Christianity is a religion of the Gospel and is open to others

Introduction

1. The challenge of theology is how to BE OPEN to pluralism while STAYING IN OUR OWN FAITH. The approach of "theocentrism"may be attractive because it is open to the pluralism of religions but it has the risk of making us move away from our faith.

2. As Christians we are in the world and we have a mission to be present in the world. We witness to the gospel. We announce Christ. The world is plural, it has many religions. The Christian is in the midst of all that plurality of religions. The Christian engages in DIALOGUE with others. This is not easy in countries where Christians are a minority and they are marginalized; their right to religious freedom is not respected. Let us recognize this difficulty. It can be so difficult for the Christian to engage in dialogue.

3. Talking about dialogue, we can consider two basic principles, namely, the RESPECT OF DIFFERENCES and the sense of EQUALITY AMONG PARTNERS IN THE DIALOGUE. Let us discuss the two.

Respect of Differences

1. To respect differences means to really be interested in who others are. What are their beliefs and convictions? We are interested in them EVEN IF THEY ARE SO DIFFERENT FROM US.

2. To respect differences is to also WATCH OUR OWN BIASES AND PREJUDICES ABOUT OTHERS. We may have been so influenced by certain biases that it is not easy for us to remove them from our speech and behaviour. But in respect of differences we need to be vigilant about how we see and treat others. We cannot let our prejudices rule in dialogue.

3. To respect differences is to also be careful in MAKING OTHERS LOOK LIKE US. Sometimes we try to see where others show similarity with us. We feel alright if others are showing signs of similarity with us. We feel more comfortable in resemblance. But others can be so radically different and we do not see much similarities with us. In dialogue it is not our task to make others look like us. It is not our task to base positive feelings on resemblance. We need to admit that OTHERS CAN REALLY BE SO DIFFERENT FROM US...AND IT IS ALRIGHT.

4. We respect differences; we are no longer the same Christianity that was imposing itself--the Christianity of the colonial times. This respect for others has always been deep in our Church tradition. The respect has biblical roots too. The style of mission during the colonial days is not anymore accepted today. That is finished. Today the Church does not promote forcing others to change religions to become Christian. The Church even calls us to RESPECT DIFFERENCES. Other religions have their values and dignity, respect them.

Equality of religions

1. We do not want to say that we are superior to others. We do not say that today. We want to approach other religions on equal grounds. BUT THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT WE HAVE TO DROP OUR OWN FAITH AND RELIGION. Our Christian history may have been marked by exclusivism and a condescending attitude towards oter religions. We say l that it should not be repeated and we then refrain from being Christian. We are afraid that our Christian presence will only provoke upsetting others.

2. But then again, today, our Christianity is not anymore imposing and condescending. THERE IS NO NEED TO GIVE UP OUR CHRISTIAN POSITION in dialogue. In dialogue we stay fithful to who we are while being open to others. Even if we say that our religion is true, it does no have to mean that other religions are false. It does not also have to mean that Christianity is superior.

3. People of other religions can be different, so very different from us. We do not take that against them. We do not criticize others for being different. Nor do we try to look for where others are similar to us. There is no obligation for resemblance. Others can be so different; that is alright.

In the Church today

1. The Church today promotes diaogue. The Church respects other religions. The Church has stopped the strategy of proselitizing and forcing others to change religions to become Christians.

2. In the Church today there is OPENESS TO PLURALISM...but it is a pluralism that has to be healthy. Even if there are major differences among peoples and religions, the Church still believes that THERE IS A COMMON TRUTH TO ALL HUMANITY. An unhealthy pluralism is sceptical about anything commonly true. The Church would rather be hopeful in the fact that IN OUR DIFFERENCES AND IN PLURALITY THERE ARE STILL THINGS WE ALL HOLD AS TRUE AND COMMON TO US ALL. All of us can WORK TOGETHER IN SEEKING FOR OUR COMMON TRUTH. If we drop this hope and if we say we cannot work together, then we cannot have dialogue.

3. In the Church we all hold the faith in Christ as the definite revelation of God. Our faith is that God has definitely AND HISTORICALLY revealed in Christ. We also believe that the "Seeds of the Word" are in other religions. This is our faith. We hold on to it.

4. As we hold on to faith, how do we look at other religons? Today we are more open to the religions; we do not condemn them. Maybe traces of previous thinking still mark us. We might have the hesitation to accept the validity of other religions BECAUSE MAYBE WE RE AFRAID THAT GOD WILL GET ANGRY IF WE BE "FRIENDLY" AND ACCOMODATING.

5. Let us dare make a stand. GOD WANTS PLURALISM. It is ok for God that there are many religions. In fact, GOD WILLS THAT THERE BE RELIGIOUS PLURALISM. Let us try to establish this.

6. Ok, so we still hold on to our faith and we say that God definitely revealed in Jesus Christ. That revelation happend through the whole HISTORY OF SALVATION FROM ABRAHAM TO JESUS. God entered into covenant with Abraham and with the whole of Israel and finally revealed fully in Christ. What about in the history of the tribal animists? What about in the history of oceania or mainland China or South Asia? Those histories have A DIFFERENT FLOW.

7. God may have revealed in and through the line of Abraham to Jesus. But this did not stop God from ALSO REVEALING IN OTHER WAYS THROUGH OTHER HISTORICAL FLOWS. Simply because God revealed in the line of Israel to Jesus it does ot mean that God never revealed in other ways. God revealed in Israel and in Jesus Christ; AND HE ALSO REVEALED IN ALL HUMANITY. Yes, the revelation in Christ starting with Abraham is a definite revelation, BUT IT IS NOT EXCLUSIVE. God's revelation in Christ does not stop him from revealing in other ways.God may have been at work in the flow of Israel to Jesus. He must also have worked in the flow of Oceania, Asia, Africa, etc.

8. If we insist that God revealed exclusively in the Abraham-to-Jesus line, then we will be excluding other religious traditions and other people. We will say that they have been outside God's saving work. But IF WE ACCEPT THAT GOD WAS ALREADY AT WORK IN ALL HUMANITY THEN WE CAN ALSO SAY THAT GOD WAS OK WITH THE EXISTENCE OF THE MANY OTHER RELIGIONS. The wealth of Revelation is pursued not just by the Jewish-Christian line but BY ALL RELIGIONS.

9. A close reading of Vatican II documents will make us feel alright with this thinking. Nostra aetate and Gaudium et spes show how open the Church is to the possibility of God recognizing the existence of other religions.

A Christology

1. God revealed definitely in Christ. This is our faith. Jesus Christ is the SUMMIT OF GOD'S REVELATION. We have no rejection of this at all. Yet we can say that even if God definitely revealed in Jesus Christ, we Christians do not have a monopoly of God's revelation. God can decide to reveal i many other ways that are not in and through the same historical revelation in Christ. In fact today we agree that IN OTHER RELIGIONS IT IS POSSIBLE TO HAVE A DEEP RELIGOUS EXPERIENCE OF GOD. This deep spiritual experience is not our monopoly.

2. Yes, we say that God definitely revealed in Christ. THAT REVELATION HAPENED IN A SPECIFIC TIME AND PLACE, THE FIRST CENTURY PALESTINE. Jesus Christ was a revelation in that time and place--NOT IN JAPAN DURING THE 5TH CENTURY, NOT IN MELANESIA, NOT IN CANADA....

3. Jesus Christ was a revelation of God in first century Palestine and we continue to believe that IN JESUS CHRIST IS THE FULNESS OF GOD (see Col 2/9). NOTE THAT WE ARE NOT DROPPING OUR FAITH.

4. This concrete historical revelaion in Jesus Christ, however, DID NOT STOP GOD FROM BEING GOD. God continued to be God even if he historically revealed in a definite way in Jesus Christ. THE DEFINITE REVELATION OF GOD IN CHRIST DOES NOT STOP GOD FROM REVEALING IN MANY OTHER WAYS.

5. This then opens the door to dialogue. Why? If we say that God definitely revealed in the concrete first century Palestine in Jesus and if we accpet that God may reveal in other ways, then we can look outside the historical revelation in Christ AND SEE HOW GOD WORKS IN OTHER CONTEXTS. We can look at other religions and discern God there. God's revelation is so rich we can seek in other religions.

6. Now, Jesus Christ himself allows us to go in this direction. Let us explain this.

7. We have studied about Jesus Christ in our Christology class. We said that Jesus Christ came to tell the world about the love of God expressed in the Kingdom. All humanity is God's beloved; nobody is outside God's love. Jesus took this mission seriously. In full confidence in God whom he called his Father he went all the way with his mission even if he was threatened by the rejection of people. Jesus died on the cross, proving how serious he was with his Father and his love for us. The cross did not stop Jesus from his mission. Jesus picked up the cross and took seriously the love of God, his Father.

8. We do the same. We too pick up the cross. The threats and challenges telling us to stop love, justice, fraternal living, peace do not stop us from following the same footsteps of Jesus. This is who we are, "Christians". We have the courage because we know that Jesus himself won. The Father rose him from death. There is the resurrection.

9. The HISTORICAL JESUS WAS REVEALED ALSO AS THE UNIVERSAL CHRIST. The particular historical action that happened in first century Palestine HAS BECOME THE UNIVERSAL ACTION OF ALL HUMANITY. Jesus Christ has universally revealed confidence in God, seriousness with love and truth and justice (the Kingdom), and the promise of the Resurrection. It is WHAT IS WHAT ALL HUMANITY DESERVES.

10. Our Christianity is rooted in this. We base our faith on the Gospel truth of what Jesus Christ has revealed. The Christian does his/her best to reject whatever destroys humanity--a picking up of the cross. Knowing how Jesus won, the Christian also knows that FINALLY LIFE WILL WIN. Our religion is this...life will win and Jesus Christ has revealed it.

11. Now pause for a minute and note HOW UNIVERSAL THIS IS. Christianity is about victory over death, victory over dehumanization. This is what we present in dialogue. Jesus Christ, in his mystery, has made us opento other people and other religions because we hold something that is universal for all humanity. WE HAVE SOMETHING TO DIALOGUE WITH. We have somethingo share with other religions, SOMETHING THAT CAN BE SO TRUE IN THEM TOO AS GOD WORKS IN THEM.

12. Which religion professes death and human destruction? Which religion professes hatred and the desire to ham and destroy others? Which religion does not live according to God's own love? We, Christians, go on dialogue with our experience and perspective taught to us by Christ.

13. Following Jesus IS NOT OUR MONOPOLY. Jesus taught us, thanks to his Incarnation, about the value and honor OF ALL HUMANITY. His message was FOR ALL HUMANITY. His message then was dialogical meant to be shared with and presented to others.  

14. Christ taught us that others are not rivals but neighbours. To be a disciple of Christ is to say YES TO DIFFERENCES. Christian identity is a consent to differences. Our faith DOES NOT TAKE AGAINST OTHERS THEIR DIFFERENCE FROM US. So we self-limit ourselves and we say that others have THEIR OWN WAYS that must be respected and recognized. We are not the exclusive people loved by God.

An ecclesiology

1. Maybe during the colonial times the Church was defining mission. Mission meant "saving souls" and pulling people out of their religions. It is different today. Today IT IS MISSION THAT DEFINES THE CHURCH. The Church adjusts to the demands of the Gospel and the Gospel tells the Church about the honor of differences. All humanity is encompassed by the Incarnation of Christ and so all humanity is "in Christ". The Incarnation has accepted differences--people can be who they are and in whatever religion they have.

2. Just like Jesus the Church is engaged AGAINST WHAT DESTROYS HUMANITY AND PROMOTES LIFE. Just like Christ the Church is involved with the basic questions of all humanity.

3. The Apostles and the early Christians have seen the glory of Jesus  Christ. They were in touch with the deep person and message of Jesus Christ. They had the joy of sharing about Jesus Christ. That was how the Church started. It was not about competing ad proselitizing and imposing. it was the sheer joy of sharing what the Apostles and the early Christians felt as what all humanity needed to hear. The sharing was done with respect. That was how mission was at that time.

TAKE MATTHEW AS AN EXAMPLE....

1. Let us try reading the story of the so-called "Three Kings" (in Matthew) from the perspective of space. Hmmm...well, two points in space, Jerusalem and Bethlehem. Then we can add a third space in the end.

Jerusalem

2. First there is the opposition of two kings: Jesus and Herod. Jesus is born during the reign of Herod. The Magi show up and ask King Herod, "Where is the King of the Jews?" But wait a minute, is it not Herod the King? Hearing this, Herod is troubled (together with everyone else in Jerusalem.) This Herod, as we know, is a nasty bloke who has had relatives killed. He is known to be cruel and fearful. (That's what the historian, Flavius Josephus, reports.) 
Regarding the birth of Jesus, it has nothing of fireworks and drums rolling. Yet, as Matthew tells us, the birth of Jesus has "political relevance", so to speak. He is "King of the Jews" according to the Magis. 

3. Matthew then tells us that Herod consults his chief priests and scribes and wants to know where the Christos can be found. This Christos is, of course, more than just another King. He is the way of salvation; his yoke is easy, his burden is light. He is so different from Herod. The scribes tell Herod that the Christos will be from Bethlehem. Micah 5/1.3 is mentioned here with modification. Bethlehem connects Jesus with King David, the "shepherd of my people" (2 Samuel 5/2). Matthew is here emphasizing the royal identity of Jesus, this Christos is from the davidic line, the expected "Son of David". 

4. Herod, cunningly, calls the Magi in secret. Herod asks for three things: information about the time of the star's appearance, the seeking for the child born there in Bethlehem and a bringing to him--Herod--word about the finding. Herod lies about his plan to give homage to the child. Of course what Herod wants is to "destroy" the child. In fact, as we know the story, Herod orders the massacre of two year old boys (and younger) in Bethlehem. 
Of course this is a narration, a "narrative account". The historicity of the massacre is never proven historically. Yet, might we admit that Herod is nonetheless capable of such massacre? 

5. So the point in space, "Jerusalem", is presented by Matthew as a point of deception. It may be rich in religious tradition--it has high priests and scribes--but it is a religiosity in the service of power. Jerusalem represents a stiffened world incapable of setting itself in motion. It is a world that refuses to be inspired AGAIN...like it has gone routine with repeated recitation of texts and catechism. As we say in class, it is stuck in its "ek-eks and tralalas".

Now let us go to Bethlehem. 

6. Now the Magis leave the city of Jerusalem and see again the star. They must have seen it already in their own nations. (This, of course, deserves a theological discussion too...But for some other time.) Matthew tells us about the emotion of the Magi, "They were overjoyed at seeing the star" (2/10). Herod never has shown the same emotion. The joy of the Magi may have a theological meaning, as showing the joy of non-Jews welcoming the Good News. Take the example of the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts, who "continued on his way rejoicing" (Act8/39). 

7. The star then leads the Magi to the "manger"; there is the child. The Magi are not disturbed by the simplicity of the place; they prostrate themselves and do the child homage. Bible experts will notice that this is Matthews way of suggesting that the Magi, being "pagans", NOW RECOGNIZE THE AUTHORITATIVE DIVINITY OF JESUS. Priests during their homilies about this story often say that the Magi are the "first converts". Priests continue to tell us, during their homilies, that the gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh represent the royalty, the divinity and the humanity of Jesus.

8. The narration here is brief--in fact, quick. But the picture we are given is a more calm picture. Compare that to the Jerusalem scene with Herod. Now, a dream leads the Magi far from Herod. They depart for their country by another way. 

9. Matthew also tells us about Joseph's dreams, leading him to bring the family out to Egypt and then return to Palestine. Biblical experts tell us that this is Matthew's recapitulation of the Exodus story. One thing is interesting here. Jesus, the little baby, may be a "weakling" and vulnerable in a hostile world. But he is protected; his destiny is assured. The "mythological" style of Matthew makes use of the role of dreams. 

10. Bethlehem represents the calm space. The space of confidence and even protection. It is the space where the foreign--represented by the Magi--welcomes the Saviour, in all serenity and peace and joy. 

A third space

11. Possibly there is a third space involved. Matthew, as we know, wrote his account sometime 80-85 AD. He wrote for his community composed of many Jews who moved to discipleship of Christ. Those Christian-Jews were excluded from Judaism and yet they were hesitant to include in their community the foreigners, the non-Jews. Excluded from their own origins they were also separating from the new-comers, those Gentiles who had closer affinities with foreign, non-Jewish ways. The Christian-Jews of the matthean community were showing signs of getting stuck in the habits of their traditions. But the foreigners were JUST LIKE THE MAGI of foreign origins. Matthew may have been emphasizing that the salvation brought by Jesus Christ is universal. If it is welcomed by the Magi, so too is it welcomed now by the Gentiles. Let the Christian-Jews take note; do not be lukewarm to the in-coming presence of the Gentiles. 

12. This may sound strange for us today. Who cares about origins, be it Jewish or non-Jewish, in the Church? Matthew had to face the issue, however. His narrative of the Magi suggests the question of frontiers, the blurry Church frontiers. Matthew tells us something today.


13. There are people in search of God. They come from different places and maybe even from different religious traditions. Their paths may be so radically unknown to us, so foreign...so strange. They are "not like us". They do not know our traditions and their points of reference may look bizarre. They believe in what the stars say, for example. But even if the welcome they receive is lukewarm, they continue with their quest. Matthew tells us to have confidence in the involvement we make with people of paths quite different from ours. Let us not be hesitant in sharing space with them. Also, Matthew tells us to be calm if they decide to pursue their quests through paths. Stay calm if they choose some other space. Their quest is always a quest for God. They will be alright. As Matthew reports what Jesus said, "Look at the birds in the sky; they do not sow or reap, they gather nothing into barns, yet your heavenly Father feeds them" (6/26).

On exclusivism and authentic dialogue

1. Let us recall what we studied before in Christology. There we said that there are three given approaches to other religions with Christ as our basis. We spoke of exclusivism, inclusivism and theocentrism. 

2. In our faith we say that the "Seeds of the Word" are found in other religions. This notion came from Church Fathers and St. Justin in particular. Later, in the Vatican II council this was mentioned again. Pope John Paul II also mentioned it in his Redemptoris missio.

3. But then even if we have this notion, aprroacing other religions has been met with difficulties. Let us look at exclusivism.

4. Exclusivism says that a person must have faith in Christ AND BE INSIDE THE CHURCH to be saved. Other religions do not have Christ in them and certainly people in those religions are outside the Church. They are therefore EXCLUDED from the grace of God. For exclusivism "we are the best". Other religions are in the dark, they are sinful and they are ruled by Satan.

5. Exclusivism is so ecclesio-centric, Church centered. Note that one has to be IN THE CHURCH. So really the central emphasis is Church membership.

6. We might think that the Church was exclusivist up until Vatican II. No, the Church EVEN BEFORE VATICAN II was already hesitant in endorsing exclusivism. Exclusivism did not take very deep roots in Church tradition. 

7. Let us go to inclusivism. This is a step away from Church centered mentality and the emphasis is on Christ himself. It is Christ and not the Church who saves, therefore all must be centered in Christ. What about the other religions? People in those religions may be outside the Church but they are IN CHRIST. They are not excluded from the graces of God and they are INCLUDED in the saving work of Christ. 

8. For inclusivism, other religions may look different from Christianity but THERE ARE ASPECTS IN THOSE RELIGIONS THAT ARE QUITE CHRISTIAN. People in ther religions follow certain values that are Christian-gospe values. So the inclusivist concludes that people in other religions are "implicitly" or "anonymously" Christian. They may not be explicitly Christian but they are already showing signs of Christian elements.

9. Inclusivism is an attractive position because it does not give up the faith but it opens up to other religions. Salvation can happen EVEN AS PEOPLE STAY IN OTHER RELIGIONS. Inclusivism, however, has been criticized. It looks "imperialistic", so critics say. 

10. Why does inclusivism look imperialistic? It tries to make people of other religions "look Christian" even if anonymously. For inclusivism THERE HAS TO BE SOMETHING CHRISTIAN IN OTHER RELIGIONS. Critics will then say that this does not fully respect other religions. Other religions have the right to be completely different from Christianity. People in other religios can have THEIR OWN ways and they do not have to "appear" Christian. 

11. So a different group of persons came out with the notion of "theocentrism". The perceived lack of respect for other religions has led some to think of ways that can make ALL RELIGIONS EQUAL. Exclusivism really thinks itself superior to other religions. Inclusivism may be respectful but not fully respecful. So a "theocentric" approach was created.

12. For theocentrism, for all religions to be equal they should all revolve around a God that is common to all. There is an absolute and ultimate reality around which all religions revolve. So belief in MY GOD does not contradict YOUR BELIEF IN YOUR GOD because, according to theocentrism, we can have the same God which we shall call as "THEO". Everyone then is equal and revolve around the same God for all.

13. This really looks attractive. But it violates religious rights too. Why? Take the example of Christianity. God is Trinitarian. But in theocentrism, we drop this to give way to the more generic "Theo". For the sake of "equality" do we have to give up our own faith and accept this new God called "Theo"? Will people of other religions accept this too and say that they will drop their notions of God to accept the new God "Theo"? If every one moves away from his or her faith to embrace what theocentrism proposes, then every one is faced with an imperialism too. Theocentrism looks imperialist by making all people of different religions embrace the God proposed by theocentrism. 

14. Theocentrism is so attractive precisely because it looks respectful of religions. It is an attempt to remove upsetting others and remove the feeling of superiority of one religion over another. Many Christians have felt superior over others so maybe theocentrism can correct that. But again there is imperialism here. It is an imperialism that deviates from the human condition. Let us explain this by doing first a little bit of philosophy.

15. Each of us is always "here". There is nobody else who can be in my "here". It is our human condition that each is always...ALWAYS...here. To go there is TO TRANSFORM THE THERE TO A HERE. If I go there and I am already there, I will say, "I am here". We cannot escape being here.

16. Let us apply this to our discussion of theocentrism. Theocentrism wants that we respect each other. Christianity should thus respect other religions. How can a Christian do that when the Christian stays Christian? To stay Christian "here" is to fail acknowledging the "here" of another religion. Will this mean, therefore, that the Christian shifts out of being "here" as Christian to go "there" to other religions? Will that mean respect? 

17. If the Christian drops out of the Christian faith to go "there" to another religion, the Christian will be in a new "here". For example, out of respect for the Hindu I drop my faith and get into the shoes of Hinduism. But if I am now "here"  as a Hindu, Christianity becomes a "there". But I must respect Christianity, so what do I do?

18. In theocentrism, all people of religions go out of their "here" in their religions to go to the "Theo" of theocentrism--and it is to make "Theo" the new here of everyone. This is imperialism. Everyone is asked to shift away from the original religion TO ACCEPT A NEW RELIGION PROPOSED BY THEOCENTRISM. This is not dialogical at all. It remains, precisely, imperialistic.

19. Authentic dialogue is best when it admits that each partner in the dialogue is different. Authentic dialogue presupposes that each one can be true and faithful to his/her own religion. This fidelity does not necessarily have to lead to superiority. It is simpl an admission of who each one is, in each one's "here". Dialogue happens authentically when we admit our differences. 

Subsidiarity

1. This principle gives confidence in social relationships. Why? Well, in subsidiarity something is ADDED TO our relationships IN ORDER TO REINFORCE the relationships. 

2. In politics, for example, subsidiarity means that THE SMALLEST UNIT IN PUBLIC AUTHORITY IS GIVEN THE VOICE TO HELP SOLVE BIG PROBLEMS OF SOCIETY. This means looking for THE LEVEL CLOSEST TO THAT OF THE CITIZENS. 

3. Think of the case in your country. There is, of course, the highest authority in the President or Prime Minister and the whole group of people around that office. Is there any small political-public authority that you can find, say, in your village or neighborhood or district? Imagine if that small public authority is CONSULTED by higher authorities to help face certain problems. That is subsidiarity. 

4. In social organization the principle of subsidiarity ASSURES DELEGATION of authority and LISTENING TO AND CONSULTING INSIGHTS AND DECISIONS MADE EVEN BY THE SMALLEST AUTHORITY.

5. The Church has picked up this principle and incorporated it in her social doctrine. 

6. Subsidiarity, as proposed by the Social Doctrine, involves NOT MAKING A STEP THAT IS HIGHER WHEN A LOWER STEP CAN BE MADE EFFECTIVELY. This may sound abstract. Let us put it this way. Let us say that there is a problem in a village. The village chief and his council form the high authority in the village. The chief can declare a solution. But maybe the different small families can, by themselves, find a solution. So BEFORE THE CHIEF MAKES A DECISION WHY NOT LET THE SMALL FAMILIES FIND A SOLUTION ON THEIR LEVEL? 

7. Let us look at another example. In a workplace the boss makes big decisions. But why not consult first the smaller levels--like the employees? Maybe the employees can have effective insights in running the workplace. Before the "higher step" of the decision of the boss, try out first the "lower step" that can be done by the ordinary workers. This is subsidiarity. If the "lower level" can make decisions and solutions to problems of the workplace IT IS BEST NOT TO INTERFERE AND IT IS BEST TO ALLOW THE "LOWER LEVELS" TO DISCOVER THE EFFECTIVE PATHS.

8. In subsidiarity there is a sub-principle called the principle of SUBSTITUTION. If the lower level shows difficulties in making decisions, then the "higher levels" can intervene. IF THE PROBLEMS FACED BY THE LOWER LEVELS ARE BIGGER THAN THEIR CAPACITY TO SOLVE IT, then the higher level can come in to help and encourage the lower levels. The higher levels then can "substitute". Think of a football match when one player gets very tired and cannot play well anymore. So someone else "substitutes". 

9. You are familiar with this in your formation experiences. Your formators allow you to discover things, maybe even make mistakes now and then. Your formators consult you and ask for you opinions and insights. If there are certain things you can do, your formators or superiors do not intervene. But if you face situations that go beyond your capacities to face them, your formators or superiors come in. But they come in TO ENCOURAGE YOU, TO HELP YOU MOVE ON, TO HELP YOU MAKE THE STEPS YOURSELVES. When superiors do this, they practice the principle of subsidiarity with the principle of substitution. 

10. Notice then that subsidiarity is a way of RECOGNIZING CAPACITIES AND COMPETENCES THAT PEOPLE CAN DO. Each social group can have its own competence in addressing social issues. Subsidiarity means therefore allowing that competence to effectively work. Let us mention some examples.

11. Listen to the authorities of families, like the parents, in raising their children. They have competence. Let those parents have something to share in the decisions regarding the family life in society. Now, if there are problems that the parents cannot deal with, then "higher authorities" can come in to help.

12. Listen to the low workers and laborers who work so hard and get tired at the end of each day. They can have something to say about the labor conditions of society. They have their own competence to talk about work conditions. If the discussions becomes more complex and go beyond the competence of the laborers, then the "higher authorities" can come in to help. 

13. Listen to the youth regarding problems with pregnancy, illegal drugs, etc. The youth have their experiences here and they have their levels of competence too. If the discussion becomes more complex then "higher authorities" can come in to help. 

14. Subsidiarity, in the Church, has already been given focus by the medieval theologian, Thomas Aquinas. Much later, into modernity, there were popes who took seriously the principle of subsidiarity. Pope Leo XIII in his Rerum Novarum discussed subsidiarity for workers. The development of industrialization put laborers in a very marginal position. Laborers needed to be heard. Their conditions had to be looked into. It was necessary for subsidiarity. 

15. During the time of Pope John XXIII there was the rise of totalitarian governments an many people were left voiceless and powerless. The pope needed to take help from the principle of subsidiarity. That meant advocating for giving voice to the voiceless populations. 

16. The principle of subsidiarity together with substitution allow for HARMONIZING DECISIONS ON ALL LEVELS OF SOCIETY. Decisions are not just made "from the top". The higher authorities do not monopolize discussion, choices and decisions for society. Consultations and aid have to be done in all levels. The small people in the lower levels have to be heard too. They have THEIR LEVELS OF COMPETENCE. They are not zero in insight about society. 

17. We can see how helpful subsidiarity can be in governments, federations, workplaces, business groups, AND EVEN IN CHURCH COMMUNITIES. (Just see how subsidiarity can be helpful in a religious congregation.) 

18. On each level of the social unit there is always some amount of competence. Do not disregard that competence. On each level there is also need for help and encouragement and guidance. Give to each level the necessary support. 

19. We can begin in our daily lives. In our families and workplaces, in our parishes and religious communities, in our villages and neighborhoods, we can try subsidiarity. Applying the principle in daily life we can FORM OURSELVES to be people who can stand on our own and live according to our competences and know when we need help. 

20. Subsidiarity aims to recognize in each social level autonomy and capability. In 1931, Pope Pius XI published his Quadragesimo Anno where he made clear his idea of Subsidiarity.

21. "Just as it is gravely wrong to take from individuals what they can accomplish by their own initiative and industry and give it to the community, so also it is an injustice and at the same time a grave evil and disturbance of right order to assign to a greater and higher association what lesser and subordinate organizations can do. For every social activity ought of its very nature to furnish help to the members of the body social, and never destroy and absorb them" (QA#79).

22. Social organization happens WITHOUT REMOVING FROM SMALLER AND LOWER LEVELS OF SOCIETY CAN DO FOR THEMSELVES AND FOR THE WHOLE OF SOCIETY. 

23. The State then can function effectively. "The supreme authority of the State ought, therefore, to let subordinate groups handle matters and concerns of lesser importance, which would otherwise dissipate its efforts greatly. Thereby the State will more freely, powerfully, and effectively do all those things that belong to it alone because it alone can do them: directing, watching, urging, restraining, as occasion requires and necessity demands. Therefore, those in power should be sure that the more perfectly a graduated order is kept among the various associations, in observance of the principle of 'subsidiary function,' the stronger social authority and effectiveness will be the happier and more prosperous the condition of the State" (QA#80).

24. Note what the pope is saying: that governments direct, watch, urge, restrain. By "empowering" the lower levels of society the government itself will have more freedom to do its crucial work. The higher the level in society THE LESS IT DOES THINGS FOR SOCIETY AND THE MORE IT EMPOWERS THE OTHER LEVELS OF SOCIETY. The big role it can do is to GIVE DIRECTIONS, GUIDE, AID, STIMULATE, ENCOURAGE society to move for the common good. 

25. Subsidiarity thus looks more like a "de-centralization" of powers. Today we say "empowering". The strusture of the social hierarchy becomes the area of social cohesion rather than conflict. Higher authority makes sure that lower orders are able to function according to what they can do.   

26. Maybe the principle looks big. But again we can try applying it IN EVERYDAY LIFE. We can try it is the family, at school, at work, etc. Then maybe we can slowly move up to the more complicated levels of social life--like the government and even international organizations. 

27. Do we see subsidiarity in the Church? This can be a stimulating discussion. 

Subsidiarity and Authority 

1. To be given an authority in an organization is something we might all want. So many people dream of having a "place of authority" somewhere. People want to be promoted. We find this everywhere in society. But BE CAREFUL BECAUSE OF THE "PETER'S PRINCIPLE". 

2. What is this? It tells us that people get promoted because they prove themselves competent. So for example Mr. X is so competent in his work, everybody notices it and even the boss notices it. So one day Mr. X gets promoted. He is given a NEW WORK. It is a "higher level" of authority. Well, Mr. X proved to be competent BEFORE THE PROMOTION. He can do his work well and efficiently IN THE WORK BEFORE PPROMOTION. But with the promotion and with the new work, can he prove himself competent? 

3. Let us say that HE DOES WELL IN THE NEW WORK AND HE SHOWS COMPETENCE AGAIN. Everybody notices it and eventually Mr. X gets promoted to a higher level of authority. He is then given A NEW WORK again. Will Mr. X be comptent in the new work? According to the Peter's Principle as Mr. X gets promoted the day will come when he will be promoted to a level of authority where HE WILL FAIL. At that level HE CANNOT ANYMORE BE COMPETENT. 

4. According to the Peter's Principle promotion in a social organization is a MOVEMENT TOWARDS INCOMPETENCE AND FAILURE. The day will come when, after being promoted over and over again, a person cannot anymore be effective in what he/she does. The limit has been reached. We cannot always go up to higher levels of authority without the risk of being failures at work. The higher we go, the closer we get to our limits.  

5. We know of stories like this. A person who has been so well in work suddenly, after time and many promotions, becomes a failure and a disappointment. We might see this happen in government service. 

6. Hierarchy is very much a result of people moving higher and higher up the ladder of promotion. And so we have a hierarchy of "people at the top" and "people at the bottom". We might think that those "at the top" are so competent "they know what they are doing". We might also think that BECAUSE THEY ARE ON THE TOP THEY KNOW MORE THAN THOSE "AT THE BOTTOM". We can have a whole society structured this way. 

7. Just think of our societies where we have "people at the top" with high authorities and they are piloting our countries. They are presidents or prime ministers or  people in "key positions" of the government. Many if not all of them started "at the bottom". In the course of their careers they were gradually promoted. Our usual thinking will say that they have become people of high competence THEY KNOW MORE THAN US. So the tendency is to LET THEM DO MOST OF THE TINKING AND DECIDING FOR OUR SOCIETIES. 

8. We, small people "at the bottom", going through the ordinary daily grind of life, working and living simply, we are "small people" compared to those "at the top". We are NOT AS COMPETENT AS THEY ARE. What happens in society therefore is that we relate with higher authorities by GIVING UP OUR OWN LEVELS OF THINKING AND DECIDING. We assume that people "in-charge" know more and have the legitimate powers to run our lives. They can be juridical or financial people but the question needs to be asked now and then, "Can they really and fully guide ou social lives?"

9. We can be fortunate if all our authorities "at the top" are super-competent. But this is not always the case. How frustrated we sometimes get when we see how lousy our governments function. Well, we can think of the "Peter's Principle". We cannot be 100% confident that "the top" is always better than "the bottom". We cannot be 100% confident that "the top" always knows more than us about how society should go. The "Peter's Principle" gives us a warning signal.

10. For us, ordinary people, we need to be vigilant about the competence of our government authorities. For those in authority, the Peter's Principle should awaken in them the fact that, although they are "at the top" they must recognize POSSIBLE LIMITS TO THEIR COMPETENCE.  

11. Here is where we see the need for subsidiarity. Subsidiarity is empowerment. We, at "at the bottom" do not just naively obey "higher authorities". We just do not let them fully pilot our lives. We have our own skills, talents, insights, understanding...we have our levels of competence. We know life from the daily grind we do. We are not zero, we are not absolutely ignorant and incapable of making decisions for our future and for our society. FROM OUR LEVEL we can decide and act.  

12. As for those "on the top", they need a certain amount of humility because THEY ALSO NEED TO CONSULT SMALL PEOPLE. There are certain insights and skills that small people have. There are certain levels of ignorance proper to those "on the top". There are insights and decisions that CANNOT BE EFFECTIVELY DONE WITHOUT HEARING WHAT SMALL PEOPLE HAVE TO SAY. As for us, ordinary people of daily life, we need the guidance and competence too of our "leaders". They have their levels of competence, nonetheless. At some point, we need them. They have access to information about social life that we do not have. 

13. In subsidiarity there is a "communion" between/among levels of society. We need each other.

14. For subsidiarity authority in society must have a moral basis. It is not just juridical. It is not just about promotion. It is certainly not just about power. It is moral too because it must admit limits, it must admit its levels of incomptence somewhere, it must admit that it is authority that affects people's lives. How often do we experience people "on the top" manipulating lives with sheer incompetence! 

15. The morality of subsidiarity tells us that each responsibility in the social hierarchy DOES NOT CONFISCATE THE CAPACITIES, COMPETENCEAND THE DECISION MAKING OF PEOPLE IN THE LOWER LEVELS OF SOCIETY. 

16. The principle of subsidiarity therefore implies the DIFFUSION OF POWERS. Social hierarchy must be RESPONSIBLE. It does not monopolize social powers. It should recognize human dignity and this includes the dignity--and right--of small people to be consulted, heard and have a participation in social decisions. 

17. The principle of subsidiarity aims to open up the autonomy of people and groups; that power be exatended to them too. Power must respect human dignity and rights, ALLOWING PEOPLE ESPECIALLY "AT THE BOTTOM" TO HAVE A VOICE IN DIRECTING SOCIETY TO THE COMMON GOOD. 


18. The Church can be a good guide of subsidiarity. Church theology today admits that the Church is a "communion Church". Although the Church shows a hierarchy it is a hierarchy in communion. This is why, for example, we see the notion of "collegiality" among local churches. All members of the local and universal church have roles in the mission of the Church. This can be a model for our secular social lives.

A bit of "ecclesiology" (for mission)

Mission and roles of all in the Church

1. For the Vatican II council the Church is the community of the Baptized RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MISSION OF CHRIST. It is the mission OF ALL OF US to continue this mission (see Lumen Gentium # 2; see also the document of AD GENTES). Through Baptism we are all "priests". Not all of us are ordained priests but we are priests by baptism. We belong to the COMMON PRIESTHOOD OF THE FAITHFUL  (see Lumen Gentium # 10).
2. All of us, members of the Church, have our competences and gifts and talents. For Vatican II we are all called to MANIFEST our concern for the Church and help in the mission of the Church  (see Lumen Gentium # 37). This involves our common responsibility to PROMOTE the Kingdom of God in the world FOLLOWING THE FOOTSTEPS OF JESUS. This means that EACH OF US HAS A VERY IMPORTANT ROLE TO PLAY. Each of us is not zero in mission. Nobody in the Church is zero and has no worth or value. Each one is so valuable, so important. Lay people, consecrated life people, priests...all have roles. The best area of participation is IN AND THROUGH THE DIOCESE--or "local Church".
3. Christian duty is to participate in the mission of the Church. We all have THE SAME DIGNITY AND RESPONSIBILITY shared in the Church.
4. We are IN THE CHURCH IN THE WORLD...and at the same time, we are IN THE WORLD IN THE CHURCH. The Church is in the world; she is in our different societies. She has her place and role in society. But inside the Church is also the world. The Church is also marked by the culture and politics and economics of her members. Hence we should know how to manage this all.
5. Pope Benedict XVI noted that there are three main work of the Church: ANNOUNCE THE WORLD OF GOD, CELEBRATE THE SACRAMENTS AND SERVICE WITH CHARITY  (see Deus caritas est # 25).

Church as Dialogical

1. Let us talk of Revelation. It is the communication of God to us all--through the Scriptures, through our moral conscience and through Church Tradition. God communicated himself and invited us--and continues to invite us--to have a share in his life.  (See Dei Verbum # 6). REVELATION IS DIALOGICAL. Dialogue is about partners in reciprocity. Revelation was--and is--NEVER ONE WAY (unilateral). It is not just God doing all the communication and us absorbing it all. Revelation is not a constraint. It is dialogical AND RELATIVE TO HOW WE RESPOND. This is why Revelation is not just a transmission of content. To put this in simple terms, we just do not think about what the CCC says or what the Bishops declare. We also have to ask WHAT IS OUR RESPONSE TO WHAT IS TRANSMITTED TO US. How real and true (and joyful) is the message of God for us? What do we do in response? Full revelation thus includes the response of our faith.
2. Yes, we have doctrines in the Church, ok. But this is deepened and accompanied by how we implicate ourselves--how we involve ourselves. How do we deepen our lives and our relationships with others? It might be strange to our ears when we hear, "God needs us too". But this is true. The Incarnation of Christ made it clear that as God valued our humanity he also respected our freedom to participate in his mission and life. Even in the incarnaion of Jesus Christ God took a risk. We can continually crucify his Son--through injustice, violence, cheating, etc. God continually needs us especally in our sharing in his mission.
3. This is why Revelation is really a PROCESS that is ALWAYS ONGOING. We as Church articipate in this process. Our mission extends and shares the Kingdom to others. We continu the Revealing of God to the world. Yes, we confess that Christ is the summit of God's Revelation, but this Reveltion is NOT PADLOCKED. It is dynamic and shared. It is Revelation ON MISSION.
4. We should not turn our backs on situations of crisis and heavy criticism against the Church. A point of struggle, misunderstanding and even crisis PUSHES US to think well about our mission BASED ON THE GOSPEL OF CHRIST. We might need to discern where the Spirit is moving and the Spirit may be moving in new places, new socia links. There was a time, for example, when the Church was only about the roles of the ädults". Today we see the importance of the youth. There was a time when the Church was concentrated on the hierarchy ad structures. Today we have a "communion Church"where even the laity have a voice. There was a time when the Church was ëxclusivist"in front of other religions. Now she is faced with the challenge of religious pluralism. Changes can happen in the Church.
5. We need to emphasize that the Church, as she is based on Revelation, is continually dialogical with the world. Dialogue is so necessary--even if it is about VERY DIFFICULT THEMES. The emphasis on concentration only among ourselves is finished. The doors are open.
6. If we want the Gosple to be attractive and to be heard in the world we might need to move slowly away from being so heaviy structured and cencentrated on our hierarchical status with the priests on top and the laity at the bottom. Today society is fluid and filled with networkd--webs. There can be underlying life in the Church that needs exploration. Take the example of certain Christians who, while staying in the Church, are so involved in the concrete practices of people of OTHER RELIGIONS. e might need to hear those voices.  Their dialogue with other religions can be share within the Church.  

Formation of the Laity

1. If mission is the work of everyone, then it may be necessary to have a FORMATION FOR ALL. Formation is not to be concentrated on priests and consecrated life people. Form the laity too. The hierarchy and the religious congregations ar not designed to promote themselves. The promote their vocation AND SERVICE TO THE KINGDOM. Hence they need to give space and time for the formation of the laity. (Can we imagine a MAPAC for the laity too?)    The laity have a very important "hands on" work in the temporal affairs of society. They must be given the chance to really participate. The mission of the Church is not in the monopoly of priests and consecrated people.  Lay people also have their roles to play for the promotion of the Kingdom.The laity can go on mission too, especially in AD GENTES mission. They need formation for this.
2. There are many forms of vocation--including the vocation for family life and vocation for single life. We might still be promoting this gap between priests-religious and laity AS IF THE MARRIED AND SINGLE PEOPLE ARE MARGINALIZED. Remember that even if the laity are not ordained priests, they are still PRIESTS BY BAPTISM. So their dignity is not different from the dignity of priests-religious. Are priests-religious shepherding the laity?  

Women in particular  

Everyone is responsible for the mission of the Church.  WOMEN need to be given more place too. WOMEN COLLABORATE TOO. WOMEN CAN TAKE LEADERSHIP ROLES TOO.  

Conclusion

How do we. as Church, show our place in the world and in the promotion of the Kingdom? By working humbly, honestly and IN COMMUNION AND DIALOGUE WITHIN THE CHURCH AND WITH THE WORLD.  We need to re-root ourselves in Christ and his Gospel, see how we as Church responds to his call.    

Where is Christianity Going?

1. Where is Christianity going today in a world that is more and more going pluralist? In the Bible we read about the Tower of Babel. There we see that God demolished the tower and scattered the people. "The Lord CONFUSED the speech of all the world" (Gen 11/9). As we know the first eleven chapters of Genesis are about "origins": the origin of the world, the rigin of the human, the origin of sin, etc. With the "confusion"of languages the story of Babel may be about the origin of human differences. In other words, it is about plurality of people.

2. Pluralism has always existed. Today is has taken a new color. Today pluralism is closely linked with relativism. In relativism each one has his/her own truth. Relativism and pluralism today is a reaction against the usual understanding of truth. Relativism does not like to have a common truth. Truth should be RELATIVE TO each one of us. What is true for me need not be true for you. It is ok, let us not work for conversion. So today we see the choice for, say, abortion. A mother can decide on abortion as a mother's choice. It is true for the mother. Truth is relative to the mother. If she says it is true to abort a child, then accept it. It is her choice. The problem is, what about the child to be aborted?

3. Pluralism today can be very attractive. The Christian faith tends to be more and more accepted as a persona choice. Before we would say that, "I am a Christian because my family is Christian". Today with all the information and choices we have, Christianity becomes one among other choices. Religions are plural, so select one. For the Christian this becomes a challenge. The Christian faith cannot anymore be just a choice among other choices like commodities in a supermarket. Nor can the faith be simply an imposition of culture and family. The Christian who wants to be authentic with his/her faith needs to make a PERSONAL STAND: "I believe".

4. There is also a challenge for us who have to bring the Gosple to the "ends of the world". There is a challenge for mission in today's pluralism. How can we tell others about Christ and about the Gospel? CAN WE STILL BE ATTRACTIVE to the world?

5. We can look back at the early Christian experiences; the experiences of the Apostles, the gospel writers, the early Christian communities gradually spreading in the world. Something was common to all of them: JESUS HAD AN IMPACT ON THEM. This is a challenge for us today. Can Jesus still make an impact? And for us who go on mission--be it ad gentes or re-evangelization or pastoral or even just in the family--HAVE WE ALSO BEEN IMPACTED BY JESUS? This IMPACT of Jesus was the main "push" of the early Christians. It is evident in the Gospe texts. The early Christians have "seen the glory" of Christ. They were just so happy to share that.

6. Remember that early Christian expansion was not done with imposition and proselitizing. It was done by simple witnessing and simple preaching. It was simple BUT IT WORKED. The Christian faith extended way up China and India, for example, already in the early centuries.

7. Can we make the Gospel SPEAK INSIDE OTHERS? Can it introduce A NEW WAY OF LIVING? CanChrist be REAL to others too? Let us put this in a musical way. The music of the early Christians, can we play it today and make people listen and appreciate and adhere to Christ? How do we play that ancient music in a way that can be appreciated today?

8. Can we show how the Gosple can answer deep questions of people today, like questions of justice, human dignity, sexuality, women's rights, povery, the common good, neo-liberalism, etc?

9. Indeed, some Christians really do not like to go on mission. They do not like "proclaiming". If we accept that we can stop all proclamation, then what future do we have? Christ commanded proclamation: "Go", he said. He must have also had the future in mind. IF WE DO NOT GO, then what happens?

10. There are certain difficulties faced by mission today.

⦁ Mission is sometimes understood to be a "Western/European" activity. It is true that, historically, the big chunk of mission history was done by Europeans. This is why Christianity has been so linked with Europe. But today there is a need for new air current blowing. The Gospel is for all humanity. it is not "European". The Gospel responds to ALL HUMAN QUESTIONING. It is not just a Western/European response to Western/European questions. As a Church we need a CONSTANT conversion TO THE GOSPEL. We need to focus on the central core message of the Gospel.
⦁ Church image still looks conservative and "not modern" enough. Christianity looks like a religion with rituals and social cohesion, with hierarchy and other "conservative" stuff. Christianity looks just like any other traditional religion with social cohesion and "substantive" function. Some are irritated by the Church. Let us accept that Church history has really given this image. But the core of Christianity and the Gospel message is quite different.
⦁ If we look closely modernity itself owes a lot from Christianity. Modernity emphasizes the freedom and autonomy of each person to decide on how to live. Christianity emphasizes this too THROUGH THE INCARNATION OF CHRIST. The incarnation of Christ has honored each human person. The incarnation shows that God entered into the human condition to say that the human being is really of value. The choices and decisions of each person should be dealt with dignity. So the incarnation has emphasized human dignity. Human dignity of reason and choice is honored. Modernity owes this way of thinking from Christianity. Jesus shifted the usual religiosity of his time away from the "functional" and "substantive" features of religion. Jesus moved away from rituals and offerings and sacrifices and group-ethnic identity. He focused on the value of each person.
⦁ Christianity is not alien to humanity. Because of the Incarnation Christianity values humanity. Christianity may be a religion but it steps out of the usual functional and substantive religion because the importance is given to the human reason and choice. Let us try to explain this more. In the core of the Gospel the human person is respected fully. The Incarnation of Christ affirms the autonomy of the human person to choose and decide on life. Hence the human person is not PUT UNDER social forces. The human person is to discern and act without the pressures of the "functional". More important than cultural and religious and political boxes is the human person. Christ has affirmed this.

What can be the resonsbility of Christianity today?

a. The Church can witness to the value and honor of the human person as Christ did. In front of the many issues we face, that of injustice, inequality, consumerism and hedonism, we can, as Church show that the human is valued more than these.
b. Societies want to install justice and peace and economic equality. It is hard. Something more may have to be added. Christianity can offer this by introducing a cuture of love, compssion, forgiveness. Pope Francis himself said that what the world needs today is an experience of forgiveness.
c. Today we see the degradation of the environment. We have our theology of creation. We have a sense of the Sabbath that invites all to take a distance--a reverential distance--from the created world.

Christmas and the Social Doctrine of the Church

1. Christmas is the Advent Season and the celebration of the Incarnation. The Word became flesh, wrote John, and decided to dwell among us. The fact that the Word became flesh is an honor to our humanity. Jesus Christ "emptied" himself and became human and even slave, as St. Paul wrote. The human is so dear in the eyes of God, this is why he sent his Son to be one of us, to be "in solidarity" with us.

2. Let us see how this can connect with the Social Doctrine of the Church. Let us first focus on the sections #105 to #122 of the Compedium.

3. The Church sees the human as image of God. (See #105). This being image of God IS FULLY EXPLAINED IN CHRIST. Christ is the PERFECT IMAGE of the Father. It is in Christ where we have a full revelation of God. More than this, in Christ WE ARE ALSO FULLY REVEALED TO OURSELVES.

4. This is Traditional thinking taking from the early Church councils. Jesus Christ coming "from above" is able to communicate to us the divine. Jesus Christ who is also "from below" is able to say, in human terms, the path leading to God. This path leading to God INCLUDES OUR "YES" TO OUR HUMANITY. We recognize the value and beauty of our being human as image of God and so we become ready to say "yes" also to God's invitation to a life of communion with him.

5. Our difficulty in our saying "yes" lies in our wounded state. We are wounded with the deep wound which we call as “sin”. Sin is our alienation from God and from one another (see #116). Our communion with God is wounded and our friendship of unity with others is also wounded.

6. The Compendium will add that this is not just a personal sin of each of us. It is also a SOCIAL SIN. (See #117). We have become aggressive against justice, against human rights and dignity, against the common good, against our wonderful human relationships.

7. We long for salvation out of sin. Without any sense of salvation we become pessimists. We cannot see any value in the things we do, in the achievements we make. Christian realism, says the Compendium, sees Jesus Christ destroying sin and death. "In the world you will have trouble, but take courage, I have conquered the world" (Jn 16/33). Be cheerful, Jesus has won over the hold of death and sin.

8. A big part of what Christ has done was TO SHED LIGHT ON OUR OWN BEING IMAGE OF GOD. (See #121). Because of our wound, because of “sin”, we find it difficult to see ourselves as beloved of God. We are caught in the web of trouble as if there is no other way but to sin and cause death. But Jesus Christ came--the Word became flesh--to AFFIRM the value of our humanity. Jesus Christ came to AFFIRM the dignity of our being human: image of God.

9. The coming of Jesus Christ is then about manifesting fully in us who we really are. Vatican II document, Gaudium et spes, noted this, "The truth is that only in the mystery of the incarnate Word does the mystery of man take on light" (Gaudium et spes #22).  Jesus Christ, the perfect image of God, has also manifested our vocation to live in communion with God.

10. The Compendium then concludes that the reality of Christ is not really something “new”. so to speak.  It is not something added to our history. "It is rather that reality of communion with the Trinitarian God to which men and women have always been oriented in the depths of their being, thanks to their creaturely likeness to God" (Compendium #122). In other words, from the very start of our being created by God, the reality of Christ has already been actual. By nature we, humans, HAVE ALWAYS BEEN ORIENTED TO COMMUNION WITH GOD. This reminds us of one Church Father, Tertullian,  who meditated about the time of our creation. He wrote that when God was creating the human he had Jesus Christ in mind.

11. We may have sinned. We may be wounded. But the dignity of being image of God and with the vocation of being in full communion with God is NEVER DELETED. Jesus Christ came to join us, to be human just like us with his Incarnation, to precisely affirm who we are. This is "salvation".

A note on Salvation taking from a document of a Papal Commission: COMMUNION AND STEWARDSHIP: Human Persons Created in the Image of God, document of INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION

1. The human is created in the image of God. The vocation is to live the communion of the life of the Trinity. With our wound--called SIN--we refuse to engage in this vocation. Sin is the DISFIGURATION of our being Image of God. We are alienated from God and from one another. In fact, because of sin, we are alienated from our very own selves. Rejecting God's invitation to a communion, we also reject even our fraternal existence in society. Sin does not delete our dignity as image of God. The image is DISFIGURED AND NOT DELETED.

2. What then is "salvation" here? "Salvation entails the restoration of the image of God by Christ who is the perfect image of the Father" (#47). Christ conforms us to himself. In other words, he re-configures the dis-figured image and brings it back to its true and authentic form. The human person is "fully realized". Thanks to the grace of Christ (and the Holy Spirit) we are transformed.

3. Theologically, we say that WE REALLY NEED SALVATION. We have the natural desire to live with God. Sin does not destroy this desire just as it does not remove our dignity. But we, humans, just see how INCAPABLE we are of saving ourselves. We need grace to transform us. Christ gives us this grace.

4. The Paschal experience of Christ has made it possible for us "to participate in the death to sin that leads to life in Christ" (#49). The cross leads to a new life. We die; our egoism dies, our aggression against justice and human dignity dies. Our option for sin dies. The great grace of Christ for us is, precisely, his Paschal mystery, his CONFIDENCE IN THE FATHER, his willingness to face the consequence of love for us which is the cross, and his rising again to a new life. It is a whole passage. It tells us ABOUT OUR OWN TRANSFORMATION. To us is communicated the path "of a new life of freedom, a life 'FREED FROM'AND 'FREED FOR'"(#50). What does this curious expression mean?

5. We are FREED FROM SIN. We are FREED FROM SUFFERING AND DEATH. Salvation, here, means that we are freed from the hold of sin and death. Of course we still suffer and die. But suffering and death now takes a new meaning. We make the effort to live properly AND THIS CAUSES SUFFERING AND DEATH FOR US. But in confidence in God the suffering is not vain. Death is not vain. We do not suffer and die for egoism and injustice and human indignity. We die for truth, justice, peace, we die for the Kingdom. We admit that God loves us. We admit and recognize the very value and dignity of our humanity. Jesus has affirmed this. Jesus has confirmed that we are so beloved in the eyes of God we are not rejected by God. Seeing this we are reconciled with God.

6. So WE DO NOT LIVE UNDER THE RULE OF INDIGNITY. "Salvation is a liberation from sin which reconciles man with God, even in the midst of a continuing struggle against sin conducted in the power of the Holy Spirit"...."Salvation brings a liberation from suffering and death which acquire new meaning as a saving participation through the suffering, death and resurrection of the Son" (#50-51).

7. Note then that salvation is being "freed from" the rule of sin so that we are free to move to God: "FREED FOR" authentic love; "FREED FOR" new life in God" (#51). The conclusion is made: "This 'freedom for' is made possible by Jesus Christ, the perfect icon of the Father, who restores the image of God in man" (#51).

8. Take a look at the story of the so-called "prodigal son" in Lk15/11-32. The young son was still far bu the Father was hoping for his return. Upon the return of the young son the Father started a feast. The son was "lost", he returned and "found again". In Jesus’terms, he was “restored again” TO HIS TRUE IMAGE AS SON.  This was already in the perspective of the Father. Remember that the son had a speech prepared to say that he was returning not anymore as a son but, possibly, as a slave. The son was returning with the identification of the old image, the image of a son who rejected his father. The Father did not listen to this. He continued to be SON. Or in what we say, HIS DIGNITY AS IMAGE OF GOD continued. The Father simply accepted his return AS HIS SON. Jesus is saying something deep in this parable. Where are we as sinners and in despair? Are we also having a "speech"in our heads because we are not sure of how we are to be received by God? 

9. The parable makes the Father a "prodigal" Father. Why? He went "reckless" in spending for a feast for the son who returned. He was prodigal also because, unlike the "usual" way of behaving culturally where a father might punish an erring son, the Father in the parable turned his back on cultural behaviour. He was true to his Paternity. 

10. The son returned. That was all that the Father wanted. The son may have been a sinner; he may have broken the heart of the Father. He returned AS THAT TYPE OF A MAN. But the Father, the prodigal Father who "recklessly" welcomed back his son without conditions, did not demand virtues and conscientiousness from the son. The Father did not ask, "Ok, are you now a better person?" He just wanted CONVERSION. The son returned as the man who broke his Father's heart, ok, but the son was still welcomed and his return awakened the JOY OF THE FATHER. Now the son can ENTER THE JOY OF THE FATHER and stand AS A SON IN FRONT OF HIS FATHER. He can enter the joy of truth and feasting. Of course that will be the choice of the son. 

11. We are like two dancers in the desert, two dancers in a troubled world, we and Jesus Christ. We learn the steps with Christ until, one day, we can dance well with him. If we reflect on what the document is saying we will notice that salvation is not necessarily a “one-shot event”. Salvation is more of a process; it is a movement we make towards become more and more true to ourselves, IMAGE OF GOD. Jesus Christ has given us the grace--and continues to give us the grace--of taking this path through his Paschal Mystery. It is a path in which we are set FREE FROM the obstacles of to going to God and we are set FREE FOR moving to God. We say yes to our humanity, thanks to Jesus. But we do it in time, in history, in steps. The basic nature of our humanity includes time. “The human heart plans the way, but the LORD directs the steps” (Pr 16/9). 

12. We are like two dancers in the desert, two dancers in a troubled world, we and Jesus Christ. We learn the steps with Christ until, one day, we can dance well with him. Ok, we may not even dance well with him. Maybe our steps are awkward. Still what is important and wonderful is that WE DANCE WITH HIM. Jesus is not watching how skillful we are, he is just glad to see us dancing with him. 

13. We say this--that it is wonderful to dance with Christ even if awkwardly--because we have to be careful with one mis-understanding about God. A question can arise: if we do not manage to dance as well as Jesus, do we then go to hell? Remember that, Biblically, God is revealed as a God of life, not of death. God did not have his Son killed. He rose his Son from death, he did not kill him. God considers us as very important and precious--we are his IMAGE. Never is it the desire of God to send us to hell--to being us death. Making someone go to hell is not God's action. 

14. GOING TO HELL IS THE CHOICE OF A PERSON WHO DOES NOT WANT TO LIVE AS IMAGE OF GOD, WHO DOES NOT WANT THE VOCATION OF MOVING TO GOD AND WHO DOES NOT WANT TO DANCE WITH JESUS. The best example of this is the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus. Watch the behaviour of the rich man and how, in fact, he really wants to go, and stay, in hell.

Are the Poor Lazy?

1. Some say that poverty is because of laziness. Poor people have the culture to be lazy and abusive. This is NOT NECESSARILY TRUE. Laziness is not the monopoly of the poor. Even very rich people can be lazy. To say that poverty is due to the culture (of laziness) of some people is TO BLAME THE POOR, it is TO ACCUSE THE POOR.  This blaming the poor sees the poor as PRODUCER OF BAD SITUATIONS. It is to say that poverty is the fault of the poor. The poor put themselves in bad situations--it is "ïn the culture of the poor". 

2. Laziness as associated with poverty is a sign of a bias. Some of those who say it think that they are not poor; that they do not belong to the poor. To say the poor are lazy is a sign that poverty is not well understood. 

3. Some say that poor people have the attitude and behaviour of laziness different from the richer classes. The richer people are not lazy. Poverty then is a cuture of laziness too. Again this is an error. Many poor people who may be lazy are not the only lazy people inthe world. There are also the lazy rich.  Many of the poor work hard. Many of them strive hard.  

4. Most poor people are STEREOTYPED as lazy. But there are SO MANY POOR PEOPLE WHO WORK. The labor force of our countries are FILLED WITH VERY POOR PEOPLE. Work is a basic value for the poor AND MANY POOR PEOPLE LOOK FOR WORK, they are not lazy, THEY ARE LOOKING FOR WORK. Without work how can they feed their families? 

5. Unemployment is primarily due to lack of employment. It is not due to laziness. There are just NOT ENOUGH JOBS TO ACCOMODATE MANY PEOPLE. Lack of employment is a better explanation to poverty than laziness. 

6. To have a job gives the worker an advantage. BUT FOR THE POOR EVEN WORK IS NOT A GUARANTEE THAT HE/SHE HAS THE ADVANTAGE IN LIFE. Their salaries are not enough to feed well their families, bring their children to school and care for them in times of serious illnesses. Poor people who work remain, somehow, in the level of poverty because they do not receive sufficient income to pull out of misery. THEIR POVERTY S NOT DUE TO LAZINESS.

7. This bias that the poor are lazy and abusive leads to the idea that the poor do not stand on their own feet--they can be helped only by "welfare". In our local terms e say "dole out". Hence the relationship of other social members towards the poor is that of "pitying the poor" and giving them "dole outs". But then because the bias that the poor are lazy and are culturally low, even the dole out system is criticized. The criticism states that the dole out only encourages the poor to stay low in culture. The poor are even abusive.  

8. We may not also be aware that poor people who do not work or cannot work are INCAPABLE OF WORKING BECAUSE OF PHYSICAL OR INTELLECTUAL LIMITS. They may have been sick and handicapped by their illness, they could not find a suitable job. They may not have been able to go to school and develop their intellectual skills. Hence many work opportunities are closed to them. How can a handicapped person find a job? How can an illiterate find a job? It is not easy. IT IS NOT BECAUSE OF LAZINESS BUT BECAUSE OF LIMITS. 

9. The poor need help. It is not even a choice to seek for help. It is a NECESSITY. The poor need help TO SURVIVE. But prejudices and biases look at the poor as lazy and so the poor just want dole outs and gifts. These prejudices and biases even discourage giving the poor help. 

10. Yes, there are the lazy and abusive poor people. But there are lazy and abusive rich people too. To call the poor as lazy is a DISPROPORTIONATE GENERALIZATION. It is to label all poor as lazy. It is unfair. 

11. Finally, let us add a Biblical note. Jesus identified himself with the poor--the "least" in society. We see this in Matthew 25. What we do to the least, we do it to Jesus. Jesus joined the ranks of the poor and identified himself with the poor. IT WAS NOT MOTIVATED BY PITY OR BLAME. The poor are those who are really in the conditions that crush them; they are so powerless. They are so voiceless. They are so marginalized. Jesus joined them, he went "in solidarity" with them. 

12. Blessed Charles de Foucauld had an insight here. He asked himself why he should travel by first class in the train when Jesus travels in the third class, among the poor. This is striking. If we put ourselves in the position of blaming the poor, is it possible that we prefer riding in first class and avoid riding with Jesus in the third class?