POPE Francis is now in the Philippines. The past days or weeks were filled with intense preparations. There is, indeed, a “Francis fever.” Idolized by many as a rock star and looked up to by some as the one who will liberalize the Catholic world, my fear is that in the end we will still get it “wrongly” and suffer, again, from cynicism as a consequence of our frustrations. My greater fear is when we excessively “idolize” the messenger that we forget the importance of his message and its greater context.
This would end up creating the “pope in our own image and likeness”--a pope who, for liberals, would be the “the Simon Bolivar of the LGBT community” and, on the contrary, for conservatives is merely a good “pastor” who is at the very crux an orthodox.
If we get stuck in these fantasies of ours, the consequence would be none other than the same paralysis, which many institutions suffer due to the excessive delusional states they create. It is thus important to always understand that the pope as an inspiration should not alienate us from our greater accountability to the institutions where we belong like the church. And that if we wish gradual transformations to happen in our ecclesiastical structure--it is something (yes we can draw inspirations from the words of Francis) that demands serious engagement on the part of the laity.
We need a dose of realism that will save us from whatever probable frustration we will soon encounter in our church, perhaps (still) even under the papacy of Francis. We need realism”s” that are enough to make us realize that while Pope Francis is, arguably, an “image of inspiration”--still there are some structural and systemic challenges that cannot be addressed until and unless “genuine reforms” would be made bottom-up by no less than the people themselves. Among these are matters related to the “accountability of our church leaders” in matters of finances, the role of the laity in the decision-making process at least in the parish level. More issues: the role of women in the church, financial transparency among parishes, more serious formation for seminarians and, of course, the role of Catholic schools in the formation of the young.
We cannot expect the Pope to solve all of these for us. He did say in many ways that whatever negative effects that stem from all these pathologies in the church should stop--but it is us who must find ways to constantly put in motion the means to stop these.
Francis is a pope, yes! He is a leader of millions, in fact, of over a billion people.
And if we count other Christians as admirers in a way we can say that he, too, leads them in one way or another. But Francis is not the church and he can only do enough in terms of “showing us the way.” The more serious question is “will we follow?” Many applauded the Jesuit pope for criticizing the curia--but did this admiration come from the alignment of our values to his--or was it an admiration of the “critic” out of hatred for the criticized?
The pope’s visit to the Philippines brought forth dozens of “analyses” and “bright opinions” and we can only expect more to come from those who call themselves public intellectuals and social scientists. If there is anything that these so-called intelligent people can do in order to enlighten people about what it means to be visited by the pope, it would be none other than “cautioning everyone” not to expect “too highly” from this visit. Just as the visit of “Miss Earth” cannot guarantee any automatic environmental cleanup, the Holy Father’s visit is in no way a guarantee that the future of Catholicism will be, automatically, better. Church reforms are products of gradual struggles on the part of lay people--to assert their right to be heard in the church. There is much to be done in order to reform our diocesan curias, just as there is much to be done in order to reform the bureaucracy in Rome. But it is not the
Pope alone and his presence that can change these.
We need to begin by “changing our mentality” in terms of church membership and leadership among others. This means that “even the most reverent of all reverences for the pope” and the most “admirable of all admiration for the Holy Father” cannot and should not substitute our “responsibility” as Catholics.
Finally, on his favorite words “mercy” and “compassion.” These are not just slogans that we can use in order to evangelize albeit by way of stinging critiques the inept and the corrupt in society. These are not soft words of philanthropic value. They are serious “virtues” all Christians are called to cultivate and not ideological slogans intended for use only by those who are marginalized by political structures.
When the Pope leaves the Philippines what will become of us? I am sure SWS can measure by way of polling the impact of his visit, while sociologists and anthropologists can make all possible “thick descriptions” to record the qualitative and phenomenological data from people’s lived-experiences. But as Hegel once remarked, “the owl of Minerva spreads its wings and takes its flight only when the shades of night are falling.” The papal visit of Jorge Mario Bergoglio would in the end be [either] a “good memory” or an “existential encounter” that could change the lives of many.--Rhoderick John S. Abellanosa, founding member of the Cebu Theological Forum
No fuss at the oval
The Cebu City Sports Complex is not as busy or crowded unlike last week during the leadup to the Sinulog sa Kabataan sa Lalawigan and the Sinulog sa Kabataan sa Dakbayan. Or in previous years.
Joggers and walkers who wanted to use the oval had relatively been unmolested by gigantic props or unruly contingent members.
Kudos to organizers.--Sonny Yu