|
THE Roman Catholic Church is a potently powerful political
institution in Philippine politics. This reality is neither
unsolicited nor unwelcome. More than in any other predominantly
Catholic country, citizens look to it for political solutions in the
form of moral guidance based on the Scriptures.
On Palm Sunday, many parishioners were
disappointed and distressed, even disgruntled or disillusioned, at
what they deemed to be a meek stand taken against a moribundly
corrupt government by a pastoral letter read at Sunday Mass and
written by bishops from the Ecclesiastical Province of Metro Manila.
A previous pastoral letter dealing with the same topic reflected
divided points of view resulting in a similarly meek stand by the
Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines.
Given this context, I thought it might be
opportune to contribute an essay on scriptural interpretation with
the aim of determining the relevance, if any, of the events leading
to the death of Jesus Christ in solving political corruption.
The essay is divided into five parts: the
earthly and the spiritual realms; the primacy of the spiritual; the
inward virtues; the outward virtues; and the Scriptural solution to
political corruption.
Earthly and spiritual realms
Throughout Christ’s three-year ministry, there
have recurred prevalent themes of moral, political and spiritual
significance, whose essence has been captured in microcosm with
focused and sharpened intensity during the culminating stages of his
life—that fated period between his triumphant entry into Jerusalem
and his ignominious exit at the cross, the meaning of which was
fully clarified by his glorious resurrection. This period is now
celebrated by us as Holy Week.
These prevalent themes extol: (i.) outward
social and political virtues classified as intelligence, humility,
transparency, fairness and compassion; and (ii.) the inward
self-realizing ones of solitude, contemplation, purification,
surrender and inner tranquility.
By no means am I suggesting that the outward
virtues do not lead to salvation or are not as spiritual as the
inward ones of the hermit, the holy man or the yogi, because they do
and are. It is simply that the two point at opposite directions: the
former project outwardly at one’s dealings with one’s fellow man
and the latter focus inwardly on the self.
Both are transcendent virtues; they represent
two distinct but interrelated and integral components in the journey
from the earthly to the spiritual realm.
The virtues
In that regard, my classification of the virtues
is similar to that of Eastern philosophy and religion and is
different from Aristotelian or most of Western philosophy, whose
analysis of the virtues has an earthly and not a spiritual emphasis
where the end of the enterprise is earthly happiness not heavenly
bliss.
According to Aristotle, man is a social and
political animal. He “who is unable to live in or who, because he
is sufficient for himself, has no need of society must either be a
beast or a god.” The latter reference was in all likelihood to a
Stoic, whose philosophy is more Eastern than Western.
In Hinduism, there exist four stages of a
spiritual life, the bramacharya, the grihastra, the vanapastrha and
the sannyasa stages, the first two of which are outwardly-directed
and the latter inwardly so. The goal is liberation or union with the
Divine. The sannyasi lives without possessions, practices yoga
meditation, detaches himself from material life, renounces all
worldly thoughts and desires and spends the rest of his life in
spiritual contemplation.
There are, in Buddhism, two ways of escaping the
cycle of birth and rebirth and achieving nirvana or perfect bliss.
The Boddhissatva, already considerably enlightened, uses his wisdom
to assist others in liberating themselves. The arhat opts not to try
and save each and every other living being before proceeding to
nirvana.
The contrast between and the bifurcation of the
earthly and the spiritual realms is best captured by two questions
asked of Jesus at the Temple during that fated period now known as
Holy Week. The first was posed by agents of the Pharisees, the
authorized teachers of Moses’ Law, as to whether it was against
said Law to pay taxes to the Roman Emperor. Jesus, aware of the
trick question, astutely answered: “Render unto Caesar what is
Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s.”
He had, early in his ministry, imparted a
similar message. “No one can be a slave of two masters. He will
hate one and love the other, and he will be loyal to one and despise
the other. You cannot serve both God and money.”
Two commandments
The second, posed by a Pharisee himself, asked
him the trick question of what the greatest and most important
commandment is. He replied: “Love the Lord your God with all your
heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your
strength.” The second is: “Love your neighbor as you love
yourself. There is no other commandment more important than these
two.”
He had earlier clarified the meaning of
“neighbor” by narrating the Parable of the Good Samaritan in an
identical answer he provided to the same question presented to him
prior to his entry into Jerusalem.
The two commandments stress not only that
man’s primary concern should be attaining spirituality but that it
could be attained in two distinct ways, by the cultivation of inward
and of outward virtues. Since “the kingdom of God is within,”
love of God is realized inwardly; on the other hand, love for
one’s fellow man is expressed outwardly.
eqfernando@hotmail.com
|
