very telling of a “who-needs-men” attitude.

Mrsg Celestino Migliore, in his address to the United Nations on Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women on 08 March 2007, cites an example of how this has happened in the past. He describes the antagonistic approach taken by some feminists in defending the rights of women, which “exalts opposition” between men and women, rather than giving rise to “mutual respect and recognition of the identity and the role of one towards the other”.

Another pertinent example would be that of battling for the right to do just about anything that men do. Because it is alleged that history and culture have been perpetrators of the supposed inferiority of womenfolk, a great number of women are now attempting to reverse such roles by demonstrating that women too can very proficiently undertake the roles that are commonly attributed to men. Whilst this is warranted to a certain degree, when the traditional roles of say, motherhood, have to give way to a newfound “manhood”, society further breaks down.

True, it was said by John Paul II that cultural conditioning had been instrumental in women’s roles being “relegated to the margins of society and even reduced to servitude” (Letter of Pope John Paul II to Women). This reality indeed warranted a new effort for the restoration of women’s dignity, to be sure.

But in the same breath, one must take heed of Mrsg Celestino Migliore’s exhortation that “equality goes hand in hand with and does not endanger, much less contradict, the recognition of both the difference and complementarity between men and women”. Whilst the Church affirms that women can and should become actively involved in all areas of public life, it also defends the traditional roles of women which constitute the most intrinsic meaning of what “womanhood” means in accordance with God’s divine design.

A truly Christian feminism means affirming that men and women are equal, both sexes created by God in His image, each having distinct but complementary gifts and attributes. It also means affirming that the social and ecclesial roles of women and men must conform to the natural law and the Divine Plan for mankind. Mulieris Dignitatem instructs, “In the name of liberation from male 'domination', women must not appropriate to themselves male characteristics contrary to their own feminine 'originality'”.

Some women choose to embody their womanhood through undivided devotion towards the raising of children and caring for the home as a fulltime vocation. But by the standards of many feminists, even the voluntary embrace of such traditional roles is denigrated. Such women, by their standards, are unenlightened prisoners of cultural conditioning.

The pigs in George Orwell’s Animal Farm proclaimed: “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others”, a statement that ended up being the famous slogan of Animalism. It seemed that they had rallied to establish a form of government which officially ratified the absolute equality of all people but in reality endowed extra privileges to an elite minority.

This scenario, even if originally written in satirical reaction to Soviet totalitarianism, serves as a reminder to us that our endeavours for equality in the Church and society, and battles on behalf of a people once downtrodden, must never give rise to the emergence of a new form of elitism. Were such a scenario to occur, the creation of an elite minority would be accompanied by the actualisation of a new marginalised people; and the vicious cycle would continue endlessly.

A constant reminder that needs to always be set forth is that the endeavour for the equal dignity of women is not a battle for power or significance; it is a battle for dignity. And the battle for dignity implies that our efforts to dignify a marginalised people must not compromise the dignity of other peoples. Only then is the principle of equality truly upheld.

But to be sure, with all such issues placed in appropriate perspective, affirmation of the equal dignity and significance of women in society emphatically resounds from the voice of the Church. Pope Paul VI, in an exhortation to women, said:

You women have always had as your lot the protection of the home.... You are present in the mystery of a life beginning. You offer consolation in the departure of death. Our technology runs the risk of becoming inhuman. Reconcile men with life, and above all, we beseech you, watch carefully over the future of the race. Hold back the hand of man, who in a moment of folly might attempt to destroy civilisation. Women of the entire universe, whether Christian or non-believing - you to whom life is entrusted at this grave moment in history, it is for you to save the peace of the world.

Posted by SK at 12:16 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

HANOI (21 September 2008): Thousands of Catholics demonstrated in Hanoi yesterday, after the authorities began to demolish the Apostolic Nunciature and lay siege to several more church buildings.

In what was the largest protest since the Communist takeover in 1954, Bishop Joseph Dang Duc Ngan of Lang Son and hundreds of priests led a march of more than ten thousand through the city to the nunciature where they set up an altar and statue of Our Lady in the street.

The site has been surrounded by rolls of barbed wire and a police cordon with dogs. Inside hundreds of men worked round the clock to pull down the building and construct a library and a park while protesters sang hymns and prayed outside.

At 9am local time on Saturday, the Hanoi archbishop's residence, St Joseph Major Seminary, and the convent of Sisters of Adorers of the Holy Cross were surrounded by Vietnamese police, militia and security personnel with dogs.

Fr Joseph Nguyen said: "We could not even talk to the Archbishop or his staff by phone. Police vehicles with technology to block mobile signals prevented us from making or receiving calls".

The protest continues. A student from Hanoi university said: "I was here last night with at least 5,000 people. I prayed with them until very late. I have just gone home to take a sleep then returned here to be with the people. We are very upset with the way this government is handling the issue".

Another student said: "Last February, we halted the protests because we trusted them. However, they managed to delay returning the property through various bureaucratic maneuvers. Then, all of a sudden, they announced this demolition... how can we still trust them?"

On Friday, an Associated Press reporter covering the protest was beaten by police after being arrested.

Ben Stocking, the Associated Press Hanoi bureau chief was released from police custody after about two and a half hours and required four stitches to the back of his head. His camera was confiscated by police.

"They told me I was taking pictures in a place that I was not allowed to be taking pictures. But it was news, and I went in," Stocking said by telephone from Hanoi.

Hanoi Cathedral bells are ringing every so often to call for help from the faithful.

Source: Independent Catholic News

Confrontations between Protestors and Police

Bishops among the Protestors

Ten Thousand Protestors on Sunday Morning

Posted by SK at 10:04 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Sherman Kuek
Published in Catholic Asian News (September 2008 Issue)

But more than that, this event had triggered off an increasing pressure on the Church of England to also begin consecrating women priests as bishops. As a result, its General Synod had most recently ruled in favour of the consecration of female bishops, although such consecration has yet to be practically actualised. However, at this point of time, the Anglican churches in the United States, Australia, New Zealand and Canada, among several others, have already appointed women as bishops.

The Anglican Communion does not stand alone in its ordination of women ministers. A number of other mainline Protestant denominations like the Methodists, Presbyterians, and Lutherans do so too. These mainline Protestant denominations are also joined by a host of others that practise women’s ordination.

Purportedly, the reason Jesus Christ did not ordain women as reflected in Sacred Scripture was that He was abiding by the societal norms of His day. Had Jesus been living through an age in which societal norms reflected greater appreciation of women’s dignity, He would have brought unto Himself women to partially comprise His band of Apostles. Furthermore, the magnitude of honour accorded by Him to women is held by proponents to be the legitimate reason for women’s ordination. Clearly, nothing in Jesus’ actions reflected a faintest taint of discrimination against women.

Remaining firm on what has been established by canon 1378 of the Canon Law, both he who has attempted to confer holy orders on a woman, and the woman who has attempted to receive the said sacrament, incurs in latae sententiae excommunication, reserved to the Apostolic See.

This decree is said to have been pronounced infallible in accordance with the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Church. In resonance with this pronouncement, the teaching that the Church has no authority whatsoever to exercise a prerogative to ordain women is to be contained within the scope of the deposit of faith.

Does the Catholic Church’s refusal to ordain women truly constitute gender discrimination? Is this how the Church perceives it, that she refuses to ordain women because she thinks women are lesser in dignity and significance? It is in fact often (if not always) assumed by proponents of women’s ordination that the Church’s refusal to ordain women constitutes a marginalisation of women and giving rise to inequality.

The official and detailed position of the Church on this issue is documented in Inter insigniores (1976) and in Ordinatio sacerdotalis (1994). As far as the Church is concerned, the question of gender equality does not arise - in fact, the equal dignity of and honour for both the male and female gender is a non-negotiable given. Women are on all accounts of honour and dignity equal to men, in Christ, and this by no means contradicts the position that Christ had established a permanent norm of male priesthood.

Rather, the more pertinent issue falling within the scope of this debate is that of the historicity of the person of Jesus and His Church. Just as the first Christians believed that Jesus intended for the priesthood of the Church to consist of men, so should we. Right from the second and third centuries, any attempts to admit women into ministerial priestly functions were pronounced heretic.

The Church maintains that our Lord Jesus did not appoint female apostles, and that to do so today in compliance with resounding social pressure would constitute a departure from apostolic tradition. The appointment of women as ordinary ministers of the Church is not a prerogative that has been accorded by Jesus to the Church. Had He desired to do so, He would perhaps have best appointed His Mother to be the very first of all apostles (and the most deserving one at that!)

Further to that, the priest who acts in persona Christi (“in the person of Christ”) mirrors the image of Christ the Priest. Even if Christ’s role as mediator is not in some way related to His maleness, the historical Christ was nevertheless embodied as a man. Just as the bread and the wine which become His body is first offered up as real bread and real wine in embodiment of this historical reality, the priest standing in the person of Christ must also be an embodiment of the historical reality of the Saviour sent to the world as a man.

This does not mean that women cannot signify Christ, for all the faithful – both male and female – are one with the Church in the common priesthood of the faithful. However, the election of a ministerial priesthood points to a somewhat different consideration.

Pope Paul VI had emphatically reinforced the pronouncement of Vatican II on the absolute equality of women and men. Similarly, Pope John Paul II had repeatedly and incessantly accentuated the equality in the dignity of both women and men. His 116-page apostolic letter Mulieris dignitatem (1988), in which he delineated the dignity of women and the uniqueness of their roles, was an overt testimony to the position of honour the Church accords to women.

In his apostolic letter Ordinatio sacerdotalis, the Pope John Paul II had irrevocably declared that the relegation of the priesthood to the male gender could not be construed as a lower position being accorded to women:

...the fact that the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God and Mother of the Church, received neither the mission proper to the Apostles nor the ministerial priesthood clearly shows that the non-admission of women to priestly ordination cannot mean that women are of lesser dignity, nor can it be construed as a discrimination against them. Rather, it is to be seen as the faithful observance of a plan to be ascribed to the Wisdom of the Lord of the Universe.

Evidently, the Church’s recognition of the equal dignity and value of women is complemented with a rightful defence of the differences between the two genders. The two dimensions of personhood are not to be confused one with the other.

...it can be academically demonstrated that the rejection of the ordination of women within the tradition was not predicated on contemporary concepts alone but in essence on theological arguments. Therefore it should not be assumed that the Catholic Church will one day revise its current position. The Catholic Church is convinced that she has no right to do so.

The sacrament of holy orders is not a human invention; it is a gift of Jesus Christ to the Church that she may sustain the life of her children. In this light, arguments either for or against the admission of women into the holy orders cannot be made as if it was simply an issue of social discrimination.

To be sure, the reservation of priestly ordination to men alone does not automatically concur with the mistaken notion that the Church is chauvinistic in her disposition. Rather, it is an invitation to the faithful to pursue a greater understanding of “the meaning of the episcopate and the priesthood” (Inter insigniores).

Some continue to say, “Had Jesus been alive at this moment, He would have done it differently”. Well, He is alive now. And He is acting in and through His Church.

Posted by SK at 11:58 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Sherman Kuek
Published in Catholic Asian News (August 2008 Issue)

Christianity – or any religion, for that matter – is structured around the roles of clergy and laity. A religious institution thrives on the vitality of these two roles, in a sense, reflecting both the sacred and the secular dimensions of religion. Even so, the dynamics between these two roles brings a certain tensive character into the realm of the institution we call “Church”. This tension is, of course, provoked and further intensified with the onset of modernity and critical thinking among the Christian populace.

Let us attempt to comprehend the different dynamics between the clerical roles and that of the laity in the three major streams of Christianity in existence today. For each of these traditions, we shall delineate the way in which the clergy and laity are ordered and examine the roles of the laity within its structural scheme.

The Catholic institutional structure is top down (unlike the Orthodox structure, as we shall later see) in that the election of bishops neither involves the lay populace nor even a significant segment of the clerical population within a diocese. In the selection of a bishop, the papal nuncio usually solicits names from the other bishops of a country, and then selects three to be forwarded to Rome where the Congregation for Bishops attends to such elections with the approval of the pope. Evidently, the ordering of the hierarchy does not involve the lay faithful in the Church.

The “lay faithful” refers to those baptised faithful not called by God to ordained ministry within the Church. Whilst they are not responsible for the constitution of the hierarchy, the Church assigns a very special role to the laity by virtue of their presence in the secular realm of the world. The laity are distinctly called to share in the priestly, prophetic and kingly functions of Christ by bringing Him to the world in a way that the clergy cannot. This charge is thus explicitly stated by Pope Pius XII:

Lay believers are the front line of Church life; for them the Church is the animating principle of human society. Therefore, they in particular ought to have an ever-clearer consciousness not only of belonging to the Church, but of being the Church, that is to say, the community of the faithful on earth under the leadership of the Pope, the common Head, and of the bishops in communion with him. They are the Church.

The preservation of order within the Catholic Church institution is relegated to the hierarchy so that distinctions of both the roles of the clergy and laity are well-defined. This distinction does well to avoid a temptation to pander to either “clericalism” or “laitism”. The clergy function in some unique ways that the laity cannot, but their unique prerogatives are also the very charisms that empower the laity to function effectively in the realm of the secular. The Church is thereby resoundingly affirmed as a people of God, every member of its community being personally called and individually charged by Him with a specific mission in the world.

II. Orthodox – Joint Government. The Eastern Orthodox Church, the most prominent embodiment of Orthodox Christianity, is a communion comprising fourteen separate autocephalous hierarchical churches in full recognition of one another (excluding the fifteenth autocephalous, the Orthodox Church in America, whose autocephaly is still a matter of dispute). Each autocephalous church is governed by a supreme patriarch. Whilst there is an ecumenical patriarch – a role assumed by the Patriarch of Constantinople – his ecumenical patriarchate is one of ceremonial honour and unity of fellowship rather than one that effects juridical implications.

The autocephalous churches tend to organise from the bottom up. Most of these churches permit for the participation of lower level clergy and laity in the election of bishops, albeit in varying magnitudes. In such autocephalous churches, people of varying positions have some degree of empowerment to vote in church matters and policy making. The patriarchs of the fourteen autocephalous churches will appoint leaders nominated by the grassroots, who will then with the approval of the patriarchs participate in the election processes.

The polity of the Orthodox Church reflects a greater authority-sharing system between the clergy and the laity. The clergy constitute the sacred priesthood and the laity constitute the royal priesthood. Whilst the clergy cannot celebrate the divine liturgy without the participation of the laity, the laity cannot perform the liturgy without the sacramental presidency of the clergy. The Church is most often jointly governed by the clergy and the laity. Of course, these statements by no means contradict the position of the Catholic Church; however, they are more apparently reflected in the practical life of the Orthodox Church.

III. Protestants – Priesthood of All Believers. The Protestant communities are extremely varied in their ecclesial structures. These structures range from highly regulated episcopal systems like the Anglican communities to congregational systems such as the brethren communities. But fundamentally, an underlying principle of the Protestant ethos is the priesthood of all believers. Since this principle lay at the nucleus of the Protestant Reformation, the Protestant movement embodies a high level of lay participation. Admittedly, this high permissiveness for lay participation has constituted an attractive factor for many lay Christians.

In a vast many Protestant communities, the laity in fact possesses authority which exceeds that of the clergy. Many Protestant clerical ministers are considered to be employed and salaried by the financial contributions of the lay populace. Simply put, they are hired and fired by the lay people. As such, they are held accountable to the governing boards of their local churches. This also impacts their ministerial roles such that they are told exactly how many sermons to preach in a month, what their working hours should be, and how they should account for their appointed tasks.

Therefore, where they fail to perform to the expectations of the people, or have offended a large segment of the congregation, or seek to effect change in a resistant congregation’s values and behaviour patterns, they inadvertently see themselves leaving within a relatively short season in a particular parish.

If the answer is “no”, this leaves us with two possibilities – the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church.

Now, let us consider the Orthodox form of governance. One would have thought that with such practice of democracy in the Orthodox Church, the laity would have been rather contented with their significance in matters pertaining to ecclesial government and liturgical participation. But this is far from the reality. Tensions between clergy and laity yet exist in the Orthodox institution. Some contemporary examples of these tensions are the struggles between the clergy and laity in the Greek Orthodox Church and the Orthodox Church in America. In fact, such tensions are less present in Catholic polity because of the clear distinctions drawn between the roles of the clergy and the laity.

Perhaps the only avenue for the existence of a harmonious symbiotic relationship between clergy and laity, wherein the significance of both are equally affirmed, is a recognition of the oft silent but all important role of divine election in the vocations of the faithful. Whilst the Catholic Church recognises the common priesthood of the faithful by “the unfolding of baptismal grace”, God elects from among the lay faithful a ministerial priesthood to be “at the service of the common priesthood”. It is through the ministerial priesthood that Christ “unceasingly builds up and leads His Church” (CCC 1547). Whilst many lay people perceive the hierarchy as a hindrance to lay empowerment, on the contrary, without the ministerial priesthood the lay are not empowered to live lives of faith, hope, and charity.

One’s reflections on the roles of clergy and laity must be considered from the perspective of the nature of the Church rather than from the socio-political perspective of power and authority. When the proper perspective is employed, the clerical role is rightly perceived as an issue of divinely appointed roles and responsibilities, not of power and glory. A misplaced focus breeds mistrust and conflict, which results in the nature of the Church – and therefore Christ – being compromised.

Posted by SK at 11:59 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)

Most people know that I've recently been received into the Catholic Church.

I was most recently interviewed by a Catholic journalist on my reception into the Catholic Church together with several other concerns. I will post up my answers to the interview in a series of several short posts.

1. What attracted you to the Catholic Church? What may have prompted you to make this move?

In the course of my scholarly labours as a theological student and researcher, I gradually developed a conviction (especially through my study of the Church Fathers) that the Catholic Church is the Church most fully and rightly ordered through time. When I was sent to the Vatican for a meeting in January 2005, three months prior to the passing on of the Holy Father John Paul II, that conviction was further impressed and ratified in my conscience.

Of course, another aspect of the Catholic Church that attracted me was the liturgy as the source and summit of the Christian life. I had prior to that been increasingly journeying towards a more liturgical and sacramental understanding of Christian spirituality.

At some point, I found it extremely painful and difficult to remain a Protestant whilst still trying to be “catholic” (without having to be Catholic). It is hard to be sacramental in an environment that does not promote the sacraments, particularly the Eucharist, as the source and summit of the Christian journey.

Of course, subsequently, the issue of the validity of the Holy Orders of other forms of ecclesial Christianity (and by extension, the sacraments) also became a disturbing struggle for me.

2. How have the responses been from people who know you?

My friends and acquaintances have exhibited various types of responses and in varying degrees. Those who have never been open to the Catholic Christians as fellow brethren consequently held that I had lost my Christian faith (I had apostatised). After all, to certain segments of Protestantism, the Catholic Church is the “Harlot of Babylon”.

Those who were open to the Catholic Church as being Christian held that I had “changed my denomination”, so it was no big deal to them. But when I refrained from participating in the Holy Communion whilst being in their company, that invoked some response too.

Of course, in the self-understanding of the Catholic Church, we are no denomination! With humility but unwavering conviction, we hold ourselves to be the Church most rightly and fully ordered through time, this being a fact we hardly need to defend because it just is.

Posted by SK at 12:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)