22 June 2009

15 books

i was tagged with this meme by a facebook friend:

"Don't take too long to think about it. Fifteen books you've read that will always stick with you. First fifteen you can recall in no more than 15 minutes. Tag 15 friends, including me because I'm interested in seeing what books my friends choose."

i'm posting here my comments alongside each book,
because they may (or may not) looked too presumptuous on fb.

1. Adventures of Sherlock Holmes (Arthur Conan Doyle) - my first Sherlock Holmes book, got it from my father's collection. Read all Sherlock Holmes stories thereafter.

2. Sophie's World (Jostein Gaarder) - light and entertaining intro to philosophy. I also read 2 other books by Gaarder, they were not as good as his first.

3. Lost in a Good Book (Jasper Fforde) - my first Thursday Next novel, got me hooked on the series. I have yet to read "First among Sequels" though.

4. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (JK Rowling) - and the rest was history...

5. Nine Horses (Billy Collins) - my first (& only) Billy Collins book, the rest of his poems I scoured on the net

6. Introduction to Poetry (Edith L. Tiempo) - has yet to set me on the path to writing poetry

7. The Next American Essay (John D'Agata) - forever influenced the way I write

8. Dead Aim (Conrado de Quiroz) – best commentary on recent Philippine history and politics

9. Rizal Without the Overcoat (Ambeth Ocampo) – got me through teaching 3 semesters of Rizal, without boring my students (hopefully)

10. 7 Habits of Highly Effective People (Stephen Covey) – life-changing …and I’m not usually into self-help

11. Blink (Malcolm Gladwell) – set me to reading popular science again, & Tipping Point, & Outliers, & the next Gladwell book definitely

12. The BIBLE – first read it from cover to cover in high school. For some it was Tolstoy’s War and Peace that was their monumental high school read, for me it was (almost naturally) the Bible.

13. Laborem Exercens (John Paul II) – my favorite social encyclical in college

14. Catholicism (Richard McBrien) – my personal definitive guide to Catholic doctrine & history

15. Virtues for Ordinary Christians (James Keenan, SJ) – changed my view of moral theology, besides the author being my professor and friend.

couldn’t resist adding…
16. Heroic Leadership (Chris Lowney) – what would the world be without the Jesuits?

10 June 2009

Psalm 139 (a double tanka)



























Yahweh, I know you are near
even when I don't
care, when I let the concerns
of life overwhelm
my pray'r, O God, you are here.

When I need you, you are here
by my side, to guard
me against the demons I've
made - could have been lost
but for You, Lord, who are near.

06 June 2009

The Three Hermits

'Three are ye, three are we, have mercy upon us.' For my homily this Trinity Sunday, I am including a shorter narration of this short story by Leo Tolstoy, itself apparently a retelling of an old legend in the Volga District of Russia.
...


'And in praying use not vain repetitions, as the Gentiles do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. Be not therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask Him.' -- Matt. vi. 7, 8.


A BISHOP was sailing from Archangel to the Solovétsk Monastery; and on the same vessel were a number of pilgrims on their way to visit the shrines at that place. The voyage was a smooth one. The wind favourable, and the weather fair. The pilgrims lay on deck, eating, or sat in groups talking to one another. The Bishop, too, came on deck, and as he was pacing up and down, he noticed a group of men standing near the prow and listening to a fisherman who was pointing to the sea and telling them something. The Bishop stopped, and looked in the direction in which the man was pointing. He could see nothing however, but the sea glistening in the sunshine. He drew nearer to listen, but when the man saw him, he took off his cap and was silent. The rest of the people also took off their caps, and bowed.

'Do not let me disturb you, friends,' said the Bishop. 'I came to hear what this good man was saying.'

'The fisherman was telling us about the hermits,' replied one, a tradesman, rather bolder than the rest.

'What hermits?' asked the Bishop, going to the side of the vessel and seating himself on a box. 'Tell me about them. I should like to hear. What were you pointing at?'

'Why, that little island you can just see over there,' answered the man, pointing to a spot ahead and a little to the right. 'That is the island where the hermits live for the salvation of their souls.'

'Where is the island?' asked the Bishop. 'I see nothing.'

'There, in the distance, if you will please look along my hand. Do you see that little cloud? Below it and a bit to the left, there is just a faint streak. That is the island.'

The Bishop looked carefully, but his unaccustomed eyes could make out nothing but the water shimmering in the sun.

'I cannot see it,' he said. 'But who are the hermits that live there?'

'They are holy men,' answered the fisherman. 'I had long heard tell of them, but never chanced to see them myself till the year before last.'

And the fisherman related how once, when he was out fishing, he had been stranded at night upon that island, not knowing where he was. In the morning, as he wandered about the island, he came across an earth hut, and met an old man standing near it. Presently two others came out, and after having fed him, and dried his things, they helped him mend his boat.

'And what are they like?' asked the Bishop.

'One is a small man and his back is bent. He wears a priest's cassock and is very old; he must be more than a hundred, I should say. He is so old that the white of his beard is taking a greenish tinge, but he is always smiling, and his face is as bright as an angel's from heaven. The second is taller, but he also is very old. He wears tattered, peasant coat. His beard is broad, and of a yellowish grey colour. He is a strong man. Before I had time to help him, he turned my boat over as if it were only a pail. He too, is kindly and cheerful. The third is tall, and has a beard as white as snow and reaching to his knees. He is stern, with over-hanging eyebrows; and he wears nothing but a mat tied round his waist.'

'And did they speak to you?' asked the Bishop.

'For the most part they did everything in silence and spoke but little even to one another. One of them would just give a glance, and the others would understand him. I asked the tallest whether they had lived there long. He frowned, and muttered something as if he were angry; but the oldest one took his hand and smiled, and then the tall one was quiet. The oldest one only said: "Have mercy upon us," and smiled.'

While the fisherman was talking, the ship had drawn nearer to the island.

'There, now you can see it plainly, if your Grace will please to look,' said the tradesman, pointing with his hand.

The Bishop looked, and now he really saw a dark streak -- which was the island. Having looked at it a while, he left the prow of the vessel, and going to the stern, asked the helmsman:

'What island is that?'

'That one,' replied the man, 'has no name. There are many such in this sea.'

'Is it true that there are hermits who live there for the salvation of their souls?'

'So it is said, your Grace, but I don't know if it's true. Fishermen say they have seen them; but of course they may only be spinning yarns.'

'I should like to land on the island and see these men,' said the Bishop. 'How could I manage it?'

'The ship cannot get close to the island,' replied the helmsman, 'but you might be rowed there in a boat. You had better speak to the captain.'

The captain was sent for and came.

'I should like to see these hermits,' said the Bishop. 'Could I not be rowed ashore?'

The captain tried to dissuade him.

'Of course it could be done,' said he, 'but we should lose much time. And if I might venture to say so to your Grace, the old men are not worth your pains. I have heard say that they are foolish old fellows, who understand nothing, and never speak a word, any more than the fish in the sea.'

'I wish to see them,' said the Bishop, 'and I will pay you for your trouble and loss of time. Please let me have a boat.'

There was no help for it; so the order was given. The sailors trimmed the sails, the steersman put up the helm, and the ship's course was set for the island. A chair was placed at the prow for the Bishop, and he sat there, looking ahead. The passengers all collected at the prow, and gazed at the island. Those who had the sharpest eyes could presently make out the rocks on it, and then a mud hut was seen. At last one man saw the hermits themselves. The captain brought a telescope and, after looking through it, handed it to the Bishop.

'It's right enough. There are three men standing on the shore. There, a little to the right of that big rock.'

The Bishop took the telescope, got it into position, and he saw the three men: a tall one, a shorter one, and one very small and bent, standing on the shore and holding each other by the hand.

The captain turned to the Bishop.

'The vessel can get no nearer in than this, your Grace. If you wish to go ashore, we must ask you to go in the boat, while we anchor here.'

The cable was quickly let out, the anchor cast, and the sails furled. There was a jerk, and the vessel shook. Then a boat having been lowered, the oarsmen jumped in, and the Bishop descended the ladder and took his seat. The men pulled at their oars, and the boat moved rapidly towards the island. When they came within a stone's throw they saw three old men: a tall one with only a mat tied round his waist: a shorter one in a tattered peasant coat, and a very old one bent with age and wearing an old cassock -- all three standing hand in hand.

The oarsmen pulled in to the shore, and held on with the boathook while the Bishop got out.

The old men bowed to him, and he gave them his benediction, at which they bowed still lower. Then the Bishop began to speak to them.

'I have heard,' he said, 'that you, godly men, live here saving your own souls, and praying to our Lord Christ for your fellow men. I, an unworthy servant of Christ, am called, by God's mercy, to keep and teach His flock. I wished to see you, servants of God, and to do what I can to teach you, also.'

The old men looked at each other smiling, but remained silent.

'Tell me,' said the Bishop, 'what you are doing to save your souls, and how you serve God on this island.'

The second hermit sighed, and looked at the oldest, the very ancient one. The latter smiled, and said:

'We do not know how to serve God. We only serve and support ourselves, servant of God.'

'But how do you pray to God?' asked the Bishop.

'We pray in this way,' replied the hermit. 'Three are ye, three are we, have mercy upon us.'

And when the old man said this, all three raised their eyes to heaven, and repeated:

'Three are ye, three are we, have mercy upon us!'

The Bishop smiled.

'You have evidently heard something about the Holy Trinity,' said he. 'But you do not pray aright. You have won my affection, godly men. I see you wish to please the Lord, but you do not know how to serve Him. That is not the way to pray; but listen to me, and I will teach you. I will teach you, not a way of my own, but the way in which God in the Holy Scriptures has commanded all men to pray to Him.'

And the Bishop began explaining to the hermits how God had revealed Himself to men; telling them of God the Father, and God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost.

'God the Son came down on earth,' said he, 'to save men, and this is how He taught us all to pray. Listen and repeat after me: "Our Father."'

And the first old man repeated after him, 'Our Father,' and the second said, 'Our Father,' and the third said, 'Our Father.'

'Which art in heaven,' continued the Bishop.

The first hermit repeated, 'Which art in heaven,' but the second blundered over the words, and the tall hermit could not say them properly. His hair had grown over his mouth so that he could not speak plainly. The very old hermit, having no teeth, also mumbled indistinctly.

The Bishop repeated the words again, and the old men repeated them after him. The Bishop sat down on a stone, and the old men stood before him, watching his mouth, and repeating the words as he uttered them. And all day long the Bishop laboured, saying a word twenty, thirty, a hundred times over, and the old men repeated it after him. They blundered, and he corrected them, and made them begin again.

The Bishop did not leave off till he had taught them the whole of the Lord's prayer so that they could not only repeat it after him, but could say it by themselves. The middle one was the first to know it, and to repeat the whole of it alone. The Bishop made him say it again and again, and at last the others could say it too.

It was getting dark, and the moon was appearing over the water, before the Bishop rose to return to the vessel. When he took leave of the old men, they all bowed down to the ground before him. He raised them, and kissed each of them, telling them to pray as he had taught them. Then he got into the boat and returned to the ship.

And as he sat in the boat and was rowed to the ship he could hear the three voices of the hermits loudly repeating the Lord's prayer. As the boat drew near the vessel their voices could no longer be heard, but they could still be seen in the moonlight, standing as he had left them on the shore, the shortest in the middle, the tallest on the right, the middle one on the left. As soon as the Bishop had reached the vessel and got on board, the anchor was weighed and the sails unfurled. The wind filled them, and the ship sailed away, and the Bishop took a seat in the stern and watched the island they had left. For a time he could still see the hermits, but presently they disappeared from sight, though the island was still visible. At last it too vanished, and only the sea was to be seen, rippling in the moonlight.

The pilgrims lay down to sleep, and all was quiet on deck. The Bishop did not wish to sleep, but sat alone at the stern, gazing at the sea where the island was no longer visible, and thinking of the good old men. He thought how pleased they had been to learn the Lord's prayer; and he thanked God for having sent him to teach and help such godly men.

So the Bishop sat, thinking, and gazing at the sea where the island had disappeared. And the moonlight flickered before his eyes, sparkling, now here, now there, upon the waves. Suddenly he saw something white and shining, on the bright path which the moon cast across the sea. Was it a seagull, or the little gleaming sail of some small boat? The Bishop fixed his eyes on it, wondering.

'It must be a boat sailing after us,' thought he 'but it is overtaking us very rapidly. It was far, far away a minute ago, but now it is much nearer. It cannot be a boat, for I can see no sail; but whatever it may be, it is following us, and catching us up.'

And he could not make out what it was. Not a boat, nor a bird, nor a fish! It was too large for a man, and besides a man could not be out there in the midst of the sea. The Bishop rose, and said to the helmsman:

'Look there, what is that, my friend? What is it?' the Bishop repeated, though he could now see plainly what it was -- the three hermits running upon the water, all gleaming white, their grey beards shining, and approaching the ship as quickly as though it were not morning.

The steersman looked and let go the helm in terror.

'Oh Lord! The hermits are running after us on the water as though it were dry land!'

The passengers hearing him, jumped up, and crowded to the stern. They saw the hermits coming along hand in hand, and the two outer ones beckoning the ship to stop. All three were gliding along upon the water without moving their feet. Before the ship could be stopped, the hermits had reached it, and raising their heads, all three as with one voice, began to say:

'We have forgotten your teaching, servant of God. As long as we kept repeating it we remembered, but when we stopped saying it for a time, a word dropped out, and now it has all gone to pieces. We can remember nothing of it. Teach us again.'

The Bishop crossed himself, and leaning over the ship's side, said:

'Your own prayer will reach the Lord, men of God. It is not for me to teach you. Pray for us sinners.

And the Bishop bowed low before the old men; and they turned and went back across the sea. And a light shone until daybreak on the spot where they were lost to sight.

02 June 2009

Oratio Imperata for the Promotion of the Culture of Life

Dear People of God:

Peace in the Risen Lord!

We have received urgent and reliable news that Congress will most likely vote on the Reproductive Health (RH) Bill very soon. Further, there are still other bills pending that threaten the sanctity of life, especially in its most vulnerable stages, the integrity of the family and the values of our nation, especially the young. Thus, we need more prayers and expressions of opposition to these anti-life bills.

In this connection, I am requesting our parishes and communities to include in all the Masses the recitation of the “Oratio Imperata for the Promotion of the Culture of Life”...


+ LUCILO B. QUIAMBAO
Bishop Administrator of Legazpi
Diocesan Circular no. 13, s. 2009
28 May 2009



















ORATIO IMPERATA FOR THE PROMOTION OF THE CULTURE OF LIFE

Loving Father, creator and protector of life,
we implore Your aid at these trying times
when in our Congress there are bills that threaten
the sanctity of life, especially, in the womb,
the integrity of the family, and
the morals of Your people, especially, the youth.

We beg You to send your Spirit of truth
to enlighten those concerned to choose
the culture of life over the culture of death,
resist the influence of the contraceptive mentality, and
inspire and strengthen us in our struggle to promote life.

We ask this through Jesus Christ, our Lord, Your Son,
through the intercession of the Blessed Mother,
Nuestra Señora de Salvacion. Amen.



ORATIO IMPERATA PARA SA PROMOCION KAN KULTURA NIN BUHAY

Mamomoton na Ama, kaglalang asin parasurog nin buhay,
minahagad kami nin tabang sa dificil na panahon na ini
na kadakul sa Congreso an mga kaisipan na nagtatao nin peligro
sa kabanalan nin buhay, lalo na kan ipapangidam
asin sa buhay na ipinangidam na,
sa integridad nin pamilya, asin
sa moralidad nin Saimong banwaan, lalo na nin mga jovenes.

Nakikimaherak kami na ipadara Mo an Saimong Espiritu nin katotoohan
nganing paliwanagan an mga nanonongdan
na piliion an buhay ki sa kagadanan,
labanan an kaisipan na kontra sa buhay,
asin pakusugon kami sa laban sa pagsurog sa buhay.

Ini hinahagad mi sa ngaran ni JesuCristo, samong Kagurangnan,
sa pag-ampon kan samong Mahal na Ina, Nuestra Señora de Salvacion. Amen.

21 May 2009

Angels and Demons: Theology for Our Time



Herewith are two insightful articles discussing the latest Dan Brown movie adaptation “Angels and Demons”.

The first is from NY Times columnist Ross Douthat: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/19/opinion/19douthat.html. (With thanks to Fr. Tony de Castro, SJ, for alerting us to this link.)

"Having dismissed Catholicism’s truth claims and demonized its most sincere defenders, Brown pats believers on the head and bids them go on fingering their rosary beads."

Ross Douthat gets it down right. Behind the conspiracy theory thriller lies a brewing theology borne out of a culture that favors a DIY spirituality, a generalized religiousness, a fast-food faith, over organized religion that only imposes morality (bad, bad word) and dares break its selective remembrance of Jesus as a human-only guru (divine, maybe, in a metaphorical way) who taught only about love and universal brotherhood.

Rev. Robert Barron also has some things new and old to say: http://www.wordonfire.org/Written-Word/articles-commentaries/May-2009/Angels,-Demons,-and-Modern-Fantasies-about-Catholi.aspx
“There is a stubbornly enduring myth that the ‘modern’ world—especially in its scientific expression—emerged out of a terrible struggle with backward-looking Catholicism. And thus many avatars of modernity feel the need on a regular basis to bring out the Catholic Church as a scapegoat and punching-bag, as if to re-enact the founding myth.”

Where Ross Douhat found an unseemly theology, Rev. Robert Barron exposes a worn-out philosophy that props up the clichéd phantom of a war between faith and reason, between religion and science.

Think: Dan Brown novels, the new spiritual reading of choice today. Now shudder. Then again, haven't Christians done the same already with Paolo Coelho's "By the River Piedra"?

Angels, Demons, and Modern Fantasies about Catholicism

By Fr. Robert Barron
wordonfire.org


As I was coming to the end of Ron Howard’s latest movie, “Angels and Demons,” I felt like shouting out to the screen, “no, no, you’ve got it precisely backward!” The central theme of the film, based on Dan Brown’s thriller of the same name, is the battle between “science” and Catholicism. It appears as though an ancient rationalist society, the Illuminati, which had been persecuted by the church in centuries past, is back for revenge. They’ve kidnapped four cardinals and placed a devastating explosive device under St. Peter’s and they’re threatening, as a conclave gathers to elect a new Pope, to obliterate the Vatican. To the rescue comes Professor Robert Langdon, a cool agnostic from Harvard, who helps to unravel the mystery after he’s given access to the archives to which the Vatican had heretofore denied him access (presumably for his mischief in the Da Vinci Code!). As the plot unfolds, and Langdon cleverly uncovers the sinister plot of the scientists, one is tempted to say, “well, for once the bad guys are the rationalists and the victims are the faithful. Ah but not so fast (spoiler alert). In fact, we discover, the whole thing has been concocted by the evil camerlengo, an ultimate Vatican insider, who has revived the old tale of the Illuminati and organized the wicked scheme in order to create a scapegoat against which he could engage in heroic struggle and so engineer his own election as Pope! I swear I’m not making this up.

Without going into any more of the goofy twists and turns of the story, can you see what prompted my cri de coeur about getting it backward? In point of fact, it is not Catholicism that feels the need constantly to revive the struggle between science and the faith, but rather secular modernity—and Ron Howard’s movie itself is exhibit A. There is a stubbornly enduring myth that the “modern” world—especially in its scientific expression—emerged out of a terrible struggle with backward-looking Catholicism. And thus many avatars of modernity feel the need on a regular basis to bring out the Catholic church as a scapegoat and punching-bag, as if to re-enact the founding myth. Of course, the central act in this drama is the story of Galileo’s persecution at the hands of the ignorant and vindictive church, and so Brown and Howard bring the great Renaissance scientist front and center: Langdon is almost suffocated by wicked Vaticanisti while he diligently researches in the Galileo archive, and at the end of the film, a grateful Cardinal rewards the intrepid scientist with a long-hidden text of the master. Well.

Though these facts are well known, and though I’ve rehearsed them before, it appears that they bear repeating. Albert the Great and Thomas Aquinas were early advocates of Aristotelian science; Copernicus, the popularizer of the heliocentric understanding of the solar system, was a priest; Gregor Mendel, the father of genetics and a chief forerunner of Darwin, was a monk; many of the founders of modern science—Newton, Kepler, Tycho Brahe, Descartes, Pascal, Leibniz—were devoutly religious men; the formulator of the Big Bang theory of cosmic origins was a priest. Perhaps most importantly, the modern physical sciences emerged precisely in the context of a Christian culture, where the belief in creation and hence in universal intelligibility was taken for granted. And today, the supposedly sinister and anti-scientific Vatican sponsors a number of observatories and supports societies at its pontifical universities devoted to dialogue with the sciences at the very highest levels. Despite the tragedy of the Galileo incident, prompted by the ignorance and in some cases ill-will of certain churchmen at the time, Catholicism is not the enemy of science and feels absolutely no compulsion to define itself over against science as though the two are locked in a kind of zero-sum game. It is a longstanding conviction of the Church that since God is one and since all truth comes from God, there can finally be no conflict between the truths of revelation and the truths discoverable through the exercise of human reason. And so the church rejoices in whatever the empirical sciences uncover and expects no conflict between those discoveries and its own faith, rightly interpreted.

What I found particularly galling about the film is that Robert Langdon not only solves the mystery but also effectively protects the church from itself. This, of course, is the modern fantasy in full: “science” emerged from Catholicism after a terrible battle but still has the graciousness and magnaminity to offer its help to its benighted and defeated rival. Ugh! Truth be told, the wound caused by the Galileo incident is being constantly picked open, not by the Vatican, but by representatives of secular modernity; the “battle” between religion and science is now pretty much a shadow-boxing affair, radical secularism shaking its fists at a phantom.

Go see “Angels and Demons” if you like a thriller or you enjoy computer-generated images of the Vatican; but please don’t be taken in by its underlying philosophy.

Dan Brown's America

By ROSS DOUTHAT
Published: May 18, 2009
The New York Times


The movie treatment of his novel, “Angels and Demons,” is cleaning up at the box office this week. The sequel to “The DaVinci Code,” due out in November, might buoy the publishing industry through the recession. And if you want to understand the state of American religion, you need to understand why so many people love Dan Brown.

It isn’t just that he knows how to keep the pages turning. That’s what it takes to sell a million novels. But if you want to sell a 100 million, you need to preach as well as entertain — to present a fiction that can be read as fact, and that promises to unlock the secrets of history, the universe and God along the way.

Brown is explicit about this mission. He isn’t a serious novelist, but he’s a deadly serious writer: His thrilling plots, he’s said, are there to make the books’ didacticism go down easy, so that readers don’t realize till the end “how much they are learning along the way.” He’s working in the same genre as Harlan Coben and James Patterson, but his real competitors are ideologues like Ayn Rand, and spiritual gurus like Eckhart Tolle and Deepak Chopra. He’s writing thrillers, but he’s selling a theology.

Brown’s message has been called anti-Catholic, but that’s only part of the story. True, his depiction of the Roman Church’s past constitutes a greatest hits of anti-Catholicism, with slurs invented by 19th-century Protestants jostling for space alongside libels fabricated by 20th-century Wiccans. (If he targeted Judaism or Islam this way, one suspects that no publisher would touch him.)

But Brown doesn’t have the soul of a true-believing Enemy of the Faith. Deep down, he has a fondness for the ordinary, well-meaning sort of Catholic, his libels against their ancestors notwithstanding. He’s even sympathetic to the religious yearnings of his Catholic villains — including, yes, the murderous albino monks.

This explains why both “The Da Vinci Code” and “Angels and Demons” end with a big anti-Catholic reveal (Jesus had kids with Mary Magdalene! That terrorist plot against the Vatican was actually launched by an archconservative priest!) followed by a big cover-up. A small elect (Tom Hanks and company, in the movies) gets to know what really happened, but the mass of believers remain in the dark, lest their spiritual questing be derailed by disillusionment and scandal. Having dismissed Catholicism’s truth claims and demonized its most sincere defenders, Brown pats believers on the head and bids them go on fingering their rosary beads.

In the Brownian worldview, all religions — even Roman Catholicism — have the potential to be wonderful, so long as we can get over the idea that any one of them might be particularly true. It’s a message perfectly tailored for 21st-century America, where the most important religious trend is neither swelling unbelief nor rising fundamentalism, but the emergence of a generalized “religiousness” detached from the claims of any specific faith tradition.

The polls that show more Americans abandoning organized religion don’t suggest a dramatic uptick in atheism: They reveal the growth of do-it-yourself spirituality, with traditional religion’s dogmas and moral requirements shorn away. The same trend is at work within organized faiths as well, where both liberal and conservative believers often encounter a God who’s too busy validating their particular version of the American Dream to raise a peep about, say, how much money they’re making or how many times they’ve been married.

These are Dan Brown’s kind of readers. Piggybacking on the fascination with lost gospels and alternative Christianities, he serves up a Jesus who’s a thoroughly modern sort of messiah — sexy, worldly, and Goddess-worshiping, with a wife and kids, a house in the Galilean suburbs, and no delusions about his own divinity.

But the success of this message — which also shows up in the work of Brown’s many thriller-writing imitators — can’t be separated from its dishonesty. The “secret” history of Christendom that unspools in “The Da Vinci Code” is false from start to finish. The lost gospels are real enough, but they neither confirm the portrait of Christ that Brown is peddling — they’re far, far weirder than that — nor provide a persuasive alternative to the New Testament account. The Jesus of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John — jealous, demanding, apocalyptic — may not be congenial to contemporary sensibilities, but he’s the only historically-plausible Jesus there is.

For millions of readers, Brown’s novels have helped smooth over the tension between ancient Christianity and modern American faith. But the tension endures. You can have Jesus or Dan Brown. But you can’t have both.

13 May 2009

The Task of the Next Generation of the Catholic Commentariat

Rev. Fr. Robert Barron
Posted: 1/27/2009 9:21:48 PM by Word On Fire

.......
Here is a belated re-posting of an important observation on certain movements within the Catholic Church. Father Robert Barron calls attention to a changing of the guards among the so-called Catholic commentariat, himself one of today's leading commentators on things Catholic, deftly engaging pop culture with solid theology.
.......


This past year, we have witnessed the deaths of a number of prominent commentators on things Catholic. William F. Buckley, who died last spring, was, of course, primarily a political observer, but he also frequently and incisively weighed in on ecclesial and theological matters. Tim Unsworth, who passed away several months ago, was a long-time writer on religion for the left-leaning National Catholic Reporter. And within just the past few weeks, Cardinal Avery Dulles and Father Richard John Neuhaus—stalwarts on the Catholic right—went to their maker. The deaths of these major players in the religious commentariat prompts some reflections on the changing nature of the Catholic intellectual conversation in our country.

For the coterie of Catholics that is now fading from the scene, the dominant fact was the Second Vatican Council. That coming together of bishops, abbots, theologians, and members of the press was, as John O’Malley recently argued, “the greatest meeting of all time,” and historian Barbara Tuchman characterized it as the most significant event of the twentieth-century, surpassing in importance the two world wars and the dropping of the atomic bombs. It is not surprising in the least, therefore, that it preoccupied the minds and hearts of an entire generation of Catholic intellectuals. Vatican II has been described as the council of the church, for ecclesiology and liturgy were its major themes. How does the church worship? What is the nature and purpose of the church? How is the church governed and structured, and what is the correct manner of its relationship to the modern world? These were the central questions that beguiled the minds of the council fathers. Some have argued that Paul VI’s 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae was even more determinative of the Catholic conversation than were the conciliar documents themselves, but discussions of that famous letter often turned on the fundamentally ecclesiological question of the range of the magisterium’s authority.

And so, in the wake of Vatican II, the commentariat turned with enthusiasm to a range of ad-intra questions: women’s ordination, the possibility of married priests, changes in the liturgy, developments in regard to the exercise of episcopal authority, sexual ethics, the nature of Catholic marriage, the adjustment of Catholic practices to modern styles, etc. To be sure, there were a variety of views on these matters, from hard left to hard right and every possibility in between, but the focus was on the household of the church. I remember these arguments well, since they dominated the years that I was coming of age. I recall the church of the late sixties and seventies as a community at war with itself, struggling to get its own affairs in order. But through all of this, the members of the Vatican II generation—whether on the left or the right—seemed to hold to the basic narrative of Catholic Christianity. There did not appear to be major disagreement in regard to God’s existence, the Trinity, the sacraments and the eucharist, redemption, Mary and the saints, eternal life. The center held.

But my growing conviction is that, as the Vatican II generation fought with itself over intra-ecclesial matters, the basic story became less and less convincing to the culture. As the commentariat bickered about the household of the church, they, perforce, spent little time presenting a compelling, coherent version of Catholicism to a world grown increasingly skeptical, secularized, and materialist. Mind you, I’m not suggesting for a moment that the questions they debated were unimportant or that they themselves were anything less than serious in their endeavors, but I am arguing that something extremely important was allowed to slip on their watch.

And therefore I believe that it is the task of the coming generation of Catholic intellectuals to offer a convincing apologetic for the basic narrative of the faith. To a scientific culture, we have to show how only a properly transcendent and intelligent cause can explain the contingencies and intelligibilities of the finite world. To a materialist culture, we have to show that, in the words of our present Pope, Logos is more metaphsyically basic than mere matter. To a skeptical culture, we have to show that belief in the resurrection of Jesus is intellectually coherent and historically defensible. To a bored culture, we have to demonstrate that life in the Spirit is a high adventure, corresponding to the deepest longing of the human heart. The new Catholic commentariat has to return, I believe, to the style of the first preachers and teachers of the faith, those who were trying to beguile the bored and materialist culture of their own time with the impossibly good news of a God who raised his son from the dead.

As we say farewell to a generation of Catholic intellectuals, we realize that for the next generation, important work remains.

postscipt from the learning visit

3-7 May 2009

parol from pampanga................. P800.00
ticket to manila ocean park........ P500.00 (with promos)
sampaguita from child vendor...... P 10.00
green inspirations from marikina... priceless
lesson in politics from pampanga.. priceless
rousing words from mayor oca..... priceless
conspiracy with noel cabangon.... priceless
serendipity bus ride................... priceless ;)

much thanks to bcdi-bugs for organizing the trip,
and for galing pook for sponsoring the visit
to 3 top performing lgus:
marikina, pampanga, san fernando.

with prayers for building not just pockets or islands,
but an archipelago of good governance...

Prayer for Hya

As she turns 18, Father in heaven,
gift her with the capacity

to look at the world with clear eyes and wander,

to find happiness in simple things,

to stand by the goodness of her heart
and the greatness of her spirit,

to develop her sense of right and wrong,

to value family and true friends, and love always
even when her loved ones disappoint,

to learn from her mistakes
and rise from it a better person, and

to not stop dreaming and being filled with hope,
especially when times turn hard and life becomes trying.

Amen.

02 May 2009

The Shepherd's Flute

For my homily this Sunday, 4th Sunday of Easter, also known as Good Shepherd Sunday, I am including a story from Rev. Barbara Brown Taylor, Episcopalian priest and theologian, from her sermon “The Shepherd’s Flute,” from her book Bread of Angels.


.......

“On the night before Christ died, all of His sheep fell asleep. They had had a big meal and with the sound of the shepherd’s flute in their ears, they fell asleep. And as they slept, they shared a terrible dream: of wolves with clubs and torches who came out of the woods, led their shepherd away, and tore him to shreds on a hillside outside of town.

In the dream, they huddled for safety, unable to think, unable to move, and they stayed that way for three whole days, wondering if they would starve to death before the wolves came back to finish the job. But then on the third day, they heard a flute—far away at first, then drawing nearer—that woke them from their sleep, and they stood once again in the presence of their good shepherd.

Everything was the same again, but everything had changed. Looking around at each other, they saw what had happened. They had fallen asleep as sheep, but they had woken up as shepherds. As they slept, every one of them had been changed into the image of their master, and as they stood there staring at one another he handed them staves like his, and flutes, and sent them out to gather their own flocks. ‘Do for them as I did for you,’ he said, and played them a little tune as they set off to do just that.”

29 April 2009

The Proactive Prayer

Lord, bless my dreams
for they are big and mostly selfless.
Guard me from the corruption of
little minds and my bigger ego.

God, grant me the clarity
to recognize the things that cannot wait,
the discipline to accomplish them, and
the indifference to trust You
in everything no matter what happens.

Amen.

On Celibacy

advice to a friend on facebook:

some priests & religious are celibates by nature.
the majority, i believe, are not,
but they still choose the life
because through it they find
the fullest, greatest, most fruitful
expression of themselves.
this for me is what a "calling" means.

add to this the celibate advantage
of being more for more people,
thus, exposing love for what it really is,
a process of self-emptying, so one will
have more space for persons and grace to come in;
of becoming a sign of contradiction,
proclaiming the values of eternity
to a world that puts more premium
on seizing mostly, only, the here and now.
this for me is what our sacred tradition says
"celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom".

24 April 2009

In Defense of Davao City's Peace?

Below is my email response in our ehemplo group to a member who forwarded the email of one Salvador "Doy" Valbuena, a businessman from Davao City ranting against a Commission on Human Rights who should have better things to do other than minding Davao City and its popular mayor. His email "In Defense of Davao City Mayor Duterte" was thought-provoking and apparently indicative of the sentiments of a large segment, if not the majority, of the city. When another replied "well said", I was even more provoked. Thus...


.......

i wish to be understanding to somebody
who has witnessed a lifetime of killings,
but should his standards be also followed
by a whole city, or a nation, for that matter?
peace and a city's livability
may have different meanings to different people,
but truth and right, remains true and right
no matter whether a majority,
or a plurality vote, dictates otherwise.
it is understandable to defend a man
who has made his people enjoy a measure of peace.
but it also comes with a price -
it is not just the summary execution of suspected criminals,
it is how general apathy and tolerance for bigotry
is killing the soul of the city.
there is more to humanity than just settling
for lesser evils and moral evasions.
there ought to be room for dreaming
of better ways of waging peace.
and what good is there in dreaming
if it is only within your reach?

but hey, who am i to judge?
i am not from davao. i have not lived their history.
i am just a dreamer from faraway bicol
who has said masses to fallen soldiers
and to activists who fell victims to extrajudicial killings,
who has witnessed a whole unwilling island
sold out by their government to foreign miners,
who has seen failure after failure of our vote-ed campaigns
for people not to sell their votes,
who has lost our valiant efforts to clean-up our electric coop
to the machinations of corrupt politicians.
so, much as i wish to let the good people
who wish to represent davao remain in their peace,
i will also keep dreaming and working
that their kind of peace will not infect the whole nation,
and those in davao who still stand otherwise.


.......

IF YOU FEEL THAT MAYOR RODRIGO DUTERTE IS DOING A GOOD JOB IN DAVAO CITY, PLEASE FORWARD THIS EMAIL TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW. I PERSONALLY BELIEVE THAT OUR CITY IS INDEED A HAVEN FOR PEACE LOVING FILIPINOS AND I SHARE THE FEELINGS OF THIS WRITER.

On Mon, 6 Apr 2009 10:54:16 +0800 (SGT), "Salvador Valbuena" salvador.valbuena@ yahoo.com> said:

DEAR EVERYBODY,

I WROTE THIS LETTER LAST WEEK AFTER THE INVESTIGATION OF THE CHR COMMISSIONER DE LIMA AND SENT IT TO SOME LOCAL AND NATIONAL NEWSPAPERS AND TO FRIENDS AND CO AGENTS..YOU MIGHT NEED IT WHEN ONE OF YOUR CUSTOMERS ASK YOU ABOUT PEACE AND ORDER, HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATION ETC.

To the Editor,

I am Doy Valbuena, an Ilocano who happens to love Davao City so much, the most livable city in our country and in the world (this is my humble opinion). I love this city so much that it pains me to see outsiders come and tell us what to do with our very own Davao City. Imperial Manilans, Americans and Europeans come here and lecture us about morality, about what is right and wrong before God, about human rights, what is right and wrong governance.

The power of Mayor Duterte emanates from the people who elected him. It is just but proper that the people of Davao City must have the first chance to judge him. But have we not judged him by electing him for the longest time as Mayor of this city for about two decades now? Is this not the best indication that the will and the voice of the people have spoken? That the people of Davao City approve of his way of governance?

Why doesn't the Commission on Human Rights conduct a survey or referendum whether we, the people of Davao City as a whole, like how the mayor conduct himself on the issue peace and order and even specifically on the issue on human rights? I am very sure that majority of Davaoenos will come out voting yes in affirmation that will shame people from the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) or shall I say Commission on Hypocritical Rectitude (CHR) masquerading as saviors of the people of Davao City . To tell us that we do not approve how Mayor Duterte runs Davao City is a great insult to the intelligence and courage of Davaoenos. If the Mayor is truly abusive of his power and has no respect for the rule of law and the right to peace and decency, I should be one of those who should be on the streets leading a rally of protesters as we wont to do during the First Quarter Storm when we fought the late President Ferdinand E. Marcos whom we thought then was the worst president this country ever had, only to find out that the worst were still to follow. (I led several street protests when we complained against the DPWH and the Union Cement when I was president of the Davao Constructors Association Center Inc.)

I heard the Mayor mentioned many times over, that Davao City is a city for peace loving citizens. If you are not a peace loving citizen, this place is not for you because you will not last long to enjoy living in our city. His paradigm of drug pushers and drug addicts are people who can rape their sister or mother or an 18 month old baby girl or kill their father or brother or friend or neighbor in wild abandon. Now, I myself ask the question, why do these people who have no regard for the life of others continue to live or how can these so called human rights advocates even favor their existence over that of peace loving citizens?

Am I saying that I favor summary executions? Of course not, this is against the commandment of God “Thou shall not kill”. How I wish we can all live in peace altogether living in pursuit of the summum bonum, the highest good for all. But alas, we are now left to choose by force of circumstance and select between lesser evils, whether to allow people who have no respect for life and the right of others to live and do it in wild abandon or to allow them to rest in peace forever and let peaceful loving citizens live happily ever after..

Now am I accusing the Mayor to be behind the killings? Of course not! That is for the court to determine. What I know is Davao City is the most peaceful and livable city I have seen on Planet Earth. (I have also traveled in several countries and continents of the world.) On the other hand, I am one among the many who believe that the Mayor is doing extremely and exceedingly well in the conduct of his duty in which he was elected for.

Madame Chairperson De Lima, you need not have traveled far. You should have looked around and you would have your hands full investigating cases of human rights violations in Manila . Aren’t you not the proverbial character in the bible that the Lord would have aptly put, "why can you see the mote in your brother's eye and not see the log in your own eye”. The truth of the matter is, you just wasted valuable public money by coming here to Davao City to investigate and tell us what is good for us… Is this not the height of self righteousness and presumptuousness? Is it not stealing from the budget of education and printing misspelled books resulting to higher rate of illiteracy and lack of good education, a higher form of violation of human rights? Is it not dipping one’s fingers on the coffers of government finances depriving people of food, medicines, basic necessities and other social services; teachers of their rightful pay and soldiers of their shoes, combat allowance and guns to fight insurgency, a higher form of human rights violation? Is it not the inability of government to provide employment for its people and allowing Filipinos to work abroad as slaves of the first world countries who often times maltreat them and who sacrifice their own well being, just so they can provide for the needs of their loved ones, resulting in the breakdown and disintegration of the basic unit of society - the family an institution we value so dearly, a higher form of violation of human rights? Is it not the promotion of government officials with dubious and proven record of malfeasance and wrongdoing because of loyalty and subservience, so that they can deliver the goods to the powers that be, a higher form of human rights violation?

For a young man who grew up and seen almost daily killings during my elementary years in Badoc, Ilocos Norte and having witnessed blood flowing down in my direction and with dead people all around during a town fiesta at a very young age of 11 when somebody sprayed 3 banana type magazines of his carbine rifle and emptying them all at the people in the auditorium…For a college student during the First Quarter Storm to have witnessed summary killings like that of my fraternity brod Billy Begg riddled with bullets from one whole Armalite magazine emptied in his lifeless body and street demonstrations from 1969 to 1973, culminating in the so called BARIKADA in 1971….. For a new college graduate to have worked in the hinterlands and logging areas of Mindanao in the 1970’s at the height of the operations of the MNLF, Ilagas and Bangsamoro Movement and having experienced being attacked from land and sea, and knowing a life of killing and being
killed almost on a daily basis…..

For an executive having seen Davao City during the time when Agdao was called Nicaragdao, during the height of NPA operations when policemen were killed in broad daylight and when a grenade was thrown at the inner sanctum of the San Pedro Cathedral wreaking havoc and causing the city populace to cower in fear… to name a few…..Madame Chair de Lima, I know from whence I speak. I know the difference between war and peace, between death and bliss. To consider Davao City as barbaric and a dangerous place to live in, is farthest from the truth. Davaoenos would be the first one to know. Leave us alone in peace in this place you abhor for I repeat it again, Davao City is the most livable and peaceful city in the world. To us, this is a place closest to paradise. A Paradise in the East.

Salvador "Doy" Valbuena