Global Chinese Permanent Deacon Symposium (III)

Today, I escaped into my comfort zone --- becoming an IT technician to help those speakers who used PowerPoint to present their talks. In so doing, I have missed out the essence --- diaconate spirituality. The organizing committee invited three Chinese deacons from north America to share their spiritual experience. The only thing I could remember from the second speaker was that he was an introvert! He did not use PowerPoint and spoke from his script. I fared a bit better in the third speaker because I pressed the down arrow key during his PowerPoint presentation. Though he was ordained for about two years, he was able to articulate the virtue of humility very well. Moreover, he is a more lively and outgoing person,.

The first speaker is a physician. He sees God's plan and God's hand in everything that happened to him. He could discern God's voices. He was able to see his own arrogance and dislike against other physicians. Yet, in serving the altar, he could hear God telling him clearly to offer sacrifice for those people he dislike. God has His own way to polish us, giving us chances after chances to transform ourselves and to serve Him., 

I did not join the group discussion, making myself busy preparing the computers for the subsequent presentations. The group discussions focused on family spirituality. The feedback from the wives are most enlightening of all. One deacon wife conjured up the image of the poor widow who offered up all that she had. In a similar way, when she signed the consent letter to support her husband to become a deacon, she had given up "all that she had". Good point. Full support from wives involves a lot of sacrifice indeed.

The best feeling came today when Deacon Sung asked me to read during the Diocesan celebration in Hong Kong Stadium this coming Sunday. On one hand, my reading skill is being appreciated. On the other, it gives me another temptation not to be humble. 

Dear Lord, help me emerge from my comfort zone. Help me to be humble. Amen.

Global Chinese Permanent Deacons Symposium (II)

The actual program began this morning. Deacon Dupont delivered a keynote speech on the development of the restoration of diaconate since Vatican II. The Americans are pioneers. They started nearly immediately after the ecumenical council. Today, there are more than 40,000 permanent deacons in USA. Deacon Dupont is the President of the National Association of Diaconate Directors. He painted a rosy picture of USA.

Theologically, deacons are icons of the servanthood of the Church. The Church should be the servant of humanity. This is most clearly expressed in the service of deacons. Deacons sacramentalize service. Deacons serve the Word, serve the liturgy and serve in charity works. To help us visualize the development of diaconate in USA, Deacon Dupont summarized it into three generations. The first generation lasted for the first twenty years. It was marked with the service of liturgy. Here, most of the conflicts with priesthood arose. The second generation saw the rise of service in charity and deacons began to identify their service with the underprivileged. Of course, the service of liturgy continues but it occupies less time of the deacons. After about 10 years, the service of the Word emerged. At last, the American diaconate has matured. Meanwhile, the American deacons as a whole is aging.

It is obvious that the Church needs young recruits. However, the Church also has worries about young deacons. She is rather hesitant and the Hong Kong Diocese tends to accept more mature aspirants. Deacon Stephen Kwok begged to differ. He believes that when a young father responds to the vocation and begins training, the whole family benefits from the husband's training. It is easier for younger children to incorporate into their identify the children of a deacon, whereas for teenage children, it would be more difficult  because adolescence suffers from identity crisis. Deacon Stephen has a valid point.

In a sharing in response to Deacon Dupont's keynote address, Deacon Raymond Chan shed a different light on the ministry of deacons. In his situation, the parish priest never gave him a chance to deliver homily. He had to serve where no priests want to serve. Priests tend to see him as a rival. On the other hand, some stronger laity communities do not want to lose their autonomy to deacons who are caught in the middle, rejected on both sides. Only the bishop supports him or the bishop wants to implement the idea. This is not as rosy a picture as painted by Deacon Dupont. I hope I am not judgmental. I feel that communication skills are essential in diaconate ministry. Deacons are interfaces between the laity and the priests.
Many people who spoke today spoke the same vocabulary --- humility. A deacon cannot be not humble. He must be an icon.

Today, I feel better. At least, my room has a proper label. Yesterday, I had to take down the original label and wrote my own name at the back. In the morning, I met the Vicar General on our way down to the chapel for the morning prayer and mass, he told me to make sure the sound system would function properly when the speakers delivered their speech. I was puzzled. Had the VG Office not already assigned somebody to handle it? Indeed, the major problem did not lie there but somewhere else. Deacon Dupont wanted to present his PowerPoint with his own notebook computer! This would surely bring chaos. In the end, we copied his PowerPoint onto own computer to play.
No matter what, I have learned not to be so pushy today. Dear Lord, teach me to be humble. Amen.

Global Chinese Permanent Deacon Symposium (I)

I asked from my school a 4-day leave to join the Global Chinese Permanent Deacon Symposium. I am badly in need of a longer retreat to reflect on my vocation. I thank my colleagues in the Ethics and Religious Studies Department for their generosity to replace all my lessons. Even though I am entitled to hire a supply teacher when a leave lasts for three or more days, the school says it was rather impossible to hire a supply teacher to take up my lessons! Meanwhile, two Chinese teachers and the Principal chaperoned a group of Italian students to Beijing for about 5 days. Supply teachers were hired. I should be elated for being indispensable.

13 overseas Chinese permanent deacons from Australia, Belgium, Canada and USA came to join this Symposium. One of them is Deacon Peter Fan who is my ex-colleague in La Salle and an alumnus. It is a great pleasure to meet him again after more than three decades. Yesterday he also took part in our Deacon Ordination Mass in which three candidates were ordained. John Lam, another deacon candidate like me and a La Salle old boy, came to the banquet afterwards and I introduced him to Peter. We cracked jokes, saying that La Salle was a breeding ground of Deacon vocation. The subtext is "Celibacy is too demanding for La Salle boys."

I was a bit crestfallen when I learned that this Symposium was meant for permanent deacons only. I should not have taken part in the first place and I should not volunteer to get Erminia involved playing the organ in the liturgy.
The site, a retreat house run by the St. Paul nuns in Sheung Shui, provides wifi access to the Internet. However, the wifi is plagued with outages most of the time. So, when the problem came up again, I was eager to help solve the problem together with another candidate, Simon Chan who came to provide IT support for the event. In fact, Simon is more knowledgeable. I simply try to justify my presence in this Symposium. To rub salt on my wounds, I was not informed of my room until after the briefing before going to bed.
When I learnt that the lady translator also plays organ and despite the fact that the Vicar General had explicitly told me to stick to the present arrangement, I still tried to persuade her to play the organ in the liturgy as well so that Erminia would not have to travel back and forth, from here to school to home and return here. After the lady had expressed her wish to focus on one job, I gave up. I surrendered and let God take over.

From these bits and pieces, I gradually realize that I have always been trying to take control. I need to make others feel that I am important/indispensable. Forgive me, Lord. I am an unworthy servant. Allow me to learn to serve sincerely and not to be served. Amen.

復活的心態

常年期第三十二主日（丙年）
主題：復活的心態

我們在福音中常聽到「法利塞人」，比較少聽到「撒杜塞人」，一不留神以為他們與法利塞人差不多。的確，在政治上，法利塞人和撒杜塞人曾聯手對付耶穌。但實際上，他們是敵對的。
撒杜塞人的由司祭組成的政黨，他們的權勢與聖殿息息相關，亦因此，他們的勢力範圍就局限在耶路撒冷。在信仰上他們祗承認梅瑟五書是經典，不承認先知書和聖詠的啟示權威。在梅瑟五書之中，他們找不到死人復活的記載，所以他們否認復活。
不要以為他們是膿包，看他們的論証手法，便知道他們是思路精密的高級知識份子。首先，他們表面上認同對手的立場，然後推論出對手的論點會得到矛盾的結果，這一招「反証法」是邏輯學上常用的手段，用來處理一些無法直接証明的道理。
撒杜塞人認為人死不能復生。現在不會有復活，將來都不會，永遠都不會。
要証明現在不會有復活並不難，因為從來沒有人親眼見過死人會復活。不過，現在不會並不表示將來不會。要直接証明連將來都不會有復活是非常困難的。於是撒杜塞人巧妙地用反証法証明復活是錯的。
首先，他們設下一個七兄弟按梅瑟訂立的代兄立嗣法律，先後成為同一個女人的丈夫的局面。然後假設有復活，於是在復活之日，就會出現一個女人同時有七個丈夫的姦淫局面。法律是不會互相矛盾的，天主的法律更加不會互相矛盾。十誡不應該與代兄立嗣的法律矛盾。十誡禁止姦淫，復活就會導致姦淫。所以錯不在十誡，錯在有復活。十誡是永恆的，所以，復活是永遠不會有的。撒杜塞人的思路的確厲害。

為甚麽這班司祭不想復活呢？復活有甚麽不好呢？撒杜塞人真心關懷姦淫的問題嗎？絕對不。
司祭素來都是肋未一族的專利，而且還是世襲的。除非發生了一些不幸事件，例如天生殘障令一個人不能當司祭，或者一些特殊事故如天主召收或者是亡國，否則一出世在司祭家族裡，就註定衣食無憂。厄則克耳在亡國之前是司祭，亡國後充軍時蒙召成為先知。若翰洗者的爸爸是司祭，若翰原本可以繼承父業做司祭，結果做了基督的前驅，死在黑落德手上。這兩個是特殊的個別例子，一般的司祭都是京城中的既得利益者，是特權階級。當耶穌清理聖殿的時候，就是向他們借聖殿偷呃拐騙的惡行宣戰，於是損害了他們的利益，開罪了他們。

從第一篇讀經我們可以領會到復活是帶有審判意味的。世間實在有太多的不公義，相信大家近日在新聞都看了不少。連當權者亦加入為有錢人服務的時候，這一切的冤假錯案，就祗有等天主在復活之日為受害人申冤了。
所以，如果心裡沒有復活，既得利益者就可以繼續不公義地享受既得的利益，最緊要「維持穩定，按程序公義辦事，循序漸進改良社會。」他們所信的天主對貪污會隻眼開隻眼閉，對孤兒寡婦，小數族裔會袖手旁觀，就不會平反冤獄。這群撒杜塞人就會天不怕，地不怕，把仁愛和公義拋諸腦後，有風就要使盡艃，為富就可以不仁，不用顧憂「最尾的兩年」。

作為耶穌的門徒，我們相信耶穌為了我們，從死者中復活過來了。那麽，復活對我們每天的生活，有甚麽意義呢？我們如何以一個復活的心態來面對不公義呢？
我們相信復活，表示我們相信天主自會照顧。所以在不斷重複的平淡生活中，我們抱著天主自會照顧的信念，每日以仁愛關顧身邊有需要幫助的弱勢社群，愛人如己，服務在病弱者身上臨現的耶穌君王。
我們相信復活，表示我們相信天主會為受壓迫者申冤。在面對發生在身邊不公義的情況時，不要置身事外，明哲保身。因為天主曾因亞巴郎的求情，會為十個義人而不毀滅索多瑪。耶穌曾應承我們有兩三個人因他的名聚集的時候，他會臨現在我們中間。所以我們懷著復活的希望，相信天主會為受壓迫者申冤的承諾，我們與受壓迫者同行。天主會因我們的臨在，耶穌的臨在而為他們出頭。天主絕對不會等我們出事後才出手。因為天主不是死人的天主，而是活人的天主。

各位兄弟姊妹，記著時時懷著復活的心態，使復活的基督，臨現在我們身上，臨現在不公義的社會裡。天主保祐。

---

32^nd Ordinary Sunday, Year C
Theme: A Resurrection mentality
We often hear about Pharisees in the gospels and very little of the Sadducees. If we are not careful, we may think that they were different names of the same group of people. Indeed, they had joined forces in order to eliminate Jesus. However, they were in fact, antagonistic.
Sadducees were a political group made up of priests. Their influence was coupled with the Temple and thus, their power was confined within Jerusalem. Sadducees held that only the Torah was canonical. They did not acknowledge the revelatory authority of the books of prophets and psalms. Since they could not find anything about resurrection in the Torah, they dismissed the idea of resurrection.
Do not think that they were blockheads. Their dialectics showed that they were intelligentsia of high calibre. At first, they appeared to agree with the opponents’ stance. Then, they demonstrated that such a stance would lead to contradiction. This reductio ad absurdum is a common way to prove some truths which cannot be demonstrated directly.
Sadducees denied resurrection. There was no resurrection here and now, or in the future. There would be no resurrection forever.
To demonstrate that there was no resurrection here and now was not difficult because nobody had witnessed the dead coming back to life. However, that there was no resurrection now cannot guarantee that there would be no resurrection in the future. To demonstrate directly that there would be no resurrection in the future is very difficult. But the Sadducees had found a clever way to prove that the whole idea of resurrection is wrongheaded.
Firstly, they set up a scenario in which seven brothers, following Mosaic levirate marriage law, became husbands of the same woman consecutively (Luke 28:32, Deuteronomy 25:5-6). If there were resurrection, on the day of resurrection, the woman would be the wife of these seven brothers at the same time. A scenario of adultery would result. Laws cannot be self-contradictory. The more so are the laws of God. The Ten Commandments should not contradict with the levirate marriage law. Now, the Ten Commandments forbid adultery. Resurrection would lead to adultery. The fault lies not with the Ten Commandments. It must be the fault of resurrection. Since the Ten Commandments are eternal. Therefore, there would be, for eternity, no resurrection. How impeccable their dialectics were!

Why did these priests not want resurrection? What was so bad about resurrection? Did these Sadducees care about adultery? A categorical no!
Priesthood had always been the exclusive franchise of Levites. Moreover, it was hereditary. Unless some unfortunate impediments happened, such as handicaps rendering a man unable to become a priest, or some special events such as God’s call or exile, a person born into a priestly family would have nothing to worry about for the rest of his life. Ezekiel was a priest before the Babylonian Exile. Later God called him to become a prophet. The father of John the Baptist was a priest. John would have inherited his father’s job to become one. Subsequently, he became the forerunner of Christ and was beheaded by Herod Antipas. These two are exceptional cases. In general, priests were vested interests in Jerusalem. They were a privileged class. When Jesus cleansed the Temple, he was declaring war against their evil deeds of turning the Temple into their money spinner. Jesus antagonized them by ruining their interests.

From the first reading today, we gather that resurrection involves judgment. There are too many injustices in this world. I am sure you have heard enough of news coverage these days. When the government serves the rich, these cases of injustice have to wait until the day of resurrection when God’s justice shall prevail.
Therefore, if there is no resurrection in their hearts, the vested interests would continue to enjoy their interests in an unjust way. For them, “maintaining stability, following procedural justice and gradual piecemeal improvement of the society” are of top priority. Their God would be blind to corruption, would let the orphans, widows and ethnic minorities fend for themselves. His justice would not prevail. These Sadducees had nothing to fear. Charity and justice were not among their vocabulary. They would exploit the disadvantaged to the fullest. They would harden their hearts with their wealth. They did not bother about their last days.

As disciples of Jesus, we believe that Jesus died and came back to life for us. So, what does resurrection mean for our daily life? How shall we confront injustice with a resurrection mentality?
To believe in resurrection means we trust in the providence of God. In our routine boring daily life, we believe in God’s providence and opt for the underprivileged around us. We love our neighbours as ourselves, serving Christ the King present in the sick and the weak.
To believe in resurrection means we trust that God’s justice shall prevail. Confronting injustice, we shall not stay away for safety’s sake. It is because Abraham once bargained with God to make Him spare Sodom if there were ten righteous people. Jesus has also promised us that when two or three of us gathered in his name, he shall be present among us. Therefore, with the hope of resurrection and a strong belief in God’s promise to rectify justice for the underprivileged, we stay with the oppressed. God would deliver them because of our presence, because of Jesus’ presence. God shall not allow us to perish because "he is not God of the dead, but of the living" (Luke 20:38).

Brothers and sister, bear in mind the mentality of resurrection to make the risen Christ present in us, present in the injustice of the society. God bless.

To make good use of things

The story of Zacchaeus is my favourite because, like him, I am small of stature (Luke 19:3). Moreover, what he did reminds me of the teachings of an ancient Chinese philosopher, Xunzi 荀子.
"吾嘗終日而思矣，不如須臾之所學也;吾嘗跂而望矣，不如登高之博見也。登高而招，臂非加長也，而見者遠；順風而呼，聲非加疾也，而聞者彰。假輿馬者，非利足也，而致千里。假舟楫者，非能水也，而絕江河。君子生非異也，善假於物也。
I tried meditating all day. It is not as fruitful as a moment's learning. I tried standing on my heels to look. It is not as far-sighted as climbing up a tree. I wave on high. My arm is not lengthened and yet it can be seen afar. I yell in the wind. My voice is not sped but hearers are more impressed. Riders of chariots do not have faster legs and reach thousands of miles. Sailors of boats do not swim and ferry beyond rivers. A gentleman is not born distinguished. Rather he makes good use of things." (Xunzi, chapter 1, paragraph 3)
Though a despised tax collector, Zacchaeus was the embodiment of the teaching of Xunzi and a model Christian aspirant. He wanted to know Jesus and he made good use of things in order to reach Jesus.

In order to see Jesus, Zacchaeus "ran before, and climbed up into a sycomore tree συκομωραίαν to see him: for he was to pass that way" (19:4)
What kind of a plant is a sycomore? Well, as long as it is tall enough and strong enough, it serves Zacchaeus' purpose of seeing Jesus. Here, we need a certain wisdom and knowledge to help us distinguish between what is helpful and what is harmful for our spiritual life. Making a lot of money is surely admirable. However, will it set our sight on high to reach God? A comfortable life is surely desirable. However, can it strengthen us and sustain us long enough to wait for the coming of Christ? We also need a certain fortitude to pull ourselves off from our comfort zone, to face off teases from the world. These qualities: wisdom, knowledge and fortitude are gifts of the Holy Spirit which we cannot earn. They are God's graces.

The sycomore tree was free of charge. It was there, cultivated by other people, provided by God. What Zacchaeus made use of next was his hard earned money (half of of his goods he gave to the poor. what he had cheated, he restored fourfold). Now, he truly made good use of things to earn him eternal life (19:8-9). God has done his part. It is our turn to respond.

Dear Lord, may we make good use of things you provided us to serve and glorify you. Amen.

God's righteousness is His salvation

"For my thoughts are not your thought, neither are your ways my ways, says the Lord" (Isaiah 55:8)
This is particularly true when we talk about justice. God's justice is not human justice.
Within our limitations as human beings, we think of justice as "getting even". When God gave the Ten Commandments to the Israelites as a guideline to their life, God simply told them what to do and what not to do. God did not intend to help them get even. In order to deal with practical daily life situations, the Israelites expanded them into 613 laws. Many of them deal with restitution and restrained retaliation. For example, the famous "eye for eye, tooth for tooth" (Exodus 21:24, Leviticus 24:20, Deuteronomy 19:21) Getting even does not come from the Ten Commandments. This concept is of human origin.

Nowadays, the concept of justice is popularized by Michael Sandel's online lecture series and an accompanying book Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? Justice has become the moral principle per se, the right thing to do, over and above the benevolence and harm principles.
What does God think about justice? He only gave the Ten Commandments, the kind of right things He expects us to do. Philosophers try to dig up the underlying principles and justice, meaning "getting even", emerges. However, is "getting even" the intention of God when He gave the Ten Commandments? A categorical no.
"The Lord hath made known his salvation: his righteousness hath he openly shewed in the sight of the heathen.
He hath remembered his mercy and his truth toward the house of Israel: all the ends of the earth have seen the salvation of our God." (Psalm 98:2-3, KJV)
From the parallelism of the text, we learn that God's righteousness/justice is his salvation. His salvation is his mercy and his truth. For God, righteousness/justice means salvation, mercy and truth. The Lord God is one. There is no other deity besides Him. Therefore, the idea of getting even is meaningless to God. For God, liberating the oppressed, restoring the dignity of the poor, elevating the lowly and defeating the rich and arrogant etc. show His righteousness. This perspective will help us understand better why, in Jesus' parable, after praying in the Temple, the tax collector was justified while the Pharisee was not (Luke 18:14).
In his prayer, the tax collector confessed that he was a sinner. He acknowledged that he was in need of God's forgiveness and salvation. Therefore, he was forgiven and justified. On the other hand, the arrogant Pharisee showed off his piety and did not see his need of salvation. Therefore, he did not give God an opportunity to save him.

Deacon Tsang spoke well in his homily. The gospel is silent in the details about the tax collector. The Pharisee boasted that he had not committed any extortion, unjust practices and adultery etc. However, he might be blind towards other offences against his neighbour. The Pharisee boasted of his piety. That does not mean the tax collector was not pious. Perhaps all Jews practised a similar piety: fast every week and offer tithes. I am sure the Pharisee did more than other Jews did. It is only that the tax collector did not mention his piety in his prayer. The tax collector focused on his sinfulness, his need of God's salvation. Indeed, God sees us doing our piety. There is no need to remind God of our piety. The Pharisee failed to score this point. Now I know that God intends all men to be saved. Yet some perfect model believers reject salvation.
What a reversal of fortune, a theme running throughout the gospel of Luke!

Dear Lord, remove arrogance from my heart so that I will not be blind to my unworthiness. Amen.

Sanctified by truth

The Catholic Church in Hong Kong celebrates Mission Sunday today. The gospel we read today is taken from the last few lines of the long prayer of Jesus in the Last Supper as recorded in John. So, these few lines are expected to be heavyweight in theology and spirituality.

“Sanctify them in the truth; thy word is truth.” (John 17:17)
The word “truth” appears 27 times in John. It begins with “the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth” (1:14) and ends with Pilate’s question “What is truth?” (18:38) The Logos is full of glory, grace and truth. Yet, men do not see his glory and consequently do not know the truth. This is exemplified by Pilate’s question. In an incident before the Last Supper, Jesus mentioned the importance of the truth, “And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” (8:32)
Within the Last Supper, the word “truth” appears 9 times. It begins with the famous “I am the way, the truth and the life” (14:6) and finishes with “that they also might be sanctified through the truth.” (17:19)

From all these sayings, we may draw a tentative conclusion that this knowledge, this truth is essential for our salvation. But what kind of knowledge is it? From the experience of John, it is the Logos, i.e. the Word, the Son of God, Jesus Christ. Knowing Jesus is knowing the truth because he claims to be the truth. He is truth personified. And the truth shall make us free, shall enable us to attain salvation. Jesus did it through his death on the cross and the subsequent resurrection. The key to salvation is to build up a close relationship with God. We do this through Jesus Christ.

How do we know Jesus? One of the ways is to study the gospel and meditate its messages. In meditation, we come face to face with the Word and merge with him. We lose our words and we are filled with the Word. I know not how to express any more.

Sweet Lord, purify me for I am a sinner, your unworthy servant. Amen.