Screw this. You call it "a matter of the body" or of "material pragmatism."
I say I WILL FIGHT TO MAKE THIS WORLD A BETTER PLACE BECAUSE IN MY HEART I KNOW OUR PEOPLE DESERVE BETER. Months of discernment has led me to this: I as a Catholic, support the Reproductive Health Bill. I do so in good will, and in good conscience. This world is not merely for us to practice Catholic doctrine. This world is to be lived in good faith, through the example of Christ. It is both a matter of the body and a matter of the mind. It is both of material pragmatism and spiritual idealism. I know better than to seperate this world with the next. Heaven is NOT my goal, rather my final destination. My goal is The Kingdom ON EARTH as it is in Heaven. Splagchnizomai is my way. I will not be a meek sheep. I will be what God has called us to be. I will be as Jesus has revealed us to be. I too will be the good shepherd. I too will be the man for others. I too will live my life in this simple way, and I too shall say that let the Scribes and Pharasees come and have me crucified. I would rather like my saviour die, bleeding on a cross, than to say I had not fought at all for what my conscience dictates. Quo Vadis Ateneo? We go to be shepherds as well.
FINAL ANSWER.
Ateneo’s Freudian slip
By Minyong Ordoñez
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 00:34:00 12/17/2008
Filed Under: Schools, Family planning, Legislation, Religion & Belief
Methinks Ateneo de Manila University’s big blue advertisement for its 150th year, which appeared in the Philippine Daily Inquirer last Dec. 10, is a Freudian slip. Why was Ateneo buying expensive two full pages of advertising and making a big deal of proclaiming its deepening spirituality? Is the depth of Ateneo’s spirituality being doubted nowadays?
Or was the big blue ad a mea culpa, mea maxima culpa for the shallow spirituality reflected in the defiance of the Catholic Church’s magisterium by 14 Ateneo professors who wrote a position paper that Catholics could support the Reproductive Health Bill in good conscience? Where did these 14 professors get the authority to interpret the official teachings of the Church?
Forty-two world-class Catholic scholars from North America, Europe and the Middle East were aghast! Aghast enough to rebuke the Ateneo professors with an authentic Catholic discernment proving that Ateneo de Manila academics are greatly mistaken. No Catholic can in good conscience support House Bill 5043.
In the big blue ad, Fr. Bienvenido Nebres, S.J., president of the Ateneo de Manila University, focused his message on Ignatian spirituality, tracing its roots to the classic spiritual exercises. Popularly called retreat, it was conceived by Jesuit founder St. Ignatius of Loyola. It is de rigueur for priests and lay persons pursuing personal spirituality and holiness.
Nebres defines spirituality as the spirituality that understands the way of the cross, a terrific insight that hits the nail on the head. It is precisely the kind of spirituality that’s patently omitted in the rationale of the RH bill.
Many congressmen and congresswomen who favor the bill insist that they are good Catholics. They are conversant with the economics of poverty but not fully knowledgeable or playing possum on doctrinal matters.
Sanctity of life. Divine dignity of women. Selfless love within the family. These are the pillars of strength of an authentic Christian living, and of a society with unerring moral compass.
Population demographers, social engineers, secularized politicians, hip-shooting opinion peddlers, modernist theologians plus the 14 Ateneo professors have got their values anchored on practical materialism and personalism. They cannot discern Pope Benedict XVI’s teachings on agape (self-less and sacrificial love for family). Or Fr. Nebres’ Christ-centered insight on spirituality that understands the way of the cross.
Many Ateneo alumni of the 1950s and 1960s underwent outstanding tutelage from doctrinal Jesuits of the post-war years. To cite a few: John P. Delaney, S.J., who championed the sanctity of marriage and devotion to the Holy Eucharist among Ateneo and University of the Philippines students; Fr. Henry McCollough, S.J., who taught that faith and reason is the right approach in understanding and practice of the Catholic faith; Fr. Lino Banayad, S.J., a Catechism expert who clearly defined what’s wrong and what’s right in his ethics classes; Fr. Catalino Arevalo, S.J., a top-rate theologian who can explain the Catholic faith in simple human terms; Fr. Horacio de La Costa, S.J., a world-class historian who found Catholicism as the driver of time-honored Filipino values; and Fr. James B. Reuter, S.J., an inspiring retreat master and marriage counselor, a father confessor with a soothing doctrinal admonition.
Many Ateneo alumni are asking questions. Whatever happened to “Ratio Studiorum,” the Jesuit-conceived curriculum concept that inspired many Ateneans in the past to pursue excellence of mind and spirit? What is happening out there in Loyola Heights? Are there two schools of thought in Ateneo today?
On one side are followers of the Church magisterium who obey the Church teachings with humility as taught by Jesus Christ in his Sermon on the Mount. On the other side are a coterie of modernists, populists and personalists whose attitude on Catholicism is a matter of feel not faith, a matter of body and not of soul, a matter of material pragmatism not spiritual idealism, a matter of worldliness not of saintliness and a matter of selfish love not self-less love.
The media savvy lawyer and priest, Fr. Joaquin Bernas, S.J., who wrote his opinion on the RH Bill does not augment Fr. Nebres’ kind of spirituality at all. He chose to skin the cat in many ways, replete with ifs and buts, hence the good father was disabled from making a truly Catholic stand on morality. Methinks Fr. Bernas is too fascinated with life in a pluralistic society. He chose to be a politically correct constitutionalist first, an ordained Catholic priest second.
A top-rating TV preacher in America, the late Bishop Fulton Sheen, had an unequivocal view on moral issues. He said, “Right is right even if only one person believes it and millions don’t. And wrong is wrong even if millions think it’s right and only one thinks it’s wrong.”
Quo vadis, Ateneo?
Minyong Ordoñez is a retired chair of Publicis Group of Companies, a Paris-based communication company. He is an Ateneo alumnus, High School 1955 and Bachelor of Science in Journalism 1961. Email: hgordonez@gmail.com
I say I WILL FIGHT TO MAKE THIS WORLD A BETTER PLACE BECAUSE IN MY HEART I KNOW OUR PEOPLE DESERVE BETER. Months of discernment has led me to this: I as a Catholic, support the Reproductive Health Bill. I do so in good will, and in good conscience. This world is not merely for us to practice Catholic doctrine. This world is to be lived in good faith, through the example of Christ. It is both a matter of the body and a matter of the mind. It is both of material pragmatism and spiritual idealism. I know better than to seperate this world with the next. Heaven is NOT my goal, rather my final destination. My goal is The Kingdom ON EARTH as it is in Heaven. Splagchnizomai is my way. I will not be a meek sheep. I will be what God has called us to be. I will be as Jesus has revealed us to be. I too will be the good shepherd. I too will be the man for others. I too will live my life in this simple way, and I too shall say that let the Scribes and Pharasees come and have me crucified. I would rather like my saviour die, bleeding on a cross, than to say I had not fought at all for what my conscience dictates. Quo Vadis Ateneo? We go to be shepherds as well.
FINAL ANSWER.
Ateneo’s Freudian slip
By Minyong Ordoñez
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 00:34:00 12/17/2008
Filed Under: Schools, Family planning, Legislation, Religion & Belief
Methinks Ateneo de Manila University’s big blue advertisement for its 150th year, which appeared in the Philippine Daily Inquirer last Dec. 10, is a Freudian slip. Why was Ateneo buying expensive two full pages of advertising and making a big deal of proclaiming its deepening spirituality? Is the depth of Ateneo’s spirituality being doubted nowadays?
Or was the big blue ad a mea culpa, mea maxima culpa for the shallow spirituality reflected in the defiance of the Catholic Church’s magisterium by 14 Ateneo professors who wrote a position paper that Catholics could support the Reproductive Health Bill in good conscience? Where did these 14 professors get the authority to interpret the official teachings of the Church?
Forty-two world-class Catholic scholars from North America, Europe and the Middle East were aghast! Aghast enough to rebuke the Ateneo professors with an authentic Catholic discernment proving that Ateneo de Manila academics are greatly mistaken. No Catholic can in good conscience support House Bill 5043.
In the big blue ad, Fr. Bienvenido Nebres, S.J., president of the Ateneo de Manila University, focused his message on Ignatian spirituality, tracing its roots to the classic spiritual exercises. Popularly called retreat, it was conceived by Jesuit founder St. Ignatius of Loyola. It is de rigueur for priests and lay persons pursuing personal spirituality and holiness.
Nebres defines spirituality as the spirituality that understands the way of the cross, a terrific insight that hits the nail on the head. It is precisely the kind of spirituality that’s patently omitted in the rationale of the RH bill.
Many congressmen and congresswomen who favor the bill insist that they are good Catholics. They are conversant with the economics of poverty but not fully knowledgeable or playing possum on doctrinal matters.
Sanctity of life. Divine dignity of women. Selfless love within the family. These are the pillars of strength of an authentic Christian living, and of a society with unerring moral compass.
Population demographers, social engineers, secularized politicians, hip-shooting opinion peddlers, modernist theologians plus the 14 Ateneo professors have got their values anchored on practical materialism and personalism. They cannot discern Pope Benedict XVI’s teachings on agape (self-less and sacrificial love for family). Or Fr. Nebres’ Christ-centered insight on spirituality that understands the way of the cross.
Many Ateneo alumni of the 1950s and 1960s underwent outstanding tutelage from doctrinal Jesuits of the post-war years. To cite a few: John P. Delaney, S.J., who championed the sanctity of marriage and devotion to the Holy Eucharist among Ateneo and University of the Philippines students; Fr. Henry McCollough, S.J., who taught that faith and reason is the right approach in understanding and practice of the Catholic faith; Fr. Lino Banayad, S.J., a Catechism expert who clearly defined what’s wrong and what’s right in his ethics classes; Fr. Catalino Arevalo, S.J., a top-rate theologian who can explain the Catholic faith in simple human terms; Fr. Horacio de La Costa, S.J., a world-class historian who found Catholicism as the driver of time-honored Filipino values; and Fr. James B. Reuter, S.J., an inspiring retreat master and marriage counselor, a father confessor with a soothing doctrinal admonition.
Many Ateneo alumni are asking questions. Whatever happened to “Ratio Studiorum,” the Jesuit-conceived curriculum concept that inspired many Ateneans in the past to pursue excellence of mind and spirit? What is happening out there in Loyola Heights? Are there two schools of thought in Ateneo today?
On one side are followers of the Church magisterium who obey the Church teachings with humility as taught by Jesus Christ in his Sermon on the Mount. On the other side are a coterie of modernists, populists and personalists whose attitude on Catholicism is a matter of feel not faith, a matter of body and not of soul, a matter of material pragmatism not spiritual idealism, a matter of worldliness not of saintliness and a matter of selfish love not self-less love.
The media savvy lawyer and priest, Fr. Joaquin Bernas, S.J., who wrote his opinion on the RH Bill does not augment Fr. Nebres’ kind of spirituality at all. He chose to skin the cat in many ways, replete with ifs and buts, hence the good father was disabled from making a truly Catholic stand on morality. Methinks Fr. Bernas is too fascinated with life in a pluralistic society. He chose to be a politically correct constitutionalist first, an ordained Catholic priest second.
A top-rating TV preacher in America, the late Bishop Fulton Sheen, had an unequivocal view on moral issues. He said, “Right is right even if only one person believes it and millions don’t. And wrong is wrong even if millions think it’s right and only one thinks it’s wrong.”
Quo vadis, Ateneo?
Minyong Ordoñez is a retired chair of Publicis Group of Companies, a Paris-based communication company. He is an Ateneo alumnus, High School 1955 and Bachelor of Science in Journalism 1961. Email: hgordonez@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment