Changing course . . .

We are truly obedient, patient, accommodating and resilient people? And we believe in fate? And we take them as positives proud that they are inherent in our culture – differentiating ourselves from the liberal, amoral West? But did the West somehow reinforce our fatalism – through a church where “bad people” must fear God?

The writer comes from a typical Filipino family whose life revolved around the parish. And unsurprisingly a sister is a nun – among the different claims of the family, save holiness? It’s a big family; and the writer learned that the monsignor had advised the parents: “God would provide” – i.e., responsible parenthood was heresy? And so, recently, the writer was jolted: “It’s senseless to have a big family today”, said his father. The writer meets the nuns in the sister’s convent and believes that they wouldn’t take the father’s current view against him? Thus he’s not surprised to read a column by a Filipino cleric explaining the teaching of the Church about pluralism, quoting from Vatican II – yet many would find it sacrilegious, that he ought to disrobe? Has our faith unwittingly frozen us in time – making the idea of ‘changing course’ next to impossible? The Enlightenment is reality – man has gone to and been back from the moon? And after 52 years and $750 million, a team from Stanford University confirmed that Einstein got it right – with his theory of gravity, general relativity, i.e., of black holes and the expanding universe, NY Times, May 4^th.

Are we, in the ongoing debate within the Church, leaning towards those uncomfortable with ‘doing theology’ – because of our belief in infallibility, e.g., the “imprimatur” behind the Baltimore Catechism or the Commandments of the Church? A friend – a deacon and a serious student of philosophy and theology – explains that debate has characterized the Church since the time of the apostles. The writer remembers how our belief was shaped by the ‘Baltimore Catechism’? And it was not until the 80’s that, as some priests (e.g., Fr Richard Rohr, OFM) would explain, the Church leadership acknowledged that it was made up of white, older and European (and some North American) men? Yet there is a ‘theology of pluralism’, and the Church ought to be “more responsive to experience and sensitive to the reality of the moment”? [J. Dunne/D.F.Pilario, Back to the rough grounds of praxis, 2005.] But that would be like pulling teeth in a culture of ‘hierarchy, permanence and infallibility’ – i.e., too liberal for a conservative faith?

And so while we talk about the poor (who have no access to innovations from the West like we do) and live out our Christian charity, we keep to our comfort zone even when the reality calls for changing course – for example, to create a broad-based economy? But we’re here for the ‘afterlife’ and thus to change course isn’t compelling – more compelling, especially for the poor, is to be obedient, patient, accommodating and resilient? And so we would find comfort in charity-giving – and livelihood programs, our interpretation of ‘teaching how to fish’?

But we’re not only here for the ‘afterlife’? We have a ‘present- not a distant-God’ who knows more about our needs and desires – i.e., he is the power behind our prayers, and why there’s only a pair of footprints in the sand? And indeed Christ is about humanness, i.e., flesh and blood, suffered excruciating pain – both physical and psychological – and died? And broke bread with tax collectors, usurers, prostitutes, and sinners in general – despite being divine? Arguably, ‘he is [not just] divine – period (!)’? He is not the poster boy of the ‘country-club culture’, that is, exclusive? He was out to reform his Jewish heritage, dogma-bound and hostile to outsiders – i.e., a heritage no matter how rich and proud could use reform? He wasn’t for an economy that was skewed and cheered the few? He was and is about more than ‘teaching how to fish’? He is about ‘abundance and wellbeing’ – as the apostles witnessed when their nets came close to breaking point or at the wedding at Cana? He is about creating a broad-based economy – or an inclusive economy in its truest sense, not reflective of a hierarchical structure?

Is our challenge then to be “more responsive to experience and sensitive to the reality of the moment” – and recognize that we’re economic laggards if not yet a basket case, for example? And in the global free-market arena there would be winners and losers – a reality that calls for the human spirit, not fear? Given we grew up with the Parable of the Talents – and as Lech Walesa would remind the Poles, “Do not fear” and “Change the face of the world”! [John Paul II]