A Bad Example to the Young

Even as the Pope had seemingly united Catholics in spirit via the World Youth Day, I want to talk about a topic that is very divisive among us: liturgical dance. Pardon me as this is a long topic to cover.

A friend of mine told me that he has seen liturgical dancing during the mass in the local WYD celebration. Since I was not there, I cannot be sure it happened - but if it were true, and he says that the mass was celebrated by a bishop himself - a great disservice was done to the youth, in my opinion. 

Let us take a look at both sides of the liturgical dance issue. 

Those that favor it will say that there is nothing wrong with liturgical dancing. In fact, liturgical dancing, along with other innovations in the mass, help the youth appreciate the mass more. This is one of the most common arguments for liturgical dancing. The second most common argument for liturgical dancing is that they say the Church actually allows it, then buttress their argument with the case of Africa and the masses they say there. This is allowed by virtue of inculturation.

On the other hand, there's this letter from the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of Sacraments which says that "the liturgical laws of the Roman Rite does not foresee the need for the use of dance or drama within the sacred liturgy, unless particular legislation has been enacted upon by the Bishop's Conference and confirmed by the Holy See. ANY OTHER PRACTICE IS TO BE CONSIDERED AN ABUSE." (caps mine)

In plain language: the laws of the liturgy dictate that dancing is not needed in the mass. This is basic catechism that was taught to us a long time ago: that the mass, by itself, is already complete, and that no one may add or subtract anything from it. The bishops' conference may say, with the approval of the Holy See, that liturgical dancing is okay, but until then, liturgical dancing is nothing but liturgical abuse. 

Ergo, if it were true that there were several local WYD celebrations where they had liturgical dancing in the mass, in front of the bishops no less, then we had just shown a very bad example to the young. 

Do dances and other innovations in the mass help in making the young appreciate the mass? 

My opinion as a lay person is no. The mass itself is complete, and has already helped produce a lot of saints. The burden of proof is now on those who say that liturgical dances help draw the people closer to God. I have had experience with young people who say that the mass is boring without the dancing and the innovations. Is this really the mass and the liturgical tradition that we want to pass on to our youth? No wonder so many people turn to other churches where they have lively praise songs that make them clap and jump up and down. 

Some would argue that the Church allows these dances in the name of inculturation. Cardinal Arinze maintains that: "There has never been a document from our Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments saying that dance is approved in the Mass"; and he noted that "the tradition of the Latin Church has not known the dance. It is something that people are introducing in the last ten years -- or twenty years". (See Cardinal Responds to Questions on Liturgy AB October 2003) 

Inculturation should be thought of more as an exemption than the rule. The dancing in Africa is an essential part of their culture; removing it from the mass might be more counterproductive, therefore they allow it. Take note that this something they allow; this is not a precedent for liturgical innovations. We here in the Philippines are not like the Africans. In fact, our ancestors accepted Christianity with relative ease. What's there to inculturate in our country when we are filled with Spanish-era stone churches and cathedrals? 

I hold the belief that one small liturgical abuse begets a bigger one. If they allowed dancing during offertory, to the tune of a Marian Hymn, no less (true story!), then what is to stop them from allowing dancing during communion? What is to stop them from other innovations, no matter how bizarre, like clown masses where the priest dresses up like a clown and uses bubbles instead of incense. Or Halloween masses where the lectors are dressed in witches' clothing, and the extraordinary minister of the Eucharist is wearing a devil's horn? Or a Barney Mass where the priest wears a Barney costume and gives a "Barney Blessing". These things do happen. Watch here and cringe. 

Are these masses still the mass that the Church wanted the faithful to attend? 

A pagan liturgical dance by some nuns. Looks pagan enough.

ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED? 

I would like you to focus on this picture on the left. This happened during the installation of the bishop of Imus, who danced the traditional Caracol during his installation. Even the altar servers got dancing, as shown here. If liturgical dancing really drives people closer to God and prayer, what are many of those in the pews on the left doing? They were taking a video of the whole thing with their cellphones. Correct me if I am wrong, but from what I see, the ones taking the pictures are nowhere near praying. 

If we really want to attract the young people to our mass, it should not be through liturgical innovations and dancing; it should be a concerted effort from our parents, teachers, catechists, parish priests, and all fellow Catholics to teach the beauty of the mass to the youth, the children and  the students. Often the mundane things expected of us in the mass are the things we take for granted. For example, why should we dress appropriately during the mass? Why should we observe silence inside the church? Why do we go to mass every Sunday? Why can't young children receive Holy Communion yet? Is Jesus really present in the bread and wine? These are simple questions kids ask, and many times we fail to answer. These are invaluable opportunities for catechizing our children; answer these questions correctly and succinctly and you have the youth hooked on the mass. 

If all priests would do that, instead of resorting to cheap dancing in the mass, and I will do a King David and dance on the streets like this. 

Bakit Iba ang Aura ng mga Seminarista?

Nag-post ako ng luma kong picture sa Facebook, as it is customary dahil nakiki-throwback Thursday ako. Ito yung napili ko kahapon:

A friend of mine commented: Bakit kapag seminarista, iba ang aura? 

Napaisip ako. 

Naaalala ko na madalas kaming lumabas noon as a batch, dahil sa mga requirements sa school. And we wore what was the fashion statement back then. Hindi kami dugyot tignan. But somehow, everywhere we went, people always thought that there was "something" about us. Something different. 

We went to this school deep in Laguna where they were shooting the hit show Tabing Ilog in order to observe some of their classes. We didn't tell anyone that we were seminarians. As soon as we got out of the van, they all said, uy nandiyan na ang mga artista bisita. We went to each class and observed their teachers and students. The principal met us in her office after the activity for a little chit-chat. Five minutes into our conversation, she said:: "Ang bait n'yo naman, bakit 'di na lang kayo mag-pari?" 

Kaya ayun, sinabi na lang namin na seminarista kami. 

Sa dinami-rami ng pinuntahan namin, halos pare-pareho ang sinasabi nila: Parang may kakaiba sa inyo. 

Parang may kakaiba sa inyo.

Kahit anong pilit naming itago, hindi namin maitago. Sabi nga sa Matthew 5:14-16:

 “You are the light of the world. A town built on a hill cannot be hidden.  Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven."

So, what really sets the seminarian apart, and why do people see something different in them? Bakit nga ba iba ang aura ng seminarista? Based on my experience as a seminarian for 7 years, ito ang masasabi ko: 

1. Daily Mass and reception of Holy Communion, Frequent Confession - We received the sacraments frequently; Holy Communion daily, confession at least once a month. Nakatulong din na may pari lagi na available para sa kumpisal. Si Fr. George Schwartz, SDB na aming confessor ay isang tanyag na siyentipiko sa Germany. Naaalala ko, noong buhay pa siya, kahit gaano siya ka-busy sa kanyang laboratory, puntahan mo lang siya at sabihin mong mangungumpisal ka, ititigil niya ang lahat ng ginagawa niya at ibabalik niya ang puso mo sa puso ng Diyos. 

Here's a funny video about confession. 

2. Daily Rosary, and Liturgy of the Hours - Mapadpad man kami sa ibang lugar, tinuruan kami na dalhin lagi ang rosaryo at breviary para makapagdasal kami kung saan man kami abutin ng oras ng dasal. 

3. Innocence - This is not to say that we were all pure and chaste, but inside the seminary there was a constant effort to maintain chastity. The time this picture was taken, I have never been kissed yet, never had a romantic relationship yet, and have not been influenced by pornography yet. I speak only for myself. Ewan ko lang dun sa iba d'yan. Hehe! 

4. They made men out of us - We were trained and treated like soldiers because we were to be God's army in the coming spiritual warfare. I cannot begin to tell you how seriously deprived of good food we were back in the minor seminary in high school. I will give you a clue: (Cue music!) yung sachet ng ketchup ng McDo, kinakain namin patago. Ang ulam kadalasan dati, kropek at itlog na maalat, o isang pirasong hotdog (hinahati ko ng pahaba para isipin ko dalawa yung ulam ko). There was very little extra food, but the little we had, we shared with everyone. 

Everyday, trabaho kami 2 hours a day except Sunday, at madalas mabigat yung trabaho, katulad ng pagtibag ng building at yung mga bato sinasako at nililipat sa ibang lugar. Tapos magtataka yung ibang tao, bakit ang papayat ninyo???

Hindi uso ang mataba sa amin dati; ang pumasok sa seminaryo nang mataba, katulad ko, pumapayat din. 

 Bawal kami makinig ng music o magtago ng cassette player. Bawal mag-tago ng chichirya o extrang pagkain (this is where we got creative - kapag gutom ka talaga, hahanap at hahanap ka ng pagtataguan.). Madalang kami umuwi, at isang beses sa isang buwan lang kami pwedeng dalawin. Wala pa kaming cellphone or internet noon kaya ang paraan lang para makausap ang mga mahal mo sa buhay ay sa telepono o sulat. Gising ng maaga, aral, trabaho, laro, dasal, aral, kain, tulog. Ganyan ang schedule ko sa loob ng pitong taong nandun ako.

Marami pang ibang bagay na nagpatibay ng aming loob na sa susunod ko na ikukwento. 

Of course, being a seminarian has its perks. Nakalibot ako sa maraming lugar sa buong Pilipinas dahil sa mga camping days namin sa seminary. Libre kami sa karamihan ng seminars na inatendan namin. Once every quarter, we were brought to watch a theater play or listen to the orchestra sa Cultural Center of the Philippines, para daw cultured kami. Lahat libre. Still, the life of the seminarian is not an easy one. If someone would ask me, babalik ka pa ba? I will say, no, masaya na ako dito.

I wish I could tell you all the things about seminary life para malaman ninyo bakit iba ang aura ng mga seminarista. I hope I was able to give you a brief glimpse of what goes on inside those walls. At para sa mga seminarista na nakakabasa nito, stay committed to prayer and discernment. Always obey your superiors. Shine, so that they may see your good works and glorify God in heaven. Para naman sa mga gustong pumasok ng seminaryo, I encourage you to think and pray about it.

I invite everyone to pray for your seminarians. They will be our future pastors. It is not enough that they have a different aura from us. What matters is that they answer God's calling for them, and in these confusing times, it is sometimes difficult to hear God's voice. Let us never forget to pray for all of them, including our priests. 

The Top 5 Most Absurd and Persistent Comments in Social Media

Through the years I have read a lot of articles, blogs, Tweets, and comments from Facebook to other sites. I found out the hard way an undeniable and glaring truth: the use of social media does not guarantee intelligence nor common sense. In fact, I think that the internet should be called Idiot Box 2.0. I have gathered some of the most uninformed and uneducated comments and status updates out there, and take note that these comments are pretty common comments made by a lot of people, not just some bloke who happened to think too far outside the box. These absurd comments have a way of spreading around, and people tend to pick them up without even thinking them over, hence you see a lot of people using the same comment. What’s worse is that those making these comments actually think they said something brilliant. Without further ado, here they are, ranked according to absurdity and persistence, and some explanation on how to respond to these comments.  

5. The Church is medieval, backward, and archaic

This comment is used to make the Church look like some collection of old farts and hillbillies who know nothing about science. Fact is that many priests and members of the clergy have degrees in various fields in academics, including the sciences. Even prominent scholars like Thomas Woods say that the backbone of our modern civilized society is the Catholic Church, who was responsible for the spreading and preserving of knowledge after the Roman era (through the monks who collected and reproduced books and taught and tutored so many people during these times.) The Catholic Church was also responsible for the scientific method and the university system. Nicholas Copernicus was a priest. George Lemaitre was a Belgian priest who came up with the Big Bang theory. In fact, many of our famous scientists were Catholic: Galileo Galilei, René Descartes, Louis Pasteur, Blaise Pascal, André-Marie Ampère, Gregor Mendel, Charles-Augustin de Coulomb, Pierre de Fermat, Antoine Laurent Lavoisier, Marin Mersenne, Alessandro Volta, Augustin-Louis Cauchy, Pierre Duhem, Jean-Baptiste Dumas, Roger Boscovich, Pierre Gassendi, and Georgius Agricola, to name a few.

It is also worth noting that many of our modern laws originate from the Ten Commandments. For a good reference on how to debunk the argument and other comments related to this, watch in YouTube “The Catholic Church, Builder of Civilization.”

(Related arguments: The Crusades, The Inquisition)

The Catholic Church is against science, you said? Copernicus is not impressed. 

(Related arguments: The Crusades, The Inquisition)      

4. Pedophile Priests

This is a common retort of those who don’t have anything intelligent or relevant to contribute to the conversation. It is also used by the supposed smart ones to buttress their argument, especially after using #5 – The Church is medieval, backward, and archaic. Of course, the fact that there are priests who abused children and minors is not to be denied, but anyone using some common sense here can sense that the media has blown this out of proportion. Penn State professor Philip Jenkins (who is not a Catholic) has written the most objective book on the subject, and he summarizes his arguments in this excellent article. In light of his work, we should remember some basic facts and principles:

·                   ·         All religious groups have pedophile scandals, and the Catholics (while the largest religious                  group) are at the bottom of the list statistically.

·                 ·         Child abuse is prevalent in all areas of society: schools, youth organizations, sports, etc.

·         Statistically, of all the professions, Christian clergy are least likely to offend. Doctors, Farmers and Teachers are the professions most likely to abuse children–not clergy.

·         Among clergy offenders Catholic priests are least likely to offend.

• Catholic cases of pedophilia make more headlines because of anti Catholic prejudice and because the Catholic Church is bigger and more lucrative to sue.
• The number of Catholic priests guilty of pedophilia is very small.
• What we now call ‘cover up’ was often done in a different cultural context, when the problem was not fully understood and when all establishment organizations hushed scandals. They did so for what seemed good reasons at the time: protection of the victims and their families, opportunity for rehabilitation of the offender, the avoidance of scandal to others. It is unfair to judge events thirty years ago by today’s standards.

Again, while we do not deny the existence of priests who have committed atrocious sexual crimes against minors, we have to put things into context in order to come up with the truth. Professor Jenkin’s book is for sale here.              

3. Jesus taught us to love, not to hate

Used by those who advocate homosexual acts and same-sex marriage. Same-sex union proponents often make the excuse (a heretical excuse if I may add) that nowhere in the Bible does Jesus say that homosexual acts are wrong. Ironically, the ones who make these comments are the ones who have either rejected Christianity or the ones who are totally ignorant of it. The Judeo-Christian tradition has always maintained that homosexual acts are intrinsically wrong. This is the same tradition that was handed to Jesus, and the tradition that Jesus lived in. Sure, Jesus taught love, but Jesus also taught to “sin no more.”

There would always be people and groups who will twist the scriptures and the teachings of the Catholic Church in order to validate homosexual relationships. In my opinion, however, we need to be extra understanding to our brethren with Same Sex Attraction; not to the point of tolerating the sin, of course, but to understand that they must have encountered something very wrong in their childhood, something very painful, for them to have SSA.

Here are the teachings on Homosexuality and the homosexual act based on the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

Father, forgive them for they think they're cool by doing this. 

In a nutshell: No, we as Catholics can never approve of homosexual acts and same-sex marriage because it is by itself wrong, and goes against natural law. However, we need to free people with SSA from unjust discrimination, and treat them with the utmost respect. The person with SSA is thereby called to a life of chastity, just like every Catholic. That’s the clear and unmistakable stand of the Church. There should be no hate, nor judgment, nor bigotry involved; just a genuine desire for our brethren with SSA to lead meaningful and holy lives.

(Related arguments: Catholics are homophobic haters and bigots who do not support equality)       

2. You Catholics Worship Images!

This is one of the more common ones, and anti-Catholics do not seem to understand their scripture, or even basic human nature. If I were to look at the portrait of my mother, and say “Mum, I love you”, did I mean that I love the portrait, or my mother?

The website Catholic Answers explains the issue very thoroughly:

"Because Catholics have statues in their churches, goes the accusation, they are violating God’s commandment: "You shall not make for yourself a graven image or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: you shall not bow down to them or serve them" (Ex. 20:4–5); "Alas, this people have sinned a great sin; they have made for themselves gods of gold" (Ex. 32:31). 

The Ark of the Covenant. Found by Indiana Jones. Kept at Hangar 51.

It is right to warn people against the sin of idolatry when they are committing it. But calling Catholics idolaters because they have images of Christ and the saints is based on misunderstanding or ignorance of what the Bible says about the purpose and uses (both good and bad) of statues. 

Yet if people were to "search the scriptures" (cf. John 5:39), they would find the opposite is true. God forbade the worship of statues, but he did not forbid the religious use of statues. Instead, he actually commanded their use in religious contexts! 

 God Said To Make Them

People who oppose religious statuary forget about the many passages where the Lord commands the making of statues. For example: "And you shall make two cherubim of gold [i.e., two gold statues of angels]; of hammered work shall you make them, on the two ends of the mercy seat. Make one cherub on the one end, and one cherub on the other end; of one piece of the mercy seat shall you make the cherubim on its two ends. The cherubim shall spread out their wings above, overshadowing the mercy seat with their wings, their faces one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubim be" (Ex. 25:18–20). 

David gave Solomon the plan "for the altar of incense made of refined gold, and its weight; also his plan for the golden chariot of the cherubim that spread their wings and covered the ark of the covenant of the Lord. All this he made clear by the writing of the hand of the Lord concerning it all, all the work to be done according to the plan" (1 Chr. 28:18–19). David’s plan for the temple, which the biblical author tells us was "by the writing of the hand of the Lord concerning it all," included statues of angels. 

Similarly Ezekiel 41:17–18 describes graven (carved) images in the idealized temple he was shown in a vision, for he writes, "On the walls round about in the inner room and [on] the nave were carved likenesses of cherubim."  

The Religious Uses of Images

Moses apparently did not get the memo about
not making images. Hmm. 

During a plague of serpents sent to punish the Israelites during the exodus, God told Moses to "make [a statue of] a fiery serpent, and set it on a pole; and every one who is bitten, when he sees it shall live. So Moses made a bronze serpent, and set it on a pole; and if a serpent bit any man, he would look at the bronze serpent and live" (Num. 21:8–9). One had to look at the bronze statue of the serpent to be healed, which shows that statues could be used ritually, not merely as religious decorations. 

1. The Catholic Church opposes RH so that there are more babies, ergo more collection during baptism and more future mass-goers

This is so absurd that I hesitate to even answer this argument whenever I encounter it. It’s an argument based on ignorance, malice, arrogance, lack of common sense, and hasty judgment. Of course any parish or church would need funds in order to survive. That is the basic reality of this world: you have to pay the bills, pay your workers, repair damaged buildings, and purchase all the necessary things like food. The argument is malicious because it implies that the clergy are making their services as fund-raisers. While it is true that some abuse their authority, again we have to understand that there are temporal matters to consider.

A related argument I see often is: Why doesn’t the Pope sell the Vatican and give the money to the poor? Sarah Silverman made the same argument in a video 4 years ago. Okay, let’s say we do sell the Vatican, collect around 500 billion, and feed the poor of the world. How long can that money last, you think? Not very long, we all know. Meanwhile, we have not addressed the real issues that cause poverty, and the same people we have helped this year with the 500 billion will still be poor the next year – and the Church, the biggest charitable organization in the world, reaching out to more people than any government can, is out of funds.

The same can be said of the RH law. Give them condoms and pills, but not address the real problems exacerbating and causing their poverty, then you have just wasted billions of taxpayers’ money on contraceptives.

So, is your friend still keen on selling the Vatican? If he says yes, then I have good news for him: Judas thought along the same lines.

I fondly remember my English teacher back in 4^th year high school who said, “Intelligence is like underwear. If you don’t have it, it shows.” We should be committed to the truth always. Practice humility at all times, especially during heated discussions. If you see more common and absurd comments, please type them at the comment box below, and let us all discover the truth (and laugh uncontrollably) together.