Tuesday, October 31, 2006
OPEN LETTER: The Divine Sower Commands Good Soil
In am writing this in response to Mr. Manuel Sacramento's online letter to the Catholic News (Wednesday, October 25th, 2006 at 6:37 am).
Though, I agree with him that "the Catholic Church needs more laborers in these crucial times". I do not agree with the way that he explains we should go about doing it; perhaps, he didn't read the first article on this topic, 'Importance of joining seminary for those discerning vocation to priesthood'.
The approach that Mr. Sacramento suggests is "to allow discernment while being in the world". This is not parallel to the teaching of the Council of Trent on Seminaries, 23rd Session. The holy council affirms that “unless young people are well educated, they can be easily be led astray towards the pleasures of the world.” Please be reminded that that declaration of the Council was made on the 15th July 1563. The "pleasures" that faced young Catholics back then, could not possibly be greater than that of today's. If that had to be the approach then, I don't see why not know.
The Council continues, “Also, unless they are trained in religion at the tenderest age, when the vicious habits have not entirely taken hold of them, it is impossible for them to persevere in a perfect fashion in Church discipline without great and special protection from Almighty God.” Look at all the abuses that are occurring now in the universal Church, one cannot help but be disgusted. It seems that the Council has already forewarned of this and has already provided a clear solution.
We have to remember that what the Church needs are not more theologians but priests after the heart of Jesus, holy, simple men who are willing to put their lives before others like the first martys, to care for souls and bring them back to God. To offer the spotless and immaculate victim on the Altar of Sacrifice.
To leave a soul to discern in the temptations of the world may no doubt strengthen the aspirant, but it will also cause many others to be lured to the pleasures of life. The world is not the place to test a vocation, my first letter that quoted author and Jesuit , Rev. Fr. William Doyle makes it dangerously clear,
There is a saying, by the fruits you can tell. The past 30 to 40 years have shown clearly that Mr. Sacramento's proposed method (no doubt noble in theory) is not bearing fruit?
Jesus in one of His parables tells us that only the seed that is planted in good soil would flourish and grow. Why then not plant the seeds in good soil as commanded by the divine sower?
God puts into the heart a coal.
It is up to those in authority to ensure it glows.
The external elements not only put out the glow,
it also destroys the coal.
In REPLY TO:
Church needs priests and religious of quality, not only quantity (Oct 25). I refer to the article written by Rose Loh in the October 29, 2006 issue of CN.
I most definitely agree that the Catholic Church needs more laborers in these crucial times. Indeed, temptations abound in our society today. But the urgent need for priests and religious is not only in terms of quantity, but also, of quality. By this I do not mean that opening the seminary to boys at an earlier stage of vocational discernment leads to ‘lower quality’ priests. But it certainly helps in the formation process of the future leaders of the Church that they fully understand the context in which our faith stands today. Certainly, faith does not grow in a vacuum, i.e., solely in the silent confines of the seminary. Precisely, Jesus calls us to be witnesses of His love and be engaged in the world. I see this as a motivation for the Church to allow discernment while being in the world.
We must remember that Jesus, Himself, was tempted by the devil ¬ not once, but thrice. It is precisely in knowing the enemy that we are able to fully prepare and equip ourselves to overcome temptation and sin. The complexity of the world today, brought by materialism and secular ideas, all the more are an imperative for pastors and shepherds who can handle the equally complex needs of the Church and its members. How can priests serve as good counsels and examples without the exposure to the real world? God is in and with the world. As the Letter of St. Paul to the Ephesians (5:8) instructs as to be Lux in Domino, or Light in the World, we must BE that light. As such, advising those who are hearing the call of religious life to continuously discern while being engaged in reality is not and must not be equated with the Church driving the laborers away. Rather, it is an open invitation to perseveringly choose God more and more as we live our daily lives, and consequently and freely reject evil in all its forms.
Manuel Ricardo Sacramento
Singapore 120330
Though, I agree with him that "the Catholic Church needs more laborers in these crucial times". I do not agree with the way that he explains we should go about doing it; perhaps, he didn't read the first article on this topic, 'Importance of joining seminary for those discerning vocation to priesthood'.
The approach that Mr. Sacramento suggests is "to allow discernment while being in the world". This is not parallel to the teaching of the Council of Trent on Seminaries, 23rd Session. The holy council affirms that “unless young people are well educated, they can be easily be led astray towards the pleasures of the world.” Please be reminded that that declaration of the Council was made on the 15th July 1563. The "pleasures" that faced young Catholics back then, could not possibly be greater than that of today's. If that had to be the approach then, I don't see why not know.
The Council continues, “Also, unless they are trained in religion at the tenderest age, when the vicious habits have not entirely taken hold of them, it is impossible for them to persevere in a perfect fashion in Church discipline without great and special protection from Almighty God.” Look at all the abuses that are occurring now in the universal Church, one cannot help but be disgusted. It seems that the Council has already forewarned of this and has already provided a clear solution.
We have to remember that what the Church needs are not more theologians but priests after the heart of Jesus, holy, simple men who are willing to put their lives before others like the first martys, to care for souls and bring them back to God. To offer the spotless and immaculate victim on the Altar of Sacrifice.
To leave a soul to discern in the temptations of the world may no doubt strengthen the aspirant, but it will also cause many others to be lured to the pleasures of life. The world is not the place to test a vocation, my first letter that quoted author and Jesuit , Rev. Fr. William Doyle makes it dangerously clear,
“They urge that getting to know the world will develop their faculties and enable them to understand their own mind better; that such a process will broaden their views and help them to judge things at their proper value; finally, that a vocation which cannot stand such a trial, the buffeting of dangerous temptations, and the seductive allurements of worldly pleasures, to which it has been unnecessarily exposed, is no vocation and had far better be abandoned.”
There is a saying, by the fruits you can tell. The past 30 to 40 years have shown clearly that Mr. Sacramento's proposed method (no doubt noble in theory) is not bearing fruit?
Jesus in one of His parables tells us that only the seed that is planted in good soil would flourish and grow. Why then not plant the seeds in good soil as commanded by the divine sower?
God puts into the heart a coal.
It is up to those in authority to ensure it glows.
The external elements not only put out the glow,
it also destroys the coal.
In REPLY TO:
Church needs priests and religious of quality, not only quantity (Oct 25). I refer to the article written by Rose Loh in the October 29, 2006 issue of CN.
I most definitely agree that the Catholic Church needs more laborers in these crucial times. Indeed, temptations abound in our society today. But the urgent need for priests and religious is not only in terms of quantity, but also, of quality. By this I do not mean that opening the seminary to boys at an earlier stage of vocational discernment leads to ‘lower quality’ priests. But it certainly helps in the formation process of the future leaders of the Church that they fully understand the context in which our faith stands today. Certainly, faith does not grow in a vacuum, i.e., solely in the silent confines of the seminary. Precisely, Jesus calls us to be witnesses of His love and be engaged in the world. I see this as a motivation for the Church to allow discernment while being in the world.
We must remember that Jesus, Himself, was tempted by the devil ¬ not once, but thrice. It is precisely in knowing the enemy that we are able to fully prepare and equip ourselves to overcome temptation and sin. The complexity of the world today, brought by materialism and secular ideas, all the more are an imperative for pastors and shepherds who can handle the equally complex needs of the Church and its members. How can priests serve as good counsels and examples without the exposure to the real world? God is in and with the world. As the Letter of St. Paul to the Ephesians (5:8) instructs as to be Lux in Domino, or Light in the World, we must BE that light. As such, advising those who are hearing the call of religious life to continuously discern while being engaged in reality is not and must not be equated with the Church driving the laborers away. Rather, it is an open invitation to perseveringly choose God more and more as we live our daily lives, and consequently and freely reject evil in all its forms.
Manuel Ricardo Sacramento
Singapore 120330
Labels: Open Letter, Priesthood, Reply
Comments:
<< Home
Georgette,
Good to hear from you after so long. Are you still in India?
Thanks for sharing. I liked especially the last statement, "Orthodoxy" is what is lacking in so many (good) priests. The Clergy should be obedient to the Faith at all times.
Oh, and the second last statement was good too. Nowadays, priests are becoming 'afraid' of the laity. Afraid of offending them; if it is authentic, orthodox Catholism that they are proclaiming as a Priest, they should never be afraid to rebuke anyone. (I know of a few local priests who have- in their homilies- told off some parishioners)
Good to hear from you after so long. Are you still in India?
Thanks for sharing. I liked especially the last statement, "Orthodoxy" is what is lacking in so many (good) priests. The Clergy should be obedient to the Faith at all times.
Oh, and the second last statement was good too. Nowadays, priests are becoming 'afraid' of the laity. Afraid of offending them; if it is authentic, orthodox Catholism that they are proclaiming as a Priest, they should never be afraid to rebuke anyone. (I know of a few local priests who have- in their homilies- told off some parishioners)
Firstly, I must say that theological reflection is something I have not done for a very long time – in fact, the last time I did this was when I was still doing my theology modules back at the Ateneo de Manila University, one of the largest and oldest Jesuit institutions of higher learning in Asia. Second, I admit that the way I reflect and write has been influenced by the education and formation I received from my Jesuit professors in philosophy and theology (don’t get me wrong – I did not pursue a degree in Theo or Philo, in fact, I finished a business degree, but these two fields are required for all students who wish to pursue undergraduate programs at the Ateneo), and as such, it may well be in the interest of our dialogue to see my points from that perspective. Third, my concerns are based on real experiences I have as a struggling Catholic in the world’s third largest Catholic country, which is currently facing a need for priests and religious owing to our very high population-to-priest ratio.
Your blog article, and the points raised therein, inevitably stirred in me that faculty of writing that I have not indulged myself in for a long while. As such, pardon my style, or the lack of it, as I attempt to construct a well thought of reply to your reply to my first reply to Rose Loh’s article (and thus, I also seek your indulgence in what may seem to be an interlocutory style of writing) in Catholic News (and I do hope that this is the first article you speculate that I may have failed to read).
You have quoted the Council of Trent’s 23rd session on Seminaries as “unless young people are well educated, they can easily be led astray towards the pleasures of the world.” Furthermore, the Council goes on “…unless they are trained in religion at the tenderest age, when the vicious habits have not entirely taken hold of them, it is impossible for them to persevere in a perfect fashion in Church discipline without great and special protection from Almighty God.” I admit that the world is teeming with temptations, even more complex and vicious as what may probably have existed in the earlier days of the Church (although this may well be an oversimplification in the absence of counterfactuals that we can use in this pursuit). But what baffles me is your oversimplification of the world – and everything that exists in the external environment – as sinful and antithetical to Catholic morality. Note that the Council mentions caveats before issuing its warnings, “…unless young people are well educated” and “…unless they are trained in religion”. These caveats, to me, show that the world is not by and in itself, corrupt. I most definitely agree with the Council that without the proper training, young people can be tempted by the wicked ways of this world, which is actually why I believe the Church in Singapore is doing its best by holding catechism classes and reaching out to young people in order to give them a proper grounding of faith; this of course is the equivalent of Catholic religion classes, embedded in the curricula of Catholic learning institutions that exist in the Philippine context. The world is, by nature, good, if only we acknowledge that God’s continuous and unending creative work is still very much present in it. The context itself is not evil, rather, it is humankind’s refusal to go by the very nature of this world, our misuse of human freedom, that led to the existence of evil. I therefore wish to object to your seeming conclusion that the world is in itself corrupt. Moreover, it is also important to note that your quotes from the Council mention young people – men and women – in general, and does not talk about religious people, or priests in particular. Assuming that the first article that you speculate I have not read is Rose Loh’s, and as far as my memory and understanding serve me correctly, I believe that Ms. Loh was talking about those who want to pursue vocations in the priesthood. I may need to fault you here for quoting the Council on certain texts which are, in my opinion, intended to be addressed to a larger and general audience, instead of the specific avenue of priesthood – which is my second point of refutation.
Having been formed by some of the best theologians and philosophers, I beg to disagree with your unjust and oversimplified dichotomy between theologians and priests who are “after the heart of Jesus”. Likewise, it is a disservice to the Church’s magisterium to say that what we do not need are more theologians. One of my former professors, Fr. Joseph L. Roche, SJ, who recently received the Papal Award Pro Ecclesiae et Pontifice, is known for his conviction about the Catholic faith as “a life-long process, every dimension of which demands serious continued study, research, revision”. It is thus, regretful, for you to have made such an unwarranted dichotomy between what are otherwise unified and inseparable functions and roles of priests – theologians and ministers of Christ’s love. The Lord, Himself, has specified that the greatest commandment is to “love the Lord you God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind”. The Catholic faith, and its theology, demand that the functions of the heart, soul and mind, be one and unified. As St. Anselm aptly defines Catholic theology: it is faith seeking understanding. Catholic theology therefore is about ensuring that the faith is guided by reason, and that reason is illumined by faith. To forget that unity is to fall trap to the twin dangers of blind fideism and brute rationalism
The German philosopher Edmund Husserl, in his phenomenological approach, appropriately claims that everything in this universe is equivalent to its eidos or essence. Something cannot be something unless that something is equivalent to its essence, and this is arrived at through a process known as eidetic reduction. From this perspective therefore, a priestly vocation, is not a priestly vocation, unless it is guided and inspired by the desire to give oneself to the universal love of Christ for the Church. If that inspiration indeed comes from Christ, I am confident, that such a calling, cannot and will not wither or be lost, regardless of the dangerous temptations that buffet it. A vocation that is genuinely inspired by Christ will always remain victorious over the sinful elements in the world – like gold that’s tested in fire. This brings me to say that I disagree with your claim that the world is not a place to test a vocation. The founder of the religious order closest to my heart, was a soldier to the Spanish crown first, and it took him the reality of the world – indeed, the painful injury from a cannon ball – to lead him to a life of conversion. St. Ignatius of Loyola is known for wanting the very best to join the Society of Jesus that he managed to establish together with St. Francis Xavier and Blessed Peter Faber. This engagement with the world, that the Jesuits deem important in the discharge of their ministerial and priestly responsibilities, probably explains the rigorous tests that aspiring members of the Society are required to go through. They realize that the pulpit of God is a pulpit that addresses and engages the world.
I, however, beg ignorance on what kind of fruits you mean, and how you have spelled the lack of fecundity in the past 30 to 40 years. Perhaps this is something that you can shed light on, and even better, state whether this is something specific to the context of the Church in Singapore or to the universal Church as a whole.
I also wonder why, in your last two paragraphs, you seem to equate the world with unfertile soil and destructive forces that destroy the glow and the coal. As I have mentioned earlier, the world is not in itself corrupt. It is our misuse of freedom that leads to corrupt realities. That challenge is brought for to us by St. Paul as I have mentioned in my first reply. Finally, I wonder what your basis is (scriptural or theological) for claiming that external elements not only put the glow out, but destroy the coal itself.
Post a Comment
Your blog article, and the points raised therein, inevitably stirred in me that faculty of writing that I have not indulged myself in for a long while. As such, pardon my style, or the lack of it, as I attempt to construct a well thought of reply to your reply to my first reply to Rose Loh’s article (and thus, I also seek your indulgence in what may seem to be an interlocutory style of writing) in Catholic News (and I do hope that this is the first article you speculate that I may have failed to read).
You have quoted the Council of Trent’s 23rd session on Seminaries as “unless young people are well educated, they can easily be led astray towards the pleasures of the world.” Furthermore, the Council goes on “…unless they are trained in religion at the tenderest age, when the vicious habits have not entirely taken hold of them, it is impossible for them to persevere in a perfect fashion in Church discipline without great and special protection from Almighty God.” I admit that the world is teeming with temptations, even more complex and vicious as what may probably have existed in the earlier days of the Church (although this may well be an oversimplification in the absence of counterfactuals that we can use in this pursuit). But what baffles me is your oversimplification of the world – and everything that exists in the external environment – as sinful and antithetical to Catholic morality. Note that the Council mentions caveats before issuing its warnings, “…unless young people are well educated” and “…unless they are trained in religion”. These caveats, to me, show that the world is not by and in itself, corrupt. I most definitely agree with the Council that without the proper training, young people can be tempted by the wicked ways of this world, which is actually why I believe the Church in Singapore is doing its best by holding catechism classes and reaching out to young people in order to give them a proper grounding of faith; this of course is the equivalent of Catholic religion classes, embedded in the curricula of Catholic learning institutions that exist in the Philippine context. The world is, by nature, good, if only we acknowledge that God’s continuous and unending creative work is still very much present in it. The context itself is not evil, rather, it is humankind’s refusal to go by the very nature of this world, our misuse of human freedom, that led to the existence of evil. I therefore wish to object to your seeming conclusion that the world is in itself corrupt. Moreover, it is also important to note that your quotes from the Council mention young people – men and women – in general, and does not talk about religious people, or priests in particular. Assuming that the first article that you speculate I have not read is Rose Loh’s, and as far as my memory and understanding serve me correctly, I believe that Ms. Loh was talking about those who want to pursue vocations in the priesthood. I may need to fault you here for quoting the Council on certain texts which are, in my opinion, intended to be addressed to a larger and general audience, instead of the specific avenue of priesthood – which is my second point of refutation.
Having been formed by some of the best theologians and philosophers, I beg to disagree with your unjust and oversimplified dichotomy between theologians and priests who are “after the heart of Jesus”. Likewise, it is a disservice to the Church’s magisterium to say that what we do not need are more theologians. One of my former professors, Fr. Joseph L. Roche, SJ, who recently received the Papal Award Pro Ecclesiae et Pontifice, is known for his conviction about the Catholic faith as “a life-long process, every dimension of which demands serious continued study, research, revision”. It is thus, regretful, for you to have made such an unwarranted dichotomy between what are otherwise unified and inseparable functions and roles of priests – theologians and ministers of Christ’s love. The Lord, Himself, has specified that the greatest commandment is to “love the Lord you God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind”. The Catholic faith, and its theology, demand that the functions of the heart, soul and mind, be one and unified. As St. Anselm aptly defines Catholic theology: it is faith seeking understanding. Catholic theology therefore is about ensuring that the faith is guided by reason, and that reason is illumined by faith. To forget that unity is to fall trap to the twin dangers of blind fideism and brute rationalism
The German philosopher Edmund Husserl, in his phenomenological approach, appropriately claims that everything in this universe is equivalent to its eidos or essence. Something cannot be something unless that something is equivalent to its essence, and this is arrived at through a process known as eidetic reduction. From this perspective therefore, a priestly vocation, is not a priestly vocation, unless it is guided and inspired by the desire to give oneself to the universal love of Christ for the Church. If that inspiration indeed comes from Christ, I am confident, that such a calling, cannot and will not wither or be lost, regardless of the dangerous temptations that buffet it. A vocation that is genuinely inspired by Christ will always remain victorious over the sinful elements in the world – like gold that’s tested in fire. This brings me to say that I disagree with your claim that the world is not a place to test a vocation. The founder of the religious order closest to my heart, was a soldier to the Spanish crown first, and it took him the reality of the world – indeed, the painful injury from a cannon ball – to lead him to a life of conversion. St. Ignatius of Loyola is known for wanting the very best to join the Society of Jesus that he managed to establish together with St. Francis Xavier and Blessed Peter Faber. This engagement with the world, that the Jesuits deem important in the discharge of their ministerial and priestly responsibilities, probably explains the rigorous tests that aspiring members of the Society are required to go through. They realize that the pulpit of God is a pulpit that addresses and engages the world.
I, however, beg ignorance on what kind of fruits you mean, and how you have spelled the lack of fecundity in the past 30 to 40 years. Perhaps this is something that you can shed light on, and even better, state whether this is something specific to the context of the Church in Singapore or to the universal Church as a whole.
I also wonder why, in your last two paragraphs, you seem to equate the world with unfertile soil and destructive forces that destroy the glow and the coal. As I have mentioned earlier, the world is not in itself corrupt. It is our misuse of freedom that leads to corrupt realities. That challenge is brought for to us by St. Paul as I have mentioned in my first reply. Finally, I wonder what your basis is (scriptural or theological) for claiming that external elements not only put the glow out, but destroy the coal itself.
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
