I see Aids above all as only one of the symptoms of a gravely sick society: as a challenge to radical conversion, to a whole-person approach to healing, and to a compassionate relationship with the sick and those at risk. All this must, however be viewed in the larger context of other threats to human health.
-Bernard Haring
That HIV/AIDS is no less than a global health disaster is a fact that is no longer in question. The challenges that HIV and AIDS have left in many circles are those that can no longer be left to silence. The threat of AIDS is already indicative of an unhealthy society. The sufferers of AIDS apart from the trauma of having an incurable illness, society's approach to these people have remained a question begging a redress. Society has sometimes unfairly stigmatized these people and the church where they are supposed to take solace has not adequately woken up to her responsibility to the sick. This leaves us with numerous challenges: the community challenge, the medical challenge, challenge for the family, pastoral challenges and the like. Our concern in this work is to outline the pastoral obligations HIV/AIDS pose for the Church. Thus, considered in the entire frame, pastoral care demands an approach to radical conversion of a sick-society, an approach to healing and to a compassionate relationship to victims of such.
The healing of the sick was an essential part of Jesus' ministry. In fact, it could be said that Jesus' ministry was purely to the sick. In healing the blind, the lame and even Jesus' teaching of the scriptures was curing the sickness of the mind. Therefore, the Church's apostolate apart from her evangelizing obligation, the care for the sick constitutes an essential part of her ministry. That the care for the sick is essential to the Church's evangelizing missions is evident in the sacraments. Anointing of the sick and what is known as viaticum, were the two dimensions this mission was directed towards.
The pastoral care for the sick in earliest times was circumscribed to viaticum, that is, the administration of the Sacrament of Holy Eucharist to those who are about to die. Later development in this apostolate saw that not only those who are about to die need help alone but also generally the sick. This saw the development and renaming of this sacrament to Anointing of the sick, thereby, withdrawing it from the one-ended dimension of preparation for death. Anointing of the sick thus, came to accommodate prayers and anointing of the infirm and aged, to remit sin and to make known the prayerful solicitude of the entire Church of those beset by illness or advanced age. This sacrament which generally covers the umbrella of anointing of the sick is what pastoral care of the sick attends to now.
Pastoral care thus now accommodate all kinds of care proper to the sick, since sickness is not only limited to the bedridden alone. It is therefore the obligation of pastoral care to identify all those who are infirm within the community and first by way of counseling make them see their condition not as an isolated one which is merely by a fault of theirs but also as a way of showing the healing power of God and His grace which is still active in humanity. It also now accommodates the practical challenges of love, compassion and care which were part of Jesus' approach to the sick. In pastoral care to the sick, Jesus elicited faith on the part of the infirmed and by that wrought miracle. Thus, pastoral care quarters also the task of eliciting faith and dispersing fear on the part of the sick, in this case, those with HIV/AIDS
In identifying the sick in the community, our attention should turn first to HIV/AIDS which is a ravaging pandemic and see how those who are infested either by ignorance or by a fault of theirs are made to see their condition as a call to a greater Christian maturity. The approach of pastoral care which is not an obligation for the clergy only but on all Christians within the body of Christ should not be an attitude to judge. The warning of Jesus is imperative here: “Judge not, that you may not be judged” (Mt 7:1). Judgment gives an impression of superiority to the judge. To judge those who have HIV/AIDS is to give a fancy that we are either of a better moral attitude or probably enjoy more of God's grace. To judge in this or like manner is to invariably make us vulnerable to judgment. Let us speak a little more frankly, are we immune from those unhealthy attitudes which spread the unhealthiness and increase the risks inherent in unhealthy relationships? Do you think that those Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices, or those eighteen whom the tower of Siloam fell on and slew them, were worse sinners in Jerusalem? Unless you repent you shall likewise perish (Cf. Lk13:1-5).
Pastoral care demands a response of compassion on all those who are sick. Being compassionate was an essential characteristic of Jesus' approach to the sick. Jesus in fact says: “Be compassionate as your heavenly Father is compassionate”. Being compassionate entails a respectful understanding of the situation and condition of the individual and even a patient dialogue in such a way that can awaken the inner resources for a healthy and healing relationship. Since the cause of the sickly condition may have been as a result of unhealthy relationship, there is the high propensity for the sick individual to develop a closed-up attitude to relationships and only a healthy relationship could make any medication whatsoever efficacious.
It is equally a bounden duty on pastoral care to see that people living with HIV/AIDS (PLWHA) are integrated into parish activities to give them a sense of belongingness. This is what Non Governmental Organizations (NGO) do in what they call, 'support groups'. The Church could invariably identify and make relevant the contributions of PLWHA meaningful within the community and make them know that, HIV/AIDS is not a death sentence but a call to be more vigilant with the conditions of one's health. A sense of belongingness of this sort would help redress the problem of stigmatization which is commonly associated with HIV/AIDS.
The care of the sick with HIV/AIDS should similarly provoke a more active sex education programme in parish catechetical programmes. Pastors should know that a proper understanding of sex and sexuality is not the task of parents and school teachers only but also a pastoral imperative. They should evolve programmes especially among youths that would give allowance to the reordering of the active sexual instincts and the language communicated by sex. Any encounter between people of the same or different sex is communication. The sexual encounter is language: either truthful or deceptive. In casual sexual-genital activity, the user tries to speak the language of love while lying to him or herself, and to others. He uses language of belonging and of fidelity without having any such thing in mind…. Those who have not learned to bring their sexual drives under control run the immediate danger of becoming compulsive users, consumers, in the field of sexual activity. (Bernard Haring, “A call to radical conversion” in Vicky Cosstick, (ed) AIDS, Meeting the Community Challenge, St. Paul's publication, 1987).
Pastoral care does not mean an emphasis of an AIDS ministry but a call for an organized lay ministry to the sick. In our society, once a person declares his status as HIV positive, there is often a discriminatory reaction and response to such people but if a lay ministry to the sick is in place, they can both help in the form of counseling and similarly help those who have relapsed in the faith as a result of their health conditions. This ministry should be taken with much sensitivity, compassion and maturity. The body of Christ is almost incomprehensible and new gifts and new ministries evolve with new circumstances and conditions. Once a ministry of this sort is done, there can be more healing for the body of Christ; the Church and equally too, this would help society's response to PLWHA shift from bigotry to open-mindedness, from inequality to equality, from prejudice to fairness and also from bias to compassion.
The ministry to the sick should be reevaluated in the light of failing health conditions society is suffering. The Church must continually remain a salt to the earth and a light to the world. And so, if society fails to appreciate the sick and care for them, the Church cannot and should not fail in this responsibility. This is the new imperative that HIV/AIDS open up for pastoral care to the sick. This debt is not one that pastors owe alone but by all members of the body of Christ. For the rule of judgment remains static: when I was sick did you visit and care for me…? This duty must open its frontiers not only to those within the parish but also to those in areas where HIV/AIDS is more prevalent and vulnerable: to the prisons, the hospitals and rural communities.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
BEYOND SARAH JIBRIL'S ONE VOTE - Rev. Fr. Leonard O. Anetekhai
In our country Nigeria, we have seen over the years that women have been relegated to the background in issues of overall development. The Nigerian woman has always played crucial roles in the political life of this country. To a large extent, this has helped in no small measure in shaping the political system of this nation. For anything good to happen to Nigeria and Nigerian, the women should be given great opportunity to serve, as they constitute a larger portion of the population. The women should be seen participating in decision making of this country.
Squeal to this adjoined belief by many women; we can recall the likes of some Nigerian women political activists who were strong forces to be reckon with in the politics of their various regions during the pre-independent era. The late Mrs. Fumilayo Ransom Kuti made a mark in the politics of the western region. In the Babandiga era, we saw a turning point in the history of women struggle in Nigeria, when Maryam Babangida institutionalized the office of the first lady in 1987 and launched the “Better Life for Rural Women programme.
Other women who have made impact in our country's political scene include, Mrs. Ngozi Okonjo Iweala former Minister of Finance, who saved the nation records of billions of Naira as a result of her hard working nature as a public officer. Mrs. Obi Ezekwesili also laid a landmark in the history of Nigerian politics. The iron lady, Prof. Dora Akunyili, who was one time NAFDAC boss can also be given credit for her effort to fight against adulterated pharmaceutical drugs. These names can never be forgotten in the annals of Nigerian history. There are myriads of women in politics even presently that have done well and are still performing excellently well, and this calls for support from all women.
The belief that women have some potentials and rights to contribute meaningfully to the development of their country cannot be ruled out. It is my earnest expectation that Nigeria should work towards achieving gender equality in democratic governance, increasing women participation and access to politics. But my fear is, will they work as a team. Let me clear the air, If this write-up suggests that I am a feminist in any way, sorry, I am not and I do not intend to be one, I just feel that women should be given their right place in our society, if they so deserve it. Beyond Sarah Jibril's one vote is something that should extract tears from the eyes of every Nigerian woman, because this embarrassment, I call it, the ONE VOTE is coming at a time Nigerian women are fighting for recognition at all levels of governance and yet they cannot stand for their own belief.
Many have applauded and given their total support for the initiative of the first lady in the sense that her pet project is aimed at advancing strategies for gender equality, equity and promotion of affirmative action, principles and mechanism for effective resource management and accountability. It is also to develop a mechanism which could enhance the legislative process in Nigeria including domesticating international instruments to which Nigeria is a signatory. If this is the belief, where the ideals asleep on the night of the People Democratic Party (PDP) presidential primaries? The women in attendance, the wife of the President, the wife of the vice president, the wives of PDP governors and the state women leaders, where they asleep that Sarah had to earn just one vote? Certainly not, so why was Sarah Jibril left alone?
It has been on the lips of these women that over the years they have been grossly marginalized in the power sharing arrangement, and worststill, relegated to the background in political issues. I guess they were truly asleep because of the too much running around within and outside the country, using money from the federal treasury to make buba and wrapper of different styles and colours, all in the name of empowering women to be given their right in the scheme of things.
Whether it is carrying a political under tone or not, the one woman, one vote which is the simpliest expression for Sarah Jibrils's effort is a “SHAME TO WOMEN”. Please ma, do not be dispirited. I praise your courage and boldness; at least you have proved to Nigerians that if given the opportunity, you will do well. Whatever her intentions to run for the presidency may be, it is obvious that Mrs. Jibril did make a statement, and has got to a level where many, especially men, dare to venture.
For those who believe with me, I feel that each of those women present at the primaries should be given lashes for disgracing womanhood. It is obvious that Sarah Jibril was the only one who voted for herself. Where is the women solidarity that Patience Godluck is preaching about? How can there be a 30% representation of women in our political affairs as a nation when there is no solidarity?
Sarah Jibril is not a neophyte in this business called politics; she has played her part and played it well. This is the fifth attempt she has made to run for the presidency. To cast our minds back, she fought for this ticket under the Social Democratic Party (SDP) in 1992. In 1998, she had General Olusegun Obasanjo to contend with under the People Democratic Party (PDP). In 2003, she moved to the Progressive Action Congress (PAC) to search for a Greenfield, but returned after losing out to People Democratic Party (PDP) in 2007, where she scored four votes at the convention which the late Umaru Yar'Adua won. In all these attempt she failed as well as the recent PDP convention, which gave Goodluck Jonathan the mandate to run as its flag bearer.
Despite her shortcoming, I praise her bravery; she is not discouraged by the intimidating spirit of our male politicians, and thus should be seen as a stepping stone for all women who sincerely and truly fights for greatness and the common good of Nigerians. It is time for women themselves to take charge of their affairs and become the defenders and promoters of their own cause, and not allow petty jealousies and tightfistedness to destroy their future and those yet unborn.
Squeal to this adjoined belief by many women; we can recall the likes of some Nigerian women political activists who were strong forces to be reckon with in the politics of their various regions during the pre-independent era. The late Mrs. Fumilayo Ransom Kuti made a mark in the politics of the western region. In the Babandiga era, we saw a turning point in the history of women struggle in Nigeria, when Maryam Babangida institutionalized the office of the first lady in 1987 and launched the “Better Life for Rural Women programme.
Other women who have made impact in our country's political scene include, Mrs. Ngozi Okonjo Iweala former Minister of Finance, who saved the nation records of billions of Naira as a result of her hard working nature as a public officer. Mrs. Obi Ezekwesili also laid a landmark in the history of Nigerian politics. The iron lady, Prof. Dora Akunyili, who was one time NAFDAC boss can also be given credit for her effort to fight against adulterated pharmaceutical drugs. These names can never be forgotten in the annals of Nigerian history. There are myriads of women in politics even presently that have done well and are still performing excellently well, and this calls for support from all women.
The belief that women have some potentials and rights to contribute meaningfully to the development of their country cannot be ruled out. It is my earnest expectation that Nigeria should work towards achieving gender equality in democratic governance, increasing women participation and access to politics. But my fear is, will they work as a team. Let me clear the air, If this write-up suggests that I am a feminist in any way, sorry, I am not and I do not intend to be one, I just feel that women should be given their right place in our society, if they so deserve it. Beyond Sarah Jibril's one vote is something that should extract tears from the eyes of every Nigerian woman, because this embarrassment, I call it, the ONE VOTE is coming at a time Nigerian women are fighting for recognition at all levels of governance and yet they cannot stand for their own belief.
Many have applauded and given their total support for the initiative of the first lady in the sense that her pet project is aimed at advancing strategies for gender equality, equity and promotion of affirmative action, principles and mechanism for effective resource management and accountability. It is also to develop a mechanism which could enhance the legislative process in Nigeria including domesticating international instruments to which Nigeria is a signatory. If this is the belief, where the ideals asleep on the night of the People Democratic Party (PDP) presidential primaries? The women in attendance, the wife of the President, the wife of the vice president, the wives of PDP governors and the state women leaders, where they asleep that Sarah had to earn just one vote? Certainly not, so why was Sarah Jibril left alone?
It has been on the lips of these women that over the years they have been grossly marginalized in the power sharing arrangement, and worststill, relegated to the background in political issues. I guess they were truly asleep because of the too much running around within and outside the country, using money from the federal treasury to make buba and wrapper of different styles and colours, all in the name of empowering women to be given their right in the scheme of things.
Whether it is carrying a political under tone or not, the one woman, one vote which is the simpliest expression for Sarah Jibrils's effort is a “SHAME TO WOMEN”. Please ma, do not be dispirited. I praise your courage and boldness; at least you have proved to Nigerians that if given the opportunity, you will do well. Whatever her intentions to run for the presidency may be, it is obvious that Mrs. Jibril did make a statement, and has got to a level where many, especially men, dare to venture.
For those who believe with me, I feel that each of those women present at the primaries should be given lashes for disgracing womanhood. It is obvious that Sarah Jibril was the only one who voted for herself. Where is the women solidarity that Patience Godluck is preaching about? How can there be a 30% representation of women in our political affairs as a nation when there is no solidarity?
Sarah Jibril is not a neophyte in this business called politics; she has played her part and played it well. This is the fifth attempt she has made to run for the presidency. To cast our minds back, she fought for this ticket under the Social Democratic Party (SDP) in 1992. In 1998, she had General Olusegun Obasanjo to contend with under the People Democratic Party (PDP). In 2003, she moved to the Progressive Action Congress (PAC) to search for a Greenfield, but returned after losing out to People Democratic Party (PDP) in 2007, where she scored four votes at the convention which the late Umaru Yar'Adua won. In all these attempt she failed as well as the recent PDP convention, which gave Goodluck Jonathan the mandate to run as its flag bearer.
Despite her shortcoming, I praise her bravery; she is not discouraged by the intimidating spirit of our male politicians, and thus should be seen as a stepping stone for all women who sincerely and truly fights for greatness and the common good of Nigerians. It is time for women themselves to take charge of their affairs and become the defenders and promoters of their own cause, and not allow petty jealousies and tightfistedness to destroy their future and those yet unborn.
HOW MANY BOOKS ARE IN THE BIBLE 66 OR 73? - Rev. Fr. Stan-William Ede
The Holy Bible is a collection of Sacred Books, which were composed under the positive influence of the Holy Spirit by men chosen by God, and which have been accepted by the Church as inspired. As many authors and scripture scholars have rightly noted, the Bible is the most authorized, most admirable, and the most important book in the world, because it is the word of God in human language. The Bible is incomparable as far as all other “sacred” literature is concerned because (i.) It is the unique revelation of God; (ii.) It is inspired by God in a unique way (2 Tim. 3:16); (iii.) It discloses God's saving plan for time and eternity; and (iv.) It centres on God Incarnate in Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the world.
The word, “Bible” comes from the Greek word, Biblia, which means “Books”. The Bible is composed of many books and is rightly described as “a library of books”. It is like some of the public libraries that we know. It contains many different books and these books were not all written on the same day, they were not all written by the same person or group of people. They have different themes but all are centered on God and His revealed truths.
Invoking the authority bestowed on her by Christ (cf. Matt. 16:18-19), the Church brought the different sacred and inspired books together into one volume, presented as a beautiful book, and then he term “Biblia” (Books) was applied in reference to all of them as being together-in-one. In the 5th-Century, St. Jerome called these collections the “Divine Library”, and by the 13th Century, “the books” became “the Book” (Biblios) to stress the unity of all the books contained therein as the one and infallible word of God.
All the books in the Bible speak in their own way of the covenant or promise between God and the first people of Israel, and then between God and all of humanity. Thus the Bible is a written record of communication over many generations between God and his people. It is a collection of works that has had a profound influence on people over the past two millennia and which is also profoundly impactful today in the lives of men and in the society at large, for the Word of God is always alive and active (Heb. 4:12).
The Biblical authors, guided by the Holy Spirit, wrote down the unique experience of the early Israelites in their relationship with God. These events were narrated in the form of history, but were not the same as the other histories that we know. History in particular is recorded in the Bible in such a way as to make the action of God on behalf of his people clear. The same came be said of the Psalms, the prophetic books, the wisdom literatures, the gospels, the letters and the visions. The inspired authors aimed to tell us not just what happened, but its religious significance and how God was involved. We say “inspired authors” because the Holy Spirit guided these authors in writing what they believed and understood about God, man and the universe.
These various books were gradually gathered by the Jews. They put them together into one book which they used for their worship of God. That book is what we today know as the “OLD TESTAMENT”. It was the “Holy Book” that Jesus and his followers read and listened to in the synagogues and temple.
The followers of Jesus Christ were also inspired to write brief narratives on the very special events in the life of Christ and the early Church. Some of them wrote inspired letters to some Christian communities and certain individuals. These writings about Jesus and the early Church were also gathered together and called the “NEW TESTAMENT”. The Old and New Testaments were brought together, and the result is “THE BIBLE”.
The Bible is the greatest best-selling book ever. But in fact, there are two variants. The Catholic Bible has 73 books, and the other has 66 books. How come? The Old Testament of the Catholic Bible has 46 books, and is referred to as the Greek Version, while Old Testament of the other variant has 39 books, and is regarded as the Hebrew Version. For both variants, the New Testament has the same 27 books, and so there is no problem with the New Testament Books.
Now, we have these two different Bibles, where then does this difference come from? Veritably speaking, this can be traced back to the historical situation in which the Jews found themselves long before the birth of Christ. Already in the history of Israel, as in the history of the Church, the Word of God played such an important role that it conditioned, so to say, the vey existence of the people of Israel and guided their practices. Around the year 587 B.C., during those years of conquest and defeat along with empire building and expansion, the Jewish people were defeated by the Babylonians and were sent into exile. Many of these Jews never returned to their country after the exile. They kept their religion but absorbed a lot of the culture, language, etc., of the native inhabitants. These Jews were called the Jews of the Diaspora.
Over the next few centuries, the powerful or dominant culture was “Hellenism” (the culture modus vivendi of the Greek Empire). Even the governments and people of the Roman Empire absorbed many Hellenist tenets into their Roman life and culture. During and after the exile experience of the Jews, some more inspired books had been written which included aspects of their experience with the Greek world and other significant exhortations that address the being and experience of all humankind, not only the Jews.
About 200 years before the birth of Christ, this Old Testament collection that was all-inclusive was translated by the Jews of the Diaspora into the Greek language, and it had 46 books altogether. This was the Book used by Jesus and his followers. This is every easily comprehensible because Jesus' mission embraces the whole human race, and this collection, like I implied earlier, included some far-reaching experiences that were graspable also to non-Jews, thus the whole world.
The Jews back at home at that stage could not agree as to which should be the accepted 'Holy Book'. Should it be the Hebrew Version with its 39 books or the more recent Greek Version with its 46 books? They shuffled between both until during the Christian era in the mid 1st-Century AD, when they settled for the shorter version, the Hebrew edition with the 39 books. By this time, the Apostles and early Christians along with many other Jews, following the footsteps of Jesus Christ himself, had for many years, been using the Greek Version with the 46 books.
Around the year 382 AD, the Church decided to bind together the books that would make up the accepted Bible. Still following the line of Jesus and the tradition of the early Church, she chose the longer variant, the Greek Version with its 46 books for the Old Testament, and the normal 27 for the New Testament, bringing the total number of books in the Bible to 73. At that time, there was only one Church, the Catholic Church, founded by Jesus Christ himself, with a mission to make disciples of all nations (Matt. 28:16-20) and built upon the Rock, Peter and the other Apostles (cf. Matt. 16:18-19; Jn. 21:15-17).
Many Centuries later, more than one thousand five hundred (1500) years after only the Catholic Church existed and thrived fulfilling the will of God and mission of Christ, Martin Luther who was a priest of the Church had trouble with the Church. He protested against many of the doctrines of the Church and Divine Truths. In 1521, supported by some political super powers, the Princes of Germany, Martin Luther finally left the Catholic Church and founded his own Church. To break completely from Catholic traditions and practices, he refused using the Greek Version of the Old Testament. Instead, he chose the Hebrew Version with its 39 books, and then he added the 27 books of the New Testament to make 66. He translated this shorter Hebrew Version into German and other languages, and many other Protestants who broke out from his Lutheran group and from the Anglican division joined Martin Luther in using the Bible with the 66 books.
It is important to know that Martin Luther had his reasons. First, it was a popular way for him to fight against the Church. Secondly, he was totally against the teaching on Purgatory which is expressed in 2 Maccabees 12:42-44, where it is recommended that we should pray and offer sacrifices for the dead. Belief in the existence of Purgatory was against his own beliefs, so he had to remove the book that most explicitly articulates this belief, and in the process, he also discarded what he called the 'extra' books.
For the simple reason that many non-Catholic churches followed the steps of Martin Luther, we have two main versions of the Bible today. Catholics pray, write, quote and study from the Greek version with 73 books (46 in the O.T. and 27 in the N.T), which Jesus himself, the apostles and the early Christians used; whereas most non-Catholics use the Hebrew version which has 66 books (39 in the O.T. and 27 in the N.T.).
To know which one you have, explore the list of contents and look out for the following 7 books which make the difference therein, and which are contained in the Catholic Versions: Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, 1st Maccabees, and 2nd Maccabees. These books are classified in the Catholic Bible as the “Deuterocanonical Books” by way of distinguishing them from the others called the “Protocanonical Books”. When you have the Deuterocanonical Books along with all the others, you have the complete Bible and you join with the apostles, the early Christians and all true Christians throughout the ages, to sit around the one Table of the Word, gathered around Christ and receiving the good tidings of life and salvation.
Today, however, many of the Protestant Churches recognize the value of the Deuterocanonical Books, and they have started to include these books in their translations. These books are often included in the Protestants translations as the “Apocrypha”. Today, also, many non-Catholic Christians make use of myriads of quotations from these same Deuterocanonical Books as much as it suits them and in great measures to accentuate their themes.
As Christians, we must develop tremendous enthusiasm for, and, interest in, the reading and study of the Bible, and we must do it to the fullest by having and using the complete Bible. In our reading of the inspired word of God, the Bible, we allow God to inspire us in our daily lives, both as individuals and as a Church.
Finally, let us be exhorted with the very words of one of the great Biblical Authors, Timothy who wrote two of the Books of the Bible, precisely letters in the New Testament: “But you, remain faithful to what you have learned and believed, because you know from whom you have learned it., and that from infancy you have known the Sacred Scriptures which are capable of giving you wisdom for salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation of errors, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that everyone who belongs to God may be competent and equipped for every good work (2 Tim. 3:14-16).
The word, “Bible” comes from the Greek word, Biblia, which means “Books”. The Bible is composed of many books and is rightly described as “a library of books”. It is like some of the public libraries that we know. It contains many different books and these books were not all written on the same day, they were not all written by the same person or group of people. They have different themes but all are centered on God and His revealed truths.
Invoking the authority bestowed on her by Christ (cf. Matt. 16:18-19), the Church brought the different sacred and inspired books together into one volume, presented as a beautiful book, and then he term “Biblia” (Books) was applied in reference to all of them as being together-in-one. In the 5th-Century, St. Jerome called these collections the “Divine Library”, and by the 13th Century, “the books” became “the Book” (Biblios) to stress the unity of all the books contained therein as the one and infallible word of God.
All the books in the Bible speak in their own way of the covenant or promise between God and the first people of Israel, and then between God and all of humanity. Thus the Bible is a written record of communication over many generations between God and his people. It is a collection of works that has had a profound influence on people over the past two millennia and which is also profoundly impactful today in the lives of men and in the society at large, for the Word of God is always alive and active (Heb. 4:12).
The Biblical authors, guided by the Holy Spirit, wrote down the unique experience of the early Israelites in their relationship with God. These events were narrated in the form of history, but were not the same as the other histories that we know. History in particular is recorded in the Bible in such a way as to make the action of God on behalf of his people clear. The same came be said of the Psalms, the prophetic books, the wisdom literatures, the gospels, the letters and the visions. The inspired authors aimed to tell us not just what happened, but its religious significance and how God was involved. We say “inspired authors” because the Holy Spirit guided these authors in writing what they believed and understood about God, man and the universe.
These various books were gradually gathered by the Jews. They put them together into one book which they used for their worship of God. That book is what we today know as the “OLD TESTAMENT”. It was the “Holy Book” that Jesus and his followers read and listened to in the synagogues and temple.
The followers of Jesus Christ were also inspired to write brief narratives on the very special events in the life of Christ and the early Church. Some of them wrote inspired letters to some Christian communities and certain individuals. These writings about Jesus and the early Church were also gathered together and called the “NEW TESTAMENT”. The Old and New Testaments were brought together, and the result is “THE BIBLE”.
The Bible is the greatest best-selling book ever. But in fact, there are two variants. The Catholic Bible has 73 books, and the other has 66 books. How come? The Old Testament of the Catholic Bible has 46 books, and is referred to as the Greek Version, while Old Testament of the other variant has 39 books, and is regarded as the Hebrew Version. For both variants, the New Testament has the same 27 books, and so there is no problem with the New Testament Books.
Now, we have these two different Bibles, where then does this difference come from? Veritably speaking, this can be traced back to the historical situation in which the Jews found themselves long before the birth of Christ. Already in the history of Israel, as in the history of the Church, the Word of God played such an important role that it conditioned, so to say, the vey existence of the people of Israel and guided their practices. Around the year 587 B.C., during those years of conquest and defeat along with empire building and expansion, the Jewish people were defeated by the Babylonians and were sent into exile. Many of these Jews never returned to their country after the exile. They kept their religion but absorbed a lot of the culture, language, etc., of the native inhabitants. These Jews were called the Jews of the Diaspora.
Over the next few centuries, the powerful or dominant culture was “Hellenism” (the culture modus vivendi of the Greek Empire). Even the governments and people of the Roman Empire absorbed many Hellenist tenets into their Roman life and culture. During and after the exile experience of the Jews, some more inspired books had been written which included aspects of their experience with the Greek world and other significant exhortations that address the being and experience of all humankind, not only the Jews.
About 200 years before the birth of Christ, this Old Testament collection that was all-inclusive was translated by the Jews of the Diaspora into the Greek language, and it had 46 books altogether. This was the Book used by Jesus and his followers. This is every easily comprehensible because Jesus' mission embraces the whole human race, and this collection, like I implied earlier, included some far-reaching experiences that were graspable also to non-Jews, thus the whole world.
The Jews back at home at that stage could not agree as to which should be the accepted 'Holy Book'. Should it be the Hebrew Version with its 39 books or the more recent Greek Version with its 46 books? They shuffled between both until during the Christian era in the mid 1st-Century AD, when they settled for the shorter version, the Hebrew edition with the 39 books. By this time, the Apostles and early Christians along with many other Jews, following the footsteps of Jesus Christ himself, had for many years, been using the Greek Version with the 46 books.
Around the year 382 AD, the Church decided to bind together the books that would make up the accepted Bible. Still following the line of Jesus and the tradition of the early Church, she chose the longer variant, the Greek Version with its 46 books for the Old Testament, and the normal 27 for the New Testament, bringing the total number of books in the Bible to 73. At that time, there was only one Church, the Catholic Church, founded by Jesus Christ himself, with a mission to make disciples of all nations (Matt. 28:16-20) and built upon the Rock, Peter and the other Apostles (cf. Matt. 16:18-19; Jn. 21:15-17).
Many Centuries later, more than one thousand five hundred (1500) years after only the Catholic Church existed and thrived fulfilling the will of God and mission of Christ, Martin Luther who was a priest of the Church had trouble with the Church. He protested against many of the doctrines of the Church and Divine Truths. In 1521, supported by some political super powers, the Princes of Germany, Martin Luther finally left the Catholic Church and founded his own Church. To break completely from Catholic traditions and practices, he refused using the Greek Version of the Old Testament. Instead, he chose the Hebrew Version with its 39 books, and then he added the 27 books of the New Testament to make 66. He translated this shorter Hebrew Version into German and other languages, and many other Protestants who broke out from his Lutheran group and from the Anglican division joined Martin Luther in using the Bible with the 66 books.
It is important to know that Martin Luther had his reasons. First, it was a popular way for him to fight against the Church. Secondly, he was totally against the teaching on Purgatory which is expressed in 2 Maccabees 12:42-44, where it is recommended that we should pray and offer sacrifices for the dead. Belief in the existence of Purgatory was against his own beliefs, so he had to remove the book that most explicitly articulates this belief, and in the process, he also discarded what he called the 'extra' books.
For the simple reason that many non-Catholic churches followed the steps of Martin Luther, we have two main versions of the Bible today. Catholics pray, write, quote and study from the Greek version with 73 books (46 in the O.T. and 27 in the N.T), which Jesus himself, the apostles and the early Christians used; whereas most non-Catholics use the Hebrew version which has 66 books (39 in the O.T. and 27 in the N.T.).
To know which one you have, explore the list of contents and look out for the following 7 books which make the difference therein, and which are contained in the Catholic Versions: Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, 1st Maccabees, and 2nd Maccabees. These books are classified in the Catholic Bible as the “Deuterocanonical Books” by way of distinguishing them from the others called the “Protocanonical Books”. When you have the Deuterocanonical Books along with all the others, you have the complete Bible and you join with the apostles, the early Christians and all true Christians throughout the ages, to sit around the one Table of the Word, gathered around Christ and receiving the good tidings of life and salvation.
Today, however, many of the Protestant Churches recognize the value of the Deuterocanonical Books, and they have started to include these books in their translations. These books are often included in the Protestants translations as the “Apocrypha”. Today, also, many non-Catholic Christians make use of myriads of quotations from these same Deuterocanonical Books as much as it suits them and in great measures to accentuate their themes.
As Christians, we must develop tremendous enthusiasm for, and, interest in, the reading and study of the Bible, and we must do it to the fullest by having and using the complete Bible. In our reading of the inspired word of God, the Bible, we allow God to inspire us in our daily lives, both as individuals and as a Church.
Finally, let us be exhorted with the very words of one of the great Biblical Authors, Timothy who wrote two of the Books of the Bible, precisely letters in the New Testament: “But you, remain faithful to what you have learned and believed, because you know from whom you have learned it., and that from infancy you have known the Sacred Scriptures which are capable of giving you wisdom for salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation of errors, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that everyone who belongs to God may be competent and equipped for every good work (2 Tim. 3:14-16).
THE ROLE OF CARDINALS IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH - Prof. Michael Ogunu
The word “Cardinal” comes from the Latin word “Cardo” which means a hinge. Originally the term cardinal was used to designate a priest who held a fixed and permanent appointment to a church in Rome. He was a 'hinge' in the sense that, like a hinge that links a door to the doorpost, he became a link between the Church and the people.
In the 4th century, priests permanently appointed to 28 Roman parish churches were called 'Cardinal Priests'. They were to function also as counsellors to the Pope and assist him in the administration of the Church. They were all priests, not bishops. Subsequently, the deacons of the 14 regions into which Rome was divided who had charge of works of charity, like the original deacons (Acts 6:1-6) were also given the title of cardinal. They were 'Cardinal Deacons'. Today Cardinal Deacons are titular bishops assigned to full-time service in the Roman Curia. After being a Cardinal Deacon for ten years, a Cardinal may transfer to the Order of Cardinal Priests. The first Cardinal Deacon announces the name of the newly elected Pontiff. In the past, laymen too were appointed as Cardinals. The last layman to be a Cardinal was Giacomo Antolenni (1806-1876) who served as Papal Secretary of State under Pope Pius IX (1846-1878).
It was much later after the appointment of deacons as Cardinals that Bishops came to be called Cardinals. The Bishops of six dioceses in the suburban districts of Rome (suburbicarian bishops) became associated with the Pope in church government, thus becoming the first Cardinal Bishops. The present law of the Church states: “Those to be promoted Cardinals are men freely elected by the Roman Pontiff, who are at least in the order of priesthood...; those who are not already bishops must receive Episcopal consecration” (Can. 351, Sec. 1).
At present the College of Cardinals is divided into three orders: Cardinal Bishops, Cardinal Priests and Cardinal Deacons. Cardinal bishops include the titular bishops of the suburbicarian Sees of Rome (Ostia Palestrina, Porto and Santa Rufma, Albano, Velletri-Segni, Frascati, Sabina-Poggio Mireteto) and the Eastern Patriarchs. “This grading”, says Fr. Don Peter, former Vicar General of the Archdiocese of Colombo, “is representative of the ancient presbyterium of the Church in Rome”. Today when a Cardinal is appointed, the Pope assigns to him the title of a Church in Rome according to grade.
In the 12th century, the number of Cardinal Deacons was raised from 14 to 18, so that with the 6 Cardinal Bishops and the 28 Cardinal Priests, the number of Cardinals was 52. In the sixteenth century Pope Leo X (1513-1521) raised the number to 65. Towards the end of the same century,Pope Sixtus V (1585 - 1590), by the Constitution Postquam Verus of 1586 set the maximum number of Cardinals at 70 (6 Cardinal Bishops, 50 Cardinal Priests and 14 Cardinal Deacons). This figure remained unchanged for nearly four centuries until in our time Pope John XXIIIraised it to 75 and later increased it still further. His successor, Paul VI increased the number to 120. The maximum number of cardinal electors must not exceed 120. However, Pope John Paul II temporarily waived the papal elector limit of 120 cardinals to meet the needs of the papacy and the Universal Church today.
The duties and functions of Cardinals are summed up in Canon 349 of the 1983 Code of Cannon Law: “The Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church constitute a special college, whose prerogative it is to elect the Roman Pontiff in accordance with the terms of a. special law”. The right to elect the Roman Pontiff belongs solely to the Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church with the exception of those who, at the time of entrance into the conclave, have already completed their eightieth year of age. After a Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church has been created and announced in a consistory, he, by that very fact, immediately has the right to elect the Pontiff, even though the biretta has not yet been imposed on him. However, Cardinals who have been canonically deposed or who, with the consent of the Roman Pontiff, have renounced the cardinalitial dignity, do not possess this right. Furthermore, the Sacred College of Cardinals may not, during the vacancy of the Holy See, reinstate or rehabilitate them. The Constitution Ubi Periculum was confirmed by the decree Ne Romani of the Council of Vienne in 1311; it forbade the Cardinals, while the Holy See is vacant, from dealing with any matter other than the election of the pope. The Cardinals are also available to the Roman Pontiff, either acting collegially, when they are summoned together to deal with questions of major importance, or acting individually, that is, in the offices which they hold in assisting the Roman Pontiff especially in the daily care of the universal Church. Cardinals provide their advice to the Pope collegially in consistories (C. 353) and collectively in general meetings of the Cardinals. They also head various offices of the Roman Curia or serve on the various congregations of the Curia even if their full-time responsibility is to pastor a particular church elsewhere in the world.
The title Eminentissimus, 'Your Eminence', was one of the titles, of the Byzantine emperor and thence passed to the Holy Roman Emperor, from which it afterward passed to leaders in his court. Apparently at Richelieu's suggestion, URBAN VIII on June 10, 1630 restricted it to cardinals, who until then were usually entitled 'most illustrious' and 'most revered', to the three ecclesiastical electors of the Holy Roman Empire, and to the Grand Master of the Knights of Malta, who bear the title to this day, the only laymen so honoured. Since the time of BONIFACE VII (1294-1303), Cardinals have worn scarlet robes. The red hat dates back to the time of INNOCENT IV (1243-1254); in November 1246, while meeting with the King of France at cluny, INNOCENT IV conferred the red hat on his Cardinals. In 1464, PAUL II (1464-1471) decided that Cardinals should wear red skull caps during sacred ceremonies to distinguish them from other prelates. Cardinals have the faculty to hear confessions everywhere in the world without restriction and are exempt from the jurisdiction of local bishops.
In the 4th century, priests permanently appointed to 28 Roman parish churches were called 'Cardinal Priests'. They were to function also as counsellors to the Pope and assist him in the administration of the Church. They were all priests, not bishops. Subsequently, the deacons of the 14 regions into which Rome was divided who had charge of works of charity, like the original deacons (Acts 6:1-6) were also given the title of cardinal. They were 'Cardinal Deacons'. Today Cardinal Deacons are titular bishops assigned to full-time service in the Roman Curia. After being a Cardinal Deacon for ten years, a Cardinal may transfer to the Order of Cardinal Priests. The first Cardinal Deacon announces the name of the newly elected Pontiff. In the past, laymen too were appointed as Cardinals. The last layman to be a Cardinal was Giacomo Antolenni (1806-1876) who served as Papal Secretary of State under Pope Pius IX (1846-1878).
It was much later after the appointment of deacons as Cardinals that Bishops came to be called Cardinals. The Bishops of six dioceses in the suburban districts of Rome (suburbicarian bishops) became associated with the Pope in church government, thus becoming the first Cardinal Bishops. The present law of the Church states: “Those to be promoted Cardinals are men freely elected by the Roman Pontiff, who are at least in the order of priesthood...; those who are not already bishops must receive Episcopal consecration” (Can. 351, Sec. 1).
At present the College of Cardinals is divided into three orders: Cardinal Bishops, Cardinal Priests and Cardinal Deacons. Cardinal bishops include the titular bishops of the suburbicarian Sees of Rome (Ostia Palestrina, Porto and Santa Rufma, Albano, Velletri-Segni, Frascati, Sabina-Poggio Mireteto) and the Eastern Patriarchs. “This grading”, says Fr. Don Peter, former Vicar General of the Archdiocese of Colombo, “is representative of the ancient presbyterium of the Church in Rome”. Today when a Cardinal is appointed, the Pope assigns to him the title of a Church in Rome according to grade.
In the 12th century, the number of Cardinal Deacons was raised from 14 to 18, so that with the 6 Cardinal Bishops and the 28 Cardinal Priests, the number of Cardinals was 52. In the sixteenth century Pope Leo X (1513-1521) raised the number to 65. Towards the end of the same century,Pope Sixtus V (1585 - 1590), by the Constitution Postquam Verus of 1586 set the maximum number of Cardinals at 70 (6 Cardinal Bishops, 50 Cardinal Priests and 14 Cardinal Deacons). This figure remained unchanged for nearly four centuries until in our time Pope John XXIIIraised it to 75 and later increased it still further. His successor, Paul VI increased the number to 120. The maximum number of cardinal electors must not exceed 120. However, Pope John Paul II temporarily waived the papal elector limit of 120 cardinals to meet the needs of the papacy and the Universal Church today.
The duties and functions of Cardinals are summed up in Canon 349 of the 1983 Code of Cannon Law: “The Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church constitute a special college, whose prerogative it is to elect the Roman Pontiff in accordance with the terms of a. special law”. The right to elect the Roman Pontiff belongs solely to the Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church with the exception of those who, at the time of entrance into the conclave, have already completed their eightieth year of age. After a Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church has been created and announced in a consistory, he, by that very fact, immediately has the right to elect the Pontiff, even though the biretta has not yet been imposed on him. However, Cardinals who have been canonically deposed or who, with the consent of the Roman Pontiff, have renounced the cardinalitial dignity, do not possess this right. Furthermore, the Sacred College of Cardinals may not, during the vacancy of the Holy See, reinstate or rehabilitate them. The Constitution Ubi Periculum was confirmed by the decree Ne Romani of the Council of Vienne in 1311; it forbade the Cardinals, while the Holy See is vacant, from dealing with any matter other than the election of the pope. The Cardinals are also available to the Roman Pontiff, either acting collegially, when they are summoned together to deal with questions of major importance, or acting individually, that is, in the offices which they hold in assisting the Roman Pontiff especially in the daily care of the universal Church. Cardinals provide their advice to the Pope collegially in consistories (C. 353) and collectively in general meetings of the Cardinals. They also head various offices of the Roman Curia or serve on the various congregations of the Curia even if their full-time responsibility is to pastor a particular church elsewhere in the world.
The title Eminentissimus, 'Your Eminence', was one of the titles, of the Byzantine emperor and thence passed to the Holy Roman Emperor, from which it afterward passed to leaders in his court. Apparently at Richelieu's suggestion, URBAN VIII on June 10, 1630 restricted it to cardinals, who until then were usually entitled 'most illustrious' and 'most revered', to the three ecclesiastical electors of the Holy Roman Empire, and to the Grand Master of the Knights of Malta, who bear the title to this day, the only laymen so honoured. Since the time of BONIFACE VII (1294-1303), Cardinals have worn scarlet robes. The red hat dates back to the time of INNOCENT IV (1243-1254); in November 1246, while meeting with the King of France at cluny, INNOCENT IV conferred the red hat on his Cardinals. In 1464, PAUL II (1464-1471) decided that Cardinals should wear red skull caps during sacred ceremonies to distinguish them from other prelates. Cardinals have the faculty to hear confessions everywhere in the world without restriction and are exempt from the jurisdiction of local bishops.
CHRISTIAN HOMES AS THE CRADLE OF EVANGELIZATION - Rev. Fr. Leonard Anetekhai
A home is the “Social unit formed by a family living together”. Though deeper in essence than this definition, there is a fundamental truth about the home. It takes two or more to make a home, i.e. a man and a woman living together in mutual and sacramental relationship. Hence, scriptures put it that “therefore, a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife and they become one flesh” (cf. Matt. 19:5) with this a home is established. The two moving from man and woman merge in sacramental union to be husband and wife. Hence, they form a home.
However, the home is the source or fountain of warm love wherefrom life emerges and cradles it through its vulnerable years, nurturing it for the world. The aftermath of the union of this warm love result in the generation of offspring according to God's mind as found in the creation story. Children born to the home are a gift of God and they must be guided to know and serve God in truth, for the scriptures says, 'teach a child the way of the Lord and when he matures he will not depart from it.' [cf. Sir 30:1]
The home is the cradle of life. It is in the home that family life begins, is nurtured and sustained. As such, the home is the cradle of existence.
Love as a necessary element of existence radiates from the home. This gives every member of the family the sense of responsibility for growth in themselves, the Church and humanity. However, a Christian home brings together a group of people called together by God to care for one another, share common values and to be committed to a life style that respects everyone and the tenets of the faith. A Christian home experiences Christ's presence, to strengthen and encourage others in carrying out Christ mission of implanting this word.
To do this effectively, every home needs that spiritual weapon called PRAYERS, for a family that prays together co-exists together. With prayers, the mission and task of every Christian home, evangelization of souls, is well nurtured and prepared for God's kingdom.
However, the home is the source or fountain of warm love wherefrom life emerges and cradles it through its vulnerable years, nurturing it for the world. The aftermath of the union of this warm love result in the generation of offspring according to God's mind as found in the creation story. Children born to the home are a gift of God and they must be guided to know and serve God in truth, for the scriptures says, 'teach a child the way of the Lord and when he matures he will not depart from it.' [cf. Sir 30:1]
The home is the cradle of life. It is in the home that family life begins, is nurtured and sustained. As such, the home is the cradle of existence.
Love as a necessary element of existence radiates from the home. This gives every member of the family the sense of responsibility for growth in themselves, the Church and humanity. However, a Christian home brings together a group of people called together by God to care for one another, share common values and to be committed to a life style that respects everyone and the tenets of the faith. A Christian home experiences Christ's presence, to strengthen and encourage others in carrying out Christ mission of implanting this word.
To do this effectively, every home needs that spiritual weapon called PRAYERS, for a family that prays together co-exists together. With prayers, the mission and task of every Christian home, evangelization of souls, is well nurtured and prepared for God's kingdom.
I SURRENDER ALL - Most Rev. (Dr.) Gabriel G. Dunia
The entire meaning of the life of a Catholic priest is summarized by the hymn number two hundred and seventy-six (276) of the Catholic Hymn Book: All to Jesus I Surrender All to him I freely give I will ever love and trust Him in his presence daily live.
All to Jesus I Surrender humbly at His feet I bow worldly pleasure all forsaken Take me, Jesus take me now.
All to Jesus I Surrender Lord, I give myself to thee fill me with Thy Love and power Let Thy blessing fall on me.
That is exactly what it means to be a Catholic priest. This, the Catholic Priest is constituted, as it were, to give his life most unreservedly to God as he serves his creator in humanity. The Catholic priest is called, chosen and commissioned to give the totality of his life to God in the services, which he renders to God in both friends and foes without distinction. Now, it is human to embark in any business venture with great expectation to receiving some reward or gain. Yet, the Catholic priest who is human is said to have surrendered all, including the expected gain. The questions now are: what will his gain be? And will the gain come? And where will the gain be? In surrendering all to Jesus, the priest receives in return a complete perfect life in Jesus where he will lack nothing again. For, Jesus himself has said: “I am the Vine, you are the branches. He who abides in me, and I in him, he, it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing” (John 15:5). Simply put therefore the gain of the priest who surrenders all is the BEARING OF FRUIT IN ABUNDANCE on which he, the priest and others are to be fed unto everlasting life. This is to happen in Jesus Christ when the surrendering all to Jesus is total and the abiding in Jesus is also total. For this reason we can confidently say that he who gives all gets all. What is more it is also for the same reason that made the Lord Jesus state categorically, and I quote: “He who loves his life loses it, and he who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life” (John 12:25).
From all we have discussed hitherto, it should be clear that the Catholic priest is a man who makes himself completely available to be sacrificially offered to God in the services he renders to his fellow men and women in complete charity. To prove that the priests' self giving is rooted in, and emanates from perfect charity, his love and services for all and sundry must be seen to be unconditional. In truth, without perfect charity no priest can really claim that he can surrender all or that he has surrendered all. That will be impossible.
The offering which the priest makes of himself to God which in turn makes him completely available, ready and willing to love and give his life for the salvation of all and sundry daily can only be seen and adjudged as the product of perfect charity if and only if it is not determine by people's applause. Applause or aversion the charity with which the Catholic priest is to live, work and die for others should always be “VIRGO INTACTA, that is completely unviolated virgin, as it well.
We do not have to wander too far to find the reason why the priest must be synonymous with perfect charity. Few examples from the scripture and the teachings of the Saints suffice to convince us: ubi caritas est amor. Ubi caritas Deus sibi est= where there is charity there is love. Where there is charity God is there. This is what the scripture has taught us unequivocally, that, “God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him” (1 John 4:17). According to Robert Bellarmine, perfect charity is that with which no man is lost, and without which no man is saved. The priest's mission is to save himself and help others to be saved.
Heaven is the goal to which every Christian should aim at, and the only final and indispensable player which can make us reach and score the goal is charity. For this reason, St. Francis de Sales states: “Faith points out the way to the land of promise as a pillar of fire, hope feeds us with its manna of sweetness but charity actually introduces us into the promised land”. Alms according to St. Francis of Assisi, “are an inheritance and justice which is due to the poor which Jesus Christ has levied upon us”. Therefore, to enable a priest give alms of himself, he cannot but be an embodiment of charity, which hungers and thirsts for every worthy sacrifice to be offered by him even for the good of the most deadly foe or foes.
Now, if the priest has surrendered all and is now dead to all, why is it that the Church appeals to the faithful (clergy and laity alike) to contribute to assist the priest? The answer is this, the priest being dead as a sacrificial lamb, owns nothing but possesses all for all others. What the Church requests the faithful to contribute are prayers, moral and material contributions for the propagation and perpetuation of the priesthood and its dignity, to uphold the integrity of the Church and the glorification of God in His Majesty.
All to Jesus I Surrender humbly at His feet I bow worldly pleasure all forsaken Take me, Jesus take me now.
All to Jesus I Surrender Lord, I give myself to thee fill me with Thy Love and power Let Thy blessing fall on me.
That is exactly what it means to be a Catholic priest. This, the Catholic Priest is constituted, as it were, to give his life most unreservedly to God as he serves his creator in humanity. The Catholic priest is called, chosen and commissioned to give the totality of his life to God in the services, which he renders to God in both friends and foes without distinction. Now, it is human to embark in any business venture with great expectation to receiving some reward or gain. Yet, the Catholic priest who is human is said to have surrendered all, including the expected gain. The questions now are: what will his gain be? And will the gain come? And where will the gain be? In surrendering all to Jesus, the priest receives in return a complete perfect life in Jesus where he will lack nothing again. For, Jesus himself has said: “I am the Vine, you are the branches. He who abides in me, and I in him, he, it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing” (John 15:5). Simply put therefore the gain of the priest who surrenders all is the BEARING OF FRUIT IN ABUNDANCE on which he, the priest and others are to be fed unto everlasting life. This is to happen in Jesus Christ when the surrendering all to Jesus is total and the abiding in Jesus is also total. For this reason we can confidently say that he who gives all gets all. What is more it is also for the same reason that made the Lord Jesus state categorically, and I quote: “He who loves his life loses it, and he who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life” (John 12:25).
From all we have discussed hitherto, it should be clear that the Catholic priest is a man who makes himself completely available to be sacrificially offered to God in the services he renders to his fellow men and women in complete charity. To prove that the priests' self giving is rooted in, and emanates from perfect charity, his love and services for all and sundry must be seen to be unconditional. In truth, without perfect charity no priest can really claim that he can surrender all or that he has surrendered all. That will be impossible.
The offering which the priest makes of himself to God which in turn makes him completely available, ready and willing to love and give his life for the salvation of all and sundry daily can only be seen and adjudged as the product of perfect charity if and only if it is not determine by people's applause. Applause or aversion the charity with which the Catholic priest is to live, work and die for others should always be “VIRGO INTACTA, that is completely unviolated virgin, as it well.
We do not have to wander too far to find the reason why the priest must be synonymous with perfect charity. Few examples from the scripture and the teachings of the Saints suffice to convince us: ubi caritas est amor. Ubi caritas Deus sibi est= where there is charity there is love. Where there is charity God is there. This is what the scripture has taught us unequivocally, that, “God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him” (1 John 4:17). According to Robert Bellarmine, perfect charity is that with which no man is lost, and without which no man is saved. The priest's mission is to save himself and help others to be saved.
Heaven is the goal to which every Christian should aim at, and the only final and indispensable player which can make us reach and score the goal is charity. For this reason, St. Francis de Sales states: “Faith points out the way to the land of promise as a pillar of fire, hope feeds us with its manna of sweetness but charity actually introduces us into the promised land”. Alms according to St. Francis of Assisi, “are an inheritance and justice which is due to the poor which Jesus Christ has levied upon us”. Therefore, to enable a priest give alms of himself, he cannot but be an embodiment of charity, which hungers and thirsts for every worthy sacrifice to be offered by him even for the good of the most deadly foe or foes.
Now, if the priest has surrendered all and is now dead to all, why is it that the Church appeals to the faithful (clergy and laity alike) to contribute to assist the priest? The answer is this, the priest being dead as a sacrificial lamb, owns nothing but possesses all for all others. What the Church requests the faithful to contribute are prayers, moral and material contributions for the propagation and perpetuation of the priesthood and its dignity, to uphold the integrity of the Church and the glorification of God in His Majesty.
I SURRENDER ALL - Most Rev. (Dr.) Gabriel G. Dunia
The entire meaning of the life of a Catholic priest is summarized by the hymn number two hundred and seventy-six (276) of the Catholic Hymn Book: All to Jesus I Surrender All to him I freely give I will ever love and trust Him in his presence daily live.
All to Jesus I Surrender humbly at His feet I bow worldly pleasure all forsaken Take me, Jesus take me now.
All to Jesus I Surrender Lord, I give myself to thee fill me with Thy Love and power Let Thy blessing fall on me.
That is exactly what it means to be a Catholic priest. This, the Catholic Priest is constituted, as it were, to give his life most unreservedly to God as he serves his creator in humanity. The Catholic priest is called, chosen and commissioned to give the totality of his life to God in the services, which he renders to God in both friends and foes without distinction. Now, it is human to embark in any business venture with great expectation to receiving some reward or gain. Yet, the Catholic priest who is human is said to have surrendered all, including the expected gain. The questions now are: what will his gain be? And will the gain come? And where will the gain be? In surrendering all to Jesus, the priest receives in return a complete perfect life in Jesus where he will lack nothing again. For, Jesus himself has said: “I am the Vine, you are the branches. He who abides in me, and I in him, he, it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing” (John 15:5). Simply put therefore the gain of the priest who surrenders all is the BEARING OF FRUIT IN ABUNDANCE on which he, the priest and others are to be fed unto everlasting life. This is to happen in Jesus Christ when the surrendering all to Jesus is total and the abiding in Jesus is also total. For this reason we can confidently say that he who gives all gets all. What is more it is also for the same reason that made the Lord Jesus state categorically, and I quote: “He who loves his life loses it, and he who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life” (John 12:25).
From all we have discussed hitherto, it should be clear that the Catholic priest is a man who makes himself completely available to be sacrificially offered to God in the services he renders to his fellow men and women in complete charity. To prove that the priests' self giving is rooted in, and emanates from perfect charity, his love and services for all and sundry must be seen to be unconditional. In truth, without perfect charity no priest can really claim that he can surrender all or that he has surrendered all. That will be impossible.
The offering which the priest makes of himself to God which in turn makes him completely available, ready and willing to love and give his life for the salvation of all and sundry daily can only be seen and adjudged as the product of perfect charity if and only if it is not determine by people's applause. Applause or aversion the charity with which the Catholic priest is to live, work and die for others should always be “VIRGO INTACTA, that is completely unviolated virgin, as it well.
We do not have to wander too far to find the reason why the priest must be synonymous with perfect charity. Few examples from the scripture and the teachings of the Saints suffice to convince us: ubi caritas est amor. Ubi caritas Deus sibi est= where there is charity there is love. Where there is charity God is there. This is what the scripture has taught us unequivocally, that, “God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him” (1 John 4:17). According to Robert Bellarmine, perfect charity is that with which no man is lost, and without which no man is saved. The priest's mission is to save himself and help others to be saved.
Heaven is the goal to which every Christian should aim at, and the only final and indispensable player which can make us reach and score the goal is charity. For this reason, St. Francis de Sales states: “Faith points out the way to the land of promise as a pillar of fire, hope feeds us with its manna of sweetness but charity actually introduces us into the promised land”. Alms according to St. Francis of Assisi, “are an inheritance and justice which is due to the poor which Jesus Christ has levied upon us”. Therefore, to enable a priest give alms of himself, he cannot but be an embodiment of charity, which hungers and thirsts for every worthy sacrifice to be offered by him even for the good of the most deadly foe or foes.
Now, if the priest has surrendered all and is now dead to all, why is it that the Church appeals to the faithful (clergy and laity alike) to contribute to assist the priest? The answer is this, the priest being dead as a sacrificial lamb, owns nothing but possesses all for all others. What the Church requests the faithful to contribute are prayers, moral and material contributions for the propagation and perpetuation of the priesthood and its dignity, to uphold the integrity of the Church and the glorification of God in His Majesty.
All to Jesus I Surrender humbly at His feet I bow worldly pleasure all forsaken Take me, Jesus take me now.
All to Jesus I Surrender Lord, I give myself to thee fill me with Thy Love and power Let Thy blessing fall on me.
That is exactly what it means to be a Catholic priest. This, the Catholic Priest is constituted, as it were, to give his life most unreservedly to God as he serves his creator in humanity. The Catholic priest is called, chosen and commissioned to give the totality of his life to God in the services, which he renders to God in both friends and foes without distinction. Now, it is human to embark in any business venture with great expectation to receiving some reward or gain. Yet, the Catholic priest who is human is said to have surrendered all, including the expected gain. The questions now are: what will his gain be? And will the gain come? And where will the gain be? In surrendering all to Jesus, the priest receives in return a complete perfect life in Jesus where he will lack nothing again. For, Jesus himself has said: “I am the Vine, you are the branches. He who abides in me, and I in him, he, it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing” (John 15:5). Simply put therefore the gain of the priest who surrenders all is the BEARING OF FRUIT IN ABUNDANCE on which he, the priest and others are to be fed unto everlasting life. This is to happen in Jesus Christ when the surrendering all to Jesus is total and the abiding in Jesus is also total. For this reason we can confidently say that he who gives all gets all. What is more it is also for the same reason that made the Lord Jesus state categorically, and I quote: “He who loves his life loses it, and he who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life” (John 12:25).
From all we have discussed hitherto, it should be clear that the Catholic priest is a man who makes himself completely available to be sacrificially offered to God in the services he renders to his fellow men and women in complete charity. To prove that the priests' self giving is rooted in, and emanates from perfect charity, his love and services for all and sundry must be seen to be unconditional. In truth, without perfect charity no priest can really claim that he can surrender all or that he has surrendered all. That will be impossible.
The offering which the priest makes of himself to God which in turn makes him completely available, ready and willing to love and give his life for the salvation of all and sundry daily can only be seen and adjudged as the product of perfect charity if and only if it is not determine by people's applause. Applause or aversion the charity with which the Catholic priest is to live, work and die for others should always be “VIRGO INTACTA, that is completely unviolated virgin, as it well.
We do not have to wander too far to find the reason why the priest must be synonymous with perfect charity. Few examples from the scripture and the teachings of the Saints suffice to convince us: ubi caritas est amor. Ubi caritas Deus sibi est= where there is charity there is love. Where there is charity God is there. This is what the scripture has taught us unequivocally, that, “God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him” (1 John 4:17). According to Robert Bellarmine, perfect charity is that with which no man is lost, and without which no man is saved. The priest's mission is to save himself and help others to be saved.
Heaven is the goal to which every Christian should aim at, and the only final and indispensable player which can make us reach and score the goal is charity. For this reason, St. Francis de Sales states: “Faith points out the way to the land of promise as a pillar of fire, hope feeds us with its manna of sweetness but charity actually introduces us into the promised land”. Alms according to St. Francis of Assisi, “are an inheritance and justice which is due to the poor which Jesus Christ has levied upon us”. Therefore, to enable a priest give alms of himself, he cannot but be an embodiment of charity, which hungers and thirsts for every worthy sacrifice to be offered by him even for the good of the most deadly foe or foes.
Now, if the priest has surrendered all and is now dead to all, why is it that the Church appeals to the faithful (clergy and laity alike) to contribute to assist the priest? The answer is this, the priest being dead as a sacrificial lamb, owns nothing but possesses all for all others. What the Church requests the faithful to contribute are prayers, moral and material contributions for the propagation and perpetuation of the priesthood and its dignity, to uphold the integrity of the Church and the glorification of God in His Majesty.
THE MORALITY OF CONDOMS: BETWEEN CONTRACEPTIVES AND CONTRA-HIV - Rev. Fr. Francis Ikhianosime
Since the publication of the new book-interview of Pope Benedict XVI, “Light of the World: The Pope, The Church and the signs of The Times” by German Journalist Peter Seewald on November 22, 2010, the morality of condoms has become a fresher issue. This is so because; Journalists and commentators have hijacked the words of the Pope to mean a dramatic shift of the Church's traditional teaching on the use of condoms to mean “an approval” of the use of condoms. While this is not precisely the case, it has given us the opportunity to address on the morality of condoms and reaffirm the Church's teaching on this. The question usually would begin from the point: What is the morality of Condoms or better contraceptives? What is the Church's teaching on the use of contraceptive and the reduction of the deadly HIV/AIDS pandemic? What did the Pope actually say lately regarding condoms?
The issue of the morality of condoms is not an isolated issue. It is discussed within the whole-frame work of the topic, contraceptives. A contraceptive is a method, device or pharmaceutical drug that prevents pregnancy. People have been using different forms of contraceptives for centuries. There are device contraceptive like the condom for men and the Intra Uterine Device (IUD) for women. There are also spermicides in the form of a jelly, tablet, suppository or foam; a diaphragm, a cervix cap which must be used with the spermicide, etc. Prescription drugs include birth control pills; injections that last for various amounts of time; a vaginal ring; a patch that is worn on the body, etc. Sterilization for men and women can be considered a contraceptive as well.
The use of contraceptive goes beyond the prevention of pregnancy. This is so because; it invites us to the question of sex,human dignity and moral principles. Again, contraceptives are no longer merely objects of birth control, wherein we talk of a marriage situation, but it now represents a misreading of the purpose of marriage and sexuality at large. Sex it must be re-emphasized is an exclusive preserve for a man and a woman who have given themselves in a lawfully and validly contracted marriage. Sex is created by God for the strengthening of intimacy in marriage and the procreation of children. Therefore, outside of marriage, sex becomes improper and both a grave sin. Within this context, sex outside of marriage thus, becomes an instrument by which an individual vainly gratifies the flesh. Nevertheless, in conformity with the Christian vision of marriage, the direct interruption of the generative process already begun, and, above all, directly willed and procured abortion are absolutely wrong. (HV 14)
Every sexual experience is spiritual. It fulfills the dual function of being unitive and procreative. Thus every conjugal act is meant to be open; to be open to procreation and unity of the love between the spouses. Nature has so placed a rhythm such that, the periods that are procreative are limited, barely 96 hours of the 28 days in the cycle of a woman are fecund or fertile. Therefore, the periods which are fertile are meant to control birth especially when it becomes irresponsible at a particular point to procreate. The fertile days as it were, then, allows the couple generally speaking, a time to renew their desire and to save it from the dullness of sheer habit, while the infertile days gives the opportunity to couples regulating birth an avenue to spiral their love in sexual communion.
Contraception it must be established is not birth control. There are a number of ways to control birth some are morally good and others morally evil. The infertile days are the natural means of the control of birth; hence a study of this is what we call “Natural Family planning”. But there are other morally evil and wicked ways of birth control like abortion, the practice ofwithdrawal method in coitus (sexual intercourse) otherwise called Onanism. Contraception usually involves a choice. First, it is the choice to engage in sexual intercourse and secondly, the choice to circumvent the powers of procreation related to the generation of life. This first is upon the realization that, it is irresponsible to have sex now but I want to be selfish. So, it is the intention in the use of contraceptive that brings out the morality in it. This is precisely the case of condoms. This is why it is called contra-conception or anti-procreation. With this, therefore, condoms are negatively morally grounded. They are built on a wrong intent; one to destroy the procreative faculties; a case of why accepting coitus and at the same time denying it of full realization. It is therefore a morally irresponsible choice.
Apart from the evaluation of the choice, it is one that gives the impression that sex can go on irresponsible. It reduces sexuality to physicality and love to unbridled instinct. Contraceptive-sex debases human dignity because it reduces the individual as a sexual object or a sexual cipher. Contraceptive-sex is not built on love, but one that helps the other person to satisfy selfish ends. Again, it makes sex a game; a game of sexual adventurism and irresponsible parenthood when used within marriage. Contraceptive-sex recognizes that love-making is meant to be open but rather want to close it and render the woman to be infertile. Contraceptive-sex opens the road to marital infidelity and the collapse of morals because of the escapist attitude and means of contracepting. Here, the use of condoms as contraceptive is explainably morally evil.
Be that as it may, condom as an object in itself has a morally neutral status. It is the use that brings in the morality. If one takes a condom and puts his necklace inside, nobody has a problem with that, in which case it would be improper to call it a contraceptive but better a safe. It could be use as water balloons and does not either pose a moral threat. But once it involves a different choice with a negative intent, then the problem starts. But there is a certain sense when condom usage becomes a first step towards moralization and an action in conscience even though when it is not ultimately the solution to the problem. And it is the case of HIV/AIDS.
More practically put, in the case of discordant couples; a situation when one of the couples is HIV infected, when one of the couples uses the condom on infertile days, the choice is not to contracept but to prevent from infecting his partner with the disease while paying the marital debt. The usage of the contraceptive at such a situation is not as contraceptive but as a contra-HIV. In this situation, there is first and foremost an act of charity and also a realization that not everything goes. This step was aimed at protecting life. However, it must be noted that this is not the best solution to this problem. It was against a similar background that the Holy Father in the recent book-interview spoke which has been hijacked to mean an approval. I turn briefly to an evaluation of the words of the Holy Father.
The Pope has emphasized in the past that, we cannot solve the problem [of AIDS] by distributing condoms…” and that “the sheer fixation on the condom implies a banalization of sexuality….” The Pope says: “There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants. But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection. That can really lie only in a humanization of sexuality”. Condoms refer to a wrong means to achieving a good end. This is so because the problem of Aids is beyond condoms but one first and foremost of the misuse of sex for the most, and this pandemic has had a wildfire spread by the misuse of sex by the unmarried. Common report puts the highest prevalence and vulnerability level to be between 18-25 years. To think of condoms as the moral solution would be promoting sexual promiscuity indirectly without the intent to do so. Nonetheless, in the use of condoms by either a male prostitute or a discordant couple it becomes in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more humane way, of living sexuality; a case of contra-HIV rather than contraceptive.
The point of emphasis is in the intention for usage. Once the intention is morally evil, then the action becomes morally evil. However, condoms do not lie the solution to the whole problem of HIV/AIDS. This understanding reflected by the Pope did not in any way give an approval for the use of Condoms as an instrument for sex, neither, did it change the traditional teaching of the Church on contraceptives or condoms. It must be noted that when the Church wants to bring out an official teaching or make a stand on something, it comes out with an official pronouncement in an Encyclical. This was not the case for the recent misrepresentation of the Pope. In any case, he gave his personal evaluation on the issue of the use of Condoms and in which he says some cases could be tending towards morality and he was never speaking ex cathedra (speaking in the authority of the Pope).
In sum, Condoms represent a wrong way of approaching our sexuality. The sure way of addressing the issue of HIV/AIDS is the gospel of ABSTINENCE for the unmarried and BE FAITHFUL if married. Condoms too, do not present any moral justification for the control of Birth as such a choice involves a moral evil.
The issue of the morality of condoms is not an isolated issue. It is discussed within the whole-frame work of the topic, contraceptives. A contraceptive is a method, device or pharmaceutical drug that prevents pregnancy. People have been using different forms of contraceptives for centuries. There are device contraceptive like the condom for men and the Intra Uterine Device (IUD) for women. There are also spermicides in the form of a jelly, tablet, suppository or foam; a diaphragm, a cervix cap which must be used with the spermicide, etc. Prescription drugs include birth control pills; injections that last for various amounts of time; a vaginal ring; a patch that is worn on the body, etc. Sterilization for men and women can be considered a contraceptive as well.
The use of contraceptive goes beyond the prevention of pregnancy. This is so because; it invites us to the question of sex,human dignity and moral principles. Again, contraceptives are no longer merely objects of birth control, wherein we talk of a marriage situation, but it now represents a misreading of the purpose of marriage and sexuality at large. Sex it must be re-emphasized is an exclusive preserve for a man and a woman who have given themselves in a lawfully and validly contracted marriage. Sex is created by God for the strengthening of intimacy in marriage and the procreation of children. Therefore, outside of marriage, sex becomes improper and both a grave sin. Within this context, sex outside of marriage thus, becomes an instrument by which an individual vainly gratifies the flesh. Nevertheless, in conformity with the Christian vision of marriage, the direct interruption of the generative process already begun, and, above all, directly willed and procured abortion are absolutely wrong. (HV 14)
Every sexual experience is spiritual. It fulfills the dual function of being unitive and procreative. Thus every conjugal act is meant to be open; to be open to procreation and unity of the love between the spouses. Nature has so placed a rhythm such that, the periods that are procreative are limited, barely 96 hours of the 28 days in the cycle of a woman are fecund or fertile. Therefore, the periods which are fertile are meant to control birth especially when it becomes irresponsible at a particular point to procreate. The fertile days as it were, then, allows the couple generally speaking, a time to renew their desire and to save it from the dullness of sheer habit, while the infertile days gives the opportunity to couples regulating birth an avenue to spiral their love in sexual communion.
Contraception it must be established is not birth control. There are a number of ways to control birth some are morally good and others morally evil. The infertile days are the natural means of the control of birth; hence a study of this is what we call “Natural Family planning”. But there are other morally evil and wicked ways of birth control like abortion, the practice ofwithdrawal method in coitus (sexual intercourse) otherwise called Onanism. Contraception usually involves a choice. First, it is the choice to engage in sexual intercourse and secondly, the choice to circumvent the powers of procreation related to the generation of life. This first is upon the realization that, it is irresponsible to have sex now but I want to be selfish. So, it is the intention in the use of contraceptive that brings out the morality in it. This is precisely the case of condoms. This is why it is called contra-conception or anti-procreation. With this, therefore, condoms are negatively morally grounded. They are built on a wrong intent; one to destroy the procreative faculties; a case of why accepting coitus and at the same time denying it of full realization. It is therefore a morally irresponsible choice.
Apart from the evaluation of the choice, it is one that gives the impression that sex can go on irresponsible. It reduces sexuality to physicality and love to unbridled instinct. Contraceptive-sex debases human dignity because it reduces the individual as a sexual object or a sexual cipher. Contraceptive-sex is not built on love, but one that helps the other person to satisfy selfish ends. Again, it makes sex a game; a game of sexual adventurism and irresponsible parenthood when used within marriage. Contraceptive-sex recognizes that love-making is meant to be open but rather want to close it and render the woman to be infertile. Contraceptive-sex opens the road to marital infidelity and the collapse of morals because of the escapist attitude and means of contracepting. Here, the use of condoms as contraceptive is explainably morally evil.
Be that as it may, condom as an object in itself has a morally neutral status. It is the use that brings in the morality. If one takes a condom and puts his necklace inside, nobody has a problem with that, in which case it would be improper to call it a contraceptive but better a safe. It could be use as water balloons and does not either pose a moral threat. But once it involves a different choice with a negative intent, then the problem starts. But there is a certain sense when condom usage becomes a first step towards moralization and an action in conscience even though when it is not ultimately the solution to the problem. And it is the case of HIV/AIDS.
More practically put, in the case of discordant couples; a situation when one of the couples is HIV infected, when one of the couples uses the condom on infertile days, the choice is not to contracept but to prevent from infecting his partner with the disease while paying the marital debt. The usage of the contraceptive at such a situation is not as contraceptive but as a contra-HIV. In this situation, there is first and foremost an act of charity and also a realization that not everything goes. This step was aimed at protecting life. However, it must be noted that this is not the best solution to this problem. It was against a similar background that the Holy Father in the recent book-interview spoke which has been hijacked to mean an approval. I turn briefly to an evaluation of the words of the Holy Father.
The Pope has emphasized in the past that, we cannot solve the problem [of AIDS] by distributing condoms…” and that “the sheer fixation on the condom implies a banalization of sexuality….” The Pope says: “There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants. But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection. That can really lie only in a humanization of sexuality”. Condoms refer to a wrong means to achieving a good end. This is so because the problem of Aids is beyond condoms but one first and foremost of the misuse of sex for the most, and this pandemic has had a wildfire spread by the misuse of sex by the unmarried. Common report puts the highest prevalence and vulnerability level to be between 18-25 years. To think of condoms as the moral solution would be promoting sexual promiscuity indirectly without the intent to do so. Nonetheless, in the use of condoms by either a male prostitute or a discordant couple it becomes in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more humane way, of living sexuality; a case of contra-HIV rather than contraceptive.
The point of emphasis is in the intention for usage. Once the intention is morally evil, then the action becomes morally evil. However, condoms do not lie the solution to the whole problem of HIV/AIDS. This understanding reflected by the Pope did not in any way give an approval for the use of Condoms as an instrument for sex, neither, did it change the traditional teaching of the Church on contraceptives or condoms. It must be noted that when the Church wants to bring out an official teaching or make a stand on something, it comes out with an official pronouncement in an Encyclical. This was not the case for the recent misrepresentation of the Pope. In any case, he gave his personal evaluation on the issue of the use of Condoms and in which he says some cases could be tending towards morality and he was never speaking ex cathedra (speaking in the authority of the Pope).
In sum, Condoms represent a wrong way of approaching our sexuality. The sure way of addressing the issue of HIV/AIDS is the gospel of ABSTINENCE for the unmarried and BE FAITHFUL if married. Condoms too, do not present any moral justification for the control of Birth as such a choice involves a moral evil.
ONE MAN, SEVEN VOTES SYNDROME - Rev. Fr. Leonard O. Anetekhai
One Man Seven Votes, It sounds funny, but like a syndrome if not well cared for, may be the end result as we prepare for our general elections with the daily increase in crimes, importation of arms, missing records of electoral materials and societal unrest. Few Nigerians today go to sleep with both eyes closed, but for those who have their possession on their palms, two eyes closed is very expensive.
Yes so much has been done to put a credible INEC in place to prepare for a general election come 2011. This all important journey began with the request of the chairman of the INEC, Professor Attaihiru Jega, for a change in the election date, a submission which was granted. The INEC chairman had, in September, called for a change in the election time of the 2011 general election from January to April to enable him to do a good job for Nigerians. He made the request while fielding questions from the 63 political party leaders in Abuja, saying that the reality on ground was that the commission had missed a number of its timelines that were essential to the registration of voters as well as the recruitment and training of ad-hoc staff for the elections.
The next line of duty was to ask for the purchase of direct data capture machines (DDCM) to be used for the registration of voters. The machines valued at over N33.827billion are central to the actualization of the voter registration as well as the proper election come April. We pray it comes true.
It is very interesting to note that, the Federal government has, from all indications, been responsive to the requests of INEC, perhaps to free itself from any allegations of being counterproductive. This could be seen through the release of necessary funds to the electoral body as at when due. Both the Presidency and the National Assembly have had reasons to adjust in order to support the electoral body and make sure that nothing endangers a free election and handover dates. For Jega the non-availability of the 2010 Electoral Act would hamper the schedule of the elections and the only hurdle in the way of the conduct of credible poll is the controversy surrounding the amendment of the 1999 constitution as well as the failure of President Goodluck Jonathan to promptly sign into law the Electoral Act.
Again, Jaga asked the Federal Government to make available N87.7 billion within a specified period, which the National Assembly had to rush through despite perceived inconsistencies in the estimates. President Jonathan had also promptly given his assent to the 2010 Electoral Act in spite of his reservations about some provisions in the bill, which has today become questionable. Recently, President Jonathan released another sum of 1.95 billion naira for the purchase of new ballot boxes. All these for elections; if I may ask, where are the machines used by Maurice Iwu? I suppose in a warehouse waiting to be shipped back outside the country, recycled and sent back to us by another INEC chairman. In every election we spend so much just to make some parasite rich at the expense of basic amenities lacking in some communities. Enough of all these foolish and deceptive attitudes.
A little leap into Ivory coast last general election; I am very sure that all the materials for elections demanded by her electoral body were meant, but it was very unfortunate that those who served as instrument to release these funds had the intention to distort the elections if they do not return to power. The rivalry between Alassane Ouatara and Gbagbo in their presidential elections is simply not that of machines, but of common sense that has been clouded with greed and selfishness. What a pity.
I sympathize with the new INEC leadership because there exist within INEC some and throughout Nigeria persons who have irreversibly and shamelessly sworn to perpetuate evil come 2011. This is a monstrous challenge to President Jonathan, Prof. Jega and well-meaning Nigerians who earnestly desire a breath of fresh electoral relief. It is conceivably the greatest amongst all the hurdles to free and credible elections in the country. The average Nigerian politician openly and noisily conceives and campaign for free and fair elections while secretly advocating and instigating electoral malpractices and fraud.
I am convinced that, nobody who has spent 5 million in purchasing a gubernatorial ticket will want to see it slip his or her face; they will go out to connive with any authority, just to remain or gain power into political position.
To avoid the One Man Seven Votes syndrome, Nigerians, especially those in power will have to get rid of all the following seven vices, each standing for one negative vote.
Bribery: A bribe like we know is a payment given personally to a government official in exchange of his use of official powers. Bribery requires two participants: one to give the bribe, and one to take it. Either may initiate the corrupt offering; for example, a customs official may demand bribes to allowed (or disallowed) goods, or a smuggler might offer bribes to gain passage. Within us today this has extended to every aspect of our public life, making it extremely difficult for individuals to stay in public offices without resorting to bribes. I am afraid because some individuals may demand for bribe in order to bypass laws and regulations, just to keep looters in power.
Governmental corruption of judiciary: Governmental corruption of judiciary includes governmental spending on the courts, which is completely financially controlled by the executive in many countries and ours is not an exception. This undermines the principle of checks and balances and creates a critical financial dependence on the judiciary. It covers concealed governmental spending on the judiciary in the form of privileges cars, houses, expenses. Such a system is completely outside the realm of transparency and creates a standard for those in the judiciary to work in favour for those who grease their palm, for it is said; “he who plays the pipe dictates the tune”. This is not without exceptions.
Nepotism and cronyism: Favouring relatives (nepotism) or personal friends (cronyism) of an official is a form of illegitimate private gain. This may be combined with bribery. It is said that unemployment is striving hard because of the singular act of nepotism (My brother or my sister will get the job). For cronyism it can be termed an "old boy network", in which appointees to official positions are selected only from a closed and exclusive social network instead of appointing the most competent candidate.
Electoral fraud is illegal interference with the process of an election. Acts of fraud affect vote counts to bring about an election result, whether by increasing the vote share of the favoured candidate, depressing the vote share of the rival candidates, or both. Also called voter fraud, the mechanisms involved include illegal voter registration, intimidation at polls, and improper vote counting. This is what every Nigerian should avoid to avert One Man Seven Votes syndrome.
Kickbacks: A daily routine in most offices. The only way government officials share off misappropriated funds allocated towards the development of certain areas or communities. Today, we see leaders in charge of contracts allocating them to companies that are not the best bidder, or allocate more than they deserve. In this case, the companies involved benefits greatly, and in exchange for betraying the public, the official receives a kickback payment, which is a portion of the sum the company received. This sum itself may be all or a portion of the difference between the actual (inflated) payment to the company and the (lower) market-based price that would have been paid had the bidding been competitive. Kickbacks are not limited to government officials; any situations in which people are entrusted to spend funds that do not belong to them are prone to this kind of vice.
Unholy alliance: A forum for politician to form alliance among themselves, especially if one has a hidden agenda. Like patronage, unholy alliances are not necessarily illegal, but unlike patronage, by its deceptive nature and often great financial resources, an unholy alliance can be much more dangerous to the public interest. Politicians who involve in this vice end up thinking and talking much of themselves rather than the general public.
Organized crime: It is devilish to see us maltreating ourselves with the scourge of Kiddnapping and bank robbery. These are basically the features of a nation when election is drawing close. Banks are not safe anymore, even those who go to the bank as citizen are not comfortable getting their money because of politician who are looking for money to campaign and buy electorate. Again, when youth who are ambitious tend to vile for positions like councilors and council worker, and have no means of funding themselves, crime is the next option. We have to change and cut our coat according to our cloth.
To advert what seems like a syndrome, all hands must be on deck to work for the success of Prof. Jega's effort to conduct a free and fair election, the private sector and civil society must assist Government in fighting all scourge that can promote one man seven vote syndrome. Only then will Nigerian be able to achieve a credible election and write her name in gold, among developing nations.
Yes so much has been done to put a credible INEC in place to prepare for a general election come 2011. This all important journey began with the request of the chairman of the INEC, Professor Attaihiru Jega, for a change in the election date, a submission which was granted. The INEC chairman had, in September, called for a change in the election time of the 2011 general election from January to April to enable him to do a good job for Nigerians. He made the request while fielding questions from the 63 political party leaders in Abuja, saying that the reality on ground was that the commission had missed a number of its timelines that were essential to the registration of voters as well as the recruitment and training of ad-hoc staff for the elections.
The next line of duty was to ask for the purchase of direct data capture machines (DDCM) to be used for the registration of voters. The machines valued at over N33.827billion are central to the actualization of the voter registration as well as the proper election come April. We pray it comes true.
It is very interesting to note that, the Federal government has, from all indications, been responsive to the requests of INEC, perhaps to free itself from any allegations of being counterproductive. This could be seen through the release of necessary funds to the electoral body as at when due. Both the Presidency and the National Assembly have had reasons to adjust in order to support the electoral body and make sure that nothing endangers a free election and handover dates. For Jega the non-availability of the 2010 Electoral Act would hamper the schedule of the elections and the only hurdle in the way of the conduct of credible poll is the controversy surrounding the amendment of the 1999 constitution as well as the failure of President Goodluck Jonathan to promptly sign into law the Electoral Act.
Again, Jaga asked the Federal Government to make available N87.7 billion within a specified period, which the National Assembly had to rush through despite perceived inconsistencies in the estimates. President Jonathan had also promptly given his assent to the 2010 Electoral Act in spite of his reservations about some provisions in the bill, which has today become questionable. Recently, President Jonathan released another sum of 1.95 billion naira for the purchase of new ballot boxes. All these for elections; if I may ask, where are the machines used by Maurice Iwu? I suppose in a warehouse waiting to be shipped back outside the country, recycled and sent back to us by another INEC chairman. In every election we spend so much just to make some parasite rich at the expense of basic amenities lacking in some communities. Enough of all these foolish and deceptive attitudes.
A little leap into Ivory coast last general election; I am very sure that all the materials for elections demanded by her electoral body were meant, but it was very unfortunate that those who served as instrument to release these funds had the intention to distort the elections if they do not return to power. The rivalry between Alassane Ouatara and Gbagbo in their presidential elections is simply not that of machines, but of common sense that has been clouded with greed and selfishness. What a pity.
I sympathize with the new INEC leadership because there exist within INEC some and throughout Nigeria persons who have irreversibly and shamelessly sworn to perpetuate evil come 2011. This is a monstrous challenge to President Jonathan, Prof. Jega and well-meaning Nigerians who earnestly desire a breath of fresh electoral relief. It is conceivably the greatest amongst all the hurdles to free and credible elections in the country. The average Nigerian politician openly and noisily conceives and campaign for free and fair elections while secretly advocating and instigating electoral malpractices and fraud.
I am convinced that, nobody who has spent 5 million in purchasing a gubernatorial ticket will want to see it slip his or her face; they will go out to connive with any authority, just to remain or gain power into political position.
To avoid the One Man Seven Votes syndrome, Nigerians, especially those in power will have to get rid of all the following seven vices, each standing for one negative vote.
Bribery: A bribe like we know is a payment given personally to a government official in exchange of his use of official powers. Bribery requires two participants: one to give the bribe, and one to take it. Either may initiate the corrupt offering; for example, a customs official may demand bribes to allowed (or disallowed) goods, or a smuggler might offer bribes to gain passage. Within us today this has extended to every aspect of our public life, making it extremely difficult for individuals to stay in public offices without resorting to bribes. I am afraid because some individuals may demand for bribe in order to bypass laws and regulations, just to keep looters in power.
Governmental corruption of judiciary: Governmental corruption of judiciary includes governmental spending on the courts, which is completely financially controlled by the executive in many countries and ours is not an exception. This undermines the principle of checks and balances and creates a critical financial dependence on the judiciary. It covers concealed governmental spending on the judiciary in the form of privileges cars, houses, expenses. Such a system is completely outside the realm of transparency and creates a standard for those in the judiciary to work in favour for those who grease their palm, for it is said; “he who plays the pipe dictates the tune”. This is not without exceptions.
Nepotism and cronyism: Favouring relatives (nepotism) or personal friends (cronyism) of an official is a form of illegitimate private gain. This may be combined with bribery. It is said that unemployment is striving hard because of the singular act of nepotism (My brother or my sister will get the job). For cronyism it can be termed an "old boy network", in which appointees to official positions are selected only from a closed and exclusive social network instead of appointing the most competent candidate.
Electoral fraud is illegal interference with the process of an election. Acts of fraud affect vote counts to bring about an election result, whether by increasing the vote share of the favoured candidate, depressing the vote share of the rival candidates, or both. Also called voter fraud, the mechanisms involved include illegal voter registration, intimidation at polls, and improper vote counting. This is what every Nigerian should avoid to avert One Man Seven Votes syndrome.
Kickbacks: A daily routine in most offices. The only way government officials share off misappropriated funds allocated towards the development of certain areas or communities. Today, we see leaders in charge of contracts allocating them to companies that are not the best bidder, or allocate more than they deserve. In this case, the companies involved benefits greatly, and in exchange for betraying the public, the official receives a kickback payment, which is a portion of the sum the company received. This sum itself may be all or a portion of the difference between the actual (inflated) payment to the company and the (lower) market-based price that would have been paid had the bidding been competitive. Kickbacks are not limited to government officials; any situations in which people are entrusted to spend funds that do not belong to them are prone to this kind of vice.
Unholy alliance: A forum for politician to form alliance among themselves, especially if one has a hidden agenda. Like patronage, unholy alliances are not necessarily illegal, but unlike patronage, by its deceptive nature and often great financial resources, an unholy alliance can be much more dangerous to the public interest. Politicians who involve in this vice end up thinking and talking much of themselves rather than the general public.
Organized crime: It is devilish to see us maltreating ourselves with the scourge of Kiddnapping and bank robbery. These are basically the features of a nation when election is drawing close. Banks are not safe anymore, even those who go to the bank as citizen are not comfortable getting their money because of politician who are looking for money to campaign and buy electorate. Again, when youth who are ambitious tend to vile for positions like councilors and council worker, and have no means of funding themselves, crime is the next option. We have to change and cut our coat according to our cloth.
To advert what seems like a syndrome, all hands must be on deck to work for the success of Prof. Jega's effort to conduct a free and fair election, the private sector and civil society must assist Government in fighting all scourge that can promote one man seven vote syndrome. Only then will Nigerian be able to achieve a credible election and write her name in gold, among developing nations.
HOW DO WE OVERCOME THE GRADUAL EROSION OF THE SENSE OF THE SACRED IN OUR SECULAR AGE? - Rev. Fr. Stan-William Ede
Our experience of contemporary society reveals that people are no longer moved to socio-moral comportment based on their fear of God or belief in the beatific rewards he gives. Many who go to Church do so only because of their quest for material well-being, and even then, many people in the Church are not fully conscious of the Divine presence, hence they don't genuflect before the Blessed Sacrament, nor bow when passing in front of the crucifix; some gist away inside the Church while the Eucharistic celebration is going on, some others busy themselves with answering their calls or exchanging text messages, some chew bubble gum all through the period, while many others are there only to dance to the choruses or get entertained by the 'showy' sermon of the preacher.
This phenomenon mirrors the depth of spiritual insensibilities which are prevalent in today's world in contradistinction with the spiritual mentality of past times where the Divine Essence was everywhere and at all times perceived. The magnitude of awe and reverence with which people approached Divine realities (things of God) in times past has continued to wane in our own day, prompting deeper reflections on the mystery of life and the destiny of man.
A vehement wind has blown and has supplanted the high-sounding spiritual and human values of the past with the unfortunate triplets of Secularism, Consumerism and Commercialism, thereby instigating an acute shift of attention from the spiritual to the secular, from the sacred to the profane, from religious adherence to scientifico-technological enthusiasm, from rhapsodic meditations to superficial “busy-cissitudes”, and from personal immanence to gross “sociotainment” (the quality of being engaged with social and entertainment activities, e.g. dance, sports, music, and other sensual exercises.
The tremendous progressive “super-run” of the society today in its overall evolution from the past religio-cultural non-materialistic superstructure of the world to the present scientifico-technological and socio-developmental ascent is a welcome development brought about by the indomitable 'wind' of change. But it does leave a large chunk of sour salt for the human society to contend with. This portent of distastefulness is made concrete in the gradual erosion of the sense of the sacred, and by extension, the diffusion of those eternal and human values which accord invaluable measures of security to our existence.
Is this force which is symptomatic of the replacement of immanent values with a materialistic consciousness that occurs with the passage of time supposed to be a malevolent wind or a benevolent spirit? In other words, is this wind of change that is bringing about rapid global development and at the same time the gradual erosion of the sense of the sacred, for bad or for good?
It is pertinent to note, and forcefully I state and resound it, that, 'although times and tides change, the infant changes into a full-grown man, the monolithic culture of primitive society to the technological flight of the contemporary scientific society, everything changes; it may be change from order to order, from form to form, from process to process, maybe in kinds and styles, in varying structures and degrees, GOD DOES NOT CHANGE'. He is Changeless, Immutable, Omnipotent and Eternal. He is the Lord of History and the Controller of time, who gave everything its being and quality. He directs the movement of the cosmos and the course of change yet He remains unchanging.
It is therefore, an absolute misplacement of ideals and a tragic mistake to sideline God and His divinely inspired activities while inordinately embracing the gifts of nature and human progress which God himself has given.
The mistaken understanding that the progress of the contemporary scientific culture is solely the result of modern man's intelligence and ingenuity constitutes the bedrock for the erosion of the sense of the sacred. The effect of this is also seen in the loss of respect and value for human life, and the violation of human rights and dignity. This is a horrific situation, in fact, a 'time-bomb' that could lead to an ultimate human tragedy if not checked appropriately and soon enough. The sooner modern man realizes that God is the author, sustainer and summit of his being and progress, and live according to religio-ethical parameters established in the natural order, the better for the whole human race.
Let us all listen and hear the profound call, beckoning us all to make a U-turn from the directionless drift on the sea of life's abundance back to the purposeful guidance and will of the Almighty God, who will ensure that the superabundant gifts he has given are sustained in measureless plenitudes. It is all-too-important that we re-embrace the sense of the sacred. By “we”, I mean every human being, whether male or female, rich or poor, European or African, Asian or American, scientist or traditionalist everyone.
To recapture in all wholeness, and to develop healthily, a true and noble sense of the sacred, implies absolute consciousness of God, and unreserved adherence to His Divine Will, enriched with profound respect and honour for anything that has to do with God and Divine Mysteries.
In Biblical times, the Israelites trembled with fear and bowed down their heads in worship at the appearance of the Ark of the covenant which symbolized God's presence (cf. 25:22; Num 10: 33-36; 1Sam 4:4-11); they approached God's temple with awe and reverence (cf. 2Sam 6:1-23; 2Chr. 5:1-14), and observed the commandments of God accordingly. From their historical experiences, we discover that in the moments of adherence and worship, the people flourished in every way. But at those unfortunate times when their sense of fidelity departed them, they experienced disasters and faced fatal penalties. “The past”, they say, “exists and must be recalled to help better the present and improve the future”. Can modern society not learn from the experiences of these people?
The early Christian era and Middle Ages were a Divinocentric (God-centred) world where human life and values were upheld and made to flourish. There was a clear-cut demarcation between the sacred and the profane, with the former enjoying esteemed priority in the life-structure of the people. Within this ambience, life, peace and progress flourish in superabundance.
For the contemporary man of the critico-intellectual civilization, here is an urgent message: God is as present and active in world development and human progress, as he was in the beginning when he created the world, through the passage of time in the ancient past, and in the medieval age; so he rightly is in all traditions and cultures of the world, and so he will continue to be, because he remains changeless while he directs the course of change. Therefore, all mankind must adhere to him and worship him.
Let us be filled with reverence for the house of the Lord with a proper sense of decorum and order when we are in the Church, as well as in our approach to Liturgy. The Psalmist per-empted us in declaring: “I rejoiced when I heard them say, let us go to God's house … for love of the house of the Lord, we shall be filled with blessings” (Ps 122:1, 9). The Church is a sacred place, and within the Catholic setting, is the “Holy of holies” the Most Blessed Sacrament where the Most High God dwells, inviting us all day and night to come to him, to acknowledge his special gifts and to be good brothers and sisters of one another. Our attitude and carriage inside the Church matter a lot. We are supposed to genuflect before the Blessed Sacrament and reverence other Sacramentals within the Church with appropriate gestures, like making a profound bow before the Crucifix. The liturgical rites and prayers within the Christian assembly are also sacred entities which must be embraced with a responsible sense of devotion and submissiveness to the Divine Will.
When we give God the chance to rule over our lives and control our everyday activities, all other fundamental human values will be restored and channelled through the carriageway of resourcefulness. By this, we would actually come to realize the evil of homo homini lupus (man's inhumanity to man), and with purified consciences, we are to fully discover the import of the “Golden Rule” “Do to others as you would want done to you” (Sir. 4:15; Matt 7:12). This realization and the consequent affirmative action by all and sundry can prop up the reversal of the present degeneration into an embrace of worthy ideals the fear of God, the upholdance of human rights and the promotion of life to the fullest.
In the midst of change and progress, mankind can, and ought to, remain focused with an appropriate sense of the sacred. And while trying to yield up to this commitment, we are also urged to guard against the two extremes of Nihilism and Religious Fanaticism also called Fundamentalism. In his 2006 World Day of Peace message to the world, Pope Benedict XVI hinted so much on this task assuring us that it is a veritable road through which the world can pull out of its present social ills. Nihilism gives rise to the evil triplets of secularism, consumerism and commercialism, all of which serve the egotistic desires of some privileged few in the society presided over by the neglect of God, the disintegration of the dignity of personhood and the abuse of human rights, both in disguised and undisguised forms. Religious fanaticism or fundamentalism is the other extreme of misguidedly over-feeling God and over-reacting beyond the limit of reason all in the name of God. The effect of this is a deeper plunge into the murky waters of mischief and fatality. Alongside this effort, we must guard against being blown or tossed about by the wind of uncertainties and despair.
By this therefore, and as a matter of urgency, we are summoned to authentic faith, firm hope, and true love, all established on rocky foundations. “By faith, we understand that the universe was ordered by the Word of God, so that what is visible came into being through the invisible” (cf. Heb 13: 3). By faith also, our understanding would help us to use all of God's provisions at his service and for the good of humankind. By firm hope, we can trust in God's furtherance of his blessings over us, and we can draw comfort, peace and joy. Let us reflect, then, with Fyodor Dostoyevsky and take it as a point of duty every moment of our lives that we must: “Love all God's creation, both the whole and every grain of sand; love every leaf, every ray of light; love the animals, love the plants, love each separate thing; if you love each thing you will perceive the mystery of God in all; and when once you perceive this, you will henceforth grow everyday to a fuller understanding of it; until you come at last to love the whole world with a love that will then be all-embracing and universal”.
As Pope John Paul the Great of Blessed Memory rightly proclaimed with all strength and vigour all through his life and Petrine ministry, we must promote truth, not trash, and we must live for the truth at all times. The principal word that needs to be spoken through all media, whether new or old, is that of the Word Himself. And so, despite whatever problems arise, the “rapid development of new technologies rank among the marvellous things which God has placed at our disposal to discover, to use and to make known the truth, also the truth about our dignity and about our destiny as his children, heirs of his eternal Kingdom”.
This phenomenon mirrors the depth of spiritual insensibilities which are prevalent in today's world in contradistinction with the spiritual mentality of past times where the Divine Essence was everywhere and at all times perceived. The magnitude of awe and reverence with which people approached Divine realities (things of God) in times past has continued to wane in our own day, prompting deeper reflections on the mystery of life and the destiny of man.
A vehement wind has blown and has supplanted the high-sounding spiritual and human values of the past with the unfortunate triplets of Secularism, Consumerism and Commercialism, thereby instigating an acute shift of attention from the spiritual to the secular, from the sacred to the profane, from religious adherence to scientifico-technological enthusiasm, from rhapsodic meditations to superficial “busy-cissitudes”, and from personal immanence to gross “sociotainment” (the quality of being engaged with social and entertainment activities, e.g. dance, sports, music, and other sensual exercises.
The tremendous progressive “super-run” of the society today in its overall evolution from the past religio-cultural non-materialistic superstructure of the world to the present scientifico-technological and socio-developmental ascent is a welcome development brought about by the indomitable 'wind' of change. But it does leave a large chunk of sour salt for the human society to contend with. This portent of distastefulness is made concrete in the gradual erosion of the sense of the sacred, and by extension, the diffusion of those eternal and human values which accord invaluable measures of security to our existence.
Is this force which is symptomatic of the replacement of immanent values with a materialistic consciousness that occurs with the passage of time supposed to be a malevolent wind or a benevolent spirit? In other words, is this wind of change that is bringing about rapid global development and at the same time the gradual erosion of the sense of the sacred, for bad or for good?
It is pertinent to note, and forcefully I state and resound it, that, 'although times and tides change, the infant changes into a full-grown man, the monolithic culture of primitive society to the technological flight of the contemporary scientific society, everything changes; it may be change from order to order, from form to form, from process to process, maybe in kinds and styles, in varying structures and degrees, GOD DOES NOT CHANGE'. He is Changeless, Immutable, Omnipotent and Eternal. He is the Lord of History and the Controller of time, who gave everything its being and quality. He directs the movement of the cosmos and the course of change yet He remains unchanging.
It is therefore, an absolute misplacement of ideals and a tragic mistake to sideline God and His divinely inspired activities while inordinately embracing the gifts of nature and human progress which God himself has given.
The mistaken understanding that the progress of the contemporary scientific culture is solely the result of modern man's intelligence and ingenuity constitutes the bedrock for the erosion of the sense of the sacred. The effect of this is also seen in the loss of respect and value for human life, and the violation of human rights and dignity. This is a horrific situation, in fact, a 'time-bomb' that could lead to an ultimate human tragedy if not checked appropriately and soon enough. The sooner modern man realizes that God is the author, sustainer and summit of his being and progress, and live according to religio-ethical parameters established in the natural order, the better for the whole human race.
Let us all listen and hear the profound call, beckoning us all to make a U-turn from the directionless drift on the sea of life's abundance back to the purposeful guidance and will of the Almighty God, who will ensure that the superabundant gifts he has given are sustained in measureless plenitudes. It is all-too-important that we re-embrace the sense of the sacred. By “we”, I mean every human being, whether male or female, rich or poor, European or African, Asian or American, scientist or traditionalist everyone.
To recapture in all wholeness, and to develop healthily, a true and noble sense of the sacred, implies absolute consciousness of God, and unreserved adherence to His Divine Will, enriched with profound respect and honour for anything that has to do with God and Divine Mysteries.
In Biblical times, the Israelites trembled with fear and bowed down their heads in worship at the appearance of the Ark of the covenant which symbolized God's presence (cf. 25:22; Num 10: 33-36; 1Sam 4:4-11); they approached God's temple with awe and reverence (cf. 2Sam 6:1-23; 2Chr. 5:1-14), and observed the commandments of God accordingly. From their historical experiences, we discover that in the moments of adherence and worship, the people flourished in every way. But at those unfortunate times when their sense of fidelity departed them, they experienced disasters and faced fatal penalties. “The past”, they say, “exists and must be recalled to help better the present and improve the future”. Can modern society not learn from the experiences of these people?
The early Christian era and Middle Ages were a Divinocentric (God-centred) world where human life and values were upheld and made to flourish. There was a clear-cut demarcation between the sacred and the profane, with the former enjoying esteemed priority in the life-structure of the people. Within this ambience, life, peace and progress flourish in superabundance.
For the contemporary man of the critico-intellectual civilization, here is an urgent message: God is as present and active in world development and human progress, as he was in the beginning when he created the world, through the passage of time in the ancient past, and in the medieval age; so he rightly is in all traditions and cultures of the world, and so he will continue to be, because he remains changeless while he directs the course of change. Therefore, all mankind must adhere to him and worship him.
Let us be filled with reverence for the house of the Lord with a proper sense of decorum and order when we are in the Church, as well as in our approach to Liturgy. The Psalmist per-empted us in declaring: “I rejoiced when I heard them say, let us go to God's house … for love of the house of the Lord, we shall be filled with blessings” (Ps 122:1, 9). The Church is a sacred place, and within the Catholic setting, is the “Holy of holies” the Most Blessed Sacrament where the Most High God dwells, inviting us all day and night to come to him, to acknowledge his special gifts and to be good brothers and sisters of one another. Our attitude and carriage inside the Church matter a lot. We are supposed to genuflect before the Blessed Sacrament and reverence other Sacramentals within the Church with appropriate gestures, like making a profound bow before the Crucifix. The liturgical rites and prayers within the Christian assembly are also sacred entities which must be embraced with a responsible sense of devotion and submissiveness to the Divine Will.
When we give God the chance to rule over our lives and control our everyday activities, all other fundamental human values will be restored and channelled through the carriageway of resourcefulness. By this, we would actually come to realize the evil of homo homini lupus (man's inhumanity to man), and with purified consciences, we are to fully discover the import of the “Golden Rule” “Do to others as you would want done to you” (Sir. 4:15; Matt 7:12). This realization and the consequent affirmative action by all and sundry can prop up the reversal of the present degeneration into an embrace of worthy ideals the fear of God, the upholdance of human rights and the promotion of life to the fullest.
In the midst of change and progress, mankind can, and ought to, remain focused with an appropriate sense of the sacred. And while trying to yield up to this commitment, we are also urged to guard against the two extremes of Nihilism and Religious Fanaticism also called Fundamentalism. In his 2006 World Day of Peace message to the world, Pope Benedict XVI hinted so much on this task assuring us that it is a veritable road through which the world can pull out of its present social ills. Nihilism gives rise to the evil triplets of secularism, consumerism and commercialism, all of which serve the egotistic desires of some privileged few in the society presided over by the neglect of God, the disintegration of the dignity of personhood and the abuse of human rights, both in disguised and undisguised forms. Religious fanaticism or fundamentalism is the other extreme of misguidedly over-feeling God and over-reacting beyond the limit of reason all in the name of God. The effect of this is a deeper plunge into the murky waters of mischief and fatality. Alongside this effort, we must guard against being blown or tossed about by the wind of uncertainties and despair.
By this therefore, and as a matter of urgency, we are summoned to authentic faith, firm hope, and true love, all established on rocky foundations. “By faith, we understand that the universe was ordered by the Word of God, so that what is visible came into being through the invisible” (cf. Heb 13: 3). By faith also, our understanding would help us to use all of God's provisions at his service and for the good of humankind. By firm hope, we can trust in God's furtherance of his blessings over us, and we can draw comfort, peace and joy. Let us reflect, then, with Fyodor Dostoyevsky and take it as a point of duty every moment of our lives that we must: “Love all God's creation, both the whole and every grain of sand; love every leaf, every ray of light; love the animals, love the plants, love each separate thing; if you love each thing you will perceive the mystery of God in all; and when once you perceive this, you will henceforth grow everyday to a fuller understanding of it; until you come at last to love the whole world with a love that will then be all-embracing and universal”.
As Pope John Paul the Great of Blessed Memory rightly proclaimed with all strength and vigour all through his life and Petrine ministry, we must promote truth, not trash, and we must live for the truth at all times. The principal word that needs to be spoken through all media, whether new or old, is that of the Word Himself. And so, despite whatever problems arise, the “rapid development of new technologies rank among the marvellous things which God has placed at our disposal to discover, to use and to make known the truth, also the truth about our dignity and about our destiny as his children, heirs of his eternal Kingdom”.
MARY, MOTHER OF GOD - Prof. Michael Ogunu
Non-Christians and Christian Fundamentalists are sometimes horrified when the Virgin Mary is referred to as the Mother of God. However, their reaction often rests upon a misapprehension of not only what this particular title of Mary signifies but also who Jesus was, and, in the case of fundamentalists, what their own theological forebears, the Protestant Reformers, had to say regarding this doctrine.
A woman is a man's mother either if she carried him in her womb or if she was the woman contributing half of his genetic matter or both. Mary was the mother of Jesus in both of these senses; because she not only carried Jesus in her womb but also supplied all of the genetic matter for his human body, since it was through hernot Josephthat Jesus "was descended from David according to the flesh" (Rom. 1:3).
Since Mary is Jesus' mother, it must be concluded that she is also the Mother of God: If Mary is the mother of Jesus, and if Jesus is God, then Mary is the Mother of God. There is no way out of this logical syllogism, the valid form of which has been recognized by classical logicians since before the time of Christ.
Although Mary is the Mother of God, it does not mean that she is older than God or the source of her Son's divinity, for she is not. Rather, we say that she is the Mother of God in the sense that she carried in her womb a divine per¬sonJesus Christ, God "in the flesh" (2 John 7, cf. John 1:14)and in the sense that she contributed the genetic matter to the human form God took in Jesus Christ.
To avoid this conclusion, Fundamentalists often assert that Mary did not carry God in her womb, but only carried Christ's human nature. This assertion reinvents a heresy from the fifth century known as Nestorianism, which runs aground on the fact that a mother does not merely carry the human nature of her child in her womb. Rather, she carries the person of her child. Women do not give birth to human natures; they give birth to persons. Mary thus carried and gave birth to the person of Jesus Christ, and the person she gave birth to is God.
The First and most fundamental teaching of the Catholic Church about Mary is based on her relationship with Jesus, that of being the mother. Jesus, 'Son of Mary' (Mk 6:3) is God; therefore, Mary is the Mother of God. The doctrine that the Blessed Virgin Mary is truly the Mother of God (Theotokos) was defined by the Council of Ephesus in A.D. 431. This does not mean that Mary, who was herself a creature of God, in any way produced or pre-existed the divinity. By her complete acceptance of God's plan, Mary became mother in time of the God who existed before time was. Christ took his human body, his human nature, from his mother, Mary. He was truly the son of Mary. Called in the Gospels "the mother of Jesus," Mary is acclaimed by Elizabeth at the prompting of the Holy Spirit and even before the birth of her son, as "the mother of my Lord." The one whom Mary conceived as man by the Holy Spirit, who truly became her son according to the flesh, was none other than the Father's eternal son, the second person of the Holy Trinity. Hence the Catholic Church confesses that Mary is truly "Mother of God."
During the first few centuries of the growth of the Church, there arose three Christological heresies which bear on the issue of the divine maternity. The first was Docetism (A.D. 110), which, while acknowledging the divinity of Christ, rejected the reality of his human nature. Arianism (A.D. 230), the second heresy, on the other hand, accepted Jesus' humanity but denied that he was the son of God, the second person of the Blessed Trinity. Both of these heresies repudiated the dual nature of Christ and the mystery of the incarnation. If Docetism was correct, Mary could not be called the Mother of God, since she would not be the mother of God the son incarnate. If Arianism were true, Jesus was not divine, and Mary could not be considered the mother of God. At the first Council of Nicaea (A.D. 325), the first ecumenical council convened by the Church, both of these positions (Docetism and Arianism) were condemned, and the reality of Jesus as true God and true man was infallibly defined. The creed which the Council of Nicaea gave to the Church is known as the Nicene Creed.
After Nicaea a third Christological heresy arose, called nestorianism (A.D. 428), which proposed two persons in Christ, rather than two natures in one person. If Nestorianism was correct, Mary would then be the mother of the human person of Christ only and therefore not the mother of God. Nestorianism was condemned by the third ecumenical council held in Ephesus (A.D. 431). In substance, the council infallibly declared that Jesus was "according to his divinity, born-of-the Father before all ages, and in these last days, according to his humanity, born of the Virgin Mary for us men and for our salvation: A union was made of the two natures. In accordance with this understanding of the unconfused union we confess that the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God (Theotokos, God Bearer) through God the Word's being incarnate and becoming man, and from this conception, His joining to Himself the temple assumed from her."
It is clear from the statement of the Council Fathers that the Catholic Church calls Mary the Mother of God because Jesus, her son, is truly God. Those who claim that Mary is not the Mother of God are saying simply that Jesus is not God. Such is the position of people like Mr. Joseph Akaluso who, writing in the Guardian on Sunday of June 20,1999 under the title "Mary, not mother of God", claimed that although Jesus Christ possessed supernatural powers when he was on this earth, "He was not God,'' Jesus according to him, was God before he became man. "At the time the word was made flesh, he (Jesus) ceased to be God..." A fundamental truth of the Christian religion is the divinity of Christ. Christ is not only a perfect man but also true God. Hence denial of the divinity of Christ is certainly one of the gravest sins that any Christian can commit.
It should be noted however that the teaching of the Church that Mary is truly the Mother of God did not originate from the Council of Ephesus. Prior to Ephesus, the Church Fathers had taught that Mary is the Mother of God.
St. Iranaeus (A.D. 202) Bishop of Lyons and pupil of Polycap, St. John's disciple, declared: "The Virgin Mary being obedient to His word, received from the angel the glad tidings, that she would bear God."
Ephraim the Syrian affirmed his belief in the Virgin birth of our Lord as follows: "Though still a virgin she carried a child in her womb, and the handmaid and work of his wisdom became the Mother of God" (Songs of Praise 1:20 [A.D. 351]).
St. Alexander (A.D. 328), Bishop of Alexandria and a key figure at the Council of Nicaea wrote that "Jesus Christ ... bore a body not in appearance but in truth, derived" from the Mother of God."
St. Gregory of Nyssa (A.D. 371) proclaimed the virginity of Mary, referring to her as "Mary, the Mother of God."
St. Athanasius (A.D. 373) secretary and successor of Alexander reflected upon "the Word begotten of the Father on high," who "inexpressibly, inexplicably, incomprehensibly; and eternally, is he that is born in time here below of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God."
According to Gregory of Nazianz, "If anyone does not agree that holy Mary is Mother of God, he is at odds with the Godhead" (Letter to Cledonius the Priest [A.D. 382]).
St. Cyril (A.D. 386), Bishop of Jerusalem referred to "the Virgin Mother of God".
St. Epiphanius (A.D. 403) Bishop of Salamis writes of the "Holy Saviour who came down from heaven, took on humanity along with His divinity, incarnate among us, not in appearance but in truth ... from Mary, the Mother of God."
"I have been amazed”, says Cyril of Alexandria, “that some are utterly in doubt as to whether or not the holy Virgin is able to be called the Mother of God. For if our Lord Jesus Christ is God, how should the holy Virgin who bore him not be the Mother of God?" (Letter to the Monks of Egypt [A.D. 427]). Later in A.D. 430, he wrote: "If anyone will not confess that the Emmanuel is very God, and that therefore the holy Virgin is the Mother of God, inasmuch as in the flesh she bore the Word of God made flesh [John 1:14]: let him be anathema" (Third Letter to Nestorius [A.D. 430]).
The message of the birth of Christ was heralded over the plains of Judea by messengers from heaven over two thousand years ago. On Christmas Day, we commemorate the coming on earth of God in human form, Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour, the Prince of Peace. With the Shepherds let us sing the praise of God and with the angels the song of thanksgiving: Glory to God in the highest and peace to men of good will. "Hail O Mary, Mother of God! Through you came to us the conquerer and triumphant vanquisher of hell”. Mary, Mother of God, pray for us.
A woman is a man's mother either if she carried him in her womb or if she was the woman contributing half of his genetic matter or both. Mary was the mother of Jesus in both of these senses; because she not only carried Jesus in her womb but also supplied all of the genetic matter for his human body, since it was through hernot Josephthat Jesus "was descended from David according to the flesh" (Rom. 1:3).
Since Mary is Jesus' mother, it must be concluded that she is also the Mother of God: If Mary is the mother of Jesus, and if Jesus is God, then Mary is the Mother of God. There is no way out of this logical syllogism, the valid form of which has been recognized by classical logicians since before the time of Christ.
Although Mary is the Mother of God, it does not mean that she is older than God or the source of her Son's divinity, for she is not. Rather, we say that she is the Mother of God in the sense that she carried in her womb a divine per¬sonJesus Christ, God "in the flesh" (2 John 7, cf. John 1:14)and in the sense that she contributed the genetic matter to the human form God took in Jesus Christ.
To avoid this conclusion, Fundamentalists often assert that Mary did not carry God in her womb, but only carried Christ's human nature. This assertion reinvents a heresy from the fifth century known as Nestorianism, which runs aground on the fact that a mother does not merely carry the human nature of her child in her womb. Rather, she carries the person of her child. Women do not give birth to human natures; they give birth to persons. Mary thus carried and gave birth to the person of Jesus Christ, and the person she gave birth to is God.
The First and most fundamental teaching of the Catholic Church about Mary is based on her relationship with Jesus, that of being the mother. Jesus, 'Son of Mary' (Mk 6:3) is God; therefore, Mary is the Mother of God. The doctrine that the Blessed Virgin Mary is truly the Mother of God (Theotokos) was defined by the Council of Ephesus in A.D. 431. This does not mean that Mary, who was herself a creature of God, in any way produced or pre-existed the divinity. By her complete acceptance of God's plan, Mary became mother in time of the God who existed before time was. Christ took his human body, his human nature, from his mother, Mary. He was truly the son of Mary. Called in the Gospels "the mother of Jesus," Mary is acclaimed by Elizabeth at the prompting of the Holy Spirit and even before the birth of her son, as "the mother of my Lord." The one whom Mary conceived as man by the Holy Spirit, who truly became her son according to the flesh, was none other than the Father's eternal son, the second person of the Holy Trinity. Hence the Catholic Church confesses that Mary is truly "Mother of God."
During the first few centuries of the growth of the Church, there arose three Christological heresies which bear on the issue of the divine maternity. The first was Docetism (A.D. 110), which, while acknowledging the divinity of Christ, rejected the reality of his human nature. Arianism (A.D. 230), the second heresy, on the other hand, accepted Jesus' humanity but denied that he was the son of God, the second person of the Blessed Trinity. Both of these heresies repudiated the dual nature of Christ and the mystery of the incarnation. If Docetism was correct, Mary could not be called the Mother of God, since she would not be the mother of God the son incarnate. If Arianism were true, Jesus was not divine, and Mary could not be considered the mother of God. At the first Council of Nicaea (A.D. 325), the first ecumenical council convened by the Church, both of these positions (Docetism and Arianism) were condemned, and the reality of Jesus as true God and true man was infallibly defined. The creed which the Council of Nicaea gave to the Church is known as the Nicene Creed.
After Nicaea a third Christological heresy arose, called nestorianism (A.D. 428), which proposed two persons in Christ, rather than two natures in one person. If Nestorianism was correct, Mary would then be the mother of the human person of Christ only and therefore not the mother of God. Nestorianism was condemned by the third ecumenical council held in Ephesus (A.D. 431). In substance, the council infallibly declared that Jesus was "according to his divinity, born-of-the Father before all ages, and in these last days, according to his humanity, born of the Virgin Mary for us men and for our salvation: A union was made of the two natures. In accordance with this understanding of the unconfused union we confess that the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God (Theotokos, God Bearer) through God the Word's being incarnate and becoming man, and from this conception, His joining to Himself the temple assumed from her."
It is clear from the statement of the Council Fathers that the Catholic Church calls Mary the Mother of God because Jesus, her son, is truly God. Those who claim that Mary is not the Mother of God are saying simply that Jesus is not God. Such is the position of people like Mr. Joseph Akaluso who, writing in the Guardian on Sunday of June 20,1999 under the title "Mary, not mother of God", claimed that although Jesus Christ possessed supernatural powers when he was on this earth, "He was not God,'' Jesus according to him, was God before he became man. "At the time the word was made flesh, he (Jesus) ceased to be God..." A fundamental truth of the Christian religion is the divinity of Christ. Christ is not only a perfect man but also true God. Hence denial of the divinity of Christ is certainly one of the gravest sins that any Christian can commit.
It should be noted however that the teaching of the Church that Mary is truly the Mother of God did not originate from the Council of Ephesus. Prior to Ephesus, the Church Fathers had taught that Mary is the Mother of God.
St. Iranaeus (A.D. 202) Bishop of Lyons and pupil of Polycap, St. John's disciple, declared: "The Virgin Mary being obedient to His word, received from the angel the glad tidings, that she would bear God."
Ephraim the Syrian affirmed his belief in the Virgin birth of our Lord as follows: "Though still a virgin she carried a child in her womb, and the handmaid and work of his wisdom became the Mother of God" (Songs of Praise 1:20 [A.D. 351]).
St. Alexander (A.D. 328), Bishop of Alexandria and a key figure at the Council of Nicaea wrote that "Jesus Christ ... bore a body not in appearance but in truth, derived" from the Mother of God."
St. Gregory of Nyssa (A.D. 371) proclaimed the virginity of Mary, referring to her as "Mary, the Mother of God."
St. Athanasius (A.D. 373) secretary and successor of Alexander reflected upon "the Word begotten of the Father on high," who "inexpressibly, inexplicably, incomprehensibly; and eternally, is he that is born in time here below of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God."
According to Gregory of Nazianz, "If anyone does not agree that holy Mary is Mother of God, he is at odds with the Godhead" (Letter to Cledonius the Priest [A.D. 382]).
St. Cyril (A.D. 386), Bishop of Jerusalem referred to "the Virgin Mother of God".
St. Epiphanius (A.D. 403) Bishop of Salamis writes of the "Holy Saviour who came down from heaven, took on humanity along with His divinity, incarnate among us, not in appearance but in truth ... from Mary, the Mother of God."
"I have been amazed”, says Cyril of Alexandria, “that some are utterly in doubt as to whether or not the holy Virgin is able to be called the Mother of God. For if our Lord Jesus Christ is God, how should the holy Virgin who bore him not be the Mother of God?" (Letter to the Monks of Egypt [A.D. 427]). Later in A.D. 430, he wrote: "If anyone will not confess that the Emmanuel is very God, and that therefore the holy Virgin is the Mother of God, inasmuch as in the flesh she bore the Word of God made flesh [John 1:14]: let him be anathema" (Third Letter to Nestorius [A.D. 430]).
The message of the birth of Christ was heralded over the plains of Judea by messengers from heaven over two thousand years ago. On Christmas Day, we commemorate the coming on earth of God in human form, Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour, the Prince of Peace. With the Shepherds let us sing the praise of God and with the angels the song of thanksgiving: Glory to God in the highest and peace to men of good will. "Hail O Mary, Mother of God! Through you came to us the conquerer and triumphant vanquisher of hell”. Mary, Mother of God, pray for us.
GOD IS WITH US - Fr. Leonard Anetekhai
The glue is a powerful liquid that can make anything stick together, but there is something a glue cannot do no matter how lard it is applied. It cannot heal a broken heart; when promises are not kept, no matter its form, or pledges are not fulfilled, it can result to a broken heart and no amount of glue can bring it back except the grace of God.
As humans, we make promises and pledges, but majority of us never keep to them because of our human weakness. But for Him who has created us, He is forever faithful to His promises, no matter the condition or situation. He may seem to delay in granting request, but he will never deny us when the time comes.
He promises through His prophet greatness for all. We are told, at the appointed time, he sent his Son born of a woman (the Blessed Virgin Mary) to save us from all our sins. (cf. Is. 7:14).
To us a king has been given, a prince of peace, a saviour to free us from the bondage of sin God is with us, Yes, God is with us, but the majority among his creatures still wonder why some go to bed without food in their stomach, why people (dear ones) travel and never return back to us, why will He allow people to commit electoral fraud without striking them down, why injustice are bound all around us, why peace and hatred has become a paradigm for us as a people of God.
Christians, the name we call ourselves and the identity we want to be acknowledge with in name and not in practice may be because of fear of the unknown or not to become a loner in a world where sincerity and spirituality only lies in the mind and not in actions.
We must understand that God can be found in three ways in our lives. First, He is a God of Puzzle. When we are faced with a Puzzle game or question, it takes a quiet mind to put one and two together to solve a Puzzle. So is God, in our state of confusion and misunderstanding, we tend to see God working out thing in our lives, His ways are not our ways and His thoughts not our thought. Yet in our confused state, He is always with us.
Secondly, He is a God of troubles. Those who are willing to serve God should be prepared for an ordeal. His birth was a sign of contradiction to so many of His time. Even Joseph his earthly father was troubled because he was told that his wife to be Mary, is with a child. Unlike many Africans, if not all African men, will not think twice before giving their wives a local visa to pack to her parent's house, if such is held, Joseph a man of honour humbled himself and welcomed the will of God the father in his life.
As Christians, many troubles will come to us because of our faith, let us not be discouraged, God is with us.
Thirdly, God is a God of presents (gifts). He offers us his gift of SALVATION. He is always with us in our sorrows, he is with us in our joy, he is with us in our struggles God is always with us, making us feel each moments of our life that we should be saved.
As humans, we make promises and pledges, but majority of us never keep to them because of our human weakness. But for Him who has created us, He is forever faithful to His promises, no matter the condition or situation. He may seem to delay in granting request, but he will never deny us when the time comes.
He promises through His prophet greatness for all. We are told, at the appointed time, he sent his Son born of a woman (the Blessed Virgin Mary) to save us from all our sins. (cf. Is. 7:14).
To us a king has been given, a prince of peace, a saviour to free us from the bondage of sin God is with us, Yes, God is with us, but the majority among his creatures still wonder why some go to bed without food in their stomach, why people (dear ones) travel and never return back to us, why will He allow people to commit electoral fraud without striking them down, why injustice are bound all around us, why peace and hatred has become a paradigm for us as a people of God.
Christians, the name we call ourselves and the identity we want to be acknowledge with in name and not in practice may be because of fear of the unknown or not to become a loner in a world where sincerity and spirituality only lies in the mind and not in actions.
We must understand that God can be found in three ways in our lives. First, He is a God of Puzzle. When we are faced with a Puzzle game or question, it takes a quiet mind to put one and two together to solve a Puzzle. So is God, in our state of confusion and misunderstanding, we tend to see God working out thing in our lives, His ways are not our ways and His thoughts not our thought. Yet in our confused state, He is always with us.
Secondly, He is a God of troubles. Those who are willing to serve God should be prepared for an ordeal. His birth was a sign of contradiction to so many of His time. Even Joseph his earthly father was troubled because he was told that his wife to be Mary, is with a child. Unlike many Africans, if not all African men, will not think twice before giving their wives a local visa to pack to her parent's house, if such is held, Joseph a man of honour humbled himself and welcomed the will of God the father in his life.
As Christians, many troubles will come to us because of our faith, let us not be discouraged, God is with us.
Thirdly, God is a God of presents (gifts). He offers us his gift of SALVATION. He is always with us in our sorrows, he is with us in our joy, he is with us in our struggles God is always with us, making us feel each moments of our life that we should be saved.
THIS IS CHRISTMAS - Most Rev. (Dr.) Gabriel G. Dunia
Christmas is an ageless reminder for all to maintain the inviolability of the reciprocity of the Love of God which has been bequeathed to humanity in perpetuity. God practicalized this Love by sending his beloved Son to the world so that all who believe will have eternal life; “ For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life” (John 3:16).
2. Humanity, must therefore, have regard for God with almost priority by being mindful of the maintenance of the inviolability of the reciprocity of God's inestimable Love for the world and its peoples. There are very many acceptable ways men and women of all conditions and states of life can be mindful in maintaining the inviolability of the reciprocity of God's Love for humanity. Yet, in our days, so many men and women tend to abandon these acceptable ways. They now prefer to follow their own worldly ways that have no bearing on believing in God's only begotten Son. This is now mostly the case at Christmas and Easter especially. By so doing many men and women now continue to undermine the inviolability of the reciprocity of the Love of God which they have duty and obligation to maintain so that they may not perish.
3. At Christmas, as at Easter, more than ever before, the faithful are supposed to attend and participate actively in the celebration of the Holy Mass and receive the Holy Eucharist which is the Body and Blood of the only Son of God in whom one must believe if one wishes to be saved ( John 3:16). The contrary is, however, the case in our days. In our days, many people leave their places or work and residence for their towns and villages, which is good. Unbelievably, these people willfully refuse and fail to attend any of the Holy Masses celebrated on Christmas night, day and season. These set of people who are supposed to be more spiritually conscious and be close to God by visiting their own home parish priest whom they have neither seen nor contacted for the past one or more years, cleverly avoid both attending church's celebrations and visiting their parish priests throughout their staying at home during Christmas. These people allow worldly cares such as family, club, economic, political and other meetings and celebrations to totally swallow them to the point of no return. They could, if they were so disposed, arrange and attend to these meetings, gatherings, celebrations and others without neglecting means of the Salvation of their souls.
4. The Bible teaches us that “from his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace” (John1:16). While it is not my intention to be unnecessarily judgmental, I am obliged as the shepherd of God's Holy people, to point out the locations of many bottomless pits into which many of our faithful now knowingly and willfully fall. At Christmas the faithful are supposed to be overwhelmed, more than ever before, with the love of God being celebrated. yet, instead of that being the case many weak faithful come home at Christmas to worship idols and organize trips to homes of native or witch doctors “to find out” about the evils they believe are likely to befall them the coming year and how they could be helped by these idols and native or witch doctors. These kind of behaviour insults the love of God and makes those concerned fall away from the fullness of the grace of God to the damnation of the devil and his agents. Christian faithful especially and indeed all men and women must retrace their steps, discover the path that leads to God in Christ more at this period of Christmas instead of turning Christmas holiday into an opportunity to turn against God and his Love.
5. One of the popular Christmas hymn: “O come let us adore him” invites all to come, worship and adore Christ the eternal love of God with a difference. To us priests and consecrated persons among the faithful of Christ must therefore be more available, ready and willing to invite the faithful to a closer knowledge of God in Christ Jesus by a special concern for how the members of our flock are faring, first, spiritually and then otherwise. We must commit ourselves to doing this most passionately without any hesitation or hindrance because our calling has made it incumbent upon us to act just in the affirmative not on the contrary.
6. The salvation of God is for all mankind (Luke 3:6) to bring this salvation to all mankind, humanity has the duty an obligation to “prepare the way of the lord, make straight his paths”(Luke 3:4). Hence, we must not fail to call upon our politicians, now that the 2011 elections are very close at hand, to endeavour to play politics, with absolute love of God and man on their hearts and minds so the straight and level play fields are put in place by those whose duty it is to plan and organize elections for the politicians as well as the electorate whose duty it is to elect candidates of their choices. It must be made clear in the minds of both politicians and electorate that electoral frauds in any forms cannot constitute any well intentioned manifestoes for bringing good governance, freedom and salvation to the people.
7. Christmas which is the celebration of eternal love of God calls for sharing our possessions with those who do not have (Luke 3:11); it calls for abandonment of armed robbery, abduction and kidnapping, assassination and other forms of evil (Luke 3:13-14); it calls for proper repentance, accepting and believing in Jesus Christ, (Luke 3:3)
The greatest and most acceptable sacrifice that can ever be made is the offering of love without any limit and condition. This is the only way a man can perfectly maintain the inviolability of the reciprocity of the love of God in Jesus Christ our Lord.
2. Humanity, must therefore, have regard for God with almost priority by being mindful of the maintenance of the inviolability of the reciprocity of God's inestimable Love for the world and its peoples. There are very many acceptable ways men and women of all conditions and states of life can be mindful in maintaining the inviolability of the reciprocity of God's Love for humanity. Yet, in our days, so many men and women tend to abandon these acceptable ways. They now prefer to follow their own worldly ways that have no bearing on believing in God's only begotten Son. This is now mostly the case at Christmas and Easter especially. By so doing many men and women now continue to undermine the inviolability of the reciprocity of the Love of God which they have duty and obligation to maintain so that they may not perish.
3. At Christmas, as at Easter, more than ever before, the faithful are supposed to attend and participate actively in the celebration of the Holy Mass and receive the Holy Eucharist which is the Body and Blood of the only Son of God in whom one must believe if one wishes to be saved ( John 3:16). The contrary is, however, the case in our days. In our days, many people leave their places or work and residence for their towns and villages, which is good. Unbelievably, these people willfully refuse and fail to attend any of the Holy Masses celebrated on Christmas night, day and season. These set of people who are supposed to be more spiritually conscious and be close to God by visiting their own home parish priest whom they have neither seen nor contacted for the past one or more years, cleverly avoid both attending church's celebrations and visiting their parish priests throughout their staying at home during Christmas. These people allow worldly cares such as family, club, economic, political and other meetings and celebrations to totally swallow them to the point of no return. They could, if they were so disposed, arrange and attend to these meetings, gatherings, celebrations and others without neglecting means of the Salvation of their souls.
4. The Bible teaches us that “from his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace” (John1:16). While it is not my intention to be unnecessarily judgmental, I am obliged as the shepherd of God's Holy people, to point out the locations of many bottomless pits into which many of our faithful now knowingly and willfully fall. At Christmas the faithful are supposed to be overwhelmed, more than ever before, with the love of God being celebrated. yet, instead of that being the case many weak faithful come home at Christmas to worship idols and organize trips to homes of native or witch doctors “to find out” about the evils they believe are likely to befall them the coming year and how they could be helped by these idols and native or witch doctors. These kind of behaviour insults the love of God and makes those concerned fall away from the fullness of the grace of God to the damnation of the devil and his agents. Christian faithful especially and indeed all men and women must retrace their steps, discover the path that leads to God in Christ more at this period of Christmas instead of turning Christmas holiday into an opportunity to turn against God and his Love.
5. One of the popular Christmas hymn: “O come let us adore him” invites all to come, worship and adore Christ the eternal love of God with a difference. To us priests and consecrated persons among the faithful of Christ must therefore be more available, ready and willing to invite the faithful to a closer knowledge of God in Christ Jesus by a special concern for how the members of our flock are faring, first, spiritually and then otherwise. We must commit ourselves to doing this most passionately without any hesitation or hindrance because our calling has made it incumbent upon us to act just in the affirmative not on the contrary.
6. The salvation of God is for all mankind (Luke 3:6) to bring this salvation to all mankind, humanity has the duty an obligation to “prepare the way of the lord, make straight his paths”(Luke 3:4). Hence, we must not fail to call upon our politicians, now that the 2011 elections are very close at hand, to endeavour to play politics, with absolute love of God and man on their hearts and minds so the straight and level play fields are put in place by those whose duty it is to plan and organize elections for the politicians as well as the electorate whose duty it is to elect candidates of their choices. It must be made clear in the minds of both politicians and electorate that electoral frauds in any forms cannot constitute any well intentioned manifestoes for bringing good governance, freedom and salvation to the people.
7. Christmas which is the celebration of eternal love of God calls for sharing our possessions with those who do not have (Luke 3:11); it calls for abandonment of armed robbery, abduction and kidnapping, assassination and other forms of evil (Luke 3:13-14); it calls for proper repentance, accepting and believing in Jesus Christ, (Luke 3:3)
The greatest and most acceptable sacrifice that can ever be made is the offering of love without any limit and condition. This is the only way a man can perfectly maintain the inviolability of the reciprocity of the love of God in Jesus Christ our Lord.
THE QUESTIONS OF LIFE AND DEATH - Rev. Fr. Francis Ikhianosime
Two words which can certainly be said to be central to discussions on human and family life are: love and life. While life flows from love, life interprets the meaning of love. The issue of life is so central because, it is that involves the whole human person. In it, a human person is essentially defined and the question of human dignity is implied. In it too involves a number of moral issues. The question of life in human and family life begins with the discussion: where does life begin since it is argued that all human life is sacred? Again, when can someone be said to be the subject of human dignity?
Hardly is there a serious contest as to when life begins but the conflict however arises when moral issues like Abortion are in question. A large part of the scientific community as well as orthodox Christianity and more dogmatically, Catholicism, agrees that human life begins at conception. Positively, conception takes place after fertilization which usually takes place 24 hours after intercourse. So, God at fertilization breathes a living soul into the zygote and unquestionably it becomes a human person (cf Gen 2:7, 1:26). He thus becomes a subject of all human rights, even though unborn. The ground for establishing the beginning of life is because of the alarming and infectious wave of modern humanistic trends which tend to violate the unborn person as merely a tissue which could be discarded and the rights of the physical human person has been emphasized to the detriment of the unborn human person. And so, it becomes expedient to establish claims even from science to dwarf this misgiving.
A scientific textbook called “Basics of Biology” gives five characteristics of living things; these five criteria are found in all modern elementary scientific textbooks: (1) Living things are highly organized. (2) All living things have an ability to acquire materials and energy. (3) All living things have an ability to respond to their environment. (4). All living things have an ability to reproduce. (5) All living things have an ability to adapt. According to this elementary definition of life, life begins at fertilization, when a sperm unites with an oocyte.
From this moment, the being is highly organized, has the ability to acquire materials and energy, has the ability to respond to his or her environment, has the ability to adapt, and has the ability to reproduce (the cells divide, then divide again, etc., and barring pathology and pending reproductive maturity has the potential to reproduce other members of the species). Non-living things do not do these things. Even before the mother is aware that she is pregnant, a distinct, unique life has begun his or her existence inside her. It must be stated too that that life is unquestionably human. This is because the distinguishing marks or what is called “Genetic imprint” of the human person; the DNA is already established and in fact the sex is determined. And so, that being is an individual. A person does not become an individual when he ceases to grow or born and not even death ceases the individuality of a person. This being so, life must therefore be conceived in the continuum: Before birth- birth- death- after death. So, life becomes one single garment that goes on through different phases. Personhood and individuality thus are not limited to the phases between birth and death.
Science too has established the following facts about the growth of the unborn child. Eighteen days after conception the baby's heart is beating. During the first month the baby grows to 10,000 times its size at conception. It moves six weeks after conception though the mother does not yet feel the movements. At eight weeks, every part of the body found in an adult is already in the baby. At eleven weeks after conception the baby has finger-prints and the finger nails are growing. At twelve weeks the baby's lips open and close. It can wrinkle its forehead, raise its eyes, turns its head, smile and frown. At sixteen weeks it reacts to sound, sucks and swallows, may get hiccups, yawns and stretches. Although moving since six weeks, at eighteen weeks the mother now feels the movements. The baby pushes with its feet and head to exercise and tone its developing muscles and also sucks its thumb. Its toenails, hair, eyebrows, fringe of eyelashes on closed eyelids are growing. At twenty weeks the baby sleeps and wakes and is fully able to hear. At twenty four weeks the baby may possibly dream and can make a fist and punch it against its mother. By twenty-five weeks the baby in the womb has the ability to hear like that of an adult and can discern the moods and attitudes of its mother
The consequent implication of this claim and fact is that the unborn child since he is also a human being, is a subject of equal rights and obligations of a viable human person and the first is that it has the right to life and the right to live. For one to destroy such life at the expense of human pride would be setting a standard for the vulnerable to be destroyed. Every human being is vulnerable at different points in life and we can enjoy the protection we may crave for and indeed help to safeguard the extinction of the human species, if we protect the vulnerable ones who depend on us for protection. To therefore maim the unborn and in fact kill it would be a case of destroying the institution of humanity at a certain level; a case of self-immolation. More so, against this back drop, any law, behavior or act that is opposed to the protection of the right of the human person is thus a counterproductive one which should not be obeyed or respected at least and should at most be condemned. This truth forbids to mothers who are pregnant whether knowingly or unknowingly to apply any such thing in the form of drug or the like; to disrupt the growth of the viable foetus. Any such act is a case of committing murder and in fact the transgressing of the fifth commandment of the Decalogue: “thou shalt not kill” (cf. Exodus 20:13). Also all those who by complicity or association directly collaborate or advice the direct killing of an unborn child are guilty of the same sin and liable to the consequences of this grievous offence as killing always elicit. It is along this boarder that Capital Punishment is condemned and a law which should be abrogated from every civil penal code as a form of penalty or deterrence. This brings us to the question of death.
Just as we have no right to take away one's life, because it is a gift, so also we cannot take another's on any condition. The questions of life and death condition our moral options. Man does not enjoy the exclusive reserve to pass someone for death even when the person is suffering from grave irrecoverable ailing conditions. It is similarly when a person has been certified lifeless or dead can we treat it as a cadaver that it has become. If not, it becomes a grave sin and one opposed to human dignity if we treat someone who still has the breath of God in him and so recognized as “image of God” (imago Dei) with contempt or any violation that suggests such.
Death is usually conceived by modern science in three forms: traditional heart-lung failure, whole brain death and higher-brain death. Knowing when a person is no longer alive is a fundamental problem when it comes to medical situations like organ transplantation. Deciding when a person is no longer alive also has significant consequences for just what we consider a "person" to be. One can destroy life by issues which threaten the comfort of life, for example: malnutrition, carelessness, abuse, theft, hatred, discrimination. Also, our treatment of the sick and aged reflect whether we have value for life or promote the culture of death. Any desecration to life is a crime that God will bring to judgment. (Gen 9:5-6)
In sum, we must recall that God is the author of life and the protection of life is not just a respect for the dignity of the human person but also for the presence of God. In contrast, the devil is the author of death because by tempting men to sin he was a murderer from the beginning (John 8:44). Thus anyone who kills by whatever form professes leaning for the devil as its agent. St. John clearly states the triple-fold mission of the devil as: to steal, to kill and to destroy (John 10:10) but lo, Christ brings life and only those who are for life would protect, promote and preserve this life.
Hardly is there a serious contest as to when life begins but the conflict however arises when moral issues like Abortion are in question. A large part of the scientific community as well as orthodox Christianity and more dogmatically, Catholicism, agrees that human life begins at conception. Positively, conception takes place after fertilization which usually takes place 24 hours after intercourse. So, God at fertilization breathes a living soul into the zygote and unquestionably it becomes a human person (cf Gen 2:7, 1:26). He thus becomes a subject of all human rights, even though unborn. The ground for establishing the beginning of life is because of the alarming and infectious wave of modern humanistic trends which tend to violate the unborn person as merely a tissue which could be discarded and the rights of the physical human person has been emphasized to the detriment of the unborn human person. And so, it becomes expedient to establish claims even from science to dwarf this misgiving.
A scientific textbook called “Basics of Biology” gives five characteristics of living things; these five criteria are found in all modern elementary scientific textbooks: (1) Living things are highly organized. (2) All living things have an ability to acquire materials and energy. (3) All living things have an ability to respond to their environment. (4). All living things have an ability to reproduce. (5) All living things have an ability to adapt. According to this elementary definition of life, life begins at fertilization, when a sperm unites with an oocyte.
From this moment, the being is highly organized, has the ability to acquire materials and energy, has the ability to respond to his or her environment, has the ability to adapt, and has the ability to reproduce (the cells divide, then divide again, etc., and barring pathology and pending reproductive maturity has the potential to reproduce other members of the species). Non-living things do not do these things. Even before the mother is aware that she is pregnant, a distinct, unique life has begun his or her existence inside her. It must be stated too that that life is unquestionably human. This is because the distinguishing marks or what is called “Genetic imprint” of the human person; the DNA is already established and in fact the sex is determined. And so, that being is an individual. A person does not become an individual when he ceases to grow or born and not even death ceases the individuality of a person. This being so, life must therefore be conceived in the continuum: Before birth- birth- death- after death. So, life becomes one single garment that goes on through different phases. Personhood and individuality thus are not limited to the phases between birth and death.
Science too has established the following facts about the growth of the unborn child. Eighteen days after conception the baby's heart is beating. During the first month the baby grows to 10,000 times its size at conception. It moves six weeks after conception though the mother does not yet feel the movements. At eight weeks, every part of the body found in an adult is already in the baby. At eleven weeks after conception the baby has finger-prints and the finger nails are growing. At twelve weeks the baby's lips open and close. It can wrinkle its forehead, raise its eyes, turns its head, smile and frown. At sixteen weeks it reacts to sound, sucks and swallows, may get hiccups, yawns and stretches. Although moving since six weeks, at eighteen weeks the mother now feels the movements. The baby pushes with its feet and head to exercise and tone its developing muscles and also sucks its thumb. Its toenails, hair, eyebrows, fringe of eyelashes on closed eyelids are growing. At twenty weeks the baby sleeps and wakes and is fully able to hear. At twenty four weeks the baby may possibly dream and can make a fist and punch it against its mother. By twenty-five weeks the baby in the womb has the ability to hear like that of an adult and can discern the moods and attitudes of its mother
The consequent implication of this claim and fact is that the unborn child since he is also a human being, is a subject of equal rights and obligations of a viable human person and the first is that it has the right to life and the right to live. For one to destroy such life at the expense of human pride would be setting a standard for the vulnerable to be destroyed. Every human being is vulnerable at different points in life and we can enjoy the protection we may crave for and indeed help to safeguard the extinction of the human species, if we protect the vulnerable ones who depend on us for protection. To therefore maim the unborn and in fact kill it would be a case of destroying the institution of humanity at a certain level; a case of self-immolation. More so, against this back drop, any law, behavior or act that is opposed to the protection of the right of the human person is thus a counterproductive one which should not be obeyed or respected at least and should at most be condemned. This truth forbids to mothers who are pregnant whether knowingly or unknowingly to apply any such thing in the form of drug or the like; to disrupt the growth of the viable foetus. Any such act is a case of committing murder and in fact the transgressing of the fifth commandment of the Decalogue: “thou shalt not kill” (cf. Exodus 20:13). Also all those who by complicity or association directly collaborate or advice the direct killing of an unborn child are guilty of the same sin and liable to the consequences of this grievous offence as killing always elicit. It is along this boarder that Capital Punishment is condemned and a law which should be abrogated from every civil penal code as a form of penalty or deterrence. This brings us to the question of death.
Just as we have no right to take away one's life, because it is a gift, so also we cannot take another's on any condition. The questions of life and death condition our moral options. Man does not enjoy the exclusive reserve to pass someone for death even when the person is suffering from grave irrecoverable ailing conditions. It is similarly when a person has been certified lifeless or dead can we treat it as a cadaver that it has become. If not, it becomes a grave sin and one opposed to human dignity if we treat someone who still has the breath of God in him and so recognized as “image of God” (imago Dei) with contempt or any violation that suggests such.
Death is usually conceived by modern science in three forms: traditional heart-lung failure, whole brain death and higher-brain death. Knowing when a person is no longer alive is a fundamental problem when it comes to medical situations like organ transplantation. Deciding when a person is no longer alive also has significant consequences for just what we consider a "person" to be. One can destroy life by issues which threaten the comfort of life, for example: malnutrition, carelessness, abuse, theft, hatred, discrimination. Also, our treatment of the sick and aged reflect whether we have value for life or promote the culture of death. Any desecration to life is a crime that God will bring to judgment. (Gen 9:5-6)
In sum, we must recall that God is the author of life and the protection of life is not just a respect for the dignity of the human person but also for the presence of God. In contrast, the devil is the author of death because by tempting men to sin he was a murderer from the beginning (John 8:44). Thus anyone who kills by whatever form professes leaning for the devil as its agent. St. John clearly states the triple-fold mission of the devil as: to steal, to kill and to destroy (John 10:10) but lo, Christ brings life and only those who are for life would protect, promote and preserve this life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)