NOW that the International Eucharistic Congress (IEC) is over, it would be good to raise a few points if only to make the event truly meaningful not only to its participants but also to the church as a whole. Large gatherings like the IEC are undoubtedly inspiring as was the case of Pope Francis’s visit last year. However, inspiration in the individual level is one thing. Impact on the systemic level (that is to the institution) is another.
Apparently, the past week was not the best time to give unsolicited observations more so comments given the atmosphere of deep spiritual reflection. But it would be good if people, especially Catholics, would also ask what concrete effects will the congress bring about in our local churches?
As it was pointed out during the IEC, the church should engage society’s growing secularization. But how? A secularized world that promotes individualism would certainly not listen to mere discourses that cannot show the hope which people of growing indifference have been looking for. In other words, the church cannot just change the minds of skeptics with one Eucharistic Congress. The causes, or factors, of disgust and apathy in this country are many and “communities of faith” should be very discerning and truthful in each and every action they would take.
For example, one of the commonly highlighted themes in the discussions and reflections is the relevance of the Eucharist to the poor. In fact, just a few days ago, it was reported that a Center for the Poor will be created after the congress. But what is the real score? In the very first place, how should we go about not only in helping the poor but in gradually creating structures that would generate more venues for those who have less in life achieve a certain degree of capacity to move out from their current condition?
It would be superfluous to repeat what has been said time and again: that many continue to live in poverty in this country. Poverty is a very complex phenomenon and there is no easy solution to it. The church cannot be alone in addressing poverty. Efforts to promote charity are necessary even in the most advanced societies but it is not enough. Institutions and persons who would like to help the poor should be both strategic and reflective so as not to worsen the condition where, in the end, the poor are used for propaganda or made to pause like fashion models.
There are many factors people live in complex situations of deprivation and some of these have been deeply entrenched in the system.
This is another yet related reality of poverty. The thing is some church people would rather step back when matters of faith would get into complication with socio-political and economic issues. The usual stance among some church people would be neutrality and at worse silence. When this happens, opportunists would create more sub-structures of deprivation and here we do not need to enumerate who they are and how they do it.
The Eucharist will become relevant to the poor when those who have the means to help the poor will realize that piety and donations are not enough qualifications to go to heaven. Those who believe in a loving God should come to realize that our “hope of glory” is also a “prince of peace” who cured the sick and brought “good news to the poor and the captives.”
The greatest challenge after the IEC is how the church would gradually refashion its way of doing things so that there will be genuine “communion” among its members whose lives are divided by so many gaps: economic, political and cultural. To make the point concrete perhaps it would be good to ask how many of the parishes in Cebu City (and the other major cities) have social action centers with “clear” and “sustainable” programs for their poor parishioners. In the very first place, does the local church have any clear social action blueprint?
There are truths that we all have to confront after the IEC. If I may put the matter in a way similar to what Joseph Ratzinger (who would later become Benedict XVI) said about church reforms in the ‘60s, we have expressed our faith quite “profoundly” but not “truly.” --Rhoderick John S. Abellanosa