JOHN PAUL II AND HIS CHRISTIAN PERSONALISM
JOHN PAUL II AND HIS CHRISTIAN PERSONALISM
by Fr. Joel O. Jason, SThL
Experts are agreed that one of the most unique contributions of John Paul II to the world is his "Christian personalism". It is a way of looking at humanity and appreciating his beauty only in the light of the man-God, Jesus Christ. It is a way of looking at the human person from the perspective of man as imago dei, "image of God" - a creature who has a natural capacity to know the truth, and whose true beauty and goodness unfolds in the discovery and embracing of that truth. This was the main thesis of his very first encyclical letter, Redemptor Hominis (The Redeemer of Man) which came out March 4, 1979. Premised on the Christian conviction of Jesus as both true God and true man, understanding of the truth about God must lead us to Christ. Likewise, understanding the truth about man should likewise lead us to Christ. For 26 years, he has courageously taught this truth. For this truth he has suffered.
While the sea of humanity gathered at St. Peter's for his funeral clamored "santo subito" (sainthood now), and the multitudes all over the world now call him "Il Grande" (the great), some view John Paul II as 'naive' and his papacy "a great disappointment" for his stand on feminist concerns, contraception and human freedom among others. But what did John Paul really teach on these issues?
JOHN PAUL II AND GENUINE FREEDOM
Reflecting on the biblical imagery prohibiting partaking of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, "You are free to eat from any of the trees ... except the tree of knowledge of good and bad. (Gen 2:16-17), John Paul teaches in Veritatis Splendor (The Splendor of Truth) that it is not because God does not want us to know what is good and what is bad. Rather it is the biblical way of telling us that it is not for man to decide what is good and what is bad. To decide what is good and what is bad is God's alone. That was temptation of the serpent, "the moment you eat you shall be like God ..." (Gen 3:5). Eve, and later Adam fell into that temptation. And so began the entry of sin in history.
Goodness is based on the truth and truth is objective. Man does not and cannot invent the truth. Man only discovers the truth and must cling to that true as revealed in Scriptures (Divine Law), and in rational reflection on human nature (natural law). In that truth, we become free. Sir Isaac Newton did not invent but merely discovered the law of gravity, a law that is objective, a law that we obey, a law that makes us truly free.
Counterfeit freedom is the power to do what I like, regardless of its consequence on myself and others. Genuine freedom is the power to choose what I ought, to do the good. Counterfeit freedom is based on personal likes and dislikes. Genuine freedom is founded on the truth. To illustrate, false freedom tells me to beat the law of the red light. In the process, I harm or kill myself and others. Genuine freedom prompts me to embrace that law and to choose to stop. Then I become more free, because it keeps me alive and others as well.
John Paul II sees the pro-choice philosophy as founded on the same serpentine seduction. I choose abortion because this is what I like, regardless of what that choice will mean for the rights of another living person, regardless of the truth of the existence of another person over whose life I have no sovereignty. Counterfeit freedom is actually license - the power to do what I like. (Wonder why people issued wit a driver's license behave the way they do in the streets? Maybe it's time to call it driver's freedom). And license is a sin specifically condemned in Scriptures " ... from within people ... come evil thoughts ... licentiousness, envy, blasphemy..."(Mark 7:21-22). Freedom cannot be achieved apart from law. With insightful distinction, John Paul propose that genuine fredom is not anomy (a-without, nomos-law) or the absence of law. Genuine freedom is actually autonomy (autos-self;nomos-law) or the integration of the law within one's self. More precisely, in the Christian's point of view, genuine freedom is a participated theonomy (theos - God; nomos-law), i.e., a participation in God's law
JOHN PAUL II AND GENUINE FEMINISM
A necessary consequence of John Paul's teaching on genuine freedom is the affirmation that men and women will experience the true fulfillment in discovering and remaining in the truth of who they really are. John Paul II proposes that the true liberation of the sexes happens in the discovery of who humanity really is. And that means a re-affirmation and re-appreciation of the truth about their singularity, uniqueness and complementarity, not necessarily uniformity. In Mulieris Dignitatem (The Dignity of Women) John Paul II warns against the seduction that deceives women into thinking that it is only outside of marriage, maternity and the family that they can find fulfillment.
On the question of ordination of women, John Paul, nor the Church has never nor will teach that women are "unfit" for ordination. Could this be the reason why John Paul has always described the priesthood as a vocation and not a profession? A gift and not a claim? In fact, it has been the consistent teaching of the Church that no one is "fit" for
ordination. If it were so, the Virgin Mary, "blessed among women", and in fact among all creation, would have been the most worthy candidate. In the course of His Galilean ministry, Jesus definitely gave women their inherent dignity despite the bias against women of His age. Always actingagainst unjust discriminatory practices, calling her as head of the apostles would have been the clincher. But for some reason, Jesus did not confer it on Mary nor on the other women who stood by Him when all the men ran away. While there may not be any solid theological reason that would prevent women from being ordained, and while women ordination may come to be in the future of the Church, what is sure at the moment is that mindful of what Jesus, the apostles and their late successors did, the Church does what she does, from the motive of apostolic fidelity, not discrimination.
Another related point. A recent letter to a major daily also criticized John Paul for canonizing saint, a modern-day woman who choose that should complications arise, her child be allowed to live instead of her. It was not specific but she must be referring to Gianna Beretta Molla who was beatified by Pope John Paul II on April 24, 1994, during the international Year of the Family. The letter asked, "What signal did it send? That it was alright to die and leave other children behind?". No. The signal it sends is "Can a mother forget her infant, be without tenderness for the child in her womb?" (Isaiah 49:15). The woman who was canonized not because one life is better than the other. She was canonized because the signal her life sends is "No greater love a man can have than to lay his life for a friend."(John 15:13) John Paul canonized that modern-day woman because motherhood is the first school where we learn these values. And some misguided feminist philosophies are robbing motherhood of its nobility.
Another developing trend nowadays is women who want children but not a husband nor marriage. Thus, the proliferation of in vitro(in a petri dish) fertility clinics and womb-for-hire practices. Ironically, this feminist mentality all the more objectifies the women hired as surrogates. They are only as good as their womb. Sadly, the children too are objectified. John Paul in Familaris Consortio reminds us that children are gifts of the marital covenant. They are not properties we can have at our whim. As gifts, the first inherent right children deserve is to be nurtured in the context of a family and the paternal and maternal presence it provides.
Truly, it is unfortunate that there are single parent families. We do not fault these single parents for they are not necessarily to be blamed. But to subject children purposely into such situation by our whims would be grossly irresponsible and selfish on the part of us adults.
John Paul also taught eloquently about the human body and the respect it command. His "theology of the body" is the core of his teachings on sexual responsibility, purity and chastity. We hear it often said, "If you have it, flaunt it." For John Paul II, some things are hidden to keep private not because it's ugly. On the contrary, some things are kept private because they are beautiful, too beautiful in fact as to be sacred. This is why couples celebrate the marital act not in parks but in the privacy of their rooms. This is why we feel violated when others invade our "inner sanctums", the things/persons we hold sacred. Following John Paul's line of thought, the malice of pornography is not because it reveals too much. On the contrary, it reveals too little of the human person. It arrests the person's beauty only to his/her sexual attractiveness. It reduces the human body to a commodity and an object of pleasure.
The true liberation of women lies in the discovery of profound truth, something commonly ignored by the times we live in.
A recent editorial also blamed John Paul II's teaching on contraception as the reason for the poverty in the world. Such a statement betrays a gross misunderstanding of the issue. Some clarifications are in order. John Paul, nor the Church has never taught that couples should have as many children as they could. Couple are only to raise children that they could reasonably look after and provide for. The Church does not even teach that each act of marital intercourse should result in a child because it does not. The natural periods of female infertility points to this. What the Church teaches is that each act of marital intercourse should remain open to the possibility of parenthood. This openness couples manifest when they do not resort to acts or methods (contraception) that have as its intent that no life shall be conceived from this intercourse. Contraception is morally unacceptable not because it is artificial, but because it is contraceptive -- i.e., it actually destroys and prevents life from being conceived. Likewise, natural family planning (NFP) is morally acceptable not because it is not "artificial", but because it is not contraceptive. In NFP, couples simply tune in to the natural fertility/infertility cycles of the woman, the way God intended her to be. It is simply sex in its most natural beauty, with its natural period of fertility and infertility, the way God intended it to be. Some accuse this teaching as a "physicalist strand of the Eternal Law of God in the order of procreation." I beg to disagree. What is physicalist is to believe that man and woman is powerless before his physical/sexual urges. NFP tells us otherwise. We control our reproductive lies by reason, not by season.
Obviously, this requires discipline and dialogue from couples. Herein lies the beauty of NFP. Responsible parenthood becomes a shared responsibility. Dialogue is promoted and the husband is taught to treat the wife vice versa, not as a passive property, but as a partner. In NFP, the woman is truly respected because we do not dump her body with harmful and potentially fatal chemicals to control her fertility. In NFP, we do not surrender to chemicals something that is properly the realm of personal responsibility and human discipline.
Now the Cardinals are preparing for the conclave to choose the next Pope. Speculations of whether the next Pope should be "traditional" or "liberal" abound. Papal biographer George Weigel, when asked how Paul II will be remembered by history answered succinctly. "He is the Great Christian witness". When the Cardinals gather in a conclave on the 18th of April, traditional or liberal will not be the agenda. What they will ask the Holy Spirit for is a man of witness - a witness to the truth about God, love and humanity. Veni Creator Spiritus ! (Come, Creator Spirit!)
About the author :
Fr Joel A. Jason is a diocesan priest of the Archdiocese of Manila. He is presently assigned as spiritual director of San Carlos Seminary in Guadalupe, Makati. He is also professor of Moral Theology, Sexuality and Bioethics and heads the Ministry for Family and Life of the Archdiocese of Manila.
Address: San Carlos Seminary, EDSA Guadalupe, Makati City
by Fr. Joel O. Jason, SThL
Experts are agreed that one of the most unique contributions of John Paul II to the world is his "Christian personalism". It is a way of looking at humanity and appreciating his beauty only in the light of the man-God, Jesus Christ. It is a way of looking at the human person from the perspective of man as imago dei, "image of God" - a creature who has a natural capacity to know the truth, and whose true beauty and goodness unfolds in the discovery and embracing of that truth. This was the main thesis of his very first encyclical letter, Redemptor Hominis (The Redeemer of Man) which came out March 4, 1979. Premised on the Christian conviction of Jesus as both true God and true man, understanding of the truth about God must lead us to Christ. Likewise, understanding the truth about man should likewise lead us to Christ. For 26 years, he has courageously taught this truth. For this truth he has suffered.
While the sea of humanity gathered at St. Peter's for his funeral clamored "santo subito" (sainthood now), and the multitudes all over the world now call him "Il Grande" (the great), some view John Paul II as 'naive' and his papacy "a great disappointment" for his stand on feminist concerns, contraception and human freedom among others. But what did John Paul really teach on these issues?
JOHN PAUL II AND GENUINE FREEDOM
Reflecting on the biblical imagery prohibiting partaking of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, "You are free to eat from any of the trees ... except the tree of knowledge of good and bad. (Gen 2:16-17), John Paul teaches in Veritatis Splendor (The Splendor of Truth) that it is not because God does not want us to know what is good and what is bad. Rather it is the biblical way of telling us that it is not for man to decide what is good and what is bad. To decide what is good and what is bad is God's alone. That was temptation of the serpent, "the moment you eat you shall be like God ..." (Gen 3:5). Eve, and later Adam fell into that temptation. And so began the entry of sin in history.
Goodness is based on the truth and truth is objective. Man does not and cannot invent the truth. Man only discovers the truth and must cling to that true as revealed in Scriptures (Divine Law), and in rational reflection on human nature (natural law). In that truth, we become free. Sir Isaac Newton did not invent but merely discovered the law of gravity, a law that is objective, a law that we obey, a law that makes us truly free.
Counterfeit freedom is the power to do what I like, regardless of its consequence on myself and others. Genuine freedom is the power to choose what I ought, to do the good. Counterfeit freedom is based on personal likes and dislikes. Genuine freedom is founded on the truth. To illustrate, false freedom tells me to beat the law of the red light. In the process, I harm or kill myself and others. Genuine freedom prompts me to embrace that law and to choose to stop. Then I become more free, because it keeps me alive and others as well.
John Paul II sees the pro-choice philosophy as founded on the same serpentine seduction. I choose abortion because this is what I like, regardless of what that choice will mean for the rights of another living person, regardless of the truth of the existence of another person over whose life I have no sovereignty. Counterfeit freedom is actually license - the power to do what I like. (Wonder why people issued wit a driver's license behave the way they do in the streets? Maybe it's time to call it driver's freedom). And license is a sin specifically condemned in Scriptures " ... from within people ... come evil thoughts ... licentiousness, envy, blasphemy..."(Mark 7:21-22). Freedom cannot be achieved apart from law. With insightful distinction, John Paul propose that genuine fredom is not anomy (a-without, nomos-law) or the absence of law. Genuine freedom is actually autonomy (autos-self;nomos-law) or the integration of the law within one's self. More precisely, in the Christian's point of view, genuine freedom is a participated theonomy (theos - God; nomos-law), i.e., a participation in God's law
JOHN PAUL II AND GENUINE FEMINISM
A necessary consequence of John Paul's teaching on genuine freedom is the affirmation that men and women will experience the true fulfillment in discovering and remaining in the truth of who they really are. John Paul II proposes that the true liberation of the sexes happens in the discovery of who humanity really is. And that means a re-affirmation and re-appreciation of the truth about their singularity, uniqueness and complementarity, not necessarily uniformity. In Mulieris Dignitatem (The Dignity of Women) John Paul II warns against the seduction that deceives women into thinking that it is only outside of marriage, maternity and the family that they can find fulfillment.
On the question of ordination of women, John Paul, nor the Church has never nor will teach that women are "unfit" for ordination. Could this be the reason why John Paul has always described the priesthood as a vocation and not a profession? A gift and not a claim? In fact, it has been the consistent teaching of the Church that no one is "fit" for
ordination. If it were so, the Virgin Mary, "blessed among women", and in fact among all creation, would have been the most worthy candidate. In the course of His Galilean ministry, Jesus definitely gave women their inherent dignity despite the bias against women of His age. Always actingagainst unjust discriminatory practices, calling her as head of the apostles would have been the clincher. But for some reason, Jesus did not confer it on Mary nor on the other women who stood by Him when all the men ran away. While there may not be any solid theological reason that would prevent women from being ordained, and while women ordination may come to be in the future of the Church, what is sure at the moment is that mindful of what Jesus, the apostles and their late successors did, the Church does what she does, from the motive of apostolic fidelity, not discrimination.
Another related point. A recent letter to a major daily also criticized John Paul for canonizing saint, a modern-day woman who choose that should complications arise, her child be allowed to live instead of her. It was not specific but she must be referring to Gianna Beretta Molla who was beatified by Pope John Paul II on April 24, 1994, during the international Year of the Family. The letter asked, "What signal did it send? That it was alright to die and leave other children behind?". No. The signal it sends is "Can a mother forget her infant, be without tenderness for the child in her womb?" (Isaiah 49:15). The woman who was canonized not because one life is better than the other. She was canonized because the signal her life sends is "No greater love a man can have than to lay his life for a friend."(John 15:13) John Paul canonized that modern-day woman because motherhood is the first school where we learn these values. And some misguided feminist philosophies are robbing motherhood of its nobility.
Another developing trend nowadays is women who want children but not a husband nor marriage. Thus, the proliferation of in vitro(in a petri dish) fertility clinics and womb-for-hire practices. Ironically, this feminist mentality all the more objectifies the women hired as surrogates. They are only as good as their womb. Sadly, the children too are objectified. John Paul in Familaris Consortio reminds us that children are gifts of the marital covenant. They are not properties we can have at our whim. As gifts, the first inherent right children deserve is to be nurtured in the context of a family and the paternal and maternal presence it provides.
Truly, it is unfortunate that there are single parent families. We do not fault these single parents for they are not necessarily to be blamed. But to subject children purposely into such situation by our whims would be grossly irresponsible and selfish on the part of us adults.
John Paul also taught eloquently about the human body and the respect it command. His "theology of the body" is the core of his teachings on sexual responsibility, purity and chastity. We hear it often said, "If you have it, flaunt it." For John Paul II, some things are hidden to keep private not because it's ugly. On the contrary, some things are kept private because they are beautiful, too beautiful in fact as to be sacred. This is why couples celebrate the marital act not in parks but in the privacy of their rooms. This is why we feel violated when others invade our "inner sanctums", the things/persons we hold sacred. Following John Paul's line of thought, the malice of pornography is not because it reveals too much. On the contrary, it reveals too little of the human person. It arrests the person's beauty only to his/her sexual attractiveness. It reduces the human body to a commodity and an object of pleasure.
The true liberation of women lies in the discovery of profound truth, something commonly ignored by the times we live in.
A recent editorial also blamed John Paul II's teaching on contraception as the reason for the poverty in the world. Such a statement betrays a gross misunderstanding of the issue. Some clarifications are in order. John Paul, nor the Church has never taught that couples should have as many children as they could. Couple are only to raise children that they could reasonably look after and provide for. The Church does not even teach that each act of marital intercourse should result in a child because it does not. The natural periods of female infertility points to this. What the Church teaches is that each act of marital intercourse should remain open to the possibility of parenthood. This openness couples manifest when they do not resort to acts or methods (contraception) that have as its intent that no life shall be conceived from this intercourse. Contraception is morally unacceptable not because it is artificial, but because it is contraceptive -- i.e., it actually destroys and prevents life from being conceived. Likewise, natural family planning (NFP) is morally acceptable not because it is not "artificial", but because it is not contraceptive. In NFP, couples simply tune in to the natural fertility/infertility cycles of the woman, the way God intended her to be. It is simply sex in its most natural beauty, with its natural period of fertility and infertility, the way God intended it to be. Some accuse this teaching as a "physicalist strand of the Eternal Law of God in the order of procreation." I beg to disagree. What is physicalist is to believe that man and woman is powerless before his physical/sexual urges. NFP tells us otherwise. We control our reproductive lies by reason, not by season.
Obviously, this requires discipline and dialogue from couples. Herein lies the beauty of NFP. Responsible parenthood becomes a shared responsibility. Dialogue is promoted and the husband is taught to treat the wife vice versa, not as a passive property, but as a partner. In NFP, the woman is truly respected because we do not dump her body with harmful and potentially fatal chemicals to control her fertility. In NFP, we do not surrender to chemicals something that is properly the realm of personal responsibility and human discipline.
Now the Cardinals are preparing for the conclave to choose the next Pope. Speculations of whether the next Pope should be "traditional" or "liberal" abound. Papal biographer George Weigel, when asked how Paul II will be remembered by history answered succinctly. "He is the Great Christian witness". When the Cardinals gather in a conclave on the 18th of April, traditional or liberal will not be the agenda. What they will ask the Holy Spirit for is a man of witness - a witness to the truth about God, love and humanity. Veni Creator Spiritus ! (Come, Creator Spirit!)
About the author :
Fr Joel A. Jason is a diocesan priest of the Archdiocese of Manila. He is presently assigned as spiritual director of San Carlos Seminary in Guadalupe, Makati. He is also professor of Moral Theology, Sexuality and Bioethics and heads the Ministry for Family and Life of the Archdiocese of Manila.
Address: San Carlos Seminary, EDSA Guadalupe, Makati City
posted by angelo at 12:57 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home