Fr. Kenson’s Blog

A New Year Reflection

2012-01-01T16:30:00.000+08:00

“Mary, Mother of God”—Now that's a title that Christians had officially given Mary, mother of Jesus, in the 5th century as a result of the Council of Ephesus which dealt with the Nestorian heresy. More than a millennium later, years after the Western Schism that was called the Protestant Reformation, some Christians accuse the Catholic Church of deifying Mary, a mere creature of God.

The Catholic Church dedicates the last day of the Christmas Octave to Mary with the title of “Mother of God” not because we have deified her but because we want to glorify God, who has graced her with the role of being the mother to His Son. The title actually protects the integrity of the personality of Jesus the Christ. The Council of Ephesus affirmed that Jesus is only one person with two Natures. A woman gives birth to a person, not to a nature. Nestorius had claimed that Mary was "Mother of Christ" and not "Mother of God". This, in effect, splits Jesus into two persons. Jesus does not have a split personality. Thus Mary cannot be said to be only mother of Jesus the Man and not Jesus, the second person of the Holy Trinity.

I have started a reflection on today's feast and have digressed to give a brief account of one of the Christological doctrines. (I think Mr. Tim Staples does a better explanation than me here.) Let me get back to the reflection.

We celebrate this feast because we want to glorify God for showing us His willingness to fill His creatures with grace. Although we hear that Mary is highly favoured in the Gospel, God does not have favorites. (Please see Luke 1:28. Being highly favoured and being a favorite are two different things.) He wants all of us to be saved. That is why he announced the birth of Jesus to the shepherds and the shepherds, in their turn, told others. In the Gospel today, we notice that people came to know about this significant birth. Mary, who has been given a significant mention by the angels, did not become arrogant or proud. Instead, she quietly kept all that had happened in her heart, pondering over them (Luke 2:19).

I believe that God wants us to look at the gifts and graces He has given us. We must be grateful for them and humbly accept them. The good news is that He is ever willing to grace us. Every gift we have had is not something that we deserved. Rather, they have been given us because God loves us unconditionally.

Can we not, like the shepherds that night, start the habit to tell others about the generosity of God that we have experienced?

Who Do You Say I Am?

2011-08-19T00:09:00.000+08:00

This week’s Gospel is from the sixteenth chapter of the Gospel of St. Matthew. It is the well-known part in which makes his confession that Jesus is the Son of God.

Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesare'a Philip'pi, he asked his disciples, “Who do men say that the Son of man is?”

And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Eli'jah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”

He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”

Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ.

It is from these passages that Catholics believe that the ministry of the Pope came about. There are many homilies that would focus on the question, “Who do you say I am?” The congregation would be asked to reflect on what their answer would be if Jesus posed the question to them. I believe that my homily this weekend would go along the same lines. However, in my preparation, I discover another insight. Before we answer Jesus' question, we would need to answer another question, “Who does Jesus say I am?”

To the answer, “A child of God,” I ask myself if I had really lived with a childlike trust towards God.

To the answer, “a Catholic priest,” I ask myself if I had truly helped God’s people eople to connect to Him.

To the answer, “A Christian,” I ask myself if I have allowed myself to see Christ in others and others to see Christ in me.

Just a short reflection ...

I guess it's Newsworthy

2011-07-14T21:59:00.000+08:00

I have had some people sending me text messages through my phone. I guess I do have to address this. The small snippet of news would probably be in the print edition if it has come out in the online edition.

At the end of last year, the Traffic Police sent me a summons to appear in court. In Oct 2009, I was involved in an accident. I was stressed, got distracted and failed to notice the red light in time. I went into the junction and a car who had the right of way collided with my car. I was in the wrong. This morning, I pleaded guilty to inconsiderate driving and was fined $800. Some parishioners, whom I would consider friends, sent text messages asking if I was okay. Going to court is not really a pleasant experience but I did commit a traffic offence and I accept the consequences.

Some of you might realise that I had also stopped posting at the beginning of this year. My posts and reflections are usually based on current happenings in my life and the observations I make around the time I make my reflections. I must confess that I had stopped because I did not want to say something I shouldn’t because of what I had seen in court or regarding my anxieties regarding my offence. I used to tell my father, “You’d never know …”

So, I am off to my retreat next Monday, or rather, more accurately, I am entering into my retreat on Monday. Hopefully, I will have a good retreat and emerge recharged to start posting this blog again. Yet — “You’d never know …” I am still quite sensitive regarding the accident and the court proceedings. All it takes is one insensitive person to make the wrong remark and the wrong time and I may end up depressed and effectively negating the retreat. “You’d never know …” I hear you tell me, the Lord might help my brother priests to be merciful to me and not comment about it. In any case, I believe the Lord would be there to see me through the retreat.

Alla prossimo

Trying a new method of Blogging.

2011-01-08T13:15:00.001+08:00

Call me backward or old but I recently found that there was another way of making posts on my blog. Here I am trying to make my first post using my handphone on email. Perhaps, I will be able to make more (but shorter) posts on this blog. Thoughts that come to me when I am in a pensive mood but away from the computer usually gets lost. I hope I will be able to share my thoughts more frequently thus.

Request from 3 weeks ago

2010-09-25T16:48:00.000+08:00

I was asked to explain this:

that God doesn't give you what you want, God gives you according to who you are. Change who you are to change your life.

By itself, there are so many contexts in which this can be said. I would attempt to answer this in more general terms.

I hope that no one subscribes to the idea that God created us as a totally empty slate. Physically, we are genetically predisposed. Whether we have a tendency to be plump or svelte, tall or short, more easily become diabetic or less likely to develop cancerous cells are all written in our genetic code. There are some studies that show that the genes also predispose individuals. It would seem that our genes can tell us whether we tend to be extroverted or introverted. Our spiritual life is not determined by genes, although we could say that certain psychological tendencies are present because of our genetic makeup. God has a plan for all of us. In spiritual terms we use the word “vocation”. God calls us into existence. As a species, he has a destiny for all of us:

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,
who has blessed us in Christ
with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places,
even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world,
that we should be holy and blameless before him.
He destined us in love to be his sons through Jesus Christ,
according to the purpose of his will,
to the praise of his glorious grace
which he freely bestowed on us in the Beloved.
(Eph 1:3-6)

This part of one of my favourite Christological canticles by Paul. Before the foundation of the world. God has chose us as His sons; in other words, heirs. Heirs to? Heirs to His divine life. As individuals, he has specific plans when he made us. He made sure that we were equipped according to the plans he has for us. In this way he gives us according to who we are. We are all called to be his children. He would make sure that what we have would be that which would make us his children. I am going to use an analogy here. A good mother would give her six year old son a kitchen knife only when she is sure that he is able to use it properly. She must have taught him to use it in the proper way. Usually, mothers, even if they have that confidence, would be present when the boy is using the knife, to make sure that he uses it properly. No mother who truly cares, would give a knife to her eight or ten year old son unsupervised, when he is not trained. Do you think that God, who loves us perfectly, would give us something that might be harmful to us, or withhold something that we truly need?

When we ask something from God and we do not receive a favourable reply, it is usually because it would do us harm or that it was something unnecessary in His plan for us. We can argue and give reasons for what we want, but for those of us who have truly understood who we are, we can understand why God has yet to answer our prayers for the moment. It would be very fruitful to reflect in prayer the things we ask for. Were they really necessary to help us to be children of God in the way God has called us to be?

If we are frustrated with God, the usual reason is that we have not really understood who we are as God cildren. For some of us, this can be a great struggle. We usually want something that falls outside what God has in plan for us. Are we the eight year old who sees a six year old using a knife and wants to use the knife because we think it is cool, but did not consider the real necessity of using a knife?

The second statement is something that I would not use as a priest unless I have discerned together with the person concerned. This is because that statement, “Change to who you are to change your life” is loaded with so many variables and possibilities for misunderstanding. First, it has no appeal to the grace of God. It implies that we are in total control of every element in our lives. That is so pelagian! Second, it implies that there is a need to change ourselves to “who we are”; as if we could determine who we are easily enough and that a change in that direction would truly be a change of our lives. That is so atheistic! Can we discover who we are without appealing to the person who created us in the first place?

I would rather say something like, “Discover who you are in God’s eyes through prayer, and you will realise what you really need to ask God for.” In prayer, we should begin to see how we are nothing as creatures when compared to the creator. Humility is the first fruit. Then we see the great dignity God has placed on us when he made us his children through Jesus Christ. Because He has bestowed on us this dignity, we would be asking for a humble heart so that we could submit ourselves to His will. After that, what else could we ask for?

A Long Hiatus

2010-08-31T16:25:00.005+08:00

Someone once made a remark to me, “How can you say that you are very busy and pressed for time when you have the time to blog?” That remark contributed to my lack of posting. Blogging had to take a back seat as ministry and people take up my time. I am making this short post just to say that I am still alive and well. Obedience to my bishop necessarily meant that I take up responsibilities that I had little interest in. I have written in my journal some reflections regarding this and when the time is opportune, I might share those thoughts with the rest of the world one day. Right now, I am quite hopeful that I would be able to get back to the blog by bringing selected homilies that I have preached during the weekend.

God Bless!

Simple vs. Easy

2009-07-29T18:30:00.002+08:00

The seminarians had suggested that we celebrate the Memoria of St. John Mary Vianney (Jean Marie, if one is inclined to use the French spelling). Taking up the suggestion of Serra Club, we joined them in preparing for this Memoria by doing the “potato fast” at dinner for the nine days leading up to the Memoria; in other words, a novena. There is a prayer and meditation before we embark on eating our one potato. One could say that this was a simple novena to make because it was so straightforward: pray, then eat. However, I would not like to venture to call this easy.

We often use the two words “simple” and “easy” interchangeably. Perhaps there are many simple things that are easy as well but the two words are not synonyms. To say that something is simple merely tells us that it is “not complex” or “not complicated”. We might even say that something simple had few parts. Something being “easy” has to do with the skill of a person. Whether something is simple or difficult depends on the competence of the person. We tend to be able to something “easy” after a few tries, if not in one. Let's take a look at an example. The process of threading a needle is simple. One just has to put one end of the thread through the eye of the needle. Yet, if I had bad eyesight, which I do now that I am entering middle age, I may not be able to do it in one try. If I was nervous and my hands were shaky, it would definitely not be “easy” for me to do it.

We could say that following the will of God is simple. We just need to do what He desires of us. Yet we are not really competent to do just that because of sin in our lives. Sin affects our ability to listen carefully to what God says. Sin affects our response as well. This is not to say that we are all doomed. As St. Paul said in Rom 7:25, Jesus Christ has saved us. We are able to follow the law of love despite still being affected by the law of sin. So let us not be too hasty to say we are not able to follow God’s will because through Christ, we have been given a simple way. Let us not be too arrogant to say that we are perfectly able to follow Him because despite being simple, it is not easy at all, considering that we are not yet perfect. When can we be perfect? When we concretely encounter Christ at our earthly death or His second coming. St. John suggests this in the third chapter of his first epistle. Let's spend some time reading I John 3.

My Nephew and the Segway

2009-06-22T17:10:00.006+08:00

We were at Sentosa and my nephew wanted to ride on the Segway. His father, older brother and I joined him. It is quite easy to manoeuvre the Segway. My nephew took to it like fish to water. He was able to use it in less than one minute. I, on the other hand, had to take a while. The instructor guided me and I got to hang of it a few minutes later. I thought that the route we took to ride the Segway was rather short. It was quite a interesting trail to one who was a first timer. There were several hairpin turns and it was not all on level ground. I was glad I did not ‘chicken-out’. I would have missed an interesting experience and would have one skill less. (Alright, riding a Segway is neither an important skill nor a difficult one.)

I took some time in prayer and found that our life is something like that is it not? We learn new things and try to get a hang of the different things that life throws at us. Sometimes, we are afraid and shy away from difficulties. When we do this we will pass up new opportunities, new skills and new experiences. The Lord also avails to us different occasions to receive His grace. If we fear and avoid these occasions, we must not blame the Lord if we do not obtain the graces. If we reflect honestly, we will see that there are many times when we miss opportunities for grace due to our choices rather than God’s will.

A Merry Lent?

2009-02-28T14:25:00.006+08:00

I believe that the whole idea that we should not have enjoyment in Lent is somewhat strange. Lent is a time when we prepare ourselves for Easter. It is true that we have to do penance and pray. We fast, pray and give alms (Matthew 6:1-6, 16-18; Ash Wednesday's Gospel). Can we not enjoy prayer? Can not prayer give us joy?

Lent is not a time to deprive ourselves of joy so that Easter would be a joy-filled celebration. Far from it! Lent is a time of grace.

As I was typing this, I typed a ‘v’ instead of a ‘c’ and got the word grave instead of grace. It's just one letter away (in two ways – difference of one letter, and on the computer keyboard) for one to become another. It is also just a slight shift in attitudes to change Lent from graced to grave.

God's grace ultimately gives us His joy. God's grace is one that gives hope. What we should not do is to confuse joy with frivolity. I see fasting not as depriving me of food but as presenting me an opportunity to meditate and pray. It is a biological fact that after eating, blood flow in the alimentary canal increases as digestion and absorption of food occurs. This is why we tend to be sleepy after a meal. When I decide to fast, I can spend the time that was going to be spent eating with God. At the same time, because there is no increased blood flow to the gut, I should be more alert and can focus on the prayer. Of course one may say that the hunger could be a distraction. This is true if one has been fasting for quite a while. If we have had enough to eat for breakfast, we shouldn't be feeling weak during lunch. We may feel the urge to eat (in other words, hunger) but we should not be suffering from extreme effects. The traditional Catholic way of fasting was to take one main meal and two small meals or collations. Although encouraged to go beyond this, Catholics should not end up physically harming their bodies. The idea of excess can go both ways, and both can be spiritually harmful.

Being solemn should not be mistaken for being gloomy. There are two meanings for solemn: ‘not cheerful, not smiling’ and ‘deeply sincere’. I suggest that a solemn Lent describes a Lent filled with sincerity. The focus in Lent should not be one that simply leads to not cheerful.We should be sincere in seeking the grace God offers us in Lent and we would be filled with joy. A sincere Lent is one that is enjoyable.

Priesthood is a Vocation

2009-02-16T17:36:00.005+08:00

The seminary began its academic year on 12th January this year. In one of his addresses, Father Rector, (Rev. Fr. William Goh) reminded us that the word “vocation” comes from the Latin vocare, which means “to call”. When someone comes to me and says that he is interested in becoming a priest, one of the most important questions I ask is, “How do you know?” It might seem like a callous way of reacting to someone who has come forward to offer himself to the Lord. However, the one thing that we need to know regarding someone who wants to be a priest is to discern ‘the call’.

Every person who hears a call needs to discern what that call is. However, the call of God is only one part of the equation. How one responds to the call is also important. It is not as simple as just saying, “Yes!” It includes the question of God’s will and our own will. The kind of priest one will become depends on how we respond.

I was troubled by what Jesus said, “For many are called, but few are chosen.” (Mt 22:14) However, since becoming a seminary formator and being involved in promotion of priestly vocations, I am beginning to understand what Jesus might mean. A priest is not only called, he has to be chosen. There must be criteria for choosing from those who are called. The latest instruction from the Congregation of Catholic Education gives us the guidelines for using psychology to screen candidates for the priesthood. The psychological screening is just one of the many means that are used for the “choosing”. The combination of different screening processes helps formators and the bishop (or religious superior) to “choose” the right candidate. The results of all the screenings are confidential. In many cases, it is prudent to keep these results from the candidates.

As a result, many get angry for difficult decisions that have to be made. Seminary formators are often chided for dropping a “good” candidate when priestly ordinations are few. Confidentiality prevents these formators for justifying their decision. Of course the formators give counsel to the bishop, and if the bishop cannot trust the formators, it is his responsiblity to replace them.

Coming back to what I was saying above, if God calls a man to the priesthood and he treats it as a career, can he be a good priest? Of course, sinful as we are, we can still change. Trusting in the Holy Spirit, formators search and discern for ways to help the man to purify his intentions. In the end, if the Holy Spirit shows the formators that the man who is called is not really interested in responding in the right way, should he be “chosen” ore “elected” to the priesthood? How should the formators interpret what is shown by the Spirit? I believe the answer is obvious.

Christmas Post

2008-12-25T01:30:00.005+08:00

MERRY CHRISTMAS!

I know I am cheating. I am writing this is in the afternoon on Christmas Eve. I have requested that this post be posted about an hour and a half after midnight. That should coincide with the end of the Midnight Christmas Vigil.

Do you have Christmas decoration? Is it like this? On the door? Actually, this doesn’t seem to be suitable for Singapore because we don’t have winter here. A wreath made up of the leaves of a pine tree? Perhaps we could look for a Singapore substitute but then it won’t have a Christmassy look. I wonder how the Australians and South American countries decorate for Christmas because it is summer there ...

I found several images on Google. Here is a funny picture I found. Pictures of Christmas decorations were similar to the Northern Hemisphere. The only decoration that would be specifically Australian is a kangaroo wearing a red cap, like the one Santa Claus uses. Here is one example and another at the bottom of the page. South America uses decorations for Christmas that also include symbols more suitable for winter in the Northern Hemisphere.

As the decorations for the Church is not ready and the Christmas Nativity Scene is yet to be complete, I cannot provide pictures that are more suitable for a Catholic Christmas.

So I leave you with the picture of the Christmas tree in the parish house.

Have a Holy Christmas!

Belief and Blessedness

2008-12-24T10:15:00.008+08:00

Besides the eight beatitudes in Matthew 5, there are several others in the four Gospels. I wish to highlight two.

The first is from the Gospel of St. Luke:

As he said this, a woman in the crowd raised her voice and said to him, “Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts that you sucked!” But he said, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!” (Luke 11:27-28)

There is a lot to be said about the how fitting this beatitude is for the Blessed Virgin. According to the same Gospel, she kept all she had experienced with Jesus in her heart (see 2:19, 51). Our Lady had the Word of God alive in her body and then embodied in her presence for so many years. She had a very personal experience of God’s Word. We might say that she was privileged because of that. If we consider the privilege as being with Jesus, then, Our Lady was very privileged indeed. At the same time, she still had to make a decision to follow God’s will. One should not say that she would naturally follow God’s will because she was physically with the Son of God. There were those who had experienced Jesus personally and yet not follow Him.

We have a similar privilege as Our Lady. We know our Lord personally. There are many who have heard of our Lord but do not know him personally. Some of them belong to other faiths and religions. Quite a number of them profess to be Christian. These are probably those who treat Christianity as a system of beliefs and rites – merely a religion and nothing more. For those of us who know the Lord personally, Christianity is not merely a religion. We have faith in the beliefs because we have a personal relationship with our God. Our belief is not in a system or an impersonal deity but a person. When we believe in a system, we rely on the set of processes determined by a set of rules. In Christianity, there is an added element of a person who loves. Our God has a special and personal relationship with us. He treats us like persons. He respects our freedom and He loves us. It is true that he allows evil and its consequences to occur. It is true that He will refuse us anything that is not right for us. He made the rules and He does not contravene those rule indiscriminately.

The rituals we go through are expressions of our faith. The official Liturgy is an expression of the faith of the whole universal Church. That is why being free and easy with the rubrics can be wrong. The Liturgy is not merely the expression of the local community. The rubrics do allow for flexibility in certain parts of the Mass. These parts are available for the specific expression of the local community. This include the language to be used at the Eucharist. That is why I am not against the celebration of the Mass in Latin. There are people who feel that they can pray better in Latin. There are also people who are more comfortable celebrating the Eucharist in a language that they normally use. These people are not prevented from celebrating the Mass in the vernacular and should not be looked down upon. I know many people who prefer Latin who considers the vernacular contemptible. I pray for these people. They have loved their preference more than their own brothers and sisters. There are also parts of the rubrics that should not be changed. I know of a particular parish priest who decided that everyone should stand at the consecration and when he renovated his parish church building, he removed all kneelers. It seems he had quite a following in his parish. When a new priest was assigned to that parish, part of the congregation refused to kneel even when the new priest tried to explain that the previous priest was mistaken. It seemed that the previous parish priest claimed that he was trained in Liturgy and those parishioners considered the new priest as infringing on their liturgical rights. Even the bishop did not move some of those parishioners! I don’t envy that new priest. It wasn’t an easy situation to manage.

We receive the Word of God through our reading of Scripture and through the Church. We need to keep this Word within us. Besides meditation and reflective prayer based on the Word, we could also do Bible Sharing as a way to keep this Word within our hearts. This keeping of the Word is a lifelong activity. As we would be celebrating the birth of the Word of God as a human being, let us hope that this Word remains alive in our hearts as we keep it.

St. John also has a few beatitudes in his Gospel. One of them is found in his resurrection accounts:

Jesus said to him [Thomas], “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe.” (Jn 20:29)

I was about to write a lengthy reflection of this beatitude. I happened to be listening to an Old Time Radio Programme as I was typing this. When I heard the ending, I realised that no matter how much I wrote, it was not going be as effective as listening to this programme. The programme is called Dragnet from 22 December 1953. The show dramatises true case files. If you could listen to this show, you can listen to an MP3 file (to be downloaded) or a streaming M3U file or a Real Player file. Then move to the last paragraph as the following paragraph is a spoiler. If you do not want to listen to the show, then you can read on.

Actually, I subscribe to podcasts from Mevio. All you have to do is search for “Old Time Mystery” or “Old Time Detective” to get some of the best mystery or detective radio shows.

WARNING ** SPOILER ALERT **

The show is about two detectives who were called to a Catholic Mission Church because the baby Jesus in the crib was missing. It was supposed to be based on true case files. Listening to the dialogue, it is definitely from that time period. It wasn’t the gritty type of dialogue you’d expect from the television shows of today. The detectives couldn’t find the statue before morning Mass. In the end, a poor child returned the statue because he wanted to let baby Jesus take the first ride in his little red wagon that the nearby firehouse gave him for Christmas.

** END OF SPOILER **

Children believe easily any representative of what is real. Baby Jesus is but a figurine in the story but the child treated as the real Jesus. I am sure the child knew that the Jesus that died on the cross several months before is that same Jesus in the crib at the baby. The child could not be bothered by small details. All he knows that Jesus is alive and that Jesus loves them. In bringing baby Jesus for a ride, he expresses the belief that Jesus would allow him to look after Him. Christmas is a time when we celebrate the arrival of salvation for the world. How often do we realise the great responsibility we have to ‘look after’ Jesus. So often the name of Jesus is derided and disrespected in our presence. Are we willing to look after Jesus? More importantly, do we believe that Jesus is real and He is depending on us? That boy had not seen Jesus in physically. Yet, he believed in the Son of God.

“Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe.”

Persecuted and Persecutor

2008-12-23T10:00:00.006+08:00

Picture from Wikimedia. The work of art by Fra Angelico is in the Public Domain. This JPEG picture is a reproduction that is part of a collection of reproductions compiled by The Yorck Project. The compilation copyright is held by Zenodot Verlagsgesellschaft mbH and licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License.

Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Blessed are you when men revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so men persecuted the prophets who were before you.
(Mt 5:10-12)

Many will only consider the first part (v. 10) as the Eighth Beatitude. In reality, without the following two verses (vv. 11-12), the Beatitude is incomplete. This is because the latter part describes what Jesus means by righteousness’ sake. In an earlier post, I described righteousness as God’s righteousness. The righteousness of God is personified in the person of Jesus. Thus, if we are persecuted because of Jesus, we are blessed.

There are many who are persecuted simply because they were Christians. Such was the plight of the martyrs of the early Church. Nero needed a scapegoat for the fires that raged Rome during his reign and he chose the Christians. During the Neronian persecutions, Christians were killed indiscriminately, not taking into account whether the individual Christians were really guilty of the fire or not.

Christians are still persecuted in different ways in different parts of the world. However, there are also many Christians who do not act like Christians. They retaliate by committing acts of violence against those who persecute them, acting contrary to what Jesus taught:

You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, (Mt 43-44)

In some cases, it is quite understandable, no matter how un-Christian it is, how retaliation occurs. When the persecution takes away the life of a loved one, there is grief. Grief can lead to rage and the need to retaliate overwhelms the mandate to forgive and love. That is why in an earlier Beatitude, Jesus talks about mourning (v. 4). Grief should lead to mourning instead of rage. Christian leadership is important in every community. Without Christian leadership, communities who claim to be Christian might forget the values that Christ taught and end up becoming counter-witnesses. Often the fear of disappearing into oblivion prompts communities to retaliate. Yet Jesus taught:

For whoever would save his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. (Mt. 16:25)

The teachings of Christ are not easy to follow if we do not submit to the grace of God. Thus, we should not judge individuals too harshly for failing. Judgement should be reserved to the Lord.

There are usually many people who complain that they are being persecuted for doing what is right. What these people should realise is that by complaining, they are retaliating in some way. Of course, when one is frustrated, one needs to vent. However, when the complaints leads to putting down of the ‘persecutor’, is it not like retaliation? Thus, it is important for us who are frustrated, to choose wisely the people to whom we talk to. If they are usually the same people, there will be no misunderstanding with regards to our ranting.

More importantly, we need to realise that we might be the persecutors instead of the persecuted. Often we vent our frustrations by making life difficult for the people around us. For example, if we are dissatisfied with how our superiors treat us, we might take out our frustrations on those who work with us. Our disapproval of mistakes might be disproportionate to the mistakes made.

More reprehensible would be when we impose our standards on others. Sometimes we put ourselves on a moral high ground, claiming to be good Christians and then proceed to bring down those who do not fit our standards. We fail to see that we are more like the Pharisees and scribes at the time of Jesus than Christian!

I believe that this Beatitude encourages us to humble ourselves and not retaliate. This beatitude encourages us to allow ourselves to be “walked all over” by others for the sake of Christ. We are not asked to be cowards. Rather, we are called to consider the value of Christ’s attitude at His Passion as a lamb led to the slaughter. It is not an easy attitude to adopt but we need to if we truly want to be “Blessed”.

Creating an Environment of Shalom

2008-12-22T12:00:00.002+08:00

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God. (Mt 5:9)

Picture from Wikimedia. It is in the Public Domain.

When I was in primary school … and that was a long time ago … I remember singing this campfire song:

Shalom my friend!
Shalom my friend!
Shalom … Shalom …
May Peace be with you,
May Peace be with you,
Shalom!
Shalom!
(Of course, the lines in the middle may be sung “God’s Peace be with you …”)

I was taught at that young age by a Christian teacher that the word shalom meant peace. After I was baptised (I was in my early teens), I remembered a Youth Mission where there was a talk about Peace. I am sure that the idea of shalom was explained there but I have no recollection of it. My memories of that Youth Mission centred around the personalities of Rev. Fr. Brian Doro, C.Ss.R., and the late Rev. Fr. P.J. O'Neil, C.Ss.R. Anyway, it was only during lectures on Sacred Scripture in the seminary that I discovered the rich meaning of the Hebrew word, Shalom.

Shalom means wholeness. When someone greeted another, “Shalom!”, it meant that the greeter hoped that the Lord would grant the one greeted the totality of being. In the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Hebrew word shalom was often translated into the Greek soteria, which meant salvation. It makes sense, doesn’t it. God created perfect human beings in the beginning. Sin introduced imperfections, causing human beings to be less that whole. Salvation would be the restoration of that perfect state, being a wholly perfect human being again. The Greek word for peace eirene, means tranquility and harmonious relationship. Eirene is qualitatively less than shalom. Although Jesus probably used Aramaic rather than Greek, there is little doubt that he had the idea of shalom when he presented the beatitudes.

So when Jesus talks about peacemakers, he is speaking of those who make shalom a part of their lives. In our present world of conflicts, we hear of peace-keepers. These are military troops or civilians who maintain conditions that prevent conflict and hostility. The peace that is kept is not even that which is described by eirene. The idea of peace nowadays refers to “the absence of conflict”. Christian peace refers to the state of being whole, being complete, a completeness that only God can give:

Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you; not as the world gives do I give to you. (Jn 14:27)

So when Jesus talks about being a peacemaker, I think it refers to those people who promote situations where people are able to become whole by the grace of God.

When there is conflict, whether large or small, the Christian response would be reconciliation. Reconciliation is not merely making compromises. It is the active provision of an environment of shalom that would pervade all parties. Suing for peace, no longer means wanting what is good for my party, but wanting the totality of good for all. This means that if I was the aggrieved party, I do not demand justice on my part, but the totality of good for all. To compromise would mean “give and take” on the part of all parties. There would be some things that would be obtained and others that would have to be sacrificed. Peacemaking has no giving up but rather receiving totally from God.

In the pastoral ministry, priests are called to provide environments where their flock can grow at being whole as a human being. Creating environments where shalom can be a reality is the challenge for priests of today. We are so specialized nowadays that we tend to forget that other aspects of being human also exist.

Purity of Heart

2008-12-21T09:00:00.005+08:00

Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God. (Mt 5:8)

Picture from Wikimedia. It is in the Public Domain.

There are several ways we can understand the word “pure”. In the realm of religion, the meaning takes on a moral slant. Purity in thought and deed usually involve the sixth or ninth commandment. We hear the importance of purity in the moral decay of the age.

However, I’d like to look at a more generic meaning of the word “pure”. Like the image above, purity can mean how perfect something is. The image is that of halite, what is commonly known as rock salt. In chemistry, the way a substance crystallizes reveals how pure that substance is. That crystal of sodium chloride in the picture is pure sodium chloride. Yet we can see specks of soil in the crystal. Somehow, the salt crystallized around those particles of soil. Whilst the crystal part is pure sodium chloride, the specks tell us that the crystal, taken as a whole, is not pure. Those specks are impurities. Most pure salt crystals allow light to pass through. You could say that they are transparent. We also gauge how pure something is by judging how clear it is. This is especially true for water. When someone mentions pure water, we think of clear clean water, with no cloudiness or particles, even though the water may have something dissolved in it.

When we consider a more generic meaning to what “pure in heart” means, we can use this idea of clarity. Someone who is “pure in heart” is someone whose heart is clear. Just as we can see clearly through pure water, we can see into the inner being of someone who is “pure in heart”. From the viewpoint of the person who is “pure in heart”, he/she can see things clearly. He/She can see everything as it truly is. If he/she can see Truth clearly, he/she sees God.

So what about the usual meaning for purity? Pope John Paul II uses Genesis 1 and 2 to refer to hearts that are not tainted and so the “pure of heart” refers to the original innocence found in humanity. (see the text of his Audience on 30 January 1980) I believe that if one’s heart is pure and clear, he/she can see the true purpose of his/her body in God’s plan. Gender expression or sexuality is, according to John Paul II and Genesis 1-2, dependent on God’s plan when he created humanity.

In my priestly ministry, I see a lot of moral ambiguity in the world today. The young are bombarded with many conflicting messages. The fashion changes quickly so that a profit can be returned more quickly as well. Hedonism has taken a new face and it is affecting people at a younger age. This means that the situations and problems that used to affect 16 year olds are now affecting 13 or 14 year olds. Adolescent angst seems to hit young people earlier, and girls and boys are engaging in sexual activity earlier than before. Whilst it was rare to hear of a 14 year old girl engaging in sexual activity twenty years ago, now more 13 year old girls are engaging in sexual activity. The world today does nothing but cloud the hearts of people of all ages. Hearts are are getting clouded earlier in a person’s life and God becomes harder to see as a result. This is the challenge of the pastoral ministry in the 21st century.

Additional Rant 0n 20 Dec 2008

2008-12-20T17:10:00.006+08:00

Summa Theologica

There are many people who are now reading the Fathers of the Church and the Summa Theologica. I was asked a question why St. Thomas’ teachings are not given a more prominent place in the Church. I was surprised. I said that they were but the person wanted the Summa up there with the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Bible. I think we need to get things straight. There is a difference between official revelation and theology — that which is infallible are the teachings of Christ in the Scripture and Sacred Tradition. These teachings are put together in a comprehensive manner in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which saw its latest expression at the end of the last century. The Church never sets out to teach a theology. It sets out to teach us truths that have been revealed through Jesus and the Church.

What is theology? Theologies are attempts to explain the teachings of the Church. In some instances, specific theological explanations were officially accepted to explain truths within the Catholic Church. For example, the Church had officially accepted the idea of transubstantiation as the explanation on how bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ at the Council of Trent. This idea was mooted as far back as the 11th century but not accepted until the 17th century Council. Theological opinions will always be accepted so long as they are not contrary to the truths expressed in Scripture and Tradition. However, they would always be opinions until they are officially (and thus, infallibly) pronounced as part of the deposit of faith. Thus, between the 11th and 17th centuries, transubstantiation had been accepted as a legitimate way of explaining the Real Presence. There was no necessity to accept it as infallible so long as the truth of the Real Presence was believed. It was only in the 17th century, at the Council of Trent, that one had to accept that transubstantiation is the way the bread and wine changes into the Body and Blood of Christ.

Doesn’t this mean that the Church teachings have changed and is thus not infallible? Of course not. Infallibility doesn’t mean cannot change. It means that the teaching is free from error. Unchangeable and error-free are different things altogether. The truths that the Church teaches do not change in the sense that they are true one day and not true the next. However, the way we understand the workings of the truths can change in that we increase the depth of understanding. Thus, while the body of teaching remains the same body of teaching, there is growth in that there is increase.

So, the Summa Theologica is not supposed to be taken on the same level as the Catechism or the Scriptures. For the most part, the work remains a valid way of explaining the truths taught by Jesus, those yet to be officially accepted as part of the infallible teaching remain opinions.

The Catechism mentioned here is the official Catechism of the Catholic Church. Many catechisms published as textbooks for Sunday School or RCIA formation programmes may contain valid theological opinions that should not be considered as official teaching of the Church. An example of this is the question of Limbo. At the earlier part of his pontificate, Pope Benedict XVI suggested that there was no need for the theological opinion that Limbo exists. Some people began to say that the Pope was trying to change the Catechism and the age old teaching of the Church. In reality, the idea of Limbo was never a part of the infallible teaching of the Church. It was a valid theological opinion to explain where babies who were aborted went. These babies could not be baptised, and thus, not able to enter heaven, nor could we say that they were guilty of personal sins that would cause them to be condemned to hell. Some theologians suggested the possibility of a place called Limbo where these souls could go to. They fashioned this place after the Jewish idea of Sheol which we see in the Old Testament (e.g. Gen 37:35; Is 38:10)

Forgiveness and Mercy

2008-12-20T17:00:00.007+08:00

Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy. (Mt 5:7)

Picture from Wikimedia. It is in the Public Domain.

At first glance, this beatitude seems to follow the ethic of reciprocity (see “Ethic of reciprocity” in Wikipedia), but I think Jesus suggests more than that. I think this is clearer when we rephrase the beatitude thus:

God blesses those who are merciful to others for God will show them mercy.

The blessing is not that people would return the mercy shown them but that God notices those who have been merciful.

What is mercy?

There is an article in the online Catholic Encyclopedia on “Mercy”. For those of us who are more adventurous, the same site offers St. Thomas Aquinas’ treatment on the same subject in the Summa Theologica. I say adventurous because St. Thomas needs some getting used to, especially if we are not familiar with Aristotle and Mediaeval Philosophy. (Please refer to my next short post to read further on what I think is important when reading the Summa Theologica.)

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, “Mercy as it is here contemplated is said to be a virtue influencing one’s will to have compassion for, and, if possible, to alleviate another’s misfortune.” If I were to put it in simpler terms, mercy is a habit (virtue) that has two functions:

stirs one to have compassion for another person’s misfortune

motivates one to try to help remove the other person’s misfortune

St. Thomas Aquinas and those teaching at his time would teach that when a merciful person discerns misfortune or misery in another, the motivation resulting from mercy is in some sense involuntary. Also, mercy must also be linked to charity as it is something the controls relations between two distinct persons.

One result of a merciful heart is the willingness to forgive. For many people forgiveness is like a switch that can be turned on or off. For these people, they will soon realise, especially when they are gravely hurt, that forgiveness cannot be simply switched on or off. Their first misunderstanding is that forgiveness is a feeling. A similar misunderstanding is that love is a feeling. Of course, there are feelings involved in forgiveness and love. However, they are not primarily feelings. Forgiveness, like love, is a decision, what philosophers would call, “an act of the will.” Mothers will definitely be able to identify with this idea. When a child has wilfully done something wrong, a mother may feel very indignant and angry but it doesn’t mean that the mother has stopped loving the child.

A merciful person is motivated to forgive; he wants to forgive because he is aware of God’s love for both himself and the one who hurt him. However, it is very difficult to reconcile the feeling of hurt and anger with that decision to forgive. It is difficult. It is also imperative for our immortal souls to forgive despite our feeling. Now to forgive is not to forget the hurt. Neither is it to forget that anything happened between the two people. Thus, the saying “forgive and forget” can be dangerously misleading. To forgive means to choose to treat a person as if he/she has not hurt me even though I know he/she has. To forgive doesn’t mean I forget and set myself up to be hurt again. To forgive doesn’t mean that I allow that person to hurt me again. On the contrary, to forgive means to give a person a second chance so that he/she would be able to do the right thing and not hurt again. It means that if that person is about to repeat the same thing, I must charitably warn that person of the consequences of his/her actions. I could go on and on about this but I choose not to be too long.

All the above is very easily said, but not easily done. There is one ingredient missing: God. We are emotional beings and we would cease to be human if we weren’t. To be merciful means we need to depend on God. The habit of choosing to forgive and love can only come about if we allow God to heal all the hurts deriving from the offence. Most people find that their emotions go on a roller coaster the moment they try to forgive. To confront a hurt before healing begins is diastrous. One feels hypocritical: I say I forgive when there is this emotion in me that pushes me to hit back!

Healing. That is the missing link between being hurt and forgiving. When someone offends us, we are hurt. Our spiritual being is hurt. Like a physical wound, we need to tend to it and allow it to heal. God provides the healing but we must take care not to cause more damage to the wound. If we dwell on the incident, it is like someone taking out the bandages of a treated wound just to touch and see that it is healing. We know that in any physical wound, constant removal of the dressing and probing would not only not speed up healing, it may even cause the wound to turn septic and cause even more pain. When we dwell on a painful memory, this is what we are doing. We probe and dig further into the hurt, causing more pain. When we begin a healing process by inviting the Lord into our beings, we should leave the ‘bandages and dressing’ well alone. We will feel the hurt, just like in the case of a physical wound. When some time has passed, we may be tempted to return to the hurt, much like a healing wound would itch. We have to let go of the hurt and put it aside, allowing the Lord to do His healing. One of the problems with “forgive and forget” concerns healing as well. If we forget that there is a bandage over a physical wound, we may end up carelessly hurting our wound or ruining the dressing. Similarly, if we totally shut off the incident from our mind, a more devastating emotional upheaval may be triggered by an trival matter.

One of the most common experiences is that the hurtful incident just comes in without one’s willing it. Actually, our memories are not random. We don't just remember things. Memory is associative. We are reminded of something in the past due to something we see or hear or even another memory. One of the best ways to handle a recurrence of a hurtful memory is to immediately turn our thoughts to “what was I thinking of before remembering?” As we consciously trace the memory to its source, we actually leave the hurtful memory in the background. We are aware that it is there but we are focusing on something else, much like when we try to ignore a healing wound that itches. Another benefit can be gained from this exercise: we begin to see what the triggers of the hurtful memories are. For example, if a couple of siblings quarreled over a case of wine, the train of though might be:

Case of wine which was triggered by grapes which was triggered by raisins which were triggered by fruitcake which was triggered by cherries which was triggered by the brand of chocolate called Mon Cherié.

See how something totally unrelated could have ended up reminding us of a hurtful incident. So if we are aware of those things that are often leading us back to the hurtful memories, we might be able to shift our thoughts the moment these ‘risky’ thoughts entered our minds.

How do I know that I am healed? When I can truly laugh off the hurtful incident even if I feel a tinge of discomfort, it would be safe to consider the healing 99% complete.

I know that I will inadvertently hurt people in my speech and decisions. There are times when I will hurt people in my own frustrations. This is something that would happen because I am still a sinner. This is something that I tell myself every time I am hurt. The virtue or habit of mercy needs to be nurtured with time. When I need to make the decision to forgive, I go through the steps above to get healed and consciously make the decision to forgive and love. Ultimately, I know that co-operating with God in this way will help me become the merciful person he has called me to be.

Fair or not Fair?

2008-12-19T11:00:00.009+08:00

Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied. (Mt 5:6)

Picture from Wikimedia. It is in the Public Domain.

When we think of someone who is righteousness, we think that he/she would be just and fair. In ancient times, Justice was depicted as a Goddess who had a sword in one hand and a set of scales in the other. The scales would determine if something was just and fair and the sword will be used effectively to ensure that the scales would be balanced.

Just what do we mean by ‘being balanced’ when speaking about something being just and fair?

Do we place the situation we place on one side of the scales and the consequence on the other? Is the charge on one side and the sentence on the other? Or would the accusation on one side and the evidence collected on the other?

When we were children, we usually decided fairness quantitatively. For example, everyone had the same size when sharing a cake, or we all had the same number of sweets. Things became complicated once there was a qualitative element. For someone who liked yellow coloured sweets, how many blue coloured sweets would be equivalent to one yellow coloured sweet? From the time we were able to distinguish quantitative and qualitative matters, we discovered a horrifying truth: There are many things in the world that aren’t fair!

This truth can lead us down many paths in life. We could try to make the world a fairer place to live in — we search out and champion the cause of right. On the other hand we could make use of the truth to our advantage. We could to take advantage of those who are not wise as us in the worldly sense. We could do worse and live with a pessimistic attitude, always being suspicious and lamenting the unfair world that we live in. For those of us who are Christian, we would look to the Beatitude as an ideal in life but could live in shades of the other paths as well.

We often forget the Christian understanding of righteousness when we talk about justice. We tend to confuse God’s righteousness with the human standards of what is right and just. I have heard Christians quoting bible passages and then preach a message that said that God hated sinners! Let us read the Scriptures carefully. God hated the sin but not the sinners! When sinners are ‘punished’ for their sin, it is not with the primary end of destroying the sinner. It was with the intention of purifying the community. This was done with great ferocity in the Old Testament. The story of Achan in the Book of Joshua comes to mind (see Joshua 7). In the New Testament, this same ferocity is seen on an individual level:

If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell. (Mt 5:29-30)

However, Jesus had already taught that this teaching must take into consideration that Christian righteousness is not the same as human righteousness:

For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. (Mt 5:18-20)

To “exceed” here does not merely mean “more severe” or “stricter”. It means to “go beyond”. We have to reach a higher or deeper level than what the Pharisees and the scribes taught. We usually paint the Pharisees and the scribes as the villains as opposed to Christ the hero in the Gospel stories, but the truth is that the Pharisees and the scribes were learned men whose faults lay in their inability to go beyond what was solely on the human level.

So, what does “hunger and thirst for righteousness” here mean? I believe it is summed up in the last few passages of Matthew chapter 5:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.”
But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you salute only your brethren, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. (Mt 5:43-48)

We must seek out God’s righteousness and justice as described by Christ. God is perfectly just and merciful at the same time. He can be so because He is Love. A warped sense of justice comes from a hunger and thirst for righteousness motivated by love of justice. We need to hunger and thirst for a fairness that is motivated by the love for people. God’s love is for people afterall.

As a priest, I find this not an easy endeavour on my own. Like everything else Christian, this instruction from the Lord demands my submission to his grace. It is all too easy to admonish someone who has not followed a liturgical rule or some dictate of the Church’s administrative directives. It is so easy to feel superior to someone who had committed a mortal sin during confession. It is not so easy to help the person to keep to the right path being aware that I am also as weak as the one who had transgressed. I cannot be like the Pharisees and scribes, enforcing law and order. I have to be like Christ, uncompromising on the sin, merciful to the transgressor and directing him/her to the path that leads to eternal life. This is exactly what God’s righteousness demands of me as a priest.

Gentle and Meek

2008-12-18T09:15:00.004+08:00

Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth. (Mt 5:5)

Picture by Louise Docker, taken on March 03, 2007 at 16:04, in Sydney, Australia. I found it at Wikimedia under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 License.

The verse above is from the Revised Standard Version, The Jerusalem Bible uses the word “gentle” instead of “meek”. The Oxford Dictionary describes “meek” as “Not proud or self-willed; piously humble; patient and unresentful under injury or reproach; …”

As we prepare for the birth of Christ, we can see these qualities in Christ himself. As described two days ago, Christ “emptied himself” (Phil 2:7). Jesus was born in a humble place: a manger. Although he was blunt with His assessment of the Pharisees and scribes, He remained patient and unresentful despite their treatment of Him at His Passion. His meekness or gentleness is not one of passive timidity or weakness. It is an active kenosis. It is the denial of the self and submission to the will of the Father. It is thus that someone meek and gentle is blessed by God.

Many Catholics in Singapore are very respectful of priests. Sinful priests that we are, we are tempted to take advantage of this reverence that the faithful have. Some of us take on an arrogant stance and look down upon those under our care. The longer a priest we are the more arrogant we become. We seem to think that we know better than the laity. Some of us may even take this attitude with priests who are junior to us! How ‘un-meek&rsquo we are!

In a modern world of specialization, Catholic priests are definitely supposed to be ‘expert’ in the knowledge of the faith. Some of us are even more specialized — we were sent to study a particular branch of theology or philosophy. Yet it is the common experience of everyone that as we study more and more, we discover the vastness of knowledge and realise how little we really do know. Before I was a priest, I studied Biology in the university. There were professors who knew plenty about birds but acknowledged their lack of knowledge for fungi, for example. The proper ‘meek and gentle’ attitude priests should have is to acknowledge that they have a limited knowledge and to read up what they do not know. The ‘un-meek&rsquo way would be to pretend we know and end up giving wrong information and direction. I have had to apologize and retract my words several times just because I have not been meek and gentle. More ‘un-meek&rsquo are we when do not even admit the possibility that we could have made a mistake.

When we say “gentle”, we usually have the idea of handling something gingerly and carefully. I believe that the meek would be given the earth as an inheritance from God because only the humble and patient would be careful enough to look after the earth. If we look at those who have little care for the earth and ecology, i.e. those in the ‘un-green’ camp of things, they are definitely not meek or gentle. Avarice within industry leads to irresponsibility and that leads to a disregard for the health of the planet. Only those who have Christ-like meekness will be good stewards of the earth.

Choosing and Mourning

2008-12-17T10:43:00.005+08:00

Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted. (Mt 5:4)

Picture by James Foster, taken in 1986, found in Wikimedia under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 2.5 License.

Choosing is so much a part of our lives that we sometimes do it without thinking. Yet we are affected by our choices without realising it. In some cases, we may resent another because we think we are affected by his/her choices. In reality, to be affected by another’s choice is a result of our own choice as well. This is one of the ideas found in William Glasser’s Choice Theory and the counseling process called Reality Therapy. (see Choice Theory and Reality Therapy in Wikipedia.)

The following is based on my own reflections and is not meant as an academic or technical paper. I have used lists to simplify my thoughts.

Let us begin with some basic definitions regarding choices:

A choice is an option that we choose from a multiplicity of options.

Each option may have multiple elements.

There may be similar elements among options.
Thus, Option A and Option B may be different merely in the addition of a single element.
→ Option A + element x = Option B

For the dynamics involved in choice, we can determine several simple rules:

When we choose one option, we reject all other options.

Choosing to remain the same means we reject the options for change.

Choosing to change means we reject the option to remain the same.

There does not exist, within this world, a situation where there is only one single option.

Numbers 2 and 3 are there because we have a tendency to overlook the obvious. Number 4 is not obvious but I think I can illustrate it thus:

Consider a man who is forced to smuggle drugs by a gang who threatens to kill his son. One may think that he has no choice. However, he does. He can choose not to smuggle drugs and accept the death of his son, even though that might not be the natural choice of a loving father. It may sound cruel, but he has options. Perhaps only one option results in the survival of his son but he definitely has more than one option to choose from.

Every option chosen results in the rejection of other options. Sometimes these rejected options are significant to the person who had to make a choice. Let us continue to look at the man who had to choose between smuggling drugs and the life of his son. If he chose the life of his son, he has to mourn the loss of his innocence. He has committed a crime. He has to bear the consequence of his own actions. If he had chosen to preserve his own integrity, he might have had to mourn the loss of his son. Depending on different ways of looking at things, one might consider his options as the option for one life (his son’s) and the many lives that would be affected by the drugs he had smuggled. The morality of his actions are not so clearly defined; it is not a black or white situation. As to whether these are the only two options open to him, we can speculate indefinitely.

Let us return to the beatitude, “Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.” Every time we make an option for Christ, we reject all other options that may be open to us. The mourning process involves accepting the loss. To accept, we normally look for a reason for the loss. Normally, if there is no reason for the loss, the mourning is longer and the grief more intense. When an elderly person passes away, we usually find it easier to accept his/her death, even if that person was in the pink of health and was infected by a virus. The same would not occur if the person who died was young. The parents of a toddler who had died of the same viral infection would have to go through a difficult grieving process because they would find it difficult to accept the reason for their child’s death. Often there is a questioning period in the grief, looking for a supernatural reason or a person to blame for the infection. When the parents accept that the death is the natural consequence of being present at the wrong place at the wrong time and getting infected, the process of grieving and mourning will reach its end and the parents will find closure. Only when the hurt begins to abate will the comfort that the beatitude talks of arrive.

In a similar vein, we need to properly mourn the loss of options when we make a decision. If we deny the loss and do not mourn, we will not be “comforted”. If we choose to follow the Lord’s way, we would have to mourn the loss of following the way of the world, which, in our own weakness, seems to have a special attraction to us. We have to mourn the loss of all the morally wrong ways of living if we want to live a moral Christian life.

For example, the world will tell us that we deserve to rest and relax on Sunday because of all the hours of work we put in during the week. Yet, if we choose the good Christian practice of going to Mass on Sundays, we will inevitably have to mourn the loss of extra hours of sleep on Sunday or the special television programmes that happened to be on at the same time as the Masses at the parish. We have to accept the loss and the reason for the loss: our choice to keep the Sunday holy and wholly for the Lord. If we do not begin the process of mourning, we will begin to bitch and moan about going for Mass and going on about worshipping God on our own, questioning the need for community worship. Such is the fate of those who choose and do not mourn.

Poor in Spirit

2008-12-16T23:15:00.001+08:00

Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. (Mt 5:3)

The first of the Beatitudes is that which highlights the basis for all the other seven in St. Matthew’s Gospel (Mt 5:3-12) In fact, God Himself made himself poor in order to save us. The incarnation of Christ can be seen as a impoverishment. Divesting Himself of the accidents (used here in the philosophical sense) of divinity, God became a human being. St. Paul expresses this in his letter to the Philippians:

… though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross.
(Phil 2:6-8)

The Son of God went beyond just emptying Himself of His divinity. In His humanity, He even emptied Himself of human life when as a consequence of obedience to His Father, He was nailed on a cross and died.

The first Beatitude has a very special meaning for a priest celebrating Mass. Whilst I retain my personality when celebrating Mass, I am aware that I become Christ during the celebration. For the sacrifice of the Mass is that one sacrifice of Christ on the Cross, where Christ is both Priest and Victim (see Hebrews 9). When I lift chalice and paten at the Doxology of the Eucharistic Prayer, it is not I who offer Christ the Victim to the Father, it is Christ. If I am full of myself during the celebration, I cannot be truly alter Christus. In spirit, I must be poor, almost like emptying myself so that I can be filled with the person of Christ. Only when I am truly poor in spirit will I be really aware of the great privilege granted to me to celebrate the Eucharist.

A Very Short Post ...

2008-11-10T11:58:00.000+08:00

I have been very bogged down by work. Time seems to pass by so quickly. I seem to be working more slowly and less efficiently nowadays. My memory is less reliable and I find myself fearful of committing myself to an appointment because I cannot trust my memory. Keep a Diary! I hear many people say. I don't bring my diary all the time (My memory is not so good nowadays) and it seems that when I have my diary with me, no engagements are made. However, the moment I forget, people ask me to help here and there. SIGH!

WWDC 2008

2008-06-11T16:50:00.000+08:00

Well, the announcements are here! No surprises here. Apple announced the new 3G iPhone; not the third generation iPhone, but the iPhone with 3G mobile technology. Here was a an article that I had read regarding the naming of this piece of equipment: the iPhone Name Game. It was interesting to see the problems arising from the use of acronyms and such.

You may think that a priest should not be so interested in the things which are not really necessary for his ministry. You are right. While I admit that the iPhone is very attractive to me—I like gadgets—and part of me wants to get it, it is certainly not necessary for my ministry and my life. Can a priest be so worldly? The ideal answer is “a priest should not be too worldly.” The reality is that many priests, including myself, have these sorts of temptations. While I am not trying to justify anything, it is important to note that because of my interest in worldly pursuits like the internet and computers that I am able to publish this blog. Is this blog necessary to my ministry? I cannot reply in the affirmative. Without posting on this blog, I can still minister as a priest. Without posting, I have not neglected my duties as a priest. Yet, does that mean that I should not blog at all?

That last question sounds a little like a trick question. After all, a yes would imply my leaving cyberspace. That gives me a little tug in the heart; not that I cannot let go but that saying yes does not seem quite right. Saying no would also cause my heart to give a tug because I am doing something that is not absolutely necessary. My heart tells me that the answer is somewhere in the middle. Our hearts are usually good gauges for telling us what is right and what is wrong. St. Paul tells us so in his Epistle to the Romans Chapter 2 verse 15: the law of the Lord is written in our hearts. Our conscience tells us what is right and what is wrong. When we have done something wrong, our hearts tell us that we have done something wrong. The heart ‘bugs’ a person—his/her conscience disturbs him/her.

Someone asked me recently, “Is it a mortal sin for the priest to omit the words of consecration?” My immediate response was to say “Yes!“ but my heart tugged me at that moment. Objectively, a priest who omits the words of consecration does something wrong. However, sin is not merely doing something incorrectly. Mortal sin requires three elements: grave matter, knowledge of the sinfulness of the act, and free consent. If any one of these is missing, there is no mortal sin. I had, on one occasion, forgotten the words of absolution during a confession. Try as I might, I could not remember the words. I fumbled through the beginning but I remembered the last part clearly: “Through the ministry of the Church, may God grant you pardon and peace and I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” Although I did not cause the sacrament to be invalid, I certainly did not mean to mock the sacrament. Did I commit a mortal sin? I made my confession all the same.

The words of consecration are important and, if omitted, the sacrament becomes invalid. Only God and the priest knows if he has committed a mortal sin. My advice to the anyone who has witnessed a priest who has omitted the words of consecration is to tell him tactfully. Then, pray for him. He may not have done this intentionally, or he may not believe that he has done anything wrong. A wrongly informed conscience may not clear him from culpability but unless we are his confessors, we should not even start to judge whether his sins are mortal or not.

I certainly did not start out wanting to talk about mortal sin. I was speaking about the WWDC—Apple’s World Wide Developers Conference. Why did I begin the post about this? It’s due to the fact that Steve Jobs also announced MobileMe. This has impact on my podcasting. I use the .Mac site to present my podcasts. That service is going to change to MobileMe. However, I don't know if there is going to be any problem for the transition. I promised myself to start writing material for podcast production and I want to start podcasting again. However, being a kiasu kind of a person, I am afraid that I might have to upload the podcasts all over should there be any problem with the transition. That, believe me, would cause me to use up a great amount of time, which brings me back to the first issue that was mentioned at the top of the post: Is it necessary? Should I give up the idea of podcasting totally? I know of a few people who ask about the next podcast. Some of my friends tell me not to waste my time. I know that the Lion City Catholic Cast—in its latest form—is not as well done as the SQPN podcasts, but I still enjoy getting a podcast together. Call it a hobby; call it recreation; the question still is: Is it necessary?

Brevis

2008-05-09T08:54:00.000+08:00

It's the weekend of the Vocation Discernment Retreat. As I am writing this, the seminarians are getting ready to welcome the 50 odd participants. That is one of the largest number of participants we’ve had in some years. Hopefully, there’d be at least be several in that number who are seriously considering entering within the next several years. I am sure that some of them are attached but would like to discern where the Lord is calling them to.

I have podcasted for several months. The reason is time and content. I have some content but not really enough to podcast regularly. I know how frustrating it is for a listener to have to wait for episodes to appear. I'd really like to have enough material to comfortably podcast several episodes in advance. The question of time is also a problem. I am in the 25th Anniversary Organizing Committee for the Seminary. Then I have many former parishioners who have approached me for help in their difficult moments. They say they don’t know the new priest enough. I need to have priorities. Yet when I pray to the Lord regarding giving up the podcasting, I discern that he isn’t telling me to give things up. I know I have to struggle on and keep an open and positive mind. I have just had a twitter post from Fr. Roderick (of the Daily Breakfast fame) saying that he has just completed a banner. I really admire him. He has the time to run a parish, SQPN and write for the local newspaper at the same time! He’s just a few years younger than me. He has amazing energy and talent!

I had wanted to write a short post as I had just posted a piece at Kampung Ponggol. Have a read there, if you’re interested.

The Old and the New

2008-04-25T17:28:00.000+08:00

When I was chatting (in real time, not online) with a fellow priest recently, we started talking about the parishioners from a church that we both had served in. When we started talking about the antics the altar boys used to have, we both realised that those altar ‘boys’ were already men. Those whom we had known as ‘boys’ in primary school were grown up. I had even known those who are about the get married!!

Thus, I present this picture of an old tree taken by Petr Kratochvil and posted in the Public Domain Pictures website. As my friend and I were thinking of old times, we realised that we were getting old. Doesn’t that old tree look regal and grand. Unless there is disease involved, most old people look regal. They may get frailer with age but there is this awe I feel when I meet a really grand old person. Of course, I am not at that ‘grand’ state yet. In fact, an older priest may tell me that, being in my mid-forties, I am still young. However, compared to my nephews and niece who are still in their one-digit ages, I am old. I have not grown taller (although I am still advancing horizontally, if not vertically) but hopefully I am growing wiser.

I have been listening to recordings of talks given by Monsignor Charles Pope, a priest in America. He’s a powerful preacher. I don’t think that I will ever be able to preach like he does. Anyway, he shared that he is getting closer to the Lord with age. I hope this is something I can say as I grow older as well. Although he is about my age, he has been a priest for a longer time. In fact, he is very familiar with the Tridentine Mass. I chanced upon a movie of him celebrating the Tridentine Mass. The beginning of the clip says, “the issue is NOT that the Mass is said in Latin or the Vernacular. It is a matter that the new and old Mass are totally different Rites of Mass.” I would rephrase this a little: The issue is NOT the language of the Mass; both rites, old and new, are rites of the same Mass, the one instituted by Christ at the last supper.

The New Order of the Mass that was promulgated in the 1970s can be celebrated in Latin. However, the Tridentine Rite cannot be celebrated in the vernacular. Both rites give us the Eucharistic Sacrament. Priests can celebrate both rites in a proper and solemn way. They can abuse both rites by celebrating it without proper respect. I suppose the difference is that the old rite is so restrictive that a slight deviation of the distance between hands during prayers was considered a mortal sin (i.e. the priest is liable to go to hell if he dies without going for confession). The new rite does not have that severe a restriction but it is still a grave sin for a priest to celebrate Mass without due solemnity and respect. There have been many differing views of the values of the old and new rite. However, all Catholics can have a preference regarding their attendance but not regarding the acceptance of their validity. Catholics are obliged to accept both rites as valid rites. I heard once that a young man, preferring the Tridentine rite, considered ‘puking’ at the new rite. I felt sad. We don’t pick what we should believe and what we shouldn’t. We believe that the Lord is guiding his Church and whatever the Church teaches is what the Lord teaches. Truth is not something imposed or a set of rules. This is what Pope Benedict XVI referred to in his speech to seminarians and young people at St. Joseph’s seminary in the United States (the emphasis is mine):

Have you noticed how often the call for freedom is made without ever referring to the truth of the human person? Some today argue that respect for freedom of the individual makes it wrong to seek truth, including the truth about what is good. In some circles to speak of truth is seen as controversial or divisive, and consequently best kept in the private sphere. And in truth’s place – or better said its absence – an idea has spread which, in giving value to everything indiscriminately, claims to assure freedom and to liberate conscience. This we call relativism. But what purpose has a “freedom” which, in disregarding truth, pursues what is false or wrong? How many young people have been offered a hand which in the name of freedom or experience has led them to addiction, to moral or intellectual confusion, to hurt, to a loss of self-respect, even to despair and so tragically and sadly to the taking of their own life? Dear friends, truth is not an imposition. Nor is it simply a set of rules. It is a discovery of the One who never fails us; the One whom we can always trust. In seeking truth we come to live by belief because ultimately truth is a person: Jesus Christ. That is why authentic freedom is not an opting out. It is an opting in; nothing less than letting go of self and allowing oneself to be drawn into Christ’s very being for others.

We might feel that the Tridentine Mass allows us a better atmosphere for prayer but that is not any reason to reject the new rite. There are others who might pray better in the vernacular than in Latin and so prefer the new rite in the vernacular. For those, like me, who have known only the new rite, it would be wicked to ridicule those who prefer the old rite by labelling their preference as faddish. The Lord allows different rites to exist. The Eastern Rite Churches have different rites for celebrating Mass; yet we do not reject them. So why should we start to reject what the Church has taught to be valid?

Enough ranting! Let me not forget the movie I mentioned. Here it is below. Enjoy.