 |
|||||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Finding God in a Helpless Child by: Lope C. Robredillo January 7, 2001 I no longer remember its exact details, but the story I read in high school goes something like this: in a German prison camp during the Second World War, some prisoners escaped.
Since no one could tell where they were and how they were able to make their way outside, the German guards retaliated by picking up men at random to be hanged — unless the escapees returned. Since not a single one returned,
these men were hanged. Among them was a boy. As he hanged from the gallows, someone asked: "Where is God?" There was silence among the onlookers. Much later, a voice was again heard: "Where is God?" Then a
voice came: "There he is, hanging from the gallows." That someone could recognize God in the boy who was hanging from the gallows brings to mind a theological observation that one notes from the story of the Magi. In today's Gospel (Matthew
2:1-12), we are told of civil and religious authorities — Herod and the experts of scriptures — who were caught unawares about the coming of the Messiah. On the one hand, Bethlehem was a village under Herod who should have known the place and its people. On the other, the religious authorities had the Scriptures which tell of the birth of the Messiah: "And you, Bethlehem, land of Judah, are by no means least among the princes of Judah, since from you shall come a ruler who is to shepherd my people Israel" (
Matthew
2:8). Indeed, it was the priests and scribes who furnished King Herod with the information about the future ruler. And when Herod eventually knew about him, he rejected him, thinking the child would be a threat to his kingship. In sharp contrast, we are also told of Magi, astrologers who studied the stars, so much aware of the coming of the new King. To know him, the Magi did not have the Scriptures, they had only a miraculous star to tell them. And by means of the star, they were led to the house of Joseph. In this pericope, Matthew thus makes a contrast between astrologers from the east who accepted Jesus and the King and religious leaders of Israel who rejected him.
The Magi story is a part of the introduction to Matthew's Gospel, and functions as an overture to the whole Matthean account of Jesus' life, ministry and death, in more or less the same way that the Prologue of
John introduces the reader to the theology found in his Gospel. In particular, the Magi story serves to prefigure what happened in the life and ministry of Jesus and the early Church. Looking back, we know that both the
civil and religious authorities, whom Herod and the interpreters of the Scriptures represent, refused to recognize Jesus as the One sent by God. God chose them as His people, and gave them His Word — the Scriptures — so they could
walk in His ways; but when the time came, they failed to recognize the Messiah. They were scandalously slow in coming to faith in the Messiahship of Jesus. In sharp contrast, the Gentiles, whom the Magi represent in today's
Gospel, knew nothing about God except through what was available to them through the natural phenomena, like the star, and yet, when confronted with the Message, they believed in Jesus the Messiah. In other words, the story
was recalled by the Matthean community to explain a phenomenon in the early Church: the early Christians saw the contrasting reactions of the Jews and the Gentiles to the ministry of Jesus and the apostles: while the Israelites
rejected him, the Gentiles accepted him. In the understanding of the Matthean community, this sheds light on why the majority of the members of the Church came from pagans, not from Israelites, even though Jesus was a Jew. How explain the contrast? For Matthew, Herod and the religious authorities, even though they had the sacred tradition, failed to recognize the Messiah because of their unbelief, they closed their eyes to the
revelation of God in the child. The Magi, on the other hand, had faith. They believed that in the ordinariness of the child born in Bethlehem, God was there. Hence, the feast of the Epiphany is really about God's
revelation, and our acceptance or rejection of that revelation. It is possible that people who are supposedly religious may fail to recognize the coming of God in their lives. It happens when they presume to know the
working of God, and limit His action to what they have already learned in their theologies. They put limits to their faith. But God is a God of surprises! He reveals himself in ways that are unknown and ordinary,
and that people do not expect. He can reveal himself in a helpless child at Christmas, a child no different in appearance from the children of a small, poor village like Bethlehem. And we can detect his presence even in the
negative experiences of our lives, in much the same way that a Jewish prisoner of war in a German camp came to recognize him in the boy hanging on the gallows. What is important for us, of course, is to detect his presence,
to recognize his revelation. And we can do it only with the eyes of faith. By: Fr. Lope C. Robredillo January 14, 2001 When a Catholic preacher reads this Sunday Gospel, he will most likely focus on the Mariological thrust that can be noted in the enigmatic conversation between Jesus and Mary. Such preference is not without basis. in using the term, "woman" John probably had in mind the first person to be called "woman" in the Bible-Eve, "the mother of all living." In Genesis, we are told that God put an enmity between the woman and the serpent and that her seed will crush the serpent. in using the tern "woman" in the conversation, John, instead of simply calling her "Mary," most likely identified Jesus' mother with the new Eve who would become the mother of his disciples. This story is thus linked with the crucifixion scene where again the evangelist uses the term "woman" to describe Mary: "Woman, this is your son." in turn he said to the disciple, "there is your mother" (John 19:26b-27). A Catholic reading of these two episodes indicates that what was said in the Cana scene is now fulfilled in the latter: Mary has become the mother of those who believe in Jesus-the Church. the notion of fulfillment is anchored on the fact that whereas in the first episode, Jesus told Mary "Woman, how does this concern of yours involve me?" (John 2:4), in the passion story, John tells us that the hour has come (John 13:1). That is to say, Mary, the new Eve, is now the mother of the disciples-even as Eve is the mother of all living-because the hour of Jesus' passion, death and resurrection has come. While this interpretation is very legitimate, It may be admitted that this is not the primary
thrust of the narrative. Rather, it is about John's theology of sign, foe after telling this story about the wedding feast in Cana, John says: "Jesus performed this first of his signs at Cana in Galilee" (John 2:11a). Although at
first blush, the narrative seems a miracle story, we have it from John's pen that its not. He considers it a "sign", and this does not necessarily mean a miracle, because there is nothing miraculous, for example, about the
cleansing of the temple episode, and yet John calls it a sign, too. Add to this, John seems not interested in the miraculous element, but in its symbolic value. that is why we have to look at this story simply as a sign. but what
is a sign-story? It is a narrative that communicates its message by means of symbols. this brings us to the question: what was the wedding feast in Cana signify? Of course, the gospel itself provides the answer: "Jesus
performed this first of his signs at Cana in Galilee. Thus did he reveal his glory" (John 2:11). As Bultmann noted, the meaning of the story lies in the revelation of the glory of Jesus, that occurs throughout the whole of his
ministry. It is about the divinity of Jesus, which becomes visible for faith in the reception of grace and truth. The revelation of his glory is nothing less than the revelation of the Father. While this is John's
intention, we can appreciate the significance of the story if we examine the symbolism. It is interesting to note that, as is reflected in Mark 2:18-22, Jesus used the image of new wine in the context of the wedding to describe the
new era which is inaugurated by the Kingdom of God. This is consistent with the old testament that uses the imagery to describe the final days: " The juice of grapes shall drip down the mountains, and all the hills shall run with
it. I will bring about the restoration of my people Israel" (Amos 9:13b-14a). The same imagery appears in Intertestmental Literature (1 Enoch 10:19;2 Bar 29:5). Viewed against this background, the abundance of wine around 12
gallons) becomes understandable. Obviously, the wedding feast in Cana symbolizes the beginning of the messianic times and the inauguration of the new age. In the abundance of wine, Jesus revealed himself as the one who brings in
the time of salvation. In other words, the wedding was an ordinary happening in the life of the people in Cana, but in its festive environment, the disciples of Jesus, together with Mary, beheld the hidden glory of Jesus. What he
really is, the believers were able to see it: "Jesus performed this first of his signs at Cana in Galilee. Thus did he reveal his glory, and his disciples believed in him" (John 2:11) A recent example can bring the
point home. For one who does not have personal knowledge about her, Clarissa Ocampo, until she testified before the Senate impeachment tribunal, was hardly different from any career woman in the business districts of Metro Manila.
She may be the senior vice president of the Equitable-PCI Bank, but she is probably indistinguishable from other women, if one sees her among the crowd hearing a Sunday Mass. But when she asserted in her explosive testimony before
the tribunal that President Estrada signed the saving/checking account at the bank as Jose Velarde, and that Jaime Dichaves was made the fall guy in claiming ownership of that account so as to save the President-this scene in
television, watched by millions of Filipinos was no less than an epiphany. It was a revelation of the glory of what being a woman is all about. She was a citadel of truth, and perceived by almost all as such. Indeed, Clarissa
Ocampo was herself an epiphany of truth and courage. If she was not cross-examined, it was not simply because the defense wanted to their position that her testimony was irrelevant and immaterial; more importantly, it was because
she was an epiphany of truth and courage. In making her testimony, Ocampo revealed the glory of women. By: Fr. Lope C. Robredillo January 21, 2001 Although today's Gospel is about Jesus' blessing of the children (Mark 10:13-16), it is very likely that Mark saw some other significance in this narrative. Let us, to begin with, look at the story in its proper literary context. It is interesting to note that Mark has three predictions of the passion. (For Mark, to follow Jesus is to follow him on the road to his passion. To be a disciple, in other words, is to share in his passion.) Each time Jesus uttered a prediction, there follow stories which betray a misunderstanding on the part of the disciples who heard them. Today's Gospel comes after the second prediction. Together with this story of the blessing of children are the narratives on the question of divorce and on the danger of riches. In the story on the issue of divorce, the disciples could not understand why what God has joined could not be separated (Mark 10:10). And in the story of the rich man, the disciples where overwhelmed at the declaration that it is easier for a rich man to enter the eye of a needle that for a wealthy man to enter the kingdom of heaven. But what is difficult in Jesus' saying, "It is such as these [children] that the kingdom of God belongs" (Mark 10:14b)? To understand the difficulty, we may recall that in the Palestinian society of Jesus' time, children were never
given importance. The society was the world of the adult. They had no rights; in fact, they were considered property of their father. A child is thus a symbol not of humility but of unimportance. To be a child is to empty
oneself of what he is, which is akin to what is known in Patristics as "kenosis"; Literally, this means empty, but this usually refers to the action of Christ described in Phil 2:6-7: "Though he was in the form of God, he did not
deem equality with God something to be grasped at. Rather, he emptied himself and took the form of a slave, being born in the likeness of men. he was known to be of human estate, and it was thus that he humbled himself, obediently
accepting even death, death on a cross!" That is to say, though equal to God in rank, Jesus put that rank aside. Though as human being he was worthy of the highest honor, he assumed the lowest rank: that of a slave. Though
innocent, he accepted the punishment of death. There are two movements in human life: upward and downward. In the upward movement, we accept honors and praise, we assume the highest position in society, we build
towers that reach the high heavens. Probably, most of us do not recoil from such movement. But what is difficult to accept is the downward movement: this occurs when we become miserable, when we are defeated or demoted. To be
child, to empty oneself is to experience a downward movement. To love the poor, for example, is not enough to give. It is not even enough to symphatize with them. To really love them, one has to be poor. To love the miserable, one
must experience misery itself. Jesus loved us by becoming one of us, accepting human limitations and even human misery. This is the difficulty in being a child. It is difficult because we are scared of emptiness,
solitude, suffering and death. It is difficult because we are afraid of losing our self importance, we are afraid to let go of our securities. As in the story of the young man who wanted to gain eternal life (Mark 10:17-27), our
face may fall if Jesus challenges us to make ourselves children of the kingdom. With the apostles, we might exclaim, "Who then can be saved?" But Jesus' answer is to the point: "For man it is impossible but not for God. With God
all things are possible" (Mark 10:27). This simply means that to accept the Kingdom of God like a child is a gift: "I assure you that whoever does not accept the reign of God like a little child shall not take part in it" (Mark
10:15). It is God's gift. It would not be easy for us, left to ourselves, to make a downward movement. We tend to cling to ourselves, and to what we have. We are basically selfish. But God can move us. He can give us this gift and
enable us to embrace poverty, misery and even death. With God, we can ever rejoice at our failure and defeat. With him, we can be children of the Kingdom. Must a Prophet Restrict Himself to the Non-Political? By: Fr. Lope C. Robredillo January 28, 2001 Even before President Joseph Ejercito Estrada was put on trial before the Senate Impeachment
Court, Manila Archbishop Jaime L. Cardinal Sin had issued a pastoral letter calling for his resignation, on the ground that he has lost his moral ascendancy. Other bishops followed, and even the influential Catholic Bishops'
Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) made a similar stand. But there are some Catholics who seem to frown upon bishops being involved in politics. For example, a certain Primitivo T. Acebuche (
Philippine Daily Inquirer, Dec.28, 2000, p.8) wrote: "As a Roman Catholic, I lament that our Church in the Philippines is now contaminated by politics. It seems to me that some of our bishops, priests and nuns are too
interested or engrossed in political affairs. They should remember that we Catholics have different political affiliations. Pope John Paul II once told them that they are 'priests and religious' etc. The Pope wanted them to
concentrate their attention on the propagation of our Catholic faith and explaining to the faithful the correct interpretation of the words of God in the Holy Bible... In our country we have a separation of Church and State. So,
let the President and politicians do their duties." In today's Gospel, Luke shows us the program that Jesus wished to pursue in fulfillment of his mission. Quoting from Isaiah (Isa
61:1-2), Jesus said: "The spirit of the Lord is upon me; therefore He has anointed me. He has sent me to bring glad tidings to the poor, to proclaim liberty to captives, recovery of sight to the blind and release to prisoners, to announce a year of favor from the Lord" (
Luke
4:18-19). As Luke describes it, Jesus the Prophet and Messiah will usher in a new age of freedom: he will liberate those who lack the basic necessities in life, he will give freedom to the captives, the condemned and the oppressed. Jesus' program, in other words, is one of proclamation of freedom — from poverty and want, from injustice, and from oppression. Indeed, he even adds that Jesus was to announce a year of favor, which really refers to the Jubilee Year, when mortgaged property is to be returned to their owners, debts are forgiven, and slaves are freed (
Lev
25). The Jubilee Year is meant to restore equality among the people and to give opportunities to families who have become impoverished because they lost their properties or liberty. It is grounded on the insight that land ownership is not absolute; God is the owner and the people are only His vassals. So, God does not want that some would exploit, take advantage of, or enslave others in His community. There is no doubt then that Jesus' program is one of liberation.
But if such issues as monopoly, inequality, exploitation, oppression and liberation are political, Jesus the Prophet and Messiah was clearly involved in the politics of his day. The fact that Jesus was judged
before Pilate, the procurator of Judaea, and put to death by crucifixion — a punishment for political offenders — not by stoning, makes certain that the Romans were aware of the political repercussions of his activity. By ordination, of course, bishops and priests share in the prophetic ministry of Christ, and their prophetic ministry obviously touches on the political. They have to proclaim the teaching of the Church about
(political and economic) society, and pass judgment on matters related to politics when the fundamental rights of man or his salvation requires it. When the Church in the Philippines therefore speaks on matters that pertain to
politics, they are not encroaching on foreign territory. It is wrong to believe that the Church must limit itself to the sacristy and the altar. The exercise of politics always involves morality, the common good, and it is within
the Church's competence to teach on matters involving morality. As the Second Plenary Council of the Philippines (PCP-II) puts it: "The task of the Church in announcing the message of liberation, in saturating every strata of
humanity with values of the Good News, will necessarily have political repercussions, for the values of the Kingdom of God often serve as countersigns to prevailing political systems and practices."
What J.G. Davies said (see Philippine Star, Dec.22, 2000, p.10), is relevant to the issue: "Politics, far from being a distraction from the spiritual, is the medium through which we love our neighbor and promote justice,
peace and human rights. People are political because their daily position is set within a web of social structures. Unless we take the Incarnation seriously we cannot begin to see the proper relationship between politics and
religion. When Christ entered human history he became totally one of us. Therefore, like the Incarnate Word, all Christians should be involved in all aspects of life, including the political, the sacred and the secular, for Christ
came to 'preach the good news to the poor, to proclaim liberty to the captives and free the oppressed' (Luke
4:16). Concern for poverty, liberty and oppression indicates a deep religious and political involvement in political affairs. As Scripture teaching, being one with our neighbor materially is a fact of economics (John 3:17;
James 2:2)." |
|||||||||||||
HOME
| CBCP News
| Bishops
| Jurisdictions | Commissions | |
|||||||||||||