Alex Au is a political commentator and gay activist based in Singapore. He writes thougtful essays at his webpage www.yawningbread.org . While thoughtful, it is by no means airtight. I came across his article "Singapore religious rightwing trains its sights on abortion" and i must say that i found his use of reason problematic on several fronts. I decide to write him the following letter appended below
_________________________
Dear Alex
I chanced upon your article entitled “ Singapore ’s religious rightwing trains its sights on abortion” and I must say that I do think your reasoning is problematic at several instances. May I respectfully highlight the following for your consideration.
(btw, Prof Tan is quoting my article in the Straits Times which started the debate, you can read if from my blog)
1. Characterizing those who disagree with you as attempting to impose their will on everybody else.
Your opening paragraphs characterized the so-called Christian rightwing as “american inspired" and "campaigning to impose their will on everybody else.” That seems to me pretty disingenuous. If I say that Alex Au belongs to the American inspired gay rights movement who is attempting to impose their agenda on everybody else in Singapore , you would surely take offense and rightly so.
Prof Tan (whom you consider as a rightwing representative) is simply in the business of influencing public opinion by writing an article. Come to think of it, so are you, hence your enormous output in an attempt to convince people of the rightness of your cause. You too are attempting to influence Singaporeans with your version of what’s best for Singapore so I would appreciate if you refrain from using this trope about imposing beliefs against so called right wing Christians.
2. Mischaracterization of Prof Tan’s position on abortion previously considered as a criminal activity
I think you may have misunderstood Prof Tan’s characterization of abortion as a criminal activity. She is not “unwilling to make a distinction between morality and law”. It seems to me that she is simply referring to the fact that prior to 1969, abortion is considered illegal and hence it was a criminal offense to perform one. As such, it would be a responsible thing to ensure that good moral reasons be provided to justify the overturning of such a law. Expedience should not be a consideration, especially when an issue involves what I would term fundamental human liberties.
For example, take a country known for its widespread practice of slavery although slavery remains illegal in its criminal code. What should the correct response be? To decriminalize slavery in the name of helping slaves get a better deal or to step up vigorous efforts to enforce the law? The answer seems obvious here.
Likewise, it would be necessary to first clarify whether the evil of abortion is on the same level as slavery, involving a fundamental human liberty or is it simply akin to cigarette smoking or gambling. The law can and should tolerate so called evils of the second order (i.e. cigarette smoking or gambling) but it should not tolerate evils of the first order (i.e. slavery, genocide, murder etc).
3. Clarification needed on your stated “moral queasiness” and “distasteful” attitude towards aborting a foetus but insisting that ultimately, it is the woman’s choice.
You mentioned that you find abortion distasteful and being morally queasy about this. Yet you did not state anywhere in your article what exactly are your qualms.
If abortion is akin to nothing more than an operation removing a cancerous tumor or a growth, then there is nothing distasteful about it.
If instead, a foetus is an individual, unique human being, then abortion entails killing an innocent human being. Arguing that it is acceptable in certain circumstances to kill an innocent human being is of course distasteful and morally queasy. Are you arguing for such a position without actually stating it explicitly?
4. Abortion and the nation’s birthrate
While it is true that it would seem simplistic to assume that simply banning abortions would solve the birth problem. Yet the point I think Prof Tan and myself are trying to make if you read my article is that it is ironic that while this country worries so much about our birthrates, we are taking away innocent human life (which we believe abortion to be) so easily and one might even say flippantly. Surely it is not unwise to encourage women faced with an unplanned pregnancy to see this as a potential unexpected blessing.
I am happy to continue this dialogue if you so choose.
Best regards
Nick Chui
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Make Abortions Less Easily Available
My article in the Straits Times....
_______________
Review - Others
Make abortions less easily available
Nick Chui, For The Straits Times
675 words
19 July 2008
Straits Times
English
(c) 2008 Singapore Press Holdings Limited
IN CONSIDERING the declining birth rate, one statistic seems to have slipped under the radar screen: In 2006, one in four pregnancies here was terminated. That simply means too many babies lost.
And these terminations were not mostly limited to teenagers or unmarried women either. In fact, a 2002 National University of Singapore study reported that up to 75 per cent of such women were married. Thus, what used to be considered a desperate measure has transmuted into just another mainstream method of birth control. Surely, given our baby dearth, we need to grapple with this abortion conundrum urgently.
The fact that abortions are being used in this manner masks a problem that we may have with the notion of contraception per se. In fact, in May, the medical profession urged that there be more education about contraception here. This came after surveys revealed that Singaporeans are not warming up to the various contraceptive methods available, opting for abortions instead if and when the need arises.
This means that, for many, procreation has become a regrettable accident most of the time, which is why abortion is seen as the logical solution. What can be done to change this mentality?
First, we could start restricting the availability of abortions. Currently, they are available on demand for up to 24 weeks of pregnancy for any reason ranging from the tragic to the frivolous.
Note that when compulsory counselling and the lifting of subsidies for abortion were introduced in 1986, the number of pregnancies terminated fell from a high of 35.5 per cent to 25 per cent, which is still true today.
How and when to restrict abortion as a reproductive choice will have to be debated fully before legislating it. But it must be done soon.
Second, let us begin vigorous campaigns to help parents accept their 'accidental' children rather than choose to abort such pregnancies. We can change minds so they see that having children actually enhances marital bliss.
To do this, we must put front and centre the 9 per cent of Singaporeans who have five or more children. The media should lionise these folk. Media coverage could explain in fine-grain detail how they, in their fecund circumstances with their big families, cope ably with the same worries the average Singaporean has about work-life balance, finances, education for children, and so on.
Third, we should create wider awareness about natural methods of fertility management. For example, the Billings Ovulation Method has been certified by the World Health Organisation as being 99 per cent effective in avoiding pregnancies.
In our context, what is even more important is that the use of this method cultivates an awareness of the woman's fertility cycle and planning for a child is made much easier. Considering the significant number of couples who are having difficulty conceiving, being aware of the periods when the woman is most fertile can only help matters.
Furthermore, couples who use natural methods of fertility management attest to the fact that they find their sex lives very satisfying. A mother of six has even blogged about her experience at http://fohl.blogspot.com, though her ardent comments cannot be repeated in a family newspaper like The Straits Times.
Suffice to say that the periods of abstinence these methods require of the couple can help them demonstrate to each other that they are master and mistress of their passions. Such 'organic sex' immediately takes on a deeper meaning rather than a perfunctory satisfaction of salacious urges.
These measures may seem like bitter medicine but our national fertility rate has seen an unchecked downtrend for 32 years now. It is high time we did something new to arrest and reverse this pernicious trend. Let us limit abortions now.
The writer is a family life educator. These are his personal opinions only.
_______________
Review - Others
Make abortions less easily available
Nick Chui, For The Straits Times
675 words
19 July 2008
Straits Times
English
(c) 2008 Singapore Press Holdings Limited
IN CONSIDERING the declining birth rate, one statistic seems to have slipped under the radar screen: In 2006, one in four pregnancies here was terminated. That simply means too many babies lost.
And these terminations were not mostly limited to teenagers or unmarried women either. In fact, a 2002 National University of Singapore study reported that up to 75 per cent of such women were married. Thus, what used to be considered a desperate measure has transmuted into just another mainstream method of birth control. Surely, given our baby dearth, we need to grapple with this abortion conundrum urgently.
The fact that abortions are being used in this manner masks a problem that we may have with the notion of contraception per se. In fact, in May, the medical profession urged that there be more education about contraception here. This came after surveys revealed that Singaporeans are not warming up to the various contraceptive methods available, opting for abortions instead if and when the need arises.
This means that, for many, procreation has become a regrettable accident most of the time, which is why abortion is seen as the logical solution. What can be done to change this mentality?
First, we could start restricting the availability of abortions. Currently, they are available on demand for up to 24 weeks of pregnancy for any reason ranging from the tragic to the frivolous.
Note that when compulsory counselling and the lifting of subsidies for abortion were introduced in 1986, the number of pregnancies terminated fell from a high of 35.5 per cent to 25 per cent, which is still true today.
How and when to restrict abortion as a reproductive choice will have to be debated fully before legislating it. But it must be done soon.
Second, let us begin vigorous campaigns to help parents accept their 'accidental' children rather than choose to abort such pregnancies. We can change minds so they see that having children actually enhances marital bliss.
To do this, we must put front and centre the 9 per cent of Singaporeans who have five or more children. The media should lionise these folk. Media coverage could explain in fine-grain detail how they, in their fecund circumstances with their big families, cope ably with the same worries the average Singaporean has about work-life balance, finances, education for children, and so on.
Third, we should create wider awareness about natural methods of fertility management. For example, the Billings Ovulation Method has been certified by the World Health Organisation as being 99 per cent effective in avoiding pregnancies.
In our context, what is even more important is that the use of this method cultivates an awareness of the woman's fertility cycle and planning for a child is made much easier. Considering the significant number of couples who are having difficulty conceiving, being aware of the periods when the woman is most fertile can only help matters.
Furthermore, couples who use natural methods of fertility management attest to the fact that they find their sex lives very satisfying. A mother of six has even blogged about her experience at http://fohl.blogspot.com, though her ardent comments cannot be repeated in a family newspaper like The Straits Times.
Suffice to say that the periods of abstinence these methods require of the couple can help them demonstrate to each other that they are master and mistress of their passions. Such 'organic sex' immediately takes on a deeper meaning rather than a perfunctory satisfaction of salacious urges.
These measures may seem like bitter medicine but our national fertility rate has seen an unchecked downtrend for 32 years now. It is high time we did something new to arrest and reverse this pernicious trend. Let us limit abortions now.
The writer is a family life educator. These are his personal opinions only.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
on Euthanasia
Catholic News published an edited version on my take on Euthanasia... You can read the longer version below
_________________
For the longest time, people of goodwill have seen and accompanied their loved ones in the final stages of their very often painful process of dying. Why then, in our age of pain control and quality hospice care is there a sudden clamor for euthanasia?
At the heart of the movement to legalise euthanasia lies a notion that a human being has absolute dominion over his own life and he can do of it as he pleases, including opting for his own death in order to increase his sum total of happiness. The cry “who are you to prevent me from killing myself if I so chose” is never far away.
Yet do we as human beings have absolute dominion over our own lives? No we do not. We came into the world not on our own accord. If we believe in God, we recognize that our lives are His gift to us. If we do not believe in God, the fact still remains that we did not create ourselves, that we are linked with the rest of humanity in a state of solidarity and interdependence and our lives remain a mystery.
The campaign for euthanasia is in the final analysis a campaign for the choice to make one final defiant act of self-assertion flung into the face of the abyss.
Not to opt for euthanasia on the other hand is to experience a painful but potentially graced filled encounter with death. Life was and remains a gift. My exit from this world is but my acceptance of my mortality and my frail nature. And I am grateful to everybody who continued to show me care and love even when I am gravely ill.
And if I am a believer; I am placing myself into the hands of my Creator who in his providence will lead me home at the right time to a better place.
_________________
For the longest time, people of goodwill have seen and accompanied their loved ones in the final stages of their very often painful process of dying. Why then, in our age of pain control and quality hospice care is there a sudden clamor for euthanasia?
At the heart of the movement to legalise euthanasia lies a notion that a human being has absolute dominion over his own life and he can do of it as he pleases, including opting for his own death in order to increase his sum total of happiness. The cry “who are you to prevent me from killing myself if I so chose” is never far away.
Yet do we as human beings have absolute dominion over our own lives? No we do not. We came into the world not on our own accord. If we believe in God, we recognize that our lives are His gift to us. If we do not believe in God, the fact still remains that we did not create ourselves, that we are linked with the rest of humanity in a state of solidarity and interdependence and our lives remain a mystery.
The campaign for euthanasia is in the final analysis a campaign for the choice to make one final defiant act of self-assertion flung into the face of the abyss.
Not to opt for euthanasia on the other hand is to experience a painful but potentially graced filled encounter with death. Life was and remains a gift. My exit from this world is but my acceptance of my mortality and my frail nature. And I am grateful to everybody who continued to show me care and love even when I am gravely ill.
And if I am a believer; I am placing myself into the hands of my Creator who in his providence will lead me home at the right time to a better place.
Open Letter to President of AWARE Constance Singam
Mrs. Constance Singam, new president of Aware was quoted as having said this in the Straits Times on the 19th November 2008
On reconciling her Catholic faith with her pro-choice views on abortion(headline)
"One of the first things I did was train myself to get rid of the guilt complex. I stopped going to church for a while and went only when i felt comfortable that i was going because i wanted to celebrate my human-ness and my connection with divinity"
I decided to write to Mrs Singam the following letter below
_______________________________
Dear Mrs Singam
I write to express my concern regarding the remarks you made in an interview with the Straits Times on the 19th Nov 2008. I do not judge your heart and your motives, i am simply responding based on what you were reported to have said.
You were quoted saying that it is possible to reconcile the Catholic faith with your pro-choice views on abortion.
If an AWARE member were to say that he is able to reconcile his misogynistic views towards women and his continued membership in AWARE, he would be rightly considered out of line and probably asked to withdraw his membership.
The Catholic Church has always considered from the very first century that direct abortion is a grave offense. The late Pope John Paul II in his encyclical Evangelium Vitae describes abortion as an “unspeakable crime”, “intrinsically unjust” and insisted that Christians have a grave obligation not to cooperate formally or to take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law.
Like AWARE, the Catholic Church is a voluntary organization. No one is forced to become Catholic, and anyone is free to allow their membership to lapse if they vehemently disagree with its values and core beliefs.
What is unacceptable however is to claim that it is possible to publicly disagree with a core belief of an organization and continue to remain in good standing.
I respectfully suggest the following for your consideration
a. That you take the effort to understand the Catholic Church’s teachings on abortion, why it considers it violence towards both the child and mother, come to embrace the teaching of her Church and publicly recant your reported views.
b.. If after due consideration, you are unable in conscience to accept the Church’s teaching in this area, you are still welcome in Church. But you should refrain from claiming, especially in a public forum, that your views are compatible with the Catholic faith your profess and should also refrain from presenting yourself for Holy Communion, which according to Catholic belief, is not only the body and blood of Jesus Christ, but also a symbolic act whereby a Catholic affirms in a public manner that he is in communion and agreement with the teachings of his Church.
I work as a Marketing Executive with the Family Life Society and would be happy to meet up sometime for an exchange of views. My email is chesterton81@yahoo.com.sg or nickchui@familylife.sg
Best wishes
Nick Chui
www.familylife.sg
On reconciling her Catholic faith with her pro-choice views on abortion(headline)
"One of the first things I did was train myself to get rid of the guilt complex. I stopped going to church for a while and went only when i felt comfortable that i was going because i wanted to celebrate my human-ness and my connection with divinity"
I decided to write to Mrs Singam the following letter below
_______________________________
Dear Mrs Singam
I write to express my concern regarding the remarks you made in an interview with the Straits Times on the 19th Nov 2008. I do not judge your heart and your motives, i am simply responding based on what you were reported to have said.
You were quoted saying that it is possible to reconcile the Catholic faith with your pro-choice views on abortion.
If an AWARE member were to say that he is able to reconcile his misogynistic views towards women and his continued membership in AWARE, he would be rightly considered out of line and probably asked to withdraw his membership.
The Catholic Church has always considered from the very first century that direct abortion is a grave offense. The late Pope John Paul II in his encyclical Evangelium Vitae describes abortion as an “unspeakable crime”, “intrinsically unjust” and insisted that Christians have a grave obligation not to cooperate formally or to take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law.
Like AWARE, the Catholic Church is a voluntary organization. No one is forced to become Catholic, and anyone is free to allow their membership to lapse if they vehemently disagree with its values and core beliefs.
What is unacceptable however is to claim that it is possible to publicly disagree with a core belief of an organization and continue to remain in good standing.
I respectfully suggest the following for your consideration
a. That you take the effort to understand the Catholic Church’s teachings on abortion, why it considers it violence towards both the child and mother, come to embrace the teaching of her Church and publicly recant your reported views.
b.. If after due consideration, you are unable in conscience to accept the Church’s teaching in this area, you are still welcome in Church. But you should refrain from claiming, especially in a public forum, that your views are compatible with the Catholic faith your profess and should also refrain from presenting yourself for Holy Communion, which according to Catholic belief, is not only the body and blood of Jesus Christ, but also a symbolic act whereby a Catholic affirms in a public manner that he is in communion and agreement with the teachings of his Church.
I work as a Marketing Executive with the Family Life Society and would be happy to meet up sometime for an exchange of views. My email is chesterton81@yahoo.com.sg or nickchui@familylife.sg
Best wishes
Nick Chui
www.familylife.sg
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
I can do without Mary?
Appended below is a talk i gave to some of the legionaries and their friends in NUS....
_________________________________
I can do without Mary?
We know that Marian devotion is central to the official teaching of the Church. Every encyclical issued by Popes would contain a hymn to our Lady or a prayer. John Paul II himself was a great promoter of devotion to the Blessed Virgin, writing an entire encyclical entitled Mother of the Redeemer or Redemptoris Mater devoted to her, putting M on his coat of arms, the first of a kind for any pope and even attributing his very survival in the 1981 assassination attempt to the intercession of the Virgin of Fatima.
In Singapore, devotion to our Blessed Mother is strong. Novena Church as the recent Catholic News reports, attracts, thousands of people every week, all believing that the Blessed Virgin will be their mother and assist them in their needs.
Yet we hear the objection very often that Catholics place to much emphasis on the Blessed Virgin. And these days, it is not only Protestants who are objecting. I would like to sketch in this short paper, 3 objections and also attempt to at least respond in some part to these objections. Hopefully, what follows would provide material for a fruitful discussion.
The first objection comes of course from our separated brethren. Many Protestants see devotion to the Blessed Virgin as unbiblical and detracting from the unique mediation of Jesus Christ.
Many actually believe that we worship her, are uncomfortable with the statues and processions, seeing this as a lapsing into a certain form of idolatry, forbidden in scripture.
At best, Protestants who consider Catholics Christian see Marian devotion as an unnecessary distraction from the real business of worshipping God. You probably would have heard this said many times “If you can go directly to Jesus, why do we need to go to Mary?
The second objection actually comes from Catholics. These Catholics like to see themselves as influenced by the so called “spirit of Vatican II”. For those present unfamiliar with Vatican II, it was a Church council held from 1958-1963 which sought to renew the Church to better meet the challenges of proclaiming the Gospel in the modern world. The so called “spirit of Vatican II” Catholics tend to see Vatican II as a radical break from the unhappy Catholic past and a new beginning from which to construct an “authentic” Christianity. They believed that the council called for a de- emphasis on Mary so as not to offend Protestant and ecumenical sensibilities and to find common ground with Protestants on common Christological beliefs.
There are also another group of Catholics who were very much influenced by liberation theology. In a nutshell, liberation theology attempted to use the ideas of Marx and synthesized that with the Gospel. They saw Jesus Christ not so much as a saviour from personal sin but rather a revolutionary who had inspired the poor of his time to resist their oppressors. They reinterpreted much of so called traditional Christianity. For example, many saw the traditional corporal works of mercy performed by conscientious Catholics as “non transformative”, justifying an inherently oppressive Capitalist system and not going to the roots of the problem which was that of the evils of Capitalism itself.
This group of Catholics tended to see Marian devotions as non-transformative. “Too devotional” is their constant refrain, with an excessive concern with one’s private salvation and with no real impact on the world and its unjust sinful structures. The only thing of some value to the liberationists is the single verse of the Magnificat “He has cast down the mighty from their thrones and raises the lowly”. The rest of Marian devotion seems to many liberationists as what Marx himself would describe as the “opiate of the people”.
The third objection comes from people whom we can loosely define as feminists of various degrees of extremity and various degrees of religious persuasion. They usually take as their bone of contention the all male celibate hierarchy of the Catholic Church, seeing it as an unjust structure of male domination. To the reply from the Church that the Church honours no human creature more than the Blessed Mother, they rejoin that the values promoted by traditional or official portrayals of the Blessed Virgin are in the final analysis demeaning and dehumanizing to women.
French feminist Simone de Beauvoir fumes “I am the handmaid of the Lord. For the first time in the history of mankind, a mother kneels before her son and acknowledges, of her own free will, her inferiority. The supreme victory of masculinity is consummated in Mariolatry: it signifies the rehabilitation of woman through the completeness of her defeat.”
Other feminists see Our Lady’s perpetual virginity as an affront to woman, a denial of the sensual and sexual part of being female.
Against this 3 pronged objection, what then is the response of the Church?
In a nutshell, Mary matters and a Catholic cannot do without her.
Against the Protestant rejoinder that Mary does not matter. The Church essentially teaches “if Mary does not matter, than neither do you.”
At the crux of the Protestant objection is what I think are confused and erroneous understandings of human freedom and Divine Predestination. Protestant reformer John Calvin held that mankind, after the fall is totally depraved and incapable of goodness. It is only through the irresistible grace of God that someone is saved. In other words, a person is saved by virtue of divine election with his human freedom playing a minimum or almost non existent part in his salvation. Martin Luther furthered argued that in his doctrine of justification that the justified human person is like “snow covering dung”. The person is still rotten but is covered by the blood of Jesus Christ. When God the Father judges, he sees the blood of Christ and the person gains salvation, even though internally, he continues to remain rotten.
From this, it would logically follow that since we don’t really matter in our being saved, Mary does not matter very much either.
The Catholic understanding of both freedom and predestination is quite different. We are not totally depraved, we remain capable of freedom, wounded as we are, we can cooperate with divine grace. Divine election is a free Yes to God, God does not coerce us. If that is the case, then Our Lady’s “Yes” is a free Yes to God empowered of course by his Grace. It was not forced or coerced. St. Louis Marie de Montfort puts it very well in his “True Devotion to Mary when he says”
With the whole Church, I acknowledge that Mary being a mere creature fashioned by the hands of God is, compared to his infinite majesty, less than an atom, or rather is simply nothing since he alone can say, I am he who is. Consequently, this great Lord, who is ever independent and self-sufficient, never had and does not now have any absolute need of the Blessed Virgin for the accomplishment of his will and the manifestation of his glory. To do all things he has only to will them. However I declare that, considering things as they are, because God has decided to begin and accomplish his greatest works through the Blessed Virgin ever since he created her, we can safely believe that he will not change his plan in the time to come, for he is God and therefore does not change in his thoughts or his way of acting.
In other words, since Mary matters in God’s plan, we also matter. God could have saved the word without Mary’s help but he chose to do it through Mary. And he choses to do it through us today when we share the good news with our friends. In other words, as a title of a book puts it, Mary is: “God’s Yes to Man”, God believes in man that even if man was responsible for his fall, man through the person of the Blessed Virgin cooperating with His divine grace can also be saved.
To the charge that images of Mary are a slip into idolatry, the Church insists that since God has made his countenance known in the person of his Son Jesus Christ, it is only right and proper that art be allowed to depict Him and the saints. “But bowing down to images and touching the feet of saints” can cause a slip into idolatry”, I have heard one person said. Now it is true that the use of images can be abused. Then again, Bible study can also be abused, with everybody coming up with their own interpretations. But should we forbid people from reading the Bible? Of course not. What is needed is a correct understanding. The same principle should be applied to the use of images.
.
Against the downplaying of some Catholics towards Marian devotion, the church reaffirms that to transform the world, Marian devotion is absolutely vital. Some Catholics misunderstand ecumenism. They see ecumenism as simply Christianity at the lowest common denominator. If Protestants cannot agree about Mary, then it is better not to mention her and focus on the essentials. That would be incorrect. A correct understanding of ecumenism would be for Christians to come together, talk and share about what unites them but also to share in a respectful manner what divides them. In a spirit of friendship, walls of mistrust can be broken down. Christians should be united by a common search for truth and share the desire of Our Lord that “all may be one”.
Against the charge that Marian devotions are “non transformative” and “too devotional”, the Church insists that sin is first and foremost personal and not simply “out there.” Sinful social structures, of which a preeminent example is that of “the culture of death” alluded to by John Paul II in his encyclical Evangelium Vitae lies first and foremost in the hearts of individuals. If sin lies in the hearts of individuals, then rooting it out first in our own hearts is a necessary precondition for social transformation. I was reminded of Black US Supreme Court Judge Clarence Thomas’ biography “My Grandfather’s Son”. His grandfather, recounted Judge Thomas, went to Church and prayed the rosary in a still very racist southern state of Georgia not because he was a weak man. He went, in Judge Thomas’ words “to cage the beast” of anger and hatred towards such oppression, to be transformed so that he will have the strength to endure racism and to ensure a better future for his grandchildren by working hard and providing for them. Judge Thomas on the other hand, during the 1960s wanted to “release the beast” of anger and hatred and was involved in social radicalism typical of that generation. Did it actually help his people? His answer was no.
And indeed we see the same also in Latin America. While large segments of the Catholic Church turned towards a Marxist tinged liberation theology, Catholics were leaving in great numbers and flooding to the evangelical and Pentecostal sects which promised the comforts of a faith in touch with the supernatural and also a standard of ethics and community for the poor.
Indeed, Marian devotion can also be seen as a form of cultural resistance. Witness the rise of Poland’s first independent trade union “Solidarity” where the Black Madonna, Our Lady of Czechtohowa played a prominent role in reminding Poles of their true identity, in Christ and not godless Communism. If you watched the movie “John Paul II” by John Voigt, you would probably remember a scene where Bishop Karol Wojtyla’s secretary Dsiwiz informed him that the communist authorities do not allow religious images to be publicly carried in procession, thus putting in jeopardy the annual procession of the Black Madonna. Bishop Wojtyla thought to himself and said, “well they said that images are not allowed so…” He proceeded to have the procession, complete with the traditional songs to the Black Madonna but this time with carrying an empty frame without the image. Everybody knew what it meant. The communists have been outwitted by this clever bishop.
Finally, the Church insists that Mary is vital for the development of a new an authentic feminism.
In his encyclical “Redemptoris Mater”, the Pope insists that the profile of the Church is Marian before it is Peterine. What does the Pope mean by that? Essentially, it means that the Church puts “being” before “doing.” All members of Christ faithful are called to be Marian first and foremost. How so? By allowing the word of God to penetrate so deeply into their hearts that it bears fruit and divine life. That essentially was what Our Blessed Mother experienced and lived at the annunciation and all throughout her life and that is what all Christians are called to live prior to anything else he may intend to do for God’s glory. It is only with a Marian spirituality, that of being totally receptive to the will of God that the Peterine, or the function of ruling, governing and activity will make sense. Yes indeed, Peter was called to be the head of the Church. But the head of the Church, when he neglected prayer decided to swing his sword wildly at the garden of Gethsemane and eventually deny his master three times. It was activity no doubt. But activity rooted not in “being” but in “doing”.
Which bring us also to the consideration of Our Blessed Mother being both “Virgin” and “Mother”. She is both virgin and mother because both these vocations are an equally legitimate way of living out the Christian’s call to holiness, in married life and in celibacy for the kingdom of God.
In the Blessed Virgin, women are not simply reduced to their biological values, valuable only when she is able to have children. A woman is still in her spiritual depths a mother and a daughter even if she is not biologically a mother. Likewise, in the Blessed Virgin, women are also not estranged from their biology. They are not hostile towards their procreative and live giving power but seek to understand it and in hope, praise the creator for their gift of femininity. Indeed, it is through the birth of a child that the world is saved.
So in the final analysis, who holds the treasure of being which without it would make all activity useless? Women and preeminently Mary the Mother of God. The Mother of God attests to the fact that the ultimate paradigm of human existence is that of love and not power, of receptivity to the will of God and not grasping and snatching at happiness from a Creator who cannot be trusted.
I have sketched both the objections towards the person of Mary and the responses to these from the teaching of the Church. I hope that as we grapple with these ideas at this patrician meeting, it can bear fruit in our lives.
Mary our hope, seat of wisdom, intercede for us.
_________________________________
I can do without Mary?
We know that Marian devotion is central to the official teaching of the Church. Every encyclical issued by Popes would contain a hymn to our Lady or a prayer. John Paul II himself was a great promoter of devotion to the Blessed Virgin, writing an entire encyclical entitled Mother of the Redeemer or Redemptoris Mater devoted to her, putting M on his coat of arms, the first of a kind for any pope and even attributing his very survival in the 1981 assassination attempt to the intercession of the Virgin of Fatima.
In Singapore, devotion to our Blessed Mother is strong. Novena Church as the recent Catholic News reports, attracts, thousands of people every week, all believing that the Blessed Virgin will be their mother and assist them in their needs.
Yet we hear the objection very often that Catholics place to much emphasis on the Blessed Virgin. And these days, it is not only Protestants who are objecting. I would like to sketch in this short paper, 3 objections and also attempt to at least respond in some part to these objections. Hopefully, what follows would provide material for a fruitful discussion.
The first objection comes of course from our separated brethren. Many Protestants see devotion to the Blessed Virgin as unbiblical and detracting from the unique mediation of Jesus Christ.
Many actually believe that we worship her, are uncomfortable with the statues and processions, seeing this as a lapsing into a certain form of idolatry, forbidden in scripture.
At best, Protestants who consider Catholics Christian see Marian devotion as an unnecessary distraction from the real business of worshipping God. You probably would have heard this said many times “If you can go directly to Jesus, why do we need to go to Mary?
The second objection actually comes from Catholics. These Catholics like to see themselves as influenced by the so called “spirit of Vatican II”. For those present unfamiliar with Vatican II, it was a Church council held from 1958-1963 which sought to renew the Church to better meet the challenges of proclaiming the Gospel in the modern world. The so called “spirit of Vatican II” Catholics tend to see Vatican II as a radical break from the unhappy Catholic past and a new beginning from which to construct an “authentic” Christianity. They believed that the council called for a de- emphasis on Mary so as not to offend Protestant and ecumenical sensibilities and to find common ground with Protestants on common Christological beliefs.
There are also another group of Catholics who were very much influenced by liberation theology. In a nutshell, liberation theology attempted to use the ideas of Marx and synthesized that with the Gospel. They saw Jesus Christ not so much as a saviour from personal sin but rather a revolutionary who had inspired the poor of his time to resist their oppressors. They reinterpreted much of so called traditional Christianity. For example, many saw the traditional corporal works of mercy performed by conscientious Catholics as “non transformative”, justifying an inherently oppressive Capitalist system and not going to the roots of the problem which was that of the evils of Capitalism itself.
This group of Catholics tended to see Marian devotions as non-transformative. “Too devotional” is their constant refrain, with an excessive concern with one’s private salvation and with no real impact on the world and its unjust sinful structures. The only thing of some value to the liberationists is the single verse of the Magnificat “He has cast down the mighty from their thrones and raises the lowly”. The rest of Marian devotion seems to many liberationists as what Marx himself would describe as the “opiate of the people”.
The third objection comes from people whom we can loosely define as feminists of various degrees of extremity and various degrees of religious persuasion. They usually take as their bone of contention the all male celibate hierarchy of the Catholic Church, seeing it as an unjust structure of male domination. To the reply from the Church that the Church honours no human creature more than the Blessed Mother, they rejoin that the values promoted by traditional or official portrayals of the Blessed Virgin are in the final analysis demeaning and dehumanizing to women.
French feminist Simone de Beauvoir fumes “I am the handmaid of the Lord. For the first time in the history of mankind, a mother kneels before her son and acknowledges, of her own free will, her inferiority. The supreme victory of masculinity is consummated in Mariolatry: it signifies the rehabilitation of woman through the completeness of her defeat.”
Other feminists see Our Lady’s perpetual virginity as an affront to woman, a denial of the sensual and sexual part of being female.
Against this 3 pronged objection, what then is the response of the Church?
In a nutshell, Mary matters and a Catholic cannot do without her.
Against the Protestant rejoinder that Mary does not matter. The Church essentially teaches “if Mary does not matter, than neither do you.”
At the crux of the Protestant objection is what I think are confused and erroneous understandings of human freedom and Divine Predestination. Protestant reformer John Calvin held that mankind, after the fall is totally depraved and incapable of goodness. It is only through the irresistible grace of God that someone is saved. In other words, a person is saved by virtue of divine election with his human freedom playing a minimum or almost non existent part in his salvation. Martin Luther furthered argued that in his doctrine of justification that the justified human person is like “snow covering dung”. The person is still rotten but is covered by the blood of Jesus Christ. When God the Father judges, he sees the blood of Christ and the person gains salvation, even though internally, he continues to remain rotten.
From this, it would logically follow that since we don’t really matter in our being saved, Mary does not matter very much either.
The Catholic understanding of both freedom and predestination is quite different. We are not totally depraved, we remain capable of freedom, wounded as we are, we can cooperate with divine grace. Divine election is a free Yes to God, God does not coerce us. If that is the case, then Our Lady’s “Yes” is a free Yes to God empowered of course by his Grace. It was not forced or coerced. St. Louis Marie de Montfort puts it very well in his “True Devotion to Mary when he says”
With the whole Church, I acknowledge that Mary being a mere creature fashioned by the hands of God is, compared to his infinite majesty, less than an atom, or rather is simply nothing since he alone can say, I am he who is. Consequently, this great Lord, who is ever independent and self-sufficient, never had and does not now have any absolute need of the Blessed Virgin for the accomplishment of his will and the manifestation of his glory. To do all things he has only to will them. However I declare that, considering things as they are, because God has decided to begin and accomplish his greatest works through the Blessed Virgin ever since he created her, we can safely believe that he will not change his plan in the time to come, for he is God and therefore does not change in his thoughts or his way of acting.
In other words, since Mary matters in God’s plan, we also matter. God could have saved the word without Mary’s help but he chose to do it through Mary. And he choses to do it through us today when we share the good news with our friends. In other words, as a title of a book puts it, Mary is: “God’s Yes to Man”, God believes in man that even if man was responsible for his fall, man through the person of the Blessed Virgin cooperating with His divine grace can also be saved.
To the charge that images of Mary are a slip into idolatry, the Church insists that since God has made his countenance known in the person of his Son Jesus Christ, it is only right and proper that art be allowed to depict Him and the saints. “But bowing down to images and touching the feet of saints” can cause a slip into idolatry”, I have heard one person said. Now it is true that the use of images can be abused. Then again, Bible study can also be abused, with everybody coming up with their own interpretations. But should we forbid people from reading the Bible? Of course not. What is needed is a correct understanding. The same principle should be applied to the use of images.
.
Against the downplaying of some Catholics towards Marian devotion, the church reaffirms that to transform the world, Marian devotion is absolutely vital. Some Catholics misunderstand ecumenism. They see ecumenism as simply Christianity at the lowest common denominator. If Protestants cannot agree about Mary, then it is better not to mention her and focus on the essentials. That would be incorrect. A correct understanding of ecumenism would be for Christians to come together, talk and share about what unites them but also to share in a respectful manner what divides them. In a spirit of friendship, walls of mistrust can be broken down. Christians should be united by a common search for truth and share the desire of Our Lord that “all may be one”.
Against the charge that Marian devotions are “non transformative” and “too devotional”, the Church insists that sin is first and foremost personal and not simply “out there.” Sinful social structures, of which a preeminent example is that of “the culture of death” alluded to by John Paul II in his encyclical Evangelium Vitae lies first and foremost in the hearts of individuals. If sin lies in the hearts of individuals, then rooting it out first in our own hearts is a necessary precondition for social transformation. I was reminded of Black US Supreme Court Judge Clarence Thomas’ biography “My Grandfather’s Son”. His grandfather, recounted Judge Thomas, went to Church and prayed the rosary in a still very racist southern state of Georgia not because he was a weak man. He went, in Judge Thomas’ words “to cage the beast” of anger and hatred towards such oppression, to be transformed so that he will have the strength to endure racism and to ensure a better future for his grandchildren by working hard and providing for them. Judge Thomas on the other hand, during the 1960s wanted to “release the beast” of anger and hatred and was involved in social radicalism typical of that generation. Did it actually help his people? His answer was no.
And indeed we see the same also in Latin America. While large segments of the Catholic Church turned towards a Marxist tinged liberation theology, Catholics were leaving in great numbers and flooding to the evangelical and Pentecostal sects which promised the comforts of a faith in touch with the supernatural and also a standard of ethics and community for the poor.
Indeed, Marian devotion can also be seen as a form of cultural resistance. Witness the rise of Poland’s first independent trade union “Solidarity” where the Black Madonna, Our Lady of Czechtohowa played a prominent role in reminding Poles of their true identity, in Christ and not godless Communism. If you watched the movie “John Paul II” by John Voigt, you would probably remember a scene where Bishop Karol Wojtyla’s secretary Dsiwiz informed him that the communist authorities do not allow religious images to be publicly carried in procession, thus putting in jeopardy the annual procession of the Black Madonna. Bishop Wojtyla thought to himself and said, “well they said that images are not allowed so…” He proceeded to have the procession, complete with the traditional songs to the Black Madonna but this time with carrying an empty frame without the image. Everybody knew what it meant. The communists have been outwitted by this clever bishop.
Finally, the Church insists that Mary is vital for the development of a new an authentic feminism.
In his encyclical “Redemptoris Mater”, the Pope insists that the profile of the Church is Marian before it is Peterine. What does the Pope mean by that? Essentially, it means that the Church puts “being” before “doing.” All members of Christ faithful are called to be Marian first and foremost. How so? By allowing the word of God to penetrate so deeply into their hearts that it bears fruit and divine life. That essentially was what Our Blessed Mother experienced and lived at the annunciation and all throughout her life and that is what all Christians are called to live prior to anything else he may intend to do for God’s glory. It is only with a Marian spirituality, that of being totally receptive to the will of God that the Peterine, or the function of ruling, governing and activity will make sense. Yes indeed, Peter was called to be the head of the Church. But the head of the Church, when he neglected prayer decided to swing his sword wildly at the garden of Gethsemane and eventually deny his master three times. It was activity no doubt. But activity rooted not in “being” but in “doing”.
Which bring us also to the consideration of Our Blessed Mother being both “Virgin” and “Mother”. She is both virgin and mother because both these vocations are an equally legitimate way of living out the Christian’s call to holiness, in married life and in celibacy for the kingdom of God.
In the Blessed Virgin, women are not simply reduced to their biological values, valuable only when she is able to have children. A woman is still in her spiritual depths a mother and a daughter even if she is not biologically a mother. Likewise, in the Blessed Virgin, women are also not estranged from their biology. They are not hostile towards their procreative and live giving power but seek to understand it and in hope, praise the creator for their gift of femininity. Indeed, it is through the birth of a child that the world is saved.
So in the final analysis, who holds the treasure of being which without it would make all activity useless? Women and preeminently Mary the Mother of God. The Mother of God attests to the fact that the ultimate paradigm of human existence is that of love and not power, of receptivity to the will of God and not grasping and snatching at happiness from a Creator who cannot be trusted.
I have sketched both the objections towards the person of Mary and the responses to these from the teaching of the Church. I hope that as we grapple with these ideas at this patrician meeting, it can bear fruit in our lives.
Mary our hope, seat of wisdom, intercede for us.
Talk on Pornography
I gave a talk on pornography at our recent conference to commeotrate the 40th anniversary of Humanae Vitae Conference.
You can find the text here. http://prolife.sg/lovesexbabies/index.htm
You can find the text here. http://prolife.sg/lovesexbabies/index.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
