De Catalina: What Church the world needs today

I couldn’t help but briefly comment on a post in social media, saying, “A Church that knows no enemies to fight, only men and women to love is the Church the world needs today.” It is a church that waters down God’s word, talks only that God is love (cf.Jn.3:16; 1Jn.4:8,16) but avoids or dismisses that God is also justice (cf.Is.33:22; Ps.11:7).

Accordingly, the Church shouldn’t criticize, much less condemn, for example, the demoniacal pervasive corruption in this country, the corrupt officials, to avoid earning enemies. Such idea seems to be a curtailed one.

In the case of Jesus Christ, such conception would lead to judging him wrong. For he did not hesitate criticizing the Pharisees and scribes. He earned enemies, consequently, leading to his arrest and eventually, crucifixion.

Why then should people be angry with those who plundered them in this politically-cursed country? Following such thought, the Church — so also the people — should rather lovingly fondle those hellishly corrupt to earn their friendship.

The teachings of Jesus are said to be sometimes paradoxical. He taught love even of enemies (cf.Mt. 5:43-48) but he also hardly chastised those corrupt leaders, Pharisees and scribes (cf.Mt.23:1-39). They would rather be seen as contextual than paradoxical.

I am rather inclined to think it boils down to the question whether the Church is still a vanguard of morality or not, of truth or not. If suppose it is a vanguard (which seems questionable these days), it is whether to assume Mat. 5:43-48 (love of enemies) or Mat. 23:1-39 (criticism of the corrupt leadership of the Pharisees, scribes). But it seems that it is to assume both, depending on the context, in consonance with what Jesus himself showed in the Gospels.

Give love where love is needed, as in the context of the Good Samaritan (Lk.10:25-37). Correct, if not condemn, where correction or condemnation is needed, as in the context of Jesus directly confronting the corrupt leadership of the Pharisees, scribes, teachers of the law (Mat. 23:1-39).

In the context of the demoniacal corruption in leadership — pervasive in this country that has already become a culture, deeply embedded in consciousness, that has now seemed miraculous not to corrupt, this being worthy of pegging a dozen lighted paschal candles in votive candle stands in the Church — is the Church to assume Mat. 5:43-48 or Mat. 23:1-39?

Such a conception of what Church the world needs today, viewed from the metalinguistic vantage point, using Fr. Mercado’s method, appears to lean more to the idea that the Church is to assume Mat. 5:43-48 only, in spite of the fact that the context is leadership, as in the context of the corrupt leadership of the Pharisees, scribes in Jesus’ time.

Thus, in this context, the Church is supposedly to assume Mat. 23:1-39, especially the episcopate itself as presumably prescribed in Jn. 10:11. But such a conception appears to contradict this role (if still existing) of the Church in human society. It could be surmised why no more anathemas after Vatican 2. The Church has tipped to one side of the spectrum, in Mt. 5:43-48, more than the other aside, in Mt. 23:1-39. If its role as exemplar of God’s love is constant, so also its role as exemplar prophetic vanguard of justice and what is righteous in God’s eyes, even inevitably earning enemies.

Jesus’ love was there while vehemently confronting the corrupt temple leaders (which could be extended to civil leadership in this postmodern era). If only their hearts were open, they could have been converted to Jesus’ principle of love. But since they were close, they were just left to their freedom of choice, to their own perdition. One thing is sure: Jesus did not force his love. It is said forced love is not love but slavery.

What does the Church need today? One that could assume either Mat. 5:43-48 or Mat. 23:1-39, depending on which context requires. This is what Jesus did as found in the Gospels. What appears paradoxical would rather be called contextual.