There is sober and sobering maxim that says: “Little knowledge is dangerous.” The veracity of this saying of long standing is well established by the equivalent thought that ignorance denudes intellectual pretence and flattens the exalting ego of those concerned. Among the more recent concrete examples of this exhibition of the danger of “little knowledge” were certain voices heard particularly in North America and in Europe to the effect: One, that the Pope did not act on the sexual errancy of some members of the Clergy in different Countries. Two , that the Pope is the one primarily responsible and thereby accountable for such shameful clerical misbehavior. Three, that the Pope wherefore should resign from his Office for such a grave blunder of inaction and indifference.
Those who dared readily adopted such a posture and publicly denounced the Pope for such a supposedly grand moral liability and gross administrative incompetence, did not even bother to think and consider the formidable answer to following more key questions: First, how huge really is the church as the body of Christian Faithful present in all the continents of the world, coming from all races, color and languages? Second, how huge as well is the number of the Clergy living in the four corners of the globe, and ministering to the Lay faithful in the Universal Church. Third, how huge too is the count of Cardinals, Archbishops and Bishops manning the many major Vatican Congregations, Tribunals and Offices established and operating precisely to assist the Pope categorically in his apostolic mandate as the “Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church”? This is not to mention the hundreds of Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life and Secular Institutes and Pious Unions and Lay Association – all being attended and served by the Vatican City State. In other words, as the one and only, true and real Universal Institution in the globe, it is both a big physical and moral impossibility for the pope himself to be personally and directly involved with the shenanigans of these and those miserable priests in this and that Continents of the globe.
Question: Who then is concretely responsible and personally accountable for the life and discipline of members of the Clergy? Who then should be blamed and pinned down – officially faulted and formally censured – as wholly reproachable in the event that flagrantly erring members of the Clergy are allowed to live and act as if nothing were wrong, as if it were normal for Priests to engage in abominable and scandalous sexual escapades - - among other grave clerical misconduct?
Answer: The Archbishops and Bishops in whose respective ecclesiastical jurisdiction the priest concerned canonically belong to. To discipline, censure and/or penalize their erring Priest properly and squarely fall in their official and direct administrative or judicial responsibility – not the Pope!
OVCRUZ, JCD
07 APRIL 2010
Wednesday, April 07, 2010
Monday, April 05, 2010
TRUST
In plain language, true is confidence in someone as worthy of belief and respect. It also means reliance upon somebody as deserving of credence and esteem. It is thus easy to understand that trust is something earned for honorable behavior, for upright actuation pattern – or lost due to a nauseous bearing or devious demeanor that can only come from an individual in tenure of an ethically distorted value system and thus acting on a morally bankrupt conscience. It stands to reason wherefore that someone who is distrusted on account of a long litany of patently disgusting options, remains not only belittled but also suspect – always.
“You can fool some people sometime, but not all the people all the time.”- so goes not simply a rational maxim but also an empirical reality. It is the same way with a Masquerade Party. Not only will the party end sometimes. But so too must the mask must be eventually off for the guise to be uncovered in one’s naked reality – so to speak. In the same way, hypocrisy could only go that far, that long. Ultimately, the reality is known, the truth is out. To be distrusted much year after year, precisely to be distrusted – profoundly and practically for keeps.
It is worth nothing that somebody aware of popular distrust, usually does the following: First, the infamous character concerned would stop at nothing to gain the trust of people by grandiose projects and impressive hand-outs, the expenses for which however infallibly come from the pockets of others. Second, the same depreciated figure would wave, smile, shake hands of the common people in an attempt to give them the proverbial “Consuelo de bobo.”, with the said people then cheering externally like fools, but thereafter heartily joking and loudly laughing among themselves. Third, the said ridiculed individual then wants to believe to the object of popular gratitude and admiration yet has a mortal interior fear of being brought out of power, with the probability of also being divested of immense dynastic wealth and influence.
All the above generalization could be relevant and true in conjunction with a particular person who has been consistent much distrusted both in the local and continental levels. While practically nobody then, the individual was incidentally placed in power with proclaimed resistance, continued in power with alleged reluctance, and now still avidly wants to remain in power with well displayed nonchalance.
In line with the saying that “Misery loves company”, not contended with being distrusted, exactly the same “dramatis persona” now wants other institutions in the Country to be also distrusted – the highest Court in the land now included. Why will someone want to land in the dark times of Philippines History? How far can someone be willing to continue going the wrong way? What will make someone think that anything could be forever and ever – here and now?
OVCRUZ, JCD
07 APRIL 2010
“You can fool some people sometime, but not all the people all the time.”- so goes not simply a rational maxim but also an empirical reality. It is the same way with a Masquerade Party. Not only will the party end sometimes. But so too must the mask must be eventually off for the guise to be uncovered in one’s naked reality – so to speak. In the same way, hypocrisy could only go that far, that long. Ultimately, the reality is known, the truth is out. To be distrusted much year after year, precisely to be distrusted – profoundly and practically for keeps.
It is worth nothing that somebody aware of popular distrust, usually does the following: First, the infamous character concerned would stop at nothing to gain the trust of people by grandiose projects and impressive hand-outs, the expenses for which however infallibly come from the pockets of others. Second, the same depreciated figure would wave, smile, shake hands of the common people in an attempt to give them the proverbial “Consuelo de bobo.”, with the said people then cheering externally like fools, but thereafter heartily joking and loudly laughing among themselves. Third, the said ridiculed individual then wants to believe to the object of popular gratitude and admiration yet has a mortal interior fear of being brought out of power, with the probability of also being divested of immense dynastic wealth and influence.
All the above generalization could be relevant and true in conjunction with a particular person who has been consistent much distrusted both in the local and continental levels. While practically nobody then, the individual was incidentally placed in power with proclaimed resistance, continued in power with alleged reluctance, and now still avidly wants to remain in power with well displayed nonchalance.
In line with the saying that “Misery loves company”, not contended with being distrusted, exactly the same “dramatis persona” now wants other institutions in the Country to be also distrusted – the highest Court in the land now included. Why will someone want to land in the dark times of Philippines History? How far can someone be willing to continue going the wrong way? What will make someone think that anything could be forever and ever – here and now?
OVCRUZ, JCD
07 APRIL 2010
Friday, April 02, 2010
“YOU MUST LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF” (Matthew 22:39)
This is the lead banner, the battle cry, the centerpiece teaching of Christianity: Love your neighbor! In fact, none the less than the Lord Jesus Himself categorically and clearly said that the Ten Commandments themselves find their distillation into but two mandates: First, love of God that covers the first three Commandments. Second, love of neighbor that incorporates the last seven Commandments.
Question: What does love of neighbor really mean? It certainly means much more that simply giving alms to the needy, merely providing some medicines for the sick or doing charitable works now and then – and other periodic gestures of generosity like putting a coin in the can held by a beggar. Yes, these are some expressions of loving one’s neighbor, but they are far from enough and thus fall rather short of what the key Christian mandate really means and truly implies.
Furthermore, it is even offensive to the mandate of love of neighbor to engage in the following or similar supposedly charitable acts: Handing a peso or two to poor children to use them for any propaganda purpose - - which is in effect nothing else than exploiting the poor. Giving medicines to a needy community for self-praise intention – with proper picture taking for proper publication. Distributing this and that costly favor to these and those people here and there – using however public funds.
Considering that the divine injunction of loving one’s neighbor is the moral bundling or the composite of no less than the last seven Commandments relevant to man, its hard-hitting and serious-pounding meaning and intent are basically the following – expressed into the exact opposite of love. In other words, one does not in any way love but altogether hate his or her neighbor when: He or she disregards or even despises his or her parents. When he or she kills someone particularly so when this is still in the mother’s womb, or somebody who is innocent. When he or she engages in stealing, in dishonest deals or fraudulent transactions, or even but covets the assets already owned by others. When he or she engages in promiscuity, fornication or adultery, or even but carnally covets anyone not his or her spouse. When he or she indulges in telling lies, in engaging in duplicity, in living in hypocrisy, or engages in other dubious and odious transactional ventures – all of which are contrary to reality and truth.
Thus it is that the basic Christian mandate of loving one’s neighbor is better understood and appreciated – specially on the part of the following individuals: Thieves and cheats who frequent certain religious events, and thereafter already feel good and holy. Criminals and hoodlums who think everything is all right, after saying some prayers now and then. The crooked wealthy and powerful politicians who draw comfort and even feel proud for merely throwing some money to the poor, handling some food to the hungry, if not simply smiling and waiving his or her hands to the crowd. If these cases and instances mean loving one’s neighbor, then the Country would be over-flowing with sickening love!
OVCRUZ,JCD
GOOD FRIDAY 02 APRIL 2010
Question: What does love of neighbor really mean? It certainly means much more that simply giving alms to the needy, merely providing some medicines for the sick or doing charitable works now and then – and other periodic gestures of generosity like putting a coin in the can held by a beggar. Yes, these are some expressions of loving one’s neighbor, but they are far from enough and thus fall rather short of what the key Christian mandate really means and truly implies.
Furthermore, it is even offensive to the mandate of love of neighbor to engage in the following or similar supposedly charitable acts: Handing a peso or two to poor children to use them for any propaganda purpose - - which is in effect nothing else than exploiting the poor. Giving medicines to a needy community for self-praise intention – with proper picture taking for proper publication. Distributing this and that costly favor to these and those people here and there – using however public funds.
Considering that the divine injunction of loving one’s neighbor is the moral bundling or the composite of no less than the last seven Commandments relevant to man, its hard-hitting and serious-pounding meaning and intent are basically the following – expressed into the exact opposite of love. In other words, one does not in any way love but altogether hate his or her neighbor when: He or she disregards or even despises his or her parents. When he or she kills someone particularly so when this is still in the mother’s womb, or somebody who is innocent. When he or she engages in stealing, in dishonest deals or fraudulent transactions, or even but covets the assets already owned by others. When he or she engages in promiscuity, fornication or adultery, or even but carnally covets anyone not his or her spouse. When he or she indulges in telling lies, in engaging in duplicity, in living in hypocrisy, or engages in other dubious and odious transactional ventures – all of which are contrary to reality and truth.
Thus it is that the basic Christian mandate of loving one’s neighbor is better understood and appreciated – specially on the part of the following individuals: Thieves and cheats who frequent certain religious events, and thereafter already feel good and holy. Criminals and hoodlums who think everything is all right, after saying some prayers now and then. The crooked wealthy and powerful politicians who draw comfort and even feel proud for merely throwing some money to the poor, handling some food to the hungry, if not simply smiling and waiving his or her hands to the crowd. If these cases and instances mean loving one’s neighbor, then the Country would be over-flowing with sickening love!
OVCRUZ,JCD
GOOD FRIDAY 02 APRIL 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)