Fair or not Fair?

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

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

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:

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


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


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


4. 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

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 ...

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

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

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.