Category: WM Special

It is a sad story. Four hundred years of Christian-Muslim interaction in the Philippines have often been centuries of suspicion, prejudice, and aggression. Yet, despite past hostilities, Catholics are urged by the Church today to promote a spirit of reconciliation with their Muslim neighbors. In the Virgin Mary, they can find one bridge to harmonious existence. Another story is not a sad one. It took place in Manila while I was waiting in an office before formal business hours. I found myself in a fascinating conversation with a charming young lady. Although presently employed in Manila, she originates from Jolo, southern Philippines. In the course of our friendly chat, she proudly told me how her name “Mary Ann” reflects her family which is part Muslim and part Christian. She narrated her background: “When my parents were choosing my name, it was my Muslim grandfather who insisted on ‘Mary’ because of his admiration for Mary, the mother of Jesus (‘Is) the prophet. Furthermore, he urged that my second name be ‘Ann’ in honor of Mary’s mother. Thus, while acceding to my parents’ decision that I would be baptized a Christian, he believed that my Muslim heritage would not be lost because of the name he had chosen for me.” She concluded her story: “I’m very happy that my own name symbolizes who I am – both Christian and Muslim.”   Parallels in Faith. Catholics should be delighted to discover how much Christians and Muslims have in common. Reverence for Mary is a dominant element of Muslim-Christian mutuality, a possible source of unity and a key for superseding hostilities. Listen to the words of the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) on the proper attitude of Catholics toward their Muslim neighbors: “Although in the course of the centuries many quarrels and hostilities have arisen between Christians and Muslims, this most sacred Synod urges all to forget the past and to strive sincerely for mutual understanding. On behalf of all humanity, let them make common cause of safeguarding and fostering social justice, moral values, peace and freedom” (Nostra Aetate, 3). Most Christians are unaware of the reverence that Muslims have for Mary. Her name Maryam appears explicitly in the Qur’an 34 times. In 24 of these references, she is identified as the mother of Jesus (‘Is). One chapter of the Qur’an (Sura 19) is entitled Maryam and narrates events of the Annunciation and Jesus’ birth. In addition, Muslims call Mary Sitti Maryam; Sitti is a term of endearment because of her privilege to be the mother of the prophet ‘Is. Muhammad’s attitude toward Mary was always reverent and respectful. He spoke of her as a sign (ayat) for all creation and a model (mathal) for all believers. As the Qur’an notes (66:12), “she put her trust in the words of her Lord and believed in His Scriptures.” The Prophet of Mecca saw Mary as a sign and model because she truly submitted (Islam) to the will of Allah/God. This same virtue of Mary is recorded

Given the prominent role of the Blessed Virgin Mary in the life of the Catholic Church, particularly in countries like the Philippines and Mexico, one might presume that a great amount of detail on her life is available to believers. However, the known historical data about the first-century Jewish woman, Miriam of Nazareth, is actually quite limited. Upon further reflection, one should not be overly surprised; recall that the New Testament is not intended to be a historical or biographical document. Mary’s life is primarily presented as intimately intertwined with the mystery of Jesus. Thus, the Gospels are written primarily as “faith summaries,” and the dominant portrait of Mary that emerges is that of a woman of faith, open to the Spirit, eager to do God’s will, living as a faithful disciple of her Son Jesus.  Several prominent Catholic biblical scholars confirm this point. “There is very little said about Mary in the New Testament” (A. Buono). “It is startling to find that Mary is never mentioned by Paul…. Actually, the only New Testament mentions of Mary are in the four Gospels, plus one reference in the Book of Acts (just before Pentecost)…. We know not a single New Testament detail about Mary in history after Pentecost; her role is in the lifetime of Jesus. It is even more sobering to find that, in the first three Gospels, she appears only once during the public ministry [of Jesus]” (R. Brown). And so, what can validly be noted about “the historical Mary”? What follows is a composite “historical” portrait drawn from respected Catholic scholars like A. Buono, R. Brown, E. Johnson, R. Maloney, and D. Senior.   Mary’s Origins. The name “Mary” derives from Miriam, sister of Moses; it was a very common name in Jesus’ day. According to the New Testament, Mary belonged to the tribe of Judah and to the house of David (Lk. 1:32, 69; 2:4). She was probably born in Nazareth, a small Galilean town, during the reign of Herod the Great. Nazareth was of little importance for most Jews: “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?” (Jn. 1:46). Nazareth is not mentioned in the Hebrew Scriptures or in the Talmud. The fullest treatment of Mary is found in the second-century Protoevangelium of James. This apocryphal work, judged to be heretical in the sixth century, heavily influenced early Christian teaching and literature. It is in this source that Mary’s parents are named Joachim and Anna. This same dubious source led to the growth of many legends about Mary’s early years (e.g. that the young Mary was presented in the Temple by her parents).   Daily Life. Mary spoke Aramaic, probably with a Galilean accent (cf. Mt. 26:73). She would have had contact with a multilingual world, hearing Latin from the Roman soldiers, Greek as the language of commerce, and Hebrew as the Torah was read in the synagogue. Mary belonged to the peasant class, which earned a simple living from agriculture or small commercial efforts; some had

Christmas, that singular feast of great joy, celebrates the revelation of God’s love. In Jesus, born of Mary, we recognize God’s tender compassion, not from a distance, but intimately united with all humanity. We are convinced, in the words of the Christmas liturgy, that because God has become one with humanity, we humans can once again become one with God. Indeed, no human eye could ever see the glory of God; yet, now He is seen as one like us, completely human, sharing our mortal nature. In Jesus, the invisible love of God is made visible – all done for us and for our salvation. What mystery! What beauty! What depths of love! And yet, Christmas is not the beginning of God’s great “love story” with humanity. Christmas (December 25) looks to a pivotal event that happened nine months earlier: the Annunciation (March 25). Without the marvelous fiat or “yes” of Mary to the invitation of the Angel Gabriel, there would be no Christmas to celebrate. During the Annunciation, Mary expresses her amazement, her fears, and her questions. The angel assures her: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you … nothing is impossible to God.” Mary responds: “Here am I, the servant of the Lord; let it be with me according to your word” (Lk. 1:35-38).  The awareness of the centrality of the Annunciation in God’s plan of salvation struck this author most forcefully during a two-week pilgrimage to the Holy Land some years ago. Of all the many holy sites we visited during our prayer-filled journey, I had the most profound spiritual experience in Nazareth at the Basilica of the Annunciation. It was an experience of deep joy and gratitude. I praised God for Mary’s faith, her generosity, her fiat, and her openness to the Holy Spirit. A question kept returning, begging for an answer: What if Mary did not give her unconditional “yes” to God’s loving design of salvation? Oh, how radically different life would have been! Humanity would still be living in darkness and sin! What good would life have been without Mary’s self-gift to the Spirit and the consequent birth of Christ?  Scripture provides a wide variety of optics through which Christians can view the person of Mary. She may be validly understood as the Faithful Disciple of her Son Jesus, the Mother of the Redeemer, Virgin and Mother, Daughter of Zion, the New Eve, a Sign of Hope for God’s Pilgrim People. One could compose a lengthy reflection on each of these attributes of Mary. However, this particular presentation and meditation centers on viewing Mary as the docile instrument of the Holy Spirit. We will journey with Mary in the key events of her life where her active surrender to the Holy Spirit guides her faith and her actions.   Mary and the Spirit in God’s Design. Pope John Paul II (1920-2005), a deeply Marian pontiff, had profound insights into the person of Mary. He spoke often of her role in the life of the

The Director of the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office, Manuel ‘Manoling’ Morató, in a letter to The Inquirer’s editor some time ago, classified you as “one of the most politicized persons in this country which is something so ugly for a nun to be.” He even considered you a persona non grata. What stirred such reaction?  I wrote to the paper’s editor while I was in Tanzania, East Africa (September 26, 2009), complaining about the Court of Appeals’ decision denying whistleblower Rodolfo “Jun” Lozada’s petition for the writ of amparo. I stated that the decision was unfair, because he had been kidnapped, but the Court was so politically compromised that it was “incapable of rendering justice to our people.” I was surprised to read Morató’s letter to the paper on October 15, 2008. I don’t know him and I don’t know what he had to do with the issue. He stated that I was causing “trouble in this country and added so much noise to the destabilization of our nation.” He called me “a rabble-rouser, a shame to the faithful who live up to the Christian values as taught us by Christ,” and suggested that I should stay in Tanzania for good and leave them alone. Concluding, he said that I was “far away from being beatified much less canonized.” (I am not dead yet so no reason to be beatified!) That was the occasion for the critique. The reason was my advocacy for our sanctuary program and the inclusion in it of Jun Lozada.    Did you get other “compliments” of this kind? I heard that even some bishops say that I am “too much!”   Did they mean “too political?” Perhaps. Not always do I agree with the bishops. For instance, recently I disputed the views of [Manila Archbishop Gaudencio] Cardinal Rosales when he said that the warnings of another people power uprising in case of widespread vote fraud were “crazy [and] irresponsible.” I said: “With due respect, I disagree vehemently. It’s more irresponsible if one does nothing, when one’s rights have been violated” I do believe in people power. The Cardinal said there’s the law… What law was he referring to? The law that arrested the Morong 43, the law that freed the Ampatuans, the law that denied the writ of amparo to Jun Lozada, the law that is used by the powerful for their own good? I quoted the former Chief Justice Artemio V. Panganiban when he said that, at that moment, all the institutions of government were severely compromised. So, one cannot go to them for justice, to redress grievances.   An old Church’s tradition What consists your sanctuary program?  To provide sanctuary is an old tradition of the Church since the Middle Ages. Sacred places were places of asylum where fugitives were immune from arrest. For us in the Association of Major Religious Superiors (AMRSP), it is different: we provide refuge to people whose lives are in danger because they have done something honest or

If we look back over the past election campaign, we may wonder how the many parties and politicians will match up in the future. For example, in the 2016 presidential race, who will be friends and who will be opponents? In politics, alliances have a very brief life – sometimes they don’t even last out the first campaign. There are few permanent friends, only issues and egos. Two bodies, however, in this political world are destined to stay together: the Church and the poor.  The poor echo the Gospel’s demands for life’s basic goods, namely, food, water, housing and security, which the Church has insisted upon over the centuries. The poor have these basic issues, which reflect the hopes of the majority of the country’s people, but they lack the means to get their candidates elected. The Church, on the other hand, is able to influence elections in a profound way. In a study made by the Ateneo de Manila, (The Vote of the Poor, 2005), it was found that, in rural areas especially, families and the Church (including other Churches and mosques) have the most influence on people’s choices of candidate, even more than that of the media. The Church, however, appears to many to have only one strongly held issue or demand, that is, opposition to the RH Bill. At the risk of oversimplifying matters, it can be said the Church has influence, but lacks issues.    Church and Poor Need Each Other. The Church (limited here to bishops, priests and religious) and the poor are a political tandem made in heaven. The poor have the numbers and primordial issues; the Church has the electoral influence. They are, however, more than political partners, who work together for political reasons. The Philippine Church decided, at its Second Plenary Synod in 1991, that it must become the Church of the poor if it is to fulfill God’s plans for it. On the other hand, the poor need the Church’s continuing support to survive economically and socially in an unequal society. There is nowhere else where the poor receive consistently a warm welcome. The poor need the Church for more than material matters, however. They need the spiritual strength of the Church: its understanding of mercy, love, forgiveness, self-denial, acceptance of others, solidarity, justice and peace. All the virtues that are needed to turn “hearts of stone” into “hearts of flesh,” as Pope Benedict XVI tells us in Caritas in Veritate, No. 79). The Poor, Reform and the Church. The likely success of a Church-poor political coalition is hinted at in a stickem that appeared during the campaign: “In democracies, reform comes from the ballots of the poor.” The stickem summarizes the experience of many countries that have seen their poor move from squalor to a decent level of comfort, once they have learned to vote in a disciplined, organized way. When the poor vote wisely and as one, the reform begins. Then there are programs of social security, protection of

On May 21 of this year, Pope Benedict XVI met the participants of the 24th Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Council for the Laity who were meeting in Rome to discuss on the theme: “Witnesses to Christ in the political community.” In his talk, he told them, among other things: “It is up to the lay faithful to show – in their personal and family life, in social, cultural and political life – that faith enables them to read reality in a new and profound way, and to transform it… It is also the duty of the laity to participate actively in political life, in a manner coherent with the teaching of the Church, bringing their well-founded reasoning and great ideals into the democratic debate, and into the search for a broad consensus among everyone who cares about the defense of life and freedom, the protection of truth and the good of the family, solidarity with the needy, and the vital search for the common good.” He also said that although the “technical formation of politicians” is not part of the Church’s mission, she reserves the right to “pass moral judgment in those matters which regard public order when the fundamental rights of the person or the salvation of souls require it.” What the Holy Father said remains a great challenge to the Philippine Church. We are challenged to have lay people who actively participate in political life. In a way, this is already being done. In the last elections of May 10, we have seen the fielding of church volunteers in the hundreds of thousands all over the country. They contributed in no small degree to the “success” of the elections in spite of the poor organization and limitations of the COMELEC. Church volunteers directed the people to their precincts, helped monitor the conduct of the elections, and even assisted and taught the members of the Board of Election Inspectors (BEIs) their duties. Without the Church volunteers we can just imagine the chaos that could have resulted. Our lay people are good in non-partisan election duties during elections. This is already good, but not yet enough. We also need non-partisan volunteers to monitor the performance of the elected officials after the elections. In general, this is not yet being done. Many fora were organized before elections during which the candidates were asked what their programs would be. Many covenant signings were inked with different groups to ensure that the candidates would keep their election promises to the people. But, after the elections, nobody follows these up. So the elected candidates are not exacted the accountabilities that they have promised. We need lay people who are as aggressive in asking for accountabilities as they were in monitoring the elections.   Poverty and manipulation Christians, as good citizens, are called not only for non-partisan duties though. Partisan politics is also a call of the faith. We need good Christians who bear witness to Christ as good politicians. There are already attempts

I remember being profoundly disturbed by Fr. Eddie T. Panlilio’s announcement of his candidacy for the governorship of Pampanga in the election of 2007. I had known this soft-spoken man as the parish priest of my hometown, and as the founding director of the Archdiocese of Pampanga’s Social Action Center (SACOP). He is not a politician. A priest is the last person I would push into the public square.  But I must concede that drafting a priest to challenge deeply entrenched traditional politicians was a brilliant political move. “Among Ed,” as he is fondly called, was the perfect alternative gubernatorial candidate in a province that had seen the excesses of corruption in public office and the immense clout of organized gambling in the political system. The reasons that made him an attractive political option, however, were the same ones that provoked my misgivings about the wisdom of this move. The principal drawback was his being a priest – a moral agent of established religion who was seeking to take on the functions of a political subject in the secular world of politics. What is at stake here is something that is central to what the philosopher Richard Rorty regarded as the goal of a liberal culture – that human beings be freed from their unexamined dependence on traditional figures of authority and strength, so that they may begin to chart their own lives. Rorty was not opposed to people having religious beliefs. Indeed he saw this as a right that is as important as the right “to write poems or paint pictures that nobody else can make any sense out of.” But he was very emphatic that, in a “democratic and pluralist society, our religion is our own business – something we need not even discuss with others, much less try to justify to them, unless we feel like doing so. Such a society tries to leave as much free space as possible for individuals to develop their own sense of who they are and what their lives are for, asking only that they obey Mill’s precept and extend to others the tolerance they themselves enjoy” (Philosophy as Cultural Politics, p. 25).   To avoid partisan roles I believe that Rorty’s insistence on keeping religion out of the public square was very much shaped by his horror over the fanatical violence that Islamic fundamentalism has unleashed over the years, as well as by the equally ferocious fanaticism of the Christian fundamentalists who once surrounded US President George W. Bush. But its philosophical value goes beyond the concern about rekindling religious wars. Rorty was aware that one cannot presume that there is a single universally valid way of resolving the issues thrown up by religion’s presence in the public square. “Issues like these,” he said, “require different resolutions in different countries and different centuries. It would be absurd to suggest that there are universally valid norms that might be invoked to settle them. But I would urge that debate over such

The Church has always struggled about involvement in politics. For many centuries, in Western Europe, the Church was either the political power or in alliance with the political world. Later on, with the emergence of the French revolution and Illuminism, the Church was asked to take a step back. Some believed that there should be separation between religious beliefs and policy making; others wanted the Church to disappear altogether. With the advent of modern democracy, the tenet of separation of State and Religion has become widely accepted, even within the Church. The issue became very important in the 1980s. Many priests got involved in political parties in Asia, Latin America and Europe. The Vatican intervened in some cases to support their work, in others to forbid.  One such internationally renowned figure is Father Ernesto Cardenal, a Trappist priest who got involved with the Sandinista revolution in Nicaragua. Soon after the fall of Managua, in 1979, he was named Minister of Culture by the new regime, a post he kept until 1987. When Pope John Paul II visited Nicaragua in 1983, he openly scolded Cardenal, on the Managua airport runway, for resisting his order to resign from that government. The Pope admonished Cardenal: “Usted tiene que arreglar sus asuntos con la Iglesia” (You must mend your position with the Church). Yet, in other cases, the Vatican ignored or even supported the involvement of priests in politics. At that time, many criticized the higher officials of the Church claiming that they were involved in political affairs, while asking priests and bishops to stay out of politics. Different is the issue of political commitment for the laity. However, even in this case, the Church has intervened, many times, to clarify how and when a faithful should get involved in politics.   The famous coin One of the most quoted Gospel passages regarding political involvement is Matthew 22:15-22. There, the evangelist says openly that “Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap Him in His words.” They told Jesus that they considered Him a man of integrity and a good teacher. Then, they asked Jesus if it were right to pay taxes to Caesar or not. Jesus responded by accusing them of trying to trap Him, and by asking them to describe a coin: “Whose portrait is this, and whose inscription?” The Pharisees answered “Caesar’s,” and Jesus retorted: “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” At first sight, it seems that Jesus declared a clear cut separation between the affairs of the State – Caesar – and those of religion. People should submit to earthly authority – paying a tribute is a way to recognize submission – as much as they do towards God. Yet, at a closer look, this Gospel is much more profound than it seems. Jesus asks for a coin suitable to pay the tax. This was a denarius, a Roman coin. The denarius had a portrait of Augustus Tiberius and the inscription “Ti Caesar Divi

In an online article entitled “Where was God when Haiti happened?” published by the Kenya-based news agency CISA, Henry Makori bluntly and effectively posed a number of questions that came to the minds of many religious people after Haiti was devastated by a massive earthquake in January. Makori wrote: “Is God good all the time? Is God all-loving, compassionate and always acting in the best interest of human beings, the cream of His creation? Is every human being valuable in the eyes of God? Then why did God allow tens of thousands of innocent people to perish in such a dreadful fashion in Haiti? Is God all-powerful and in control of everything that happens in the universe, including the dropping of a leaf from a tree branch? Does God know everything? Why then couldn’t He use such awesome knowledge and power to protect the people of Haiti? “Is everything that happens part of God’s plan? What is the divine purpose of the horrendous carnage? What was the divine purpose of the Indian Ocean tsunami that killed a quarter of a million people in 2004? What divine purpose had God in mind in Rwanda in 1994 when He let nearly a million people die? And the Holocaust in which six million Jews were killed? And all the suffering that human beings undergo everyday? Where, really is God?” As Makori stressed, these are old questions that resurge with fresh strength every time a “natural” disaster (like an earthquake, a tsunami or a volcanic eruption) or a social catastrophe (like a genocide or persecution) strikes.   He Was Such A Nice Child! I put the word “natural” in brackets because it is becoming more and more difficult to categorize a disaster as such. We now know that human activities, for instance the chain from oil extraction to oil burning, can have numerous unintended and dramatic consequences for our planet.  But “natural” or social aside, the questions remain. A day after reading Makori’s article, I met a group of students in a Nairobi secondary school, and the day’s agenda was swept aside by a question blurted out by one of the students: “Our parish has organized prayers for the victims of the earthquake. But what is the sense of praying to a God who could have intervened before and stopped the disaster? Didn’t He know that the earthquake would cause such incredible devastation and suffering? What kind of God is He – if He is there at all?” In the course of the sharing that followed, a shy girl with trembling lips added: “I also do not understand why God did not save my cousin who was born with a heart defect and died last week. He was only seven years old, and such a nice child.” Other raised their voices: how about the hundreds of African children dying every day from malaria and other preventable diseases, or the Kenyan children who have to attend school in deplorable conditions due to reported corruption in

I share this reflection in the context of three excruciating experiences of suffering over the last few weeks. All of them forced me to engage God in order to find a way to live the three events in a positive way without giving in to despair and utter rebellion. I grow evermore convinced that engaging God in human dramas as Job, several psalms, many saints and numberless human beings did and still do is at the core of an incarnated faith which does not provide prefabricated and ready-made answers to issues of suffering and grief. The Holy Spirit leads us to positive answers only when suffering and the challenges of life bite our flesh and we let ourselves be challenged and enter into a Jacob-and-Job like fight with God.  Mount Sinai, the mount of revelation, is to be climbed, in 40 days; with its winding and steep path drawing out sweat from the climber’s body. Engaging God is the inescapable journey before one finds a personal answer shared by God and by people or the community concerned. We will never find a “good-for-all” and “for-everywhere” answer to the questions: Why Haiti? Why the tsunami of Christmas 2005? Why that fatal accident… or why that grave sickness? God’s answer is never theoretical and abstract, but different from person to person, like suffering is utterly personal and each human being interprets and reacts to suffering in his/her way. Theological reflection on suffering is by all means useful, such as for example Salvifici Doloris on the redeeming value of suffering by John Paul II in the Holy Year of Redemption and extraordinary jubilee of the Church in 1983-84. But over and above a document, there is a process, led by the Holy Spirit, which is utterly personal and unrepeatable such as a grief that one undergoes.   Multifaceted Suffering  Now a few words on the three difficult experiences mentioned above. The first is at cosmic and world level: Haiti, with its more than 230,000 victims, is the latest natural disaster of unprecedented magnitude. Every year, the list grows with more destructions and victims because, every year, there are and there will be calamities of this kind. They are part and parcel of our cosmic history and of our ecosystem. Gradually, we come to better terms with them through forecasting and tentative measures of preventions such as, for example, having anti-seismic buildings; but the process is slow; science and technology are not born out of the blue and human beings are not infallible. God told us: “Grow and multiply and take care of the world.” The journey is far from being accomplished. The mission entrusted to us in Genesis 1 to take care and exert a certain domain on the cosmos (Cf. Gn 1:26-28) in the ongoing process of creation is far from been accomplished; it is still an open-ended pursuit. Every day stars die and others are born in the midst of unimaginable apocalypses. Nothing is static! Our earth, as part of a