主題：向一切受做物傳福音─環保
數星期前，執事在講道中曾提及過我們對天主應該有信德，不要限制天主拯救世界的方法，認為一定要領洗入教纔能得救。即使祗信科學，不信有神的人，天主一樣有本事拯救他們。後來，有位年青教友向執事討教。既然連不信天主的「無神論者」也能得救，為甚麼還要多此一舉，向他們傳教呢？這的確是個很有意思的問題。今天剛好是「傳教節」，正好是解答這個疑問的好機會。
三部對觀福音結束時，都記載了耶穌離世歸父的時候，吩咐門徒向全世界宣揚福音。所以，教會存在的目的，就是傳福音。不傳福音，教會就沒有存在的理由了。無論世人接受與否，向他們宣講福音是做教友的本份。別人接受固然好，因為我們幫助了一個靈魂得救；若別人不接受，這是他們的自由。我們傳福音就是執行耶穌派遣我們的使命。我們領洗入教，享受天主恩寵，就同時有義務分擔這份傳福音的使命。我們祗問耕耘，不問收獲。
讓我們再深入分析在三部對觀福音裡，耶穌怎樣派遣門徒傳福音。
我們的教宗方濟，就在本年五月廿四日聖神降臨節，向全世界發表一篇名為「願祢受讚頌」的通諭，要求所有懷有善意的男女，保衛我們共同的家園。為甚麼教宗會談及環保呢？是追上潮流嗎？抑或是環保符合聖經的教訓呢？毫無疑問，當今教宗的確掌握到時代的脈搏，而且能善用資訊科技。不過，如果環保有違教會的道理，教宗是不會支持的。那麼，保護環境怎樣符合聖經的教訓呢？
聖經的第一本書的第一章，開宗明義以一首讚美詩，歌頌天主創造天地萬物的偉大。創世紀第一章是詩歌體裁，當中可以找到詩歌的一個明顯特徵─重句。例如，「過了晚上，過了早晨，這是第一天」等等。另一個出現了七次的句子，就是「天主看了認為好」！創世紀第一章的另一個特點，就是它包含著「進化論」的雛型，先有植物纔有動物；而脊椎動物之中，先有水中的魚，然後空中的飛鳥，然後地上的哺乳類動物，最後纔是人。由此可見，聖經裡所提及的超乎自然的記載，例如創造天地萬物、洪水滅世或者分開紅海等等的神蹟，不一定是神話故事。請記著，聖經不是一本自然科學的教學書，而是一本超越科學範疇，有關救恩歷史的書。所以要求聖經的內容完全脗合大自然的現象，而不應記載神蹟，是太苛求了。
讓我們來評鑑，人類今天是一個稱職的管家嗎？很明顯，我們做得不好。我們貪圖舒適和方便，消耗了很多天然資源而同時留下了很多有害的垃圾，污染了我們的環境。這樣做，我們不但趕絕了其他生物的生存空間，而且自己亦身受其害。可惜，各地政府祗探取鴕鳥政策，用金錢去處理問題的表面，而逃避了根治問題的所在。例如，香港政府探取「用者自付」的政策：「用得多，污染得多，就繳交多一點服務費。」看來很公平，其實不然。這樣的話，有錢人能負擔得起，就可以任意污染環境了嗎？過度消耗大自然的資源，污染了生物圈和食物鏈，固然對我們自己有害，但想深一層，首當其衝受害的是生活在我們中間的窮人。當富有的人能付出冷氣費，出入乘冷氣房車，飲消毒了的蒸餾水，吃從遠方未受污染的食物時，窮人祗能吹風扇、呼吸路邊極污濁的空氣，飲含鉛的食水，吃地溝油炸的黑心食物。富有就可以任意污染，貧窮就要承受別人造成的污染，這是對窮人不公義的。而且當我們耗盡大自然的資源，沒有足夠的資源留給遲我們出生的人的時候，我們對不起我們的後代子孫，對後人不公平。所以，不以環保的心態生活，是一種不公義的生活，對窮人不公義，對後代子孫不公義。百多年來的天主教社會訓導，都宣稱天主教站在貧窮人身邊。如果我們不環保，貪圖舒適方便地生活，我們沒有資格稱為天主教徒。
教宗在通諭中提醒我們的，不單是物質上的生態環境，他提醒我們更要注意文化上的生態環境，因為文化對人的影響，遠比物質的影響大。無疑，現代經濟是繁榮的，但繁榮背後是一個鼓吹消費的文化。以往生產的電櫃，洗衣機或汽車，都可以用上30年。30年後，顧客纔需要買第二部。那麼，公司如何經營下去呢？為了公司業績，為了賺錢，公司惟有推出「短命」的產品，幾年甚至一年或幾個月就推出新產品，花大量金錢賣廣告促銷，鼓勵消費者追上潮流，換新機。這樣便造成了一個「用完即棄」的文化生態環境。試想一想，當人與人之間的關係也變成「用完即棄」，是多麼可怕。你可能會問那裡可以找到「用完即棄」的人際關係呢？有。例如：「一夜情」、「代母產子」。當我們在報紙上看到某地產商，抱著三個由美國的代母為他的兒子所生的男孫，裂嘴而笑時，我們會羨幕他，為他高興，抑或感覺到不公義和可怕呢？
各位兄弟姊妹，請大家關心我們生活所在的物質上及文化上的生態環境。培養一個「環保」的生活態度。這樣就是響應耶穌的號召，向一切受造物傳福音。此外，我們還要提高警覺，不要跌入「用完即棄」的陷阱之中。
在瑪竇福音中，耶穌吩咐十一宗徒使萬民成為門徒，並因天主聖三之名為他們施洗，教訓他們遵守耶穌的吩咐。路加福音的耶穌吩咐門徒從耶路撒冷開始，因耶穌的名向萬邦宣講悔改，以獲得罪赦。宣講的對象，無論是「萬民」抑或是「萬邦」都是人。宣講的內容都是與獲得罪過的赦免有關。今天所讀的馬爾谷福音就有明顯的分別。首先，宣講的內容與瑪竇路加一致，都是有關洗禮獲得罪赦。但宣講的對象卻是「一切受造物」。難道我們真的要好像亞西西的聖方濟一樣，向大樹、飛鳥和豺狼講耶穌，向在家中飼養的寵物，或街邊的流浪貓狗講罪的赦免嗎？如果真是這樣，我們未免太沒有想像力了。
創世紀說人是按天主的肖像所造，管理萬物，這是從宗教及倫理角度去描述。倘若有人借「進化論」來推出天主一定好像大猩猩，他就掉進了邏輯上的「越位」陷阱了。聖經旨在說明在萬物之中，人是天主的肖像，所以人能與天主溝通，而且人代表天主，治理世界。因此，人並不擁有這個世界，祗不過是這個世界的管家而已。這樣的推論纔符合宗教及倫理學的邏輯。
天主保祐。
Mission Sunday (Year B)
Theme:Preach to the Creation --- Environmental Protection
A few weeks ago, I mentioned in my homily that we should have faith in God. We should not restrict God’s ways of salvation, thinking that only becoming a Catholic through baptism can one be saved. Even those who only believe in science, those who do not believe in the existence of God, God can still find ways to save them. Later, a young parishioner came to ask me. “Since even atheists can be saved, why bother preaching to them?” I think it was a meaningful question. Since today is Mission Sunday. I think it is the most appropriate opportunity to answer this query.
The three Synoptic gospels finish with the story of ascension before which Jesus sent his disciples to evangelize the world. Therefore, evangelization is the raison d’état of the Church. The Church has no reason to exist at all if not for evangelization. Whether people accept or not, proclaiming the gospel is the duty of Catholics. Good for them if they accept because we help save a soul. If they reject, it is their freedom. When we preach the good news, we are discharging Jesus’ commission. We were baptized to enjoy God’s grace. At the same time, we have the duty to share this evangelization duty. The process is more important than the product.
Let us analyze deeper the way the three Synoptic gospels tell how Jesus sent the disciples to spread the good news.
On May 24, Pentecost Sunday, Pope Francis issued an encyclical letter “Laudato Si” to urge all people of good will to protect our common home. Why did our Pope talk about environmental protection? Was it trendy? Or is it because environmental protection is consistent with the teaching of our Church? Without doubt, our Pope is very capable of discerning the signs of our times and he is IT literate. However, had environmental protection been contrary to Church teachings, the Pope would not have supported it. So, how does environmental protection agree with the social teachings of the Church?
The first chapter of the first book of the Bible began with a hymn to praise the greatness of God’s creation. Genesis 1 is a poem. We can see many obvious traits of a song --- repetition. For example, “And the evening, and the morning were the first day …” etc. Another phrase which appears seven times is “and God saw that it was good.” There is another characteristic in Genesis 1, that evolution is embedded in an embryonic form. There were plants before animals; among vertebrae, there were fish before birds in the air, then mammals and lastly human beings. Thus, supernatural narratives in the Bible, such as the Creation, the Great Deluge or the splitting of the Red Sea are not necessarily myths. Remember, the Bible is not a natural sciences textbook, but a book of salvation history which goes beyond the scientific realm. Therefore, it is an unreasonable demand to require Biblical narratives to match natural phenomena and should not talk about miracles.
Let us evaluate how we fare as the steward of the world. Obviously we are doing a bad job. For the sake of comfort and convenience, we have depleted many natural resources and have left behind a lot of harmful trash, contaminating our environment. In doing so, we deprive other living organisms of their habitats and we ourselves also suffer bad consequences. Unfortunately, governments bury their heads in the sand, using money to deal with the surface of the problems and evade tackling the root cause of the problems. For example, the Hong Kong government adopts a “Pay while you pollute” policy: the more resources you use, the more you pollute, the more you pay. It looks fair but it is not because the rich may pollute as much as they can afford. Of course we suffer if we deplete natural resources excessively and contaminate the biosphere and food chain. But ask yourself. Who bear the blunt of pollution? The poor. When the rich can afford to pay air conditioning, travel in air-conditioned private cars, drink sterilized distilled water and eat unpolluted food imported from afar, the poor can only afford electric fans, inhale polluted air at the roadside, drink tap water tainted with Pb and eat expired food deep fried in gutter oil. It is blatant injustice for the poor when the rich can pollute at will while the poor bear the blunt. And when we deplete most of the natural resources, leaving little behind for our posterity, it is unfair for them. Therefore, if we do not lead an environmentally friendly life, we are unfair towards the poor, towards the posterity. For more than a century, the social teachings of the Catholic Church have been talking about opting for the poor. If we do not protect the environment and desire for a comfortable and convenient life, we are not qualified to a Catholic.
In the encyclical letter, the Pope reminds us not only the material ecological environment but also the cultural ecological environment. It is because culture affects humanity much greater than material environment. Without doubt, modern societies are economically prosperous. However, behind this prosperity is a culture of consumerism. Previously, the refrigerators, washing machines and motor cars were able to last for some 30 years. After that, consumers bought a second one. Then, how could the company survive? In order to boost sale figures, to make money, the company was forced to produce “short-lived” products. After a few years or months, the company would introduce new products, spend a lot of money to promote sale, to encourage consumers to catch up the trend, to buy the new products. Then, a “disposable” culture was created. Just imagine how terrifying it would be when interpersonal relationships became disposable! You may wonder where we can find disposable interpersonal relationships. Let me tell you. “One night stand” as well as “surrogate motherhood”. When we see the image of a developer in broad grin, holding 3 grandsons given birth by American surrogate mothers for his son, do you admire him? Congratulate him or feel the terror of injustice?
Brethren, care about our material as well as cultural ecological systems. Cultivate an environmentally friendly life style. In this way, we are following Jesus’ commission to preach to the creation. Moreover, be vigilant. Do not fall into the traps of disposability.
In Matthew, Jesus sent the eleven remaining apostles to make disciples among the peoples, baptize them in the name of the Blessed Trinity and teach them to keep all that he had commanded. Luke tells of how Jesus sent the disciples, beginning at Jerusalem, to preach to all nations in the name of Jesus repentance in order to obtain the forgiveness of sins. The target audiences, be they “peoples” or “nations” were human beings. The contents were related to the forgiveness of sins. The Marcan passage we read today is obviously different. First of all, the contents are consistent with Matthew and Luke. They are about baptism and forgiveness of sins. But the target audience is “the whole creation”. Then, are we supposed to work like St. Francis of Assisi, to talk about Jesus to trees, birds and wolves; or to tell our pets or strayed cats and dogs on the streets about the forgiveness of sins? If we think along such lines, we lack imagination.
Genesis mentions that men were created in the image and likeness of God, to have dominion over all other creatures. It is a religious and moral description. If somebody makes use of “evolution theory” and deduces that God must look like a chimpanzee, then he has fallen into a fallacy of “straw man”. By saying that men were created in the image of God, the Bible tells us that men are able to communicate with God and manage the world in his stead. Therefore, men do not own the world. Men are only stewards. This deduction follows the religious and moral logic.
God bless.
No comments:
Post a Comment