These years, it has become my routine to meditate on a particular book, or books, of the Bible as a Lenten exercise to drill my soul and, hopefully, to be able to soften my heart and come closer to God. Sometimes, I may not be able to finish one whole book. Like last year, I chose Deuteronomy and could not finish it. This year, I will not be that ambitious. I decide to meditate on the Pauline epistles which I am not very familiar with. I will start with the Romans. I will use KJV because it is more faithful to the Greek. May God enlighten me with this epistle.
Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God (Romans 1:1).
This is the greeting portion of a letter. It identifies who the author of the letter is.
Paul calls himself "a servant". Does it suggest that Paul was humble in front of the Romans? Not necessarily. Such a title could be an honour, depending on whom Paul was serving.
If Paul was serving the Roman Church, he was the least among them and was humble.
If Paul was serving Caesar, he would exercise jurisdiction over his readers. Calling himself a servant was an honour and demanded reverence.
Now, he called himself "a servant of Jesus Christ". It depended on how the Romans saw Jesus. Did the Roman believers accept Jesus as their Lord, their God? If yes, Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, should command awe among them. Paul had the authority from God to teach them or even punish them if needed.
Well, we should be glad to know that Jesus does not treat us like servants, but friends (John 15:15). I am not trying to contradict Paul. The contexts are different.
Paul was writing to the Church in Rome. There were problems to handle. Paul had to distance himself a bit from his readers. He could not afford to be too friendly to the Romans. On the other hand, Jesus was speaking to his apostles at the Last Supper. The apostles had been living and preaching with Jesus for about three years. Their relationship, even though one of master and his disciples, was more intimate than between Paul and members of the Roman Church.
Paul was called to be ... Naturally, we would ask who called him. Was it the "traumatic" experience on the way to Damascus? So, it was Jesus who not only called the Twelve, but also called Paul, perhaps to make up the number twelve. Perhaps Jesus wanted to extend the meaning of "apostle" beyond the Twelve by calling Paul who did not satisfy the criteria set up by Peter in the election of Matthias (Acts 1:21-22). These are just speculations. In fact, according to Luke's report, Jesus found Paul to be the most appropriate candidate to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles (Acts 9:15-16). Again, unlike the Twelve who were able to stay with Jesus, to see him, hear him, eat with him and touch him, Paul was not so lucky. He could only meet Jesus in visions. To a certain extent, his experience was deficient. Some essentially physical, empirical experiences were missing. Paul had to rely on his Pharisaic background to make up the loss.
On the other hand, it is important that Paul, or any other clergy, should not be self-appointed. They have to be called by God to serve His people. Otherwise, many harms will be done to the Church. Paul's experience was clear-cut. Others may have to take a longer period of time to discern their true calling.
All of us are called to fill up different capacities, to build up the Church, the Mystic Body of Christ. Some are called to be apostles, others prophets, some others teachers and yet others deacons. Paul was called to be an apostle. From the beginning, people questioned his claim of apostleship. This is understandable when the meaning of "apostle" was not yet extended beyond the Twelve. That is why Paul had to deal with people who challenged his apostleship.
How is the role of an apostle different from the other offices?
Here, Paul simply says "separated unto the gospel of God". Thus an apostle is like a priest, separated from the laity to serve the gospel. To be more specific, an apostle both preaches and teaches. It is the job of an apostle and his successors to preach the gospel of Jesus to the whole world. But the most important of all, an apostle and his successors have the final say on the meaning of the gospel. He has to defend the teachings of the Church. This is the most distinct role of an apostle because they had the first hand experience of Jesus. Even their successors lack such experience. Indeed, all Christians should preach, but not all of them are able to defend the teachings of the Church, not even the prophets, teachers and deacons.
Jesus has set a precedence in choosing Paul. After the death of the last first-generation Christian, nobody would have any more first-hand Jesus experience. All new Christians ever since the second generation have to rely on and trust the testimony of "older" Christians. If Jesus had not chosen someone without first-hand experience to be an apostle, the Church would not have had anybody to defend her teachings because nobody would have had any first-hand experience. Praise be the Lord. However, not everyone could enjoy the clear-cut experience of Paul. Without such dramatic first-hand experiences, many have to struggle for years before they are sure about the will of God and submit to God's call.
Dear Lord, shine forth Your will so that we, your humble servant, may follow. Amen.
Tuesday 28 February 2012
Monday 27 February 2012
Does baptism remove sins?
It is easy to forget the essentials. Therefore, when we read 1 Peter 3:21 today, we would be shocked to hear that Peter says baptism does not forgive sins! Here is the "offending" verse.
Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,(RSV)
The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:(KJV)
and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also--not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, (NIV)
Christian baptism is rich in meanings. Since water is applied, people will easily associate this as a symbol of the removal of dirt (sins). We tend to remember this single aspect more and forget the other aspects of baptism.
Let's take a look at what the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) teaches about baptism.
... the "plunge" into the water symbolizes the catechumen's burial into Christ's death, from which he rises up by resurrection with him, as "a new creature." (CCC#1214)
it signifies and actually brings about the birth of water and the Spirit without which no one "can enter the kingdom of God.(CCC#1215)
Baptism is God's most beautiful and magnificent gift....We call it gift, grace, anointing, enlightenment, garment of immortality, bath of rebirth, seal, and most precious gift. It is called gift because it is conferred on those who bring nothing of their own; grace since it is given even to the guilty; Baptism because sin is buried in the water; anointing for it is priestly and royal as are those who are anointed; enlightenment because it radiates light; clothing since it veils our shame; bath because it washes; and seal as it is our guard and the sign of God's Lordship. (CCC#1216)
These passages stress the birth of a new life in God. The word "sin" is mentioned only once, but the wording is ambiguous. Sin is buried. Is sin removed nor forgiven?
The waters of the great flood
you made a sign of the waters of Baptism,
that make an end of sin and a new beginning of goodness. (CCC#1219)
Again, the poetic language of this prayer does not explicitly say that sins are forgiven. Rather, the prayer gives water the power to put an end to sins and at the same time, a beginning of new life.
Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins;(Acts 2:38, CCC#1226)
It is only after 13 articles (since CCC#1214) that CCC mentions the forgiveness of sins through baptism. It is a quotation of Peter's speech on the Pentecost.
Since Baptism signifies liberation from sin and from its instigator the devil, one or more exorcisms are pronounced over the candidate. the celebrant then anoints him with the oil of catechumens, or lays his hands on him, and he explicitly renounces Satan. (CCC#1237)
It signifies and actually brings about death to sin and entry into the life of the Most Holy Trinity through configuration to the Paschal mystery of Christ.(CCC#1239).
Here, baptism removes the power of sins over the catechumens. We may understand it to mean the forgiveness of sins.
As a conclusion, CCC teaches two aspects of baptism: purification and rebirth.
The different effects of Baptism are signified by the perceptible elements of the sacramental rite. Immersion in water symbolizes not only death and purification, but also regeneration and renewal. Thus the two principal effects are purification from sins and new birth in the Holy Spirit.(CCC#1262)
No doubt, based on the authority of Peter (in Acts 2), the Church believes that baptism forgives sins. Then how do we square with Peter's words in the epistle (1 Peter 3)?
On a more careful rereading in context, we understand that Peter does not deny the purification effect of baptism. Rather,he was talking about salvation. The focus of the text is how baptism achieves salvation for us. 1 Peter 3:21 is the only place in the N.T. to affirm that baptism brings salvation. Baptism is a necessary condition of salvation. The text is a refutation for those who naively think that faith alone is enough for salvation. Baptism also removes "the dirt of the flesh" which means forgives our sins. However, Peter denies that salvation is achieved through the removal of sins. Rather, baptism saves us by our appeal to God from a good conscience. In his theology, cleansing of sins does not guarantee salvation. An appeal from a good conscience expressed in the rite of baptism does.
What does it mean by "a good conscience" and "an appeal from a good conscience to God"?
Due to the harm done by the Original Sin, the loss of the Original Grace, our conscience is wounded and needs to be constantly taken care of. There are too many temptations from without and concupiscence from within attacking it. Baptism only marks the beginning of a life long struggle against our own weaknesses. Once baptized, we are committed to God. It is not the cleanliness, but our commitment which guarantees salvation. Q.E.D.
From this little exercise, we learn that we must be careful in reading the scripture.
Dear Lord, You wish the salvation of all. Give us a second chance when we miss the first. Amen.
Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,(RSV)
The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:(KJV)
and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also--not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, (NIV)
Christian baptism is rich in meanings. Since water is applied, people will easily associate this as a symbol of the removal of dirt (sins). We tend to remember this single aspect more and forget the other aspects of baptism.
Let's take a look at what the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) teaches about baptism.
... the "plunge" into the water symbolizes the catechumen's burial into Christ's death, from which he rises up by resurrection with him, as "a new creature." (CCC#1214)
it signifies and actually brings about the birth of water and the Spirit without which no one "can enter the kingdom of God.(CCC#1215)
Baptism is God's most beautiful and magnificent gift....We call it gift, grace, anointing, enlightenment, garment of immortality, bath of rebirth, seal, and most precious gift. It is called gift because it is conferred on those who bring nothing of their own; grace since it is given even to the guilty; Baptism because sin is buried in the water; anointing for it is priestly and royal as are those who are anointed; enlightenment because it radiates light; clothing since it veils our shame; bath because it washes; and seal as it is our guard and the sign of God's Lordship. (CCC#1216)
These passages stress the birth of a new life in God. The word "sin" is mentioned only once, but the wording is ambiguous. Sin is buried. Is sin removed nor forgiven?
The waters of the great flood
you made a sign of the waters of Baptism,
that make an end of sin and a new beginning of goodness. (CCC#1219)
Again, the poetic language of this prayer does not explicitly say that sins are forgiven. Rather, the prayer gives water the power to put an end to sins and at the same time, a beginning of new life.
Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins;(Acts 2:38, CCC#1226)
It is only after 13 articles (since CCC#1214) that CCC mentions the forgiveness of sins through baptism. It is a quotation of Peter's speech on the Pentecost.
Since Baptism signifies liberation from sin and from its instigator the devil, one or more exorcisms are pronounced over the candidate. the celebrant then anoints him with the oil of catechumens, or lays his hands on him, and he explicitly renounces Satan. (CCC#1237)
It signifies and actually brings about death to sin and entry into the life of the Most Holy Trinity through configuration to the Paschal mystery of Christ.(CCC#1239).
Here, baptism removes the power of sins over the catechumens. We may understand it to mean the forgiveness of sins.
As a conclusion, CCC teaches two aspects of baptism: purification and rebirth.
The different effects of Baptism are signified by the perceptible elements of the sacramental rite. Immersion in water symbolizes not only death and purification, but also regeneration and renewal. Thus the two principal effects are purification from sins and new birth in the Holy Spirit.(CCC#1262)
No doubt, based on the authority of Peter (in Acts 2), the Church believes that baptism forgives sins. Then how do we square with Peter's words in the epistle (1 Peter 3)?
On a more careful rereading in context, we understand that Peter does not deny the purification effect of baptism. Rather,he was talking about salvation. The focus of the text is how baptism achieves salvation for us. 1 Peter 3:21 is the only place in the N.T. to affirm that baptism brings salvation. Baptism is a necessary condition of salvation. The text is a refutation for those who naively think that faith alone is enough for salvation. Baptism also removes "the dirt of the flesh" which means forgives our sins. However, Peter denies that salvation is achieved through the removal of sins. Rather, baptism saves us by our appeal to God from a good conscience. In his theology, cleansing of sins does not guarantee salvation. An appeal from a good conscience expressed in the rite of baptism does.
What does it mean by "a good conscience" and "an appeal from a good conscience to God"?
Due to the harm done by the Original Sin, the loss of the Original Grace, our conscience is wounded and needs to be constantly taken care of. There are too many temptations from without and concupiscence from within attacking it. Baptism only marks the beginning of a life long struggle against our own weaknesses. Once baptized, we are committed to God. It is not the cleanliness, but our commitment which guarantees salvation. Q.E.D.
From this little exercise, we learn that we must be careful in reading the scripture.
Dear Lord, You wish the salvation of all. Give us a second chance when we miss the first. Amen.
Sunday 19 February 2012
Freedom from the bondage of sins
What did the paralyzed man expect to hear from Jesus when he was lowered down by his 4 friends from the roof in front of the preaching Jesus?
"Rise, take up your pallet and walk" (Mark 2:9c).
Instead, he heard Jesus say,
"My son, your sins are forgiven" (Mark 2:5b).
Jesus' words were unexpected. What sins had the paralyzed man committed? Was the paralysis a punishment of his sins or was it, like the teaching of the gospel of John, an occasion for God's glory?
Usually, the image of Stephen Hawking would float in my mind whenever this passage is read. Hawking epitomizes the dualism in Classical Greek philosophy --- a wonderful soul trapped inside a despicable body. Naturally, I would ask God what sins Hawking would possibly have committed before the onset of this debilitating disease. For being a theoretical physicist and not giving praises to God for the elegance and magnificence of the universe? God could not be that spiteful! Hawking has earned a lot of admiration, respect and sympathy from the public in view of his scientific achievements in contrast to and despite his physical disabilities. I don't believe that Hawking has committed sins grave enough to deserve such a heavy punishment.
Human suffering is a mystery and it is not right to put the blame on the ones who suffer. Nobody deserves to suffer. The gospel does not tell us what sins the paralyzed man had previously committed. It is not clear whether the paralysis was a punishment from God. If we look at sin in a broader sense as an obstacle cutting us off from God, the act of forgiving sins means the removal of such obstacles which might have developed as a result of the paralysis. In short, I want to show, with the example of Stephen Hawking, that sins might be a consequence, not a cause, of diseases. Diseases weaken our body as well as our mind. Their harsh realities, medication, surgeries and hospitalization etc., would very easily shake up our faith in God, especially those chronic diseases.
Imagine yourself in the situation of Hawking. You lose all your dignity and a sense of your value because you soil your pants, you rely on others to bathe you, to feed you and to pamper you. Perhaps you would follow Job's example to curse the day you were born. Therefore, having our sins forgiven is the last and the least thing we have in mind in taking care of these quadriplegic. But Jesus took a different approach. Jesus is to be praised for he heals not only the body, but also the soul and he heals the soul first. For him, mending the relationship between God and sinners is of the first priority. Healing wounds and illnesses is of secondary importance.
The Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins (Mark 2:10a).
Jesus preferred the ambiguous title of "the son of man" to the title of Messiah, the son of David etc. The son of man literally means the son of my mother. That itself is ambiguous because the title may refer to me or my brothers. However, for people who know a bit about the book of Daniel, "the son of man" refers to a deity who at the end of the world will reign over all peoples and nations (Daniel 7:13-14). Though the prophecy is shrouded in imperial language, it is clear that God intends all peoples to be included in His kingdom, that all peoples will be redeemed. God does this by forgiving their sins. Thus, the Son of Man was sent not to pass judgment as expected. Who else is in a better position to pass judgment than the sinless Son of Man? But he came to do the unexpected, to forgive whatever charges Satan presses against us. He came to teach us to forgive. He begged God to forgive even when he was crucified on the cross ...
I, I am He who blots out your transgressions for my own sake, and I will not remember your sins (Isaiah 43:25).
God forgives but men don't. We are happy to see the celebrities fall from grace, continue to hate the rich and to kill the messengers who bring unpopular news. We become indifferent to people's suffering. A false sense of justice makes us think that they deserve punishment. Like the scribes who questioned in their hearts Jesus' authority to forgive sins, we pass judgment not only on Henry Tang, but also those who have authority but do not exercise it to condemn Henry. So, who was truly paralyzed, the paralyzed or the scribes? Unknowingly, we become paralyzed ourselves. It is we who need God's compassion, not Henry.
The story of the paralyzed man has a happy ending. Seeing the healing miracle, they were all, including the scribes who questioned Jesus, amazed.
They were all amazed and glorified God, saying, "We never saw anything like this!" (Mark 2:12b).
Not only had they never seen such a healing miracle before, they had not truly experienced the forgiveness from God before the arrival of Jesus. In the Old Testament, the Israelites and Jews experienced slavery and exiles as punishments for their failing to keep the commandments. Kings who repented managed only to obtain a stay or a delay of punishments. For the first time in their interaction with God, they witnessed the freedom from spiritual as well as physical bondage. A new age has dawned. People are empowered with a new freedom granted by God's forgiveness.
Dear Lord, we praise You for the freedom You gain for us to empower us. May we move on to be Your ambassadors of reconciliation. Amen.
"Rise, take up your pallet and walk" (Mark 2:9c).
Instead, he heard Jesus say,
"My son, your sins are forgiven" (Mark 2:5b).
Jesus' words were unexpected. What sins had the paralyzed man committed? Was the paralysis a punishment of his sins or was it, like the teaching of the gospel of John, an occasion for God's glory?
Usually, the image of Stephen Hawking would float in my mind whenever this passage is read. Hawking epitomizes the dualism in Classical Greek philosophy --- a wonderful soul trapped inside a despicable body. Naturally, I would ask God what sins Hawking would possibly have committed before the onset of this debilitating disease. For being a theoretical physicist and not giving praises to God for the elegance and magnificence of the universe? God could not be that spiteful! Hawking has earned a lot of admiration, respect and sympathy from the public in view of his scientific achievements in contrast to and despite his physical disabilities. I don't believe that Hawking has committed sins grave enough to deserve such a heavy punishment.
Human suffering is a mystery and it is not right to put the blame on the ones who suffer. Nobody deserves to suffer. The gospel does not tell us what sins the paralyzed man had previously committed. It is not clear whether the paralysis was a punishment from God. If we look at sin in a broader sense as an obstacle cutting us off from God, the act of forgiving sins means the removal of such obstacles which might have developed as a result of the paralysis. In short, I want to show, with the example of Stephen Hawking, that sins might be a consequence, not a cause, of diseases. Diseases weaken our body as well as our mind. Their harsh realities, medication, surgeries and hospitalization etc., would very easily shake up our faith in God, especially those chronic diseases.
Imagine yourself in the situation of Hawking. You lose all your dignity and a sense of your value because you soil your pants, you rely on others to bathe you, to feed you and to pamper you. Perhaps you would follow Job's example to curse the day you were born. Therefore, having our sins forgiven is the last and the least thing we have in mind in taking care of these quadriplegic. But Jesus took a different approach. Jesus is to be praised for he heals not only the body, but also the soul and he heals the soul first. For him, mending the relationship between God and sinners is of the first priority. Healing wounds and illnesses is of secondary importance.
The Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins (Mark 2:10a).
Jesus preferred the ambiguous title of "the son of man" to the title of Messiah, the son of David etc. The son of man literally means the son of my mother. That itself is ambiguous because the title may refer to me or my brothers. However, for people who know a bit about the book of Daniel, "the son of man" refers to a deity who at the end of the world will reign over all peoples and nations (Daniel 7:13-14). Though the prophecy is shrouded in imperial language, it is clear that God intends all peoples to be included in His kingdom, that all peoples will be redeemed. God does this by forgiving their sins. Thus, the Son of Man was sent not to pass judgment as expected. Who else is in a better position to pass judgment than the sinless Son of Man? But he came to do the unexpected, to forgive whatever charges Satan presses against us. He came to teach us to forgive. He begged God to forgive even when he was crucified on the cross ...
I, I am He who blots out your transgressions for my own sake, and I will not remember your sins (Isaiah 43:25).
God forgives but men don't. We are happy to see the celebrities fall from grace, continue to hate the rich and to kill the messengers who bring unpopular news. We become indifferent to people's suffering. A false sense of justice makes us think that they deserve punishment. Like the scribes who questioned in their hearts Jesus' authority to forgive sins, we pass judgment not only on Henry Tang, but also those who have authority but do not exercise it to condemn Henry. So, who was truly paralyzed, the paralyzed or the scribes? Unknowingly, we become paralyzed ourselves. It is we who need God's compassion, not Henry.
The story of the paralyzed man has a happy ending. Seeing the healing miracle, they were all, including the scribes who questioned Jesus, amazed.
They were all amazed and glorified God, saying, "We never saw anything like this!" (Mark 2:12b).
Not only had they never seen such a healing miracle before, they had not truly experienced the forgiveness from God before the arrival of Jesus. In the Old Testament, the Israelites and Jews experienced slavery and exiles as punishments for their failing to keep the commandments. Kings who repented managed only to obtain a stay or a delay of punishments. For the first time in their interaction with God, they witnessed the freedom from spiritual as well as physical bondage. A new age has dawned. People are empowered with a new freedom granted by God's forgiveness.
Dear Lord, we praise You for the freedom You gain for us to empower us. May we move on to be Your ambassadors of reconciliation. Amen.
Sunday 12 February 2012
Non-local mums giving birth in Hong Kong
Dear Readers,
You have not clicked the wrong button. It is I, Alex Kwok, writing, for the first time, on a controversial current issue in Hong Kong, the banning of non-local mothers coming into Hong Kong. Am I not supposed to be writing about the Bible? Yes I am. However, if we found the Bible irrelevant to our daily life, we had better dumped it into the dust-bin.
Do you support banning non-local expectant women coming to Hong Kong to give birth? No, I don't support the ban. I know that my position is not the popular position. But if I did not speak up for the non-local mums, I had better given up my identity as a Catholic and stopped teaching ethics.
The issue should not have become one in the first place. First of all, it is a basic human right to build up a family and have children. People have the freedom to give birth to children. It is a human instinct. Freedom to travelling is also a basic human right. Therefore, it is not right to restrict people coming into Hong Kong. Of course, some groups of people, such as terrorists and spies, are persona non grata because they threaten the security of a place. So, many politicians in Hong Kong take advantage of the fear and selfishness of Hongkongers and claim that these mainlanders, especially the "double non-local (parents)", swarm onto Hong Kong like locusts, to suck dry our resources. This is unfair because Hong Kong is supposed to be a city that subscribes to the philosophy of Free Market. Anybody can enter this market freely if they can afford to pay the price. Indeed, mainland mothers are heading West to give birth (Feb 7, SCMP).
Hong Kong has reached a certain level of affluence. She experiences the lowest birth rate in the world. As a result, many primary schools and maternity wards are closed down and the effect is spreading into the secondary level. I am not going to criticize the short-sightedness of government policies but the government has to take the blame. Back in 1999, the SAR government sought interpretation of the Basic Law to overturn the verdict of the Court of Final Appeal, thus denying the right of abode of mainland children whose parents were Hongkongers and depriving Hong Kong of children who could fill up places in primary schools, thus saving them from folding up. Of course, the government has raised the fee for non-local expectant women to give birth in Hong Kong. She can take further steps to stamp the flow. But changing the Basic Law or seeking interpretation again so as to ban the inflow should not be an option.
More than a decade ago, when it was cheap to have a mistress in mainland China, many Taiwanese and Hong Kong business men took that advantage to enjoy the sweetness of two or more families. Nowadays, when China becomes more affluent and keeping a mistress in the mainland is more expensive, the fashion fades away. When China no longer supplies cheap labour to manufacture, many businesses invest elsewhere. Let the non-local expectant mothers come. When it is no longer attractive to give birth in Hong Kong, who would come to suck up our resources? To save our primary schools and maternity wards, should we not allow non-local mothers to give birth here?
In the Bible readings today, we read of the rule stipulated in Leviticus to exclude lepers from the community (Leviticus 13:46). The Leviticus law also forbid people to touch lepers, thus making themselves unclean (Leviticus 5:3). Leprosy is infectious and threatens the health of all members of the community. Therefore, when medical knowledge was not advanced, it was a prudent law to segregate them and to forbid touching them otherwise, many more people would catch the disease. However, in the gospel, we read of the story about Jesus touching a leper out of compassion to heal him, thus breaking the Leviticus law (Mark 1:41). Of course, we can defend Jesus by saying that with his divine power, Jesus had already cleansed the leper before his hand touched him. Jesus is God and is immune to uncleanliness. We are human. How can we protect ourselves except by excluding them, banning them? In reality, without reaching out to lepers, we would not be able to come up with the medicines to eradicate leprosy on earth. Though we are not as holy as Jesus, we still have a heart of compassion to break ourselves away from selfishness. We can still help ourselves by reaching out to lepers and non-local mothers who after all are less life-threatening than lepers. Who knows? Perhaps they are sent by God to save us from unforeseeable future troubles. No matter what, being selfish is not a good. We should be cautious but fear is definitely irrational.
The leper knew his problem. He sought help from Jesus. Do we see our problem of selfishness? Do do see the problems in our society? If not, we will not seek help and there will be no hope of a cure. Compassion for the needy is a good prescription.
Dear Lord, have compassion on my sins. Open my heart to acknowledge them and thus obtain forgiveness. Strengthen my soul not to commit them anymore. Amen.
You have not clicked the wrong button. It is I, Alex Kwok, writing, for the first time, on a controversial current issue in Hong Kong, the banning of non-local mothers coming into Hong Kong. Am I not supposed to be writing about the Bible? Yes I am. However, if we found the Bible irrelevant to our daily life, we had better dumped it into the dust-bin.
Do you support banning non-local expectant women coming to Hong Kong to give birth? No, I don't support the ban. I know that my position is not the popular position. But if I did not speak up for the non-local mums, I had better given up my identity as a Catholic and stopped teaching ethics.
The issue should not have become one in the first place. First of all, it is a basic human right to build up a family and have children. People have the freedom to give birth to children. It is a human instinct. Freedom to travelling is also a basic human right. Therefore, it is not right to restrict people coming into Hong Kong. Of course, some groups of people, such as terrorists and spies, are persona non grata because they threaten the security of a place. So, many politicians in Hong Kong take advantage of the fear and selfishness of Hongkongers and claim that these mainlanders, especially the "double non-local (parents)", swarm onto Hong Kong like locusts, to suck dry our resources. This is unfair because Hong Kong is supposed to be a city that subscribes to the philosophy of Free Market. Anybody can enter this market freely if they can afford to pay the price. Indeed, mainland mothers are heading West to give birth (Feb 7, SCMP).
Hong Kong has reached a certain level of affluence. She experiences the lowest birth rate in the world. As a result, many primary schools and maternity wards are closed down and the effect is spreading into the secondary level. I am not going to criticize the short-sightedness of government policies but the government has to take the blame. Back in 1999, the SAR government sought interpretation of the Basic Law to overturn the verdict of the Court of Final Appeal, thus denying the right of abode of mainland children whose parents were Hongkongers and depriving Hong Kong of children who could fill up places in primary schools, thus saving them from folding up. Of course, the government has raised the fee for non-local expectant women to give birth in Hong Kong. She can take further steps to stamp the flow. But changing the Basic Law or seeking interpretation again so as to ban the inflow should not be an option.
More than a decade ago, when it was cheap to have a mistress in mainland China, many Taiwanese and Hong Kong business men took that advantage to enjoy the sweetness of two or more families. Nowadays, when China becomes more affluent and keeping a mistress in the mainland is more expensive, the fashion fades away. When China no longer supplies cheap labour to manufacture, many businesses invest elsewhere. Let the non-local expectant mothers come. When it is no longer attractive to give birth in Hong Kong, who would come to suck up our resources? To save our primary schools and maternity wards, should we not allow non-local mothers to give birth here?
In the Bible readings today, we read of the rule stipulated in Leviticus to exclude lepers from the community (Leviticus 13:46). The Leviticus law also forbid people to touch lepers, thus making themselves unclean (Leviticus 5:3). Leprosy is infectious and threatens the health of all members of the community. Therefore, when medical knowledge was not advanced, it was a prudent law to segregate them and to forbid touching them otherwise, many more people would catch the disease. However, in the gospel, we read of the story about Jesus touching a leper out of compassion to heal him, thus breaking the Leviticus law (Mark 1:41). Of course, we can defend Jesus by saying that with his divine power, Jesus had already cleansed the leper before his hand touched him. Jesus is God and is immune to uncleanliness. We are human. How can we protect ourselves except by excluding them, banning them? In reality, without reaching out to lepers, we would not be able to come up with the medicines to eradicate leprosy on earth. Though we are not as holy as Jesus, we still have a heart of compassion to break ourselves away from selfishness. We can still help ourselves by reaching out to lepers and non-local mothers who after all are less life-threatening than lepers. Who knows? Perhaps they are sent by God to save us from unforeseeable future troubles. No matter what, being selfish is not a good. We should be cautious but fear is definitely irrational.
The leper knew his problem. He sought help from Jesus. Do we see our problem of selfishness? Do do see the problems in our society? If not, we will not seek help and there will be no hope of a cure. Compassion for the needy is a good prescription.
Dear Lord, have compassion on my sins. Open my heart to acknowledge them and thus obtain forgiveness. Strengthen my soul not to commit them anymore. Amen.
Sunday 5 February 2012
The Mother-in-Law of Simon
I must declare beforehand that I have not done enough research on the celibacy tradition in the Catholic Church. Therefore, what follows can only be a very brief sketch.
The Catholic clergy, from priests to the Roman Pontiff, are not allowed to marry. Catholics also trace the line of popes all the way back to Simon Peter, one of the 12 Apostles Jesus chose. Simon was the first Pope. Since Jesus renamed him Peter, which means Rock, and on this Rock, Jesus would build his Church (Matthew 16:18), no subsequent popes take the name of Peter any more. There have been 23 popes called John, 6 called Paul and 12 Pius etc. But no pope dares to choose the name Peter. Today, we read of Jesus' healing of the mother-in-law of Simon Peter (Mark 1:30-31). Naturally, people will wonder whether popes are supposed not to be married. If the first pope was married, why does the Catholic Church forbid the clergy to marry? Look at the other Christian churches. Priests of the Eastern Orthodox can marry, but not their bishops. Protestant pastors and bishops can marry. Why not Catholic clergy? Good question. It is a matter of traditions.
In Jesus' time, marriage was the norm. Therefore, it was only natural that most of the Apostles Jesus chose were married, with the exception of John perhaps. When Paul wrote to Titus about the qualifications of a bishop, he decreed that this person must be the husband of one wife (1 Titus 3:2). On the other hand, Paul also advocates celibacy (1 Corinthians 7:1, 7). When we move on to the early Church of the first few centuries, the clergy were married. But time and situation changed. There arose a group of people who would insist on leading their life according to the spirit of the gospel, the Evangelical Counsels of poverty, chastity and obedience. They devoted themselves completely to pleasing the Lord (1 Corinthians 7:32-35). Gradually, there developed two classes of Christians: the ascetics who renounced the world and the laity who continued to live in the world with their spouses. Guess what, which class of Christians was thought more highly of? Of course, those ascetics! Virginity and chastity were more highly prized. Married life was a necessary evil! From Pauline epistles, we gather that as the Church grew in size, a ministerial structure, a hierarchy developed. There were bishops (successors of apostles), prophets, priests (presbyters) and deacons. Soon, prophets and deacons had disappeared from the hierarchy for good reasons. Prophets were inspired and moved by the Holy Spirit. They were, like the Holy Spirit, unpredictable and did not fit well into a structure. Deacons relieved the apostles from worldly affairs so that they could concentrate more on preaching and teaching. Though there were saintly deacons like Stephen and Lawrence, many a deacons easily fell into the temptation of money and became notoriously corrupt. If bishops and priests were able to survive in the hierarchy, they needed to give up families of their own. However, without the buffer of deacons, bishops and priests would also be corrupted.
Gregory the Great was the first monk elected pope in 590 A.D. Perhaps this was the beginning of the tradition of celibacy among clergy. Celibate clergy are free from worldly affairs and completely devoted to the work of overseeing the spiritual welfare of the laity. They inspire and gain more confidence in the faithful. Thus, the tradition of celibacy is established in the Catholic Church. A colleague of mine, an ex-vice principal of La Salle complains about the scandals of Catholic priests nowadays and mistresses, concubines and illegitimate children of popes in the Middle Ages. Had they been allowed to marry, there would not have been so many scandals. I answered him that such scandals happen wherever there is a power relationship: boy scouts, girl guides, hospitals, schools and tuition centres etc. Sexual abuses are not exclusively Catholic Church scandals. However, the Catholic Church is singled out because the news is more sensational. Moreover, the Catholic Church is rich and victims can claim more compensations. Many US dioceses have to declare bankruptcy because they cannot afford to pay out the damages. Lesser churches are not targeted not because there are no abuses but because there are no compensations.
Back to the Catholic Church, recent popes have no intention to relax the celibacy tradition because it is a matter of personal choice (Matthew 19:12). A man is free to choose from the Anglican, the Baptist and the Eastern Orthodox churches if he wants to serve the Lord in the capacity of a married man. If he wants to become a Catholic priest, he should know well his own capacity and the Catholic tradition of celibacy.
In particular, the late Pope John Paul II expounds a Theology of the Body in his series of audiences from 1979 to 1984. They were compiled into the book Man and Woman He created them. The Theology of Body deals with human sexuality and marriage from the perspective of the Scriptures. Sex is an integral part of a human person but not the totality of the person. Our body is the materialization of our person. It is a gift from God, not for us but for the others. We give ourselves, thus open ourselves to more life. Love is self-giving as well as self-mastery. Therefore, in marriage, we master ourselves and give ourselves exclusively to our spouses. In a celibate life, the self-giving and self-mastery are for all and not exclusively for a single person. With self-mastery, a person attains inner peace and purity of body and mind. Thus a celibate person is able to relate and respect others gracefully, bringing out the image of God in others. Together, we can truly be children of our Father in heaven.
The revival of permanent diaconate in the Catholic Church after Vatican II offers an option for married men to serve the Lord and the Church. Today, Deacon Karl Tsang spoke in his homily about the presence of God. A man married for more than 45 years, Deacon Tsang is more convincing in dealing with marriage issues than many priests. Today, he shared with us his experience during the two knee operations last April and July. Deacon Tsang has a collection of age related health problems: hyper-tension, heart disease and diabetics etc. Undergoing surgery is particularly risky because his wounds would heal very slowly. He felt confused and lost until a nurse in mask whispered in his ear that she was also a parishioner. She would stay in the operation theatre during the whole process. God had sent him a guardian angel. Deacon Tsang felt relieved and very soon, the anaesthetic took effect. Both operations were successful and he recovered quite quickly and satisfactorily. Thank God, today, Deacon Tsang was able to share with us God's presence because God is really present with us all the time. We only need to open ourselves to His presence. Many Catholics shy away from bearing witness for Christ. Deacon Tsang reassured the congregation that just like the nurse, their mere presence was enough reassurance of God's presence. There is no need to worry about what to speak because Christ will put his words in our mouth (Luke 21:13-15).
Dear Lord, may our words and actions not obscure Your salvation from our brethren. May Your love shine forth from Your unworthy servants. Amen.
The Catholic clergy, from priests to the Roman Pontiff, are not allowed to marry. Catholics also trace the line of popes all the way back to Simon Peter, one of the 12 Apostles Jesus chose. Simon was the first Pope. Since Jesus renamed him Peter, which means Rock, and on this Rock, Jesus would build his Church (Matthew 16:18), no subsequent popes take the name of Peter any more. There have been 23 popes called John, 6 called Paul and 12 Pius etc. But no pope dares to choose the name Peter. Today, we read of Jesus' healing of the mother-in-law of Simon Peter (Mark 1:30-31). Naturally, people will wonder whether popes are supposed not to be married. If the first pope was married, why does the Catholic Church forbid the clergy to marry? Look at the other Christian churches. Priests of the Eastern Orthodox can marry, but not their bishops. Protestant pastors and bishops can marry. Why not Catholic clergy? Good question. It is a matter of traditions.
In Jesus' time, marriage was the norm. Therefore, it was only natural that most of the Apostles Jesus chose were married, with the exception of John perhaps. When Paul wrote to Titus about the qualifications of a bishop, he decreed that this person must be the husband of one wife (1 Titus 3:2). On the other hand, Paul also advocates celibacy (1 Corinthians 7:1, 7). When we move on to the early Church of the first few centuries, the clergy were married. But time and situation changed. There arose a group of people who would insist on leading their life according to the spirit of the gospel, the Evangelical Counsels of poverty, chastity and obedience. They devoted themselves completely to pleasing the Lord (1 Corinthians 7:32-35). Gradually, there developed two classes of Christians: the ascetics who renounced the world and the laity who continued to live in the world with their spouses. Guess what, which class of Christians was thought more highly of? Of course, those ascetics! Virginity and chastity were more highly prized. Married life was a necessary evil! From Pauline epistles, we gather that as the Church grew in size, a ministerial structure, a hierarchy developed. There were bishops (successors of apostles), prophets, priests (presbyters) and deacons. Soon, prophets and deacons had disappeared from the hierarchy for good reasons. Prophets were inspired and moved by the Holy Spirit. They were, like the Holy Spirit, unpredictable and did not fit well into a structure. Deacons relieved the apostles from worldly affairs so that they could concentrate more on preaching and teaching. Though there were saintly deacons like Stephen and Lawrence, many a deacons easily fell into the temptation of money and became notoriously corrupt. If bishops and priests were able to survive in the hierarchy, they needed to give up families of their own. However, without the buffer of deacons, bishops and priests would also be corrupted.
Gregory the Great was the first monk elected pope in 590 A.D. Perhaps this was the beginning of the tradition of celibacy among clergy. Celibate clergy are free from worldly affairs and completely devoted to the work of overseeing the spiritual welfare of the laity. They inspire and gain more confidence in the faithful. Thus, the tradition of celibacy is established in the Catholic Church. A colleague of mine, an ex-vice principal of La Salle complains about the scandals of Catholic priests nowadays and mistresses, concubines and illegitimate children of popes in the Middle Ages. Had they been allowed to marry, there would not have been so many scandals. I answered him that such scandals happen wherever there is a power relationship: boy scouts, girl guides, hospitals, schools and tuition centres etc. Sexual abuses are not exclusively Catholic Church scandals. However, the Catholic Church is singled out because the news is more sensational. Moreover, the Catholic Church is rich and victims can claim more compensations. Many US dioceses have to declare bankruptcy because they cannot afford to pay out the damages. Lesser churches are not targeted not because there are no abuses but because there are no compensations.
Back to the Catholic Church, recent popes have no intention to relax the celibacy tradition because it is a matter of personal choice (Matthew 19:12). A man is free to choose from the Anglican, the Baptist and the Eastern Orthodox churches if he wants to serve the Lord in the capacity of a married man. If he wants to become a Catholic priest, he should know well his own capacity and the Catholic tradition of celibacy.
In particular, the late Pope John Paul II expounds a Theology of the Body in his series of audiences from 1979 to 1984. They were compiled into the book Man and Woman He created them. The Theology of Body deals with human sexuality and marriage from the perspective of the Scriptures. Sex is an integral part of a human person but not the totality of the person. Our body is the materialization of our person. It is a gift from God, not for us but for the others. We give ourselves, thus open ourselves to more life. Love is self-giving as well as self-mastery. Therefore, in marriage, we master ourselves and give ourselves exclusively to our spouses. In a celibate life, the self-giving and self-mastery are for all and not exclusively for a single person. With self-mastery, a person attains inner peace and purity of body and mind. Thus a celibate person is able to relate and respect others gracefully, bringing out the image of God in others. Together, we can truly be children of our Father in heaven.
The revival of permanent diaconate in the Catholic Church after Vatican II offers an option for married men to serve the Lord and the Church. Today, Deacon Karl Tsang spoke in his homily about the presence of God. A man married for more than 45 years, Deacon Tsang is more convincing in dealing with marriage issues than many priests. Today, he shared with us his experience during the two knee operations last April and July. Deacon Tsang has a collection of age related health problems: hyper-tension, heart disease and diabetics etc. Undergoing surgery is particularly risky because his wounds would heal very slowly. He felt confused and lost until a nurse in mask whispered in his ear that she was also a parishioner. She would stay in the operation theatre during the whole process. God had sent him a guardian angel. Deacon Tsang felt relieved and very soon, the anaesthetic took effect. Both operations were successful and he recovered quite quickly and satisfactorily. Thank God, today, Deacon Tsang was able to share with us God's presence because God is really present with us all the time. We only need to open ourselves to His presence. Many Catholics shy away from bearing witness for Christ. Deacon Tsang reassured the congregation that just like the nurse, their mere presence was enough reassurance of God's presence. There is no need to worry about what to speak because Christ will put his words in our mouth (Luke 21:13-15).
Dear Lord, may our words and actions not obscure Your salvation from our brethren. May Your love shine forth from Your unworthy servants. Amen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)