Building Society Towards Wholeness

All of us may agree that our society is getting more complex. With this complexity, people are inclined to have a lot of concerns that may include superfluous amenities brought about by the fast developing technology. While others are trying to catch up with the rapid pace of development, many are left too far behind. There are people who are not able to cope with the demands of the present living conditions and they tend to become excluded and marginalized. This reality is an indication that we are yet too distant from reaching the wholeness of our society. Although we can say that our world is getting smaller due to the enhancement of the communication system, still there are persons who are more proximate to us but sometimes we have failed to reach out. These people need most of our attention.

Early this year the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines issued a pastoral letter entitled “The Dignity of the Rural Poor – A Gospel Concern.” This letter draws our attention on the rural poor, the greatest victim of our unjust economic order. Our bishops see the need for reform not only of our national institutions but of our moral fiber as a people. We begin this transformation by acknowledging the God-given dignity of the least of Christ’s—and our—brothers and sisters.

In the pastoral field, we have all the opportunities to encounter our underprivileged sisters and brothers. During such occasions how did we do our part in valuing their dignity? Whether in the context of the seminary formation or in the circumstances of being Christians, we have the responsibility to uphold the value of every human being and the whole of creation. Given the present problems and challenges confronted by our society, we have to ask ourselves, what steps did we take so as to build this society towards wholeness?

As it clearly appears in our calendarium, we have set activities that will elicit on us a solid foundation of our concern for the least of Christ’s brothers and sisters. The forthcoming free-clinic in November and the next month’s Christmas party with indigent children are avenues for us as one community to concretize our love and concern for the poor. Let us do these activities then in a formative approach not for the sake of complying with the schedule but as a manner of following Christ who took side with the poor. May our hearts be formed according to the heart of Jesus who opted for the poor. Let us also bear in our minds that in doing our activities we have contributed something for the wholeness of our society. Let us work for the advancement of the poor since it “constitutes a great opportunity for the moral, cultural and even economic growth of all humanity” (Centesimus Annus, 28).

May our concern for the poor be imbedded in our hearts and not be supplanted by the contentment of merely giving alms.Jesus did not just support the poor, but rather he lives with the poor by choosing to become poor himself. This teaches us to live in solidarity with the poor. So we must have to check our lifestyle whether or not it configures with that of our model, Jesus Christ. We also appeal to everyone’s conscience to take into account collaborative efforts to uplift the lives of the commonly neglected sector of our society be it in the framework of politics, economy, culture or environment. These concerns don’t run just for a year but more than our lifetime. We struggle for wholeness not tomorrow but now, not only today but everyday.

A Reflection on the Article of Daniel J McNamara SJ, “Reflections on Presence”

This article situates itself on the principle of opening the Church to the modern world seeking to understand and to be understood. It presents the relationship of science and theology in the sense that science can give epistemic support to theology and theology can be validated by experiments of science respecting each other’s difference of method.
It proceeds by giving example on this dialogue of science and theology at the beginning of twentieth century when Teilhard de Chardin showed the convergence of the science of evolution with the teachings of the Catholic Church. It was an attempt of bridging the gap by using analogous terms.
Turning to the category ‘presence’ the article first considers its place in Philippine culture as more meaningfully illustrated in the jeepney experience. From this experience he deduce the Filipino cultural value of presence that is not just about the usefulness but the concern for the person.
In the context of modern science presence means that we live in the same physical world as all physical bodies of masses. In line with this idea the author of this article made a connection to theology. By the assumption of the big bang theory we may say that at time zero all of material creation stands before God.
Presence is also nuanced in the traditional scholastic category of esse. Pre-esse literally means to stand before or in front of. From the first moment of creation all that exists or will exist exists in the presence of the Creator. This presence implies participation.
In trying to apply the system of hyperphysics, the lowest level of presence which corresponds to the lowest level of existence can be considered as the ‘prime matter’ that had to be energized by form. But after Einstein this is considered as the ultimate material dimension of the universe as of itself formless material energy with a built-in tendency to expand into quantitatively extended space. From this McNamara proceeds with his reflection forming a more meaningful category of science-theology discussion. Starting from the recognition presence, his reflection gives deeper appreciation of the other’s potential to grow and develop into the image of the divine person.
Going further the author’s intention of providing a useful tool in the modern dialogue between science and religion, I find a way to appreciate deeply my connectedness with the rest of creation. If I have to compare the elemental composition of my physical body with that of the earth, the quickest conclusion I could make is that there are common elements that we share. In the light of Genesis 2:7 which states that “the LORD God formed man out of the clay of the ground,” I could establish a closer relationship which I share with the rest of creation. This relationship makes me humble and guides me to have a proper attitude of taking care of the world. To be here on this earth is to be present and to be a part of the whole. What would be my participation? Or, how would I participate? This should be direct towards growth so that in effect I have also nourished my growth.
On the other hand, the article has contributed on the development of the dialogue of science and theology. This approach is much more beneficial than drawing a line of separation between the two. By now, theology must not be viewed as absolutely independent from science. But the discoveries of science can be a basis for further theological discussion of the reality before us. Conversely, science also could listen to theology in order to be guided towards a deeper understanding its present findings.
_________________
SOURCE: Jose Mario Francisco SJ and Roman Miguel de Jesus, ed., Science and Religion… and Culture in the Jesuit Tradition: Perspective from East Asia (Adelaide, Australia: ATF Press, 2006), 125-132.